Was Dreamcast more powerful than PS2? Why did it fail?

  • 127 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by mr-krinkles (1641 posts) -

2 questions as in topic. Want some answers!

#2 Posted by Reemer99 (875 posts) -

Games

As far as hardware goes

Dreamcast>PS2

Saturn>PS1

#3 Posted by mr-krinkles (1641 posts) -

Games

As far as hardware goes

Dreamcast>PS2

Saturn>PS1

Reemer99

Poor Sayga. Why no support? Development costs relatively high since it was released early? WHY DID SATURN PHAIL?

#4 Posted by Regisland (2390 posts) -

Legacy Platforms are the right forum for this.

#5 Posted by topgunmv (10057 posts) -

In some aspects the dreamcast was more powerful, in others it was weaker. It failed because people bought into sony's hype. Hilariously, some people still buy into it.

#6 Posted by XboximusPrime (5405 posts) -

I think Dreamcast was kinda sent to doom mainly because it used CDs still. Im sure the Hardware would have been fine, but also SEGA did some shady stuff back in the day. Peter Moore kinda **** things up to I think.

#7 Posted by Crossel777 (5593 posts) -

Nope it failed simply because Sega lacked the money to support it any further and it was easy to pirate the hell out of. The DC had plenty of games. Even an AAAA. It would of had more if it survived any further.

#8 Posted by hakanakumono (27455 posts) -

One thing I've never understood is why people say that the Dreamcast is better than textures. If it is, then why do almost all of it's games seem to struggle with textures in comparison with the PS2? I don't get it.

#9 Posted by mr-krinkles (1641 posts) -

Legacy Platforms are the right forum for this.

Regisland

Nope. Direct comparison to the PS2 in the title. Thus, SYSTEM WARS.

You blog it, or something.

#10 Posted by topgunmv (10057 posts) -

One thing I've never understood is why people say that the Dreamcast is better than textures. If it is, then why do almost all of it's games seem to struggle with textures in comparison with the PS2? I don't get it.

hakanakumono

Look it up on wikipedia.

#11 Posted by tomarlyn (20145 posts) -

I like my Dreamcast but the PS2 was overall a more capable system with a superior media format, features and controller.

I honestly think dual analogue as standard for the Dreamcast could have made a huge difference.

#12 Posted by VendettaRed07 (13998 posts) -

It was in some ways. It seemed to have better illumination effects and the games looked like they were loaded with AA alot of the time, for some reason the way the tech was in the system I think all games had it, while ps2 games had serious jaggie problems

#13 Posted by tomarlyn (20145 posts) -

It was in some ways. It seemed to have better illumination effects and the games looked like they were loaded with AA alot of the time, for some reason the way the tech was in the system I think all games had it, while ps2 games had serious jaggie problems

VendettaRed07
First party games looked sharper than the average PS2 game in my experience. But back in the day I remember side-by-side's of the current multiplats edging in favour of PS2 visuals, but only just.
#14 Posted by Crossel777 (5593 posts) -

I wonder if the PS2 at the time could even handle Shenmue 1&2.

#15 Posted by TheColbert (3842 posts) -
PS2 could read DVDs and Sega had not done so well with the Saturn and all the add-ons with the Genesis.
#16 Posted by warmaster670 (4698 posts) -

In some aspects the dreamcast was more powerful, in others it was weaker. It failed because people bought into sony's hype. Hilariously, some people still buy into it.

topgunmv

PS2>Dreamcast, fact, how that console got anywhere with only 1 thumbstick is mind boggeling.

#17 Posted by topgunmv (10057 posts) -

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

In some aspects the dreamcast was more powerful, in others it was weaker. It failed because people bought into sony's hype. Hilariously, some people still buy into it.

warmaster670

PS2>Dreamcast, fact, how that console got anywhere with only 1 thumbstick is mind boggeling.

Hate to break it to you, but using the > symbol doesn't make it fact.

#18 Posted by warmaster670 (4698 posts) -

[QUOTE="warmaster670"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

In some aspects the dreamcast was more powerful, in others it was weaker. It failed because people bought into sony's hype. Hilariously, some people still buy into it.

topgunmv

PS2>Dreamcast, fact, how that console got anywhere with only 1 thumbstick is mind boggeling.

Hate to break it to you, but using the > symbol doesn't make it fact.

Never said it did, if it did why would i put fact there?

What makes it fact is the horrid controller, that wouldnt allow you to play most of the good games that came out.

#19 Posted by hakanakumono (27455 posts) -

I wonder if the PS2 at the time could even handle Shenmue 1&2.

Crossel777

Uhm, obviously yes? We're talking about the difference between 1998 hardware and 2000 hardware.

#20 Posted by Shielder7 (4698 posts) -

2 questions as in topic. Want some answers!

mr-krinkles
Lack of games and it never had a DvD player
#21 Posted by myke2010 (2747 posts) -

Nope it failed simply because Sega lacked the money to support it any further and it was easy to pirate the hell out of. The DC had plenty of games. Even an AAAA. It would of had more if it survived any further.

