There is this notion that surfaces every so often that we’ll eventually hit some sort of a utopia, where there will only be one true platform for your games.
Previous hypothesising has presented many different theories on the logistics: Could there be one traditional gaming system in today’s mould that everyone else develops for? Would there be hundreds of different gaming systems from different electronics manufacturers, but the media between then remains the same, much in the same way as how DVD, Blu-Ray, and even PC gaming has operated since, well, forever?
More recently, we’ve heard more predictions that better fit the latter option, thanks mostly to the introduction of digital distribution. With services like OnLive already offering you the ability to play the same games over a multitude of systems via a cloud-streaming interface, it adds credence to the fact that if successful, the industry could take an eventual step towards that direction. Especially as we delve further into the digital age.
We take a walk around the Cloud Gaming Graveyard - listing all the failed cloud gaming services over the last decade.
We discuss the ups, the downs, and overall history of this technology. Turns out running a successful cloud gaming service that addresses the various technical hurdles and actually makes money is a real challenge.
DS:
Sometimes life just isn't fair. Vincent Van Gogh went completely unappreciated during his lifetime despite his obvious genius; Jesus - a man who could turn water into wine, don't forget - was nailed to a cross and left for dead; while Steve Brookstein has only ever had one number one single, despite winning the very first series of The X Factor. Now what's that about?
the dreamcast was not amazing:
-It's graphics were in between ps1 and ps2
-the controller felt so narrow and skinny
-no dvd drive
I don't know why people act like it was anything more than another overrated undersold flop of a console. My friend had one because "next gen" and I told him I'm just waiting for PS2.
He always talked about graphics, non stop. Of course when I played it did look better than anything I've seen before, but that was it. The games were ok at best. I didn't like NFL 2K's control scheme compared to Madden's.
Even as a kid I predicted this console would die off in 2 years, well what happened...
You must have hated arcades. Youre probably real fun at parties /s
between PS1 and PS2? no. DC had much better filtering than grainy ass PS2. compare the DOA2 on PS2 and the DC and then revise that wrong statement buddy. and the sad thing is PS2 had TWICE the ram of the DC and the 480p signal from DC still came out WAY cleaner than PS2's.
arcades are definitely fun. Went to celebration station any time we could :)
"you're" probably real fun at parties...because wtf does that have to do with anything...
if dreamcast was any good it wouldn't have died faster than the wii u has...
don't be so defensive, I'm not the one that controlled everyone else not to buy it lol
DC ran games at 60FPS and was an arcade players "Dream" come true.. For the first time, arcade games were surpassed by a console.. Saturn had it 1:1 if you imported with the 4mb cart.. I wasnt in love with the DC controller but i had a 6 button layout 3rd party i used for all those great fighting games.. PS2 was superior in hardware but why is it games like Grandia 2 played like crap on there? Just like the original that played way better on Saturn than PS1..
Yes they both died but they werent bad machines.. Sega was always a middle gen console.. Genesis was meant to compete with NES, Saturn was meant to 1 up Nintendo again but the PS deal fell through and there it went.. VMUs, online, high res 60fps gameplay, 4 control ports... They were ahead of their time..
That's the main reason that DC failed, because people lost faith in Sega after the 32x, MEGA CD & kinda the Saturn. People were hyped for the PS2 and that's a big reason why DC failed to sell, it really didn't have many poor games at all and most were good to great.
Not sure what you're on about with the graphics either, most games were just as good looking as ones on PS2.
The only thing you could say was lacking on the DC was storage on the GD roms and maybe they could've added a second thumb stick. There wasn't really anything wrong with its graphics capability for the time, don't forget it came out way earlier than the PS2.
You kinda lost credibility by saying the DC had grainy graphics.
Part of the DC's failure was the loss of faith from the core gaming audience coupled with finical choices which left Sega in bad sorts, but another was the lack of a similar hook to the PS2, namely movie playback. At the time GD roms had the option, remember seeing discs for the format in a few places, and if Sega had included it things might have been different.
People/gamers look at the PS2 and only say/think that the games for it made all the difference, sold well over 100 million of the consoles, but it was DVD movies that tipped the scales as far as the general public was concerned.
