Review of Retro Gamer's 32X "Retroinspection"

[TrekkiesUnite118]

I do agree that the 32X shouldn't have came out. They should have just focused on the Saturn. The only way the 32X would make sense would be if Sega delayed the Saturn for a launch in 1996.

But I think this would be the best alternate history:

1988(?) - Sega when designing the MegaDrive/Genesis adds traces on the expansion port to allow for CRAM expansion.

1991 - Sega designs the Sega CD as it was but now makes it also expand CRAM to match the color capabilities of the SNES and possibly PC-Engine. Possibly also gives the system more RAM.

1992-1994 - With this set up the Genesis is pretty much as it was to the consumer, the Sega CD however is an even better upgrade now since it pretty much brings the Genesis up to par with if not better than the SNES. So there's some good potential here for the system. Marketing wise Sega while still pushing some FMV games, also pushes for other genres like RPGs, Shooters, Arcade Ports, as well as some platformers. With this kind of marketing push the Sega CD could possibly have been the system to own for RPGs and Arcade games. Sega also later releases a cheaper combo unit that eventually replaces the Genesis in stores.

1994 - Since the color was already addressed with the Sega CD, there's not much demand for something like the 32X. If anything the 32X is instead released as an expansion cartridge for the Sega CD that includes RAM and the SVP chip.

November 1995 - Sega launches the Saturn globally. With the extra year to develop games and iron out hardware bugs the Saturn now has a bit more streamlined design, its still similar to what we got but the transparency issues are fixed, lighting support is possibly improved, and it's easier to develop for thanks to better dev kits. Due to the possible success of the Genesis/Sega CD, Sega launches the Saturn with a card that has the Genesis and Sega CD hardware on it to allow for backwards compatibility. Many 32X projects are either released on the Sega CD or Saturn or both. Saturn would then have a successful launch due to more polished software, a better launch line up, and backwards compatibility.

[Benjamin]

Sega did it previously with the Master System, Game Gear, Genesis and Sega CD. Sony did it with the PS1 and PS2, and then again with the PS2 and PS3 and PSP plus the PSPgo and now Vita, Nintendo did it with the Gameboy, GBC, GBA, NES, SNES, N64, DS and Gamecube, Wii and DSlite, and now the Wii and 3DS and DS, Microsoft is doing it with the 360, Windows 7, Games for Windows Live, Kinect, Kinect for Windows, Xbox Live, XBLA, and XNA. Journalistic history is putting the blinders on to these facts, as with all marketing the most often repeated views tend to stick in peoples' minds as "true".

I'll just say I disagree since this is going nowhere, but I do want to address this since I'm kinda floored by the statement. What Sega developed SMS hits were coming out in '93? What great PS2 games has Sony released this decade for PS2? How are you honestly making a distinction of Kinect as a platform, a distinction comparable to two separate consoles with varying power and designs? This is not support, hardly anything to keep it viable. There's a clear line where support dries up, and that comes when new successors are introduced and attention is focused there.

You examples show obvious hardware progressions: Nintendo did not support the NES during the SNES' life and certainly not so during the GameCube or Wii's. Likewise, your whole run of Microsoft stuff is all 360 related, running on 360 hardware, apart from GWL which no longer exists precisely for the stated reason. XNA is a container language which runs on the 360, not a platform. The only point where a company has juggled two platforms would be when it has both a console and a portable unit, but never two competing consoles coming from the same company. It's just pointless to do so.

[sheath]

I'll just say I disagree since this is going nowhere, but I do want to address this since I'm kinda floored by the statement. What Sega developed SMS hits were coming out in '93? What great PS2 games has Sony released this decade for PS2? How are you honestly making a distinction of Kinect as a platform, a distinction comparable to two separate consoles with varying power and designs? This is not support, hardly anything to keep it viable. There's a clear line where support dries up, and that comes when new successors are introduced and attention is focused there.

I don't like "agree to disagree" as a conclusion it results in nothing. Sega was supporting the Master System in Europe in 1993, not to mention licensing it to Brazil and other regions. Sony was supporting the PS2 from 2006, when the PS3 launched, until it was no longer selling software and hardware (which I haven't heard an announcement about yet). What Sony did with the PS2 is exactly what Sega should have done with the Genesis, PS2 was marketed with the Eyetoy as a solution for existing owners to answer the Wii fad. Sega should have marketed the Genesis and 32X, or Neptune plus Sega CD as a way to get into the 3D fad.