Crossel777

^^This.

Sony probably spent more on advertising the PS2 then Sega spent in total on the Dreamcast. It's hard to compete when your competition can outspend you 3-4 times over.

#22 Posted by ReaperV7 (6756 posts) -

Games

As far as hardware goes

Dreamcast>PS2

Saturn>PS1

Reemer99
thats a first.......
#23 Posted by 88mphSlayer (3201 posts) -

easy to pirate on, sega was bleeding money, and PS2 hype destroyed the dreamcast

#24 Posted by CwlHeddwyn (5314 posts) -

Dreamcast wasn't more powerful than PS2. In the early days multiplats looked better on Dreamcast because devs weren't used to the complexities of the PS2.

the Dreamcast was slightly less powerful than PS2.

Dreamcast failed because SEGA didnt have enough money to back it. They didnt advertise it enough and it could destroyed by the massive hypemachine behind the PS2- particularly with claims saying the PS2 was 35x more powerful than Dreamcast.

#25 Posted by JONO51 (792 posts) -
#26 Posted by Half-Way (5001 posts) -

becouse power has nothing to do with anything?

thats why the ps2 won in the first place

why the wii is wining

why the ps1 won

they are the weakest, the cheapest, and the more casual friendly consoles

#27 Posted by theherooftime1 (451 posts) -
u can watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foARPDyZrXk
#28 Posted by SolidTy (41526 posts) -

2 questions as in topic. Want some answers!

mr-krinkles

While I could EASILY go into specs, the answer to your question is :

PS2>>>>Dreamcast as far as Power (Polygons, Textures, etc.). The only thing the DC had was easy AA.

It failed due to the Saturn fans and earlier fans not wanting to go for it again, and early launch. They needed to hit 5 MILLION Install base to help it succeed, but people lost trust in SEGA at that point (After Genesis, Sega CD, 32X, Saturn). People that bought that Saturn felt Burned. Also, the PS2 having DVD playback, and coming off the amazing PSOne success a huge thread.

You know what, here is a fantastic series I love to watch, and it's not as detailed as I could write about, but it will help you out Mr. Krinkles.

PLAYVALUE LINK. AWESOME WATCH!

Let me know what you think of this video anyone who watches it. I dug it up for any who read my post. :)

#29 Posted by 205212669269561485377169522720 (14458 posts) -

Google is your best friend. Or go to Youtube and checkout "Playvalue"

#30 Posted by Mario1331 (8815 posts) -

Google is your best friend. Or go to Youtube and checkout "Playvalue"

sanim02

im not tryna flame yu or w.e but i believe TC asked the ppl on this board because alot of posters are gud with previous generations and history of gaming n general he prob did that already or culdnt find an answer from that

#31 Posted by BadWolf71 (4 posts) -
I wouldn't say DC was more powerful than PS2 but it was a lot easier to develop games for DC (It ran on a MS OS) than for PS2, meaning it was easier for developers to get the most out of the DC. As for why it failed, brand damage going back to the days of Megadrive/Genisis and lack of money to continue backing a system that wasn't selling enough. Sega had made a lot of mistakes - The Sega/Mega CD and 32x add ons with no support - ending support for the Saturn prematurely - all this lead to a feeling of misstrust towards Sega by gamers and game developers alike. So when Sega finally got it right with the laucnh of Dreamcast it was too late as they had already lost the support of their fans and developers. It's a shame because there was a lot of AAA quality original titles available on DC which many gamers have simply missed out on.
#32 Posted by TBoogy (4382 posts) -
NO, the PS2 was more powerful. But it was not the "10 times more powerful" that Sony claimed before it's release (we all know how Sony hypes specs). I hate that they lied, and got people to wait for the ps2 (or sell their Dreamcasts after the ps2 came out). This coupled with: 1. The fact that the Dreamcast had way better games before it crashed. The first year of the PS2was just as bad or worse than 1st year PS3. 2. The fact that Sony fanboys were just as annoying then as now (maybe even more) = made me dislike Sony, something I still struggle with. I have a hard time letting go...
#33 Posted by Crossel777 (5593 posts) -

I dunno. I don't think their was anything better looking on the PS2 than Shenmue at the time. An Shenmue was ported to the XBOX and not the PS2. I wonder why. :roll:

#34 Posted by Shinobi120 (5569 posts) -

NO, the PS2 was more powerful.

But it was not the "10 times more powerful" that Sony claimed before it's release (we all know how Sony hypes specs). I hate that they lied, and got people to wait for the ps2 (or sell their Dreamcasts after the ps2 came out).

This coupled with:

1. The fact that the Dreamcast had way better games before it crashed. The first year of the PS2 was just as bad or worse than 1st year PS3.

