Could what happen to the Sega Saturn happen to PS3?

[MotionBlurr]

Sega Saturn: More expensive ($399 when it 1st came out). Had more RAM and 2 processors but was difficult to make games for it. Everyone kept saying just wait until the 2nd generation of games came out. The jaw dropping VF2 and Sega Rally came out a year and half later but by then the less powerful but more easier to program Playstation already lured in the majority of gamers.

PS3: More expensive. More powerful but everyone is saying it is hard to program games for it so just wait. X-box 360 is easy to program and costs less (when it 1st came out).

The similarities gives me chills.

[androvsky]

There were other problems, like the infamous e3 stunt Sega pulled. The system was supposed to launch in November iirc, but at e3 in May, the ceo went up on stage and announced it was on sale *now* from select retailers. Great stunt... got a lot of attention, was great for Sega because for six months the only games available were Sega's first party games, not even third party devs knew that was going to happen. This had the effect of 1) royally pissing off third party developers that didn't know the system was going to launch six months early and 2) royally pissed off retailers that weren't in on the secret launch. This lead to large developers ignoring the platform entirely, and some retailers not carrying anything Sega whatsoever.

These are probably much larger reasons why the Saturn failed so miserably... sure the Playstation still probably would have won, but the Saturn would've still been in the game, it was favored by several Japanese developers... until, of course, Sega went out of their way to piss even them off by stating the Saturn was a dead platform and the Dreamcast was the way to go, at least a year before the Dreamcast was set to launch.

They screwed up the Saturn so bad that leftover ill-feelings from the Saturn is what helped kill the Dreamcast too. Sony's not anywhere near that poor a position.

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by MotionBlurr

Sega Saturn: More expensive ($399 when it 1st came out). Had more RAM and 2 processors but was difficult to make games for it. Everyone kept saying just wait until the 2nd generation of games came out. The jaw dropping VF2 and Sega Rally came out a year and half later but by then the less powerful but more easier to program Playstation already lured in the majority of gamers.

PS3: More expensive. More powerful but everyone is saying it is hard to program games for it so just wait. X-box 360 is easy to program and costs less (when it 1st came out).

The similarities gives me chills.

360 isn't as "easy" as you might've heard; it uses multi-cores. PS3 isn't as "hard" either. 360 doesn't really cost less either; maybe the initial sticker price, but once you get down to it: $50/year for online VS Free, $180 for hi-def films VS built-in, $120 for WI-Fi and controller chargers VS built-in.

The Saturn was better at 2-D than the PS, but not at 3-D, so I wouldn't really call it more powerful. Saturn also had a lot less developers backing it, and it sure as hell didn't have a new exclusive Final Fantasy game.

[Baritonic21]

Ur lake of faith displeases me...jk ...but I can't rrecall where I've read it but apparently developers have had several years workin with xbox360 dev units so it's only natural for them to be better at sometihn they're familiar with...whereas for the PS3 develpers have had less then a year...do the comparison and those "complaints" from people who find it difficult to program for are jus wimps with a thumb up their fill in the blank...give it time then it will get better...

[camp54]

Originally Posted by MotionBlurr

Sega Saturn: More expensive ($399 when it 1st came out). Had more RAM and 2 processors but was difficult to make games for it. Everyone kept saying just wait until the 2nd generation of games came out. The jaw dropping VF2 and Sega Rally came out a year and half later but by then the less powerful but more easier to program Playstation already lured in the majority of gamers.

PS3: More expensive. More powerful but everyone is saying it is hard to program games for it so just wait. X-box 360 is easy to program and costs less (when it 1st came out).

The similarities gives me chills.

Wikipedia has a great explanation as to the failure of the Saturn:

"Compared to PlayStation, the hardware was difficult to work with because of its more complex graphics hardware and lesser overall performance, as noted by Lobotomy Software programmer Ezra Dreisbach.[3] In order to bring Duke Nukem 3D and Powerslave to Saturn, Lobotomy Software had to rewrite the Build engine almost entirely from scratch to get adequate performance from Saturn.[3] And during testing of an unreleased Quake port for PlayStation, Saturn's performance was found to be notably inferior for the game.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Saturn


I don't think the PS3 is having issues with underperformance...Sure it has a steep learning curve for developers, but good things come to those who wait....

Let's see here...The PS3 can:
- Play Blu-ray movies
- Upscale your standard DVD collection
- Stream music/video/pictures from your PC
- Run Linux, making it a second home PC
- Become a DVR (not in the states yet)
- Interoperability with the PSP
...I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things...Oh, yeah...IT PLAYS GAMES...

Relax folks, you spent your hard earned dollars on a PS3....Enjoy the damn thing, watch a movie, play a game....There are some great ones out there, and plenty more on the horizon...

[richard lichtenfelt]

The original Xbox was superior to the PS2 and also easier to work with yet the PS2 has sold over 120 million systems to Xbox's 30 million. This time around the PS3 is far more powerful and feature rich than the Xbox 360, with the aforementioned gigantic installed user base advantage. I wouldn't be worried about the PS3. Just wait till the Final Fantasy, and Gran Turismo games are released to see a PS3 growth explosion.