The Kinect is exactly like the 32X, it is an add-on to an existing platform giving said platform gameplay possibilities previously unavailable without a peripheral or crippling concessions. Kinect even costs the same at retail, the only difference is MS gave it full support. Bayless even called the 32X a peripheral, at least that was Sega Japan's requirement of it. That is actually my point, the 32X was_not a separate platform, it could not and did not compete with the Saturn. If it had simply been sustained and marketed as a Genesis add-on with "budget" 32-bit 3D capabilities it would have gone a lot further toward fulfilling it's "answer the Jaguar" purpose than it did being canceled six months after launch.

You examples show obvious hardware progressions: Nintendo did not support the NES during the SNES' life and certainly not so during the GameCube or Wii's. Likewise, your whole run of Microsoft stuff is all 360 related, running on 360 hardware, apart from GWL which no longer exists precisely for the stated reason. XNA is a container language which runs on the 360, not a platform. The only point where a company has juggled two platforms would be when it has both a console and a portable unit, but never two competing consoles coming from the same company. It's just pointless to do so.

I included a link above to show how much the NES was still supported during the SNES' lifetime. Don't forged the Gameboy during the same time, and the GBC later on, and then the GBA during the N64 and Gamecube transition.

XNA, or Xbox Indie games, sorry I considered the terms interchangeable, but indie games are a platform for Microsoft. I'm still logging into Games for Windows Live for games, I'm not sure what you mean there.

My point is that all companies support multiple platforms and prioritize them by sales potential. This is common business practice, journalistic history in the video game industry alone has tried to claim otherwise.

[Benjamin]

The Kinect is exactly like the 32X, it is an add-on to an existing platform giving said platform gameplay possibilities previously unavailable without a peripheral or crippling concessions.

So U-FORCE, Powerglove, Activator, even the NES Max... these are construed to be unique platforms to you? It appears the disagreement is there, and there's no sense to continue on, hence just agreeing to disagree.

I included a link above to show how much the NES was still supported during the SNES' lifetime. Don't forged the Gameboy during the same time, and the GBC later on, and then the GBA during the N64 and Gamecube transition.

Your link shows releases coming out in 1991, the tail end of a development cycle which ceased once the SNES was released. Nintendo did throw a bone here and there -- Kirby's Adventure did come out in '93 -- but support was clearly pushed to the SNES side of things with no real attempt to keep its development weight behind the platform.

XNA, or Xbox Indie games, sorry I considered the terms interchangeable, but indie games are a platform for Microsoft. I'm still logging into Games for Windows Live for games, I'm not sure what you mean there.

My point is that all companies support multiple platforms and prioritize them by sales potential. This is common business practice, journalistic history in the video game industry alone has tried to claim otherwise.

Indie games are not a separate platform. They run on 360 hardware. They have full use to that hardware. The only thing they are denied are achievements, and I fail to see how that's a significant enough change to warrant calling XBLIG a separate entity. GWL is dead. You can still access your games, of course, but Microsoft has since pulled the plug on it last year.

[Da_Shocker]

The Kinect is exactly like the 32X, it is an add-on to an existing platform giving said platform gameplay possibilities previously unavailable without a peripheral or crippling concessions. Kinect even costs the same at retail, the only difference is MS gave it full support. Bayless even called the 32X a peripheral, at least that was Sega Japan's requirement of it. That is actually my point, the 32X was_not a separate platform, it could not and did not compete with the Saturn. If it had simply been sustained and marketed as a Genesis add-on with "budget" 32-bit 3D capabilities it would have gone a lot further toward fulfilling it's "answer the Jaguar" purpose than it did being canceled six months after launch.

You do know that MS spent 500 million dollars on advertisements for the Kinnect. I'm sure if Sega would've spent 500 million dollars on the 32x then it would've been a rousing success.

[sheath]

So U-FORCE, Powerglove, Activator, even the NES Max... these are construed to be unique platforms to you? It appears the disagreement is there, and there's no sense to continue on, hence just agreeing to disagree.

I'm obviously not getting the point across. The Genesis was a platform, the Saturn was a platform, the 32X was a peripheral according to Bayless and SoJ, the Kinect is a peripheral. The Wii is an incrementally upgraded Gamecube with motion controls. The GBC was an incrementally upgraded and repackaged Gameboy. The PSP Go was a PSP that completely denied the previous console's library. The list is almost endless, companies enhance their products AND maintain multiple platforms at the same time.

Your link shows releases coming out in 1991, the tail end of a development cycle which ceased once the SNES was released. Nintendo did throw a bone here and there -- Kirby's Adventure did come out in '93 -- but support was clearly pushed to the SNES side of things with no real attempt to keep its development weight behind the platform.

I will only agree to disagree that you aren't taking this discussion seriously. Check the links for addition pages at the bottom of each page please.