2. The fact that Sony fanboys were just as annoying then as now (maybe even more)

= made me dislike Sony, something I still struggle with. I have a hard time letting go...TBoogy

Well, we can safely say that karma finally caught up with Sony & their fanboys for this gen.

#35 Posted by ZoomZoom2490 (3934 posts) -

ps2 was more powerfull than dreamcast in terms of doing things more than once.

dreamcast games looked pretty on paper but in motion they didnt look and feel as good as ps2 games.

btw, GOW2 > anything on Dreamcast

#36 Posted by Martin_G_N (1683 posts) -

Well, according to the specs, the PS2 had more power. 300MHZ CPU with 6.2G.flops in the PS2 vs the 200MHZ CPU with 1.4G.flops in the Dreamcast. The PS2 had better RAM and GPU aswell so the total polygon count was alot higher. 3 million polygons on the Dreamcast, while the PS2 could do 66 million polygons on the CPU and 75 million on the GPU. Though the PS2 numbers are peak, so expect alot lower than those, but still higher than the Dreamcast.

But the biggest difference is the DVD rom on the PS2. We would never have seen games like GTA-SA on a CD format.

#37 Posted by Renzokucant (3123 posts) -
ahead of its time and lack of games.
#38 Posted by BattleTurtles (2406 posts) -
GTAIII, Final Fantasy X, and the other popular early PS2 games.
#39 Posted by Persistantthug (1420 posts) -

Why do people keep saying that the Dreamcast was more powerful than the PS2? It wasn't.

I owned a Dreamcast and didn't own a PS2 last gen. and even I am not afraid to admit the obvious.

PS2 had considerably more power than the Dream cast.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2

#40 Posted by Persistantthug (1420 posts) -

Well, we can safely say that karma finally caught up with Sony & their fanboys for this gen.

garland51

How?

Sony's not out of the console business.

In fact, while competition is more fierce for them (competition = good for gamers), they seem to be doing well.

#42 Posted by AmateurCEO (19 posts) -

I'm actually surprised there isn't more Dreamcast love in this thread. People on the net have historically seemed to have so much positivity for it and I don't get it.

#43 Posted by Wings_008 (3809 posts) -
i think the ps2 was a little more powerful, but the DC had a lot more games by the time the ps2 was launched, and better games even, it's just that SEGA had a bad reputation which fended off fans and caused the console to fail so it's true after all, the Dreamcast did not fail, we failed the Dreamcast
#44 Posted by chrion133 (847 posts) -

I was working at E.B when during dc and ps2 release, ALOT of customers were already starting to feel loyal to the sony brand, that and them having ALL the 3rd parties. Most customers said "ill wait for ps2". Not me i loved my dc with sonic, phantasy star online, and quake with a mouse and keyboard online.

#45 Posted by warmaster670 (4698 posts) -

i think the ps2 was a little more powerful, but the DC had a lot more games by the time the ps2 was launched, and better games even, it's just that SEGA had a bad reputation which fended off fans and caused the console to fail so it's true after all, the Dreamcast did not fail, we failed the Dreamcast Wings_008

Nope, the dreamcast just failed.

#47 Posted by HuusAsking (15270 posts) -

[QUOTE="Crossel777"]

I wonder if the PS2 at the time could even handle Shenmue 1&2.

hakanakumono

Uhm, obviously yes? We're talking about the difference between 1998 hardware and 2000 hardware.

Well, the XBox did #2. I wouldn't put it beyond the PS2's capabilities.
#48 Posted by HuusAsking (15270 posts) -

[QUOTE="Crossel777"]

Nope it failed simply because Sega lacked the money to support it any further and it was easy to pirate the hell out of. The DC had plenty of games. Even an AAAA. It would of had more if it survived any further.

myke2010

^^This.

Sony probably spent more on advertising the PS2 then Sega spent in total on the Dreamcast. It's hard to compete when your competition can outspend you 3-4 times over.

AND when you're already on the brink from your last flop.
#49 Posted by HuusAsking (15270 posts) -

Piracy by far killed the dc. Apparently though, sega wanted to put the ability into the xbox for it to read & play dreamcast games but negotiations with msfell apart. http://kotaku.com/5447897/how-xbox-could-have-helped-the-dreamcast-survive

JONO51
Probably wouldn't have worked out anyway. Hardware's too different between them (DC's SH-4+PowerVR vs. Xbox's P3-class Celeron+nVidia XChip).
#50 Posted by mariokart64fan (19348 posts) -

well dreamcast was not more powerful then ps2 , it barely ran any of its games for us to say that

the only game i know it had was unreal tournament and that game looks better on ps2 and even more better on pc

the reason it failed is obvious

but ill tell you

1 high price

2 little third party support

3 sega already struggling since the failed cd 32x add-ons and the gamegear and the saturn , this was destined to fail

4 there was no room for 4 consoles

and 5 lets see what else was wrong

thos outdated media type they used it only held about 4 gig just about the same as gamecubes mini disc

which is pretty bad considering gc only used a mini disk