[Xerious]

PS3 is PS2 is PSX in embryo... all were somewhat successful in the start, but were "failures" when compared to SNES

[Whytewash]

Unlike blu ray and PS3, I personally think the sega saturn was too advanced for its time. It was expensive and had virtually no supporters. I think that was what killed it...

[clownface]

I see your point...and I hope you're wrong! Damn!

[ikbradley]

Once and for all, the PS3 is not like the Saturn, the Dreamcast, or the original XBox.

Here is the difference: Developers.

The Saturn and Dreamcast had games that were first party. It's not like the hot companies of the day were joining. The XBox never had any support from Japan, like the 360.

The japanese console and 3rd party software developer relationships are extremely important. This is the key difference. Japanese firms build long lasting relationships, and they don't usually jump into bed with the newest treat of the week. Sony has entrenched long lasting relationships with some of the best developers in the industry. Capcom is a strange exception because of the loss of DMC, but that's about it. Namco Bandai and Square Enix are throwing out second rate products for the 360.

The PS3 has a ton of great games already out. It's selling well enough overall. It's just the focus of the Microsoft/Ziff Media/1up network/CNET bias against the PS3 that is creating so much doubt. It is not like the Saturn, because it is just as cheap as its peer, the 360. It has better developer support, and there are still 100+million PS2 users who have yet to make a choice on the console. Who do you think they are going to pick.

Also, the Saturn failed because it had come out with Sega CD and Sega 32x and abandoned mid-way through. No one trusted them at this point. All this reference is readily available. So how is the Saturn the same?

[oldmike]

GRrrrrrrrrrr ppl like the 1st poster need to grow a pair dont have TV tell you whats good dam it
M$ is paying BIG cash to try to fight sonys PS3 with FUD and seeing that FUD posted here pisses me off

[u_nick]

The 'hard to program for' argument scared me for a bit, until the guys who put out good games on the PS3 started laughing at those comments. saying things like people just having to learn the system a little better, and once you figure it out, it becomes easy.

heck even the Orange Box guy (Gabe something?) said that they gave their PS3 version to EA simply because they were working on the other versions, and didnt have the time to figure it out. he was confident that EA figured it out, and he has faith that his team will figure it out in the long run, it will just take them some time.

[MotionBlurr]

Originally Posted by oldmike

GRrrrrrrrrrr ppl like the 1st poster need to grow a pair dont have TV tell you whats good dam it
M$ is paying BIG cash to try to fight sonys PS3 with FUD and seeing that FUD posted here pisses me off

Hey, I am Sony all the way man. I have a Sony TV, Home Theater, Sony Notebook, Sony Camera, Sony Camcorder. The only reason I have an X-box360 is because my brother gave up on after it failed on him twice so I sent it in for repair since it was free.

I am surprised at how much history you guys know about videogames. Anyone knew that the Playstation was originally supposed to be an add on for the SNES?

[SDG]

It was to be the SNES. Nentendo backed out on the disk. Pissed Sony off, thus the PlayStation.

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by MotionBlurr

I am surprised at how much history you guys know about videogames. Anyone knew that the Playstation was originally supposed to be an add on for the SNES?

Yep; I knew all about it. It was even going to use the name 'PlayStation'. Looking from the Super NES to the N64, you can see that while development talent ran high at Nintendo, management talent, definitely did not. Today: well, the Wii is doing well, and DS is making an absolute kiling.

[Shu76]

The PS3 is making the 360 look dated. The saturn didn't offer much value really compared to PS3.

[Terjyn]

People keep trying to compare the PS3 to every system in the past that failed.

Why?

Why is there the presumption that it's failing period? The PS3 is still outpacing the PS1 and is fairly comparable to the PS2.

It's still equalling the 360 from Launch.

I think the Wii has warped people's perceptions. Viewed against the Wii every system in history is a bomb, yet people are viewing the PS3, and only the PS3, through a Wii-lense.

[WickyWoo]

Wii's golden days are incredibly numbered. The fad is wearing off already, and since they refuse to pricedrop, people will pay the extra $$ for the pretty graphics

[Whytewash]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Wii's golden days are incredibly numbered. The fad is wearing off already, and since they refuse to pricedrop, people will pay the extra $$ for the pretty graphics

How did you come up with that? Are the numbers dropping or something? They are always consistantly ahead of the PS3 and the 360 on the amazon ranks...

[DocNovak]

Originally Posted by SDG

It was to be the SNES. Nentendo backed out on the disk. Pissed Sony off, thus the PlayStation.

Just like Sony pissed off MS by not using their OS on the PS2. Just think, if Sony had used MS OS on the PS2 there would never have been an Xbox. Everyone would own a PS3 and a WII and there wouldn't be a "game system war." I also think MS would have backed Sony on Blu-Ray had they had that long term relationship and there wouldn't be a "format war." As it is Sony pissed off MS, MS started a "game system war," and backed the competeing HD-DVD causing a "format war." Of course when Blu-Ray wins the format war, PS3 sales will soar as it makes a great Blu-Ray player and Sony will win the trifecta.