Indie games are not a separate platform. They run on 360 hardware. They have full use to that hardware. The only thing they are denied are achievements, and I fail to see how that's a significant enough change to warrant calling XBLIG a separate entity.

Tell that to Game Industry.biz and Indie developers, and Microsoft who refuses to give their games a prominent position in the Xbox dashboard. Microsoft is a software company primarily, they make platforms in software.

GWL is dead. You can still access your games, of course, but Microsoft has since pulled the plug on it last year.

Games for Windows Live may have failed to beat Steam and other similar services, that is beside the point. Games were made for the service, Microsoft supported it for years, money was spent and earned by first and third parties, revenue was generated. I will admit that software "platforms" blur the line a great deal, but that is also the point.

The 32X was not, in any way, a stand alone console to compete with the Saturn or PS1. It was an add-on to answer the Jaguar by all accounts. If it had been supported for three years, or longer if demand continued, we would have a totally different story about the add-on and its games.

[Benjamin]

I will only agree to disagree that you aren't taking this discussion seriously. Check the links for addition pages at the bottom of each page please.

I did and am well aware of Nintendo's output. Implying that I don't know how to browse a web page is mildly insulting.

Tell that to Game Industry.biz and Indie developers, and Microsoft who refuses to give their games a prominent position in the Xbox dashboard. Microsoft is a software company primarily, they make platforms in software.

Now you're trying to make the case that retail positioning on a dashboard constitutes a separate platform. For your information, XBLIG is side-by-side with Arcade and Games on Demand now.

Games for Windows Live may have failed to beat Steam and other similar services, that is beside the point. Games were made for the service, Microsoft supported it for years, money was spent and earned by first and third parties, revenue was generated. I will admit that software "platforms" blur the line a great deal, but that is also the point.

Microsoft released very few games on GWL, the bulk of those releases being Xbox 360 ports apart from Microsoft's popular Flight series. Microsoft's own development dried up in the first year as it transitioned to become a Steam-like store. If revenue was generated, that would imply success, and Microsoft would still be going at it. Microsoft's clearly abandoned PC development, not entirely so, but enough to where it's no longer much of a factor.

The 32X was not, in any way, a stand alone console to compete with the Saturn or PS1. It was an add-on to answer the Jaguar by all accounts. If it had been supported for three years, or longer if demand continued, we would have a totally different story about the add-on and its games.

This is correct but then highly speculative. The point I've been trying to make to you was that such a future would never have happened since Sega would not be able to maintain focus across the 32X and the Saturn. Likewise, the 32X was not powerful enough to compete with the PSX, so it would have failed for sure. Again, there's a reason you don't see Sony churning out PS2 games anymore and ceasing shortly after the launch of the PS3. Companies do not have bottomless wells of cash and talent to fully support multiple competing platforms.

[Da_Shocker]

I'm obviously not getting the point across. The Genesis was a platform, the Saturn was a platform, the 32X was a peripheral according to Bayless and SoJ, the Kinect is a peripheral. The Wii is an incrementally upgraded Gamecube with motion controls. The GBC was an incrementally upgraded and repackaged Gameboy. The PSP Go was a PSP that completely denied the previous console's library. The list is almost endless, companies enhance their products AND maintain multiple platforms at the same time.

The Go was a horrible platform just about as bad as the 32X. But here is the problem I am seeing, yes companies support multiple systems. They will usually have an aging console that will be discontinued, a current gen console, and then a handheld. Sega was the only company that bunked that trend and it didn't bode well for them. Then I see you saying that the 32X was meant to counter the Jaguar. Which was floundering in the states and had NO presence in Japan or in Europe. Why is the point of countering a dead system?

[sheath]

I did and am well aware of Nintendo's output. Implying that I don't know how to browse a web page is mildly insulting.

Then why did you say "Nintendo did not support the NES during the SNES' life" when they in fact supported the NES into 1994. I really do know this discussion has taken on a religious debate type of incoherence, but I did not imply anything. You made a very hard statement, I provided facts to counter it, you read the first page of those facts (1991) and claimed I was wrong.

Now you're trying to make the case that retail positioning on a dashboard constitutes a separate platform. For your information, XBLIG is side-by-side with Arcade and Games on Demand now.

Actually, Microsoft's marketing and all press statements, Gamesindustry.biz and all indie developer interviews made that case, I am only repeating it. It isn't just retail positioning, it is licensing terms, marketing, and most importantly developer expenses. If the latest dashboard update has solved that problem, good on the indie developers and Microsoft for coming to terms, but this is way outside of what I was discussing. Microsoft has multiple platforms, both software and hardware, and peripherals, not to mention constant updates, juggling at the same time. This fact contradicts your opinion: "There is nothing in history which supports that a company can successfully juggle multiple platforms in such a manner."