Of course the graphics were inbetween PS1 and PS2... because it was released between PS1 and PS2!
The graphics were closer to PS2 level than PS1 level.
In fact, many early PS2 games did not look as good as Dreamcast games. And Jet Set Radio and Shenmue look great for the time to this day.
Your prediction that it would die off within 2 years was not without basis - the MegaCD, the 32x, the Saturn. Sega's past history of releasing expensive add ons, abandoning some of their previous successes (like no new Sonic game on Saturn!), coupled with a new entrant in the market, Sony, meant that, unfortunately, Sega was like the Ghost of Christmas Past to many people. And if you didn't like arcade games, or arcade-STYLE games, or RPGS, there really wasn't all that much on it. It was a bit like having a new NEO GEO in a way- quite good visually, if a little rough round the edges sometimes, but just not as personal to many people as the competition and not having sufficient sense of depth gameswise apart from Shenmue.
Um, when Dreamcast came out it was the most powerful system available. In some ways it was MORE powerful than PS2.
GameCube, had more power than PS2, as well as XBOX. PS2 was the weaker of that gen, but it still won, and went on to be the 1 selling game console o all time.
Replies(1)
"-It's graphics were in between ps1 and ps2"
Wow, I was all set to read why the Dreamcast was not amazing and then all credibility became lost with your first point.
and I fail to see any of your points why it was great, completely disputing the fact that it died because it did suck
The Dreamcast was great because it did have better graphics than the PS2, they had some of the best looking games at that time. Capcom's fighters played flawlessly on the Dreamcast and was the go to machine to play their games because of how fast the gamer played compared to a much slower PS2.
Dreamcast was also the first system where I played Madden online. Which blew my mind at that time since online was mainly a PC thing.
The system was ahead of it's time, Sega channel and the VMU were just a few examples of what made that system so great along with online and the great Sega games that released with it.
The system failed partly due to lack of third party support. Sega burned many third parties by dropping the Saturn so quickly, many third party devs including Sega of America had games in development for the Saturn. The Saturn architecture was already a nightmare to develop for so imagine these devs having to scrap that work because Sega dropped the Saturn.
Sega also burned a lot of retail stores by not only moving the release date of the Saturn up but exclusively releasing the system in only some retail stores. Because of this some retailers KB Hobbies (i believe) refused to carry Sega products.
"..completely disputing the fact that it died because it did suck.."
You made even less points and more opinions based on nothing really and yet you say "facts"?
Failure is always relative. How many sales makes something successful? "If your not first, your last", or in this case, you failed. I'll admit, I've never heard of a couple of these.
GameCube made the most profit in its generation. I don't consider that console a flop.
I consider a flop to be a product that has a negative impact financially for a company.
Have you got proof that the Gamecube made the most profit in its generation as, despite how cost effective Nintendo said it was to make a Gamecube, which had no complicated Emotion engine in it nor DVD drive, I would still highly doubt that the Gamecube overall made more profit for Nintendo than the PS2 did for Sony. The mass popularity of the PS2 meant that it was often sold at (a higher price (sometimes 2-3 times the price) of the Gamecube. For a month or 2, you could get a Gamecube and Resident Evil 4 or Wind Waker for just 40 UK pounds (55.55 dollars). And even if Sony could have made a bit more profit overall on the consoles, surely Sony get a cut on the games. With 155 million owners compared to Gamecube's 21 million, Sony would rake it in.
Nintendo made profit on every GameCube sold since day one while it took Sony a while before they broke even on PS2.
Please can you provide your source? I can imagine that piracy could have eaten in to Sony's profits whereas piracy was close to impossible on Gamecube. But it would have much more to do with that, I think, than with any minor difference in console manufacturing cost versus console price.
Nintendo made the most profit that gen but that was largely due to the GBA and not the GC.
OnLive announced that they would be shutting down their streaming service for good at the end of this month, which has unsurprisingly upset some of the streaming service’s supporters. While some took to griping on forums, OnLive user Larry Gadea decided to take action.
competition is a good thing, I hope Microsoft and Sony continue to push each other onto bigger and better things which will benefit us gamers and give the fan boys there next topic to battle over :)
damn right