Actually, I am seeing another journalistic trend in your point of view. You seem to think that only dominant products that beat other similar products in sales are "successful". Whether or not you actually believe that, or realize that is the premise you are operating from, the fact is that companies operate on a much more nuanced perspective than win/lose.

This is correct but then highly speculative. The point I've been trying to make to you was that such a future would never have happened since Sega would not be able to maintain focus across the 32X and the Saturn. Likewise, the 32X was not powerful enough to compete with the PSX, so it would have failed for sure. Again, there's a reason you don't see Sony churning out PS2 games anymore and ceasing shortly after the launch of the PS3. Companies do not have bottomless wells of cash and talent to fully support multiple competing platforms.

Sega apparently could not support the Genesis-32X and Saturn simultaneously. The marketing fiasco created by canceling the Genesis and 32X so suddenly and launching the Saturn early, and at such a high price point with glitched games, really didn't help the outcome at all. In that area everything ever written is complete and utter speculation.

The 32X was not ever intended to compete with the PS1, not by its designers at least. Sega of America might have thought the 32X could leak sales away from the PS1, and the Jaguar when it seemed like it might be a threat, but there is simply zero evidence that the 32X design was ever intended to be on the level with the Saturn and PS1. It was an interim add-on for the existing Genesis userbase primarily, and a revenue generating peripheral needed in a time of an industry wide decline (when Sega's own Genesis software efforts had already failed).

Bottom line, everything I am saying is in opposition to the popular idea that releasing a device like the 32X "splits markets", and that being a bad thing by default. The facts also completely oppose any view that add-ons will always fail, or that add-ons are automatically bad ideas, which Retrogamer made its primary thesis in their Marty Franz and Scot Bayless interviews.

[Da_Shocker]

Tom Kalinske said that the 32X was going to outsell the Saturn, N64, and PSx because it was priced so low? Sounds like he was trying to compete with everybody else.

[sheath]

Tom Kalinske said that the 32X was going to outsell the Saturn, N64, and PSx because it was priced so low? Sounds like he was trying to compete with everybody else.

I already know where you stand on the subject, and your questions are obviously bent on derailing the discussion and drawing attention from all of the facts in place to oppose your opinion. Please start your own thread about how stupid add-ons are, or start citing facts to support your view on the topic.

Even with Kalinske's constant pundits, the 32X may well have sold as well or better than the $300 PS1 in 1995 and at least part of 1996. Taking advantage of residual Genesis sales and userbase was absolutely the add-on's purpose.

[TrekkiesUnite118]

God can we stop having this stupid argument?

Let's just agree to this and be done with this stupid circular argument:

1) The 32X was a decently priced add-on. (Better priced than the Sega CD at least).
2) The 32X Hardware was a decent design with some nice capabilities.
3) The 32X had the potential to be something good and could have sold well with more software and time on the market.
4) The 32X was released at a very bad time, thus countering any merit it brought to the table. Had it been released at a better time, it would have probably done better.

I think that's a pretty fair opinion on the matter that doesn't seem too farfetched. The hardware was good, and it could have been something great, I don't think anyone denies that. But it was just released at the worst possible time, making it not worth it in the broad scope of things.

[sheath]

I can agree with everything but point 4, but hey nobody agrees with everything when summarized. Are you referring to the 32X launching in the US when the Saturn was launching in Japan as the worst possible time? I think this is only a problem because of internal communication fallout and the resulting marketing failure to position the 32X as it was (a Genesis add-on) in relation to the Saturn (the true next generation platform, which itself was released too early).

[TrekkiesUnite118]

I don't think it would have mattered how they positioned it, it just wouldn't have done well with the Saturn selling right next to it. People would be going "Why buy the 32X when I can get the Saturn?", they wouldn't think about price. Then it could have possibly even hurt the Saturn since developers may have developed for it as the Lowest Common Denominator which would then make the Saturn versions of those games look worse.

I think the 32X could have only done well if Saturn wasn't coming until 1996. When you have that much new hardware coming out that close together, the first to fail is the hardware people deem unnecessary, and that's what the 32X was deemed.

[sheath]

I agree that a 1996 Saturn would have been the best case scenario, at least in the US and Europe. The principal problem is that Sega had seen two straight years of revenue decline leading up to Christmas 1994. Think about those years, they were some of Sega's brightest years in third party support, unique first party offerings, and innovation. None of that managed to keep their revenue what it was when the Genesis broke Nintendo's monopoly in 1992. By all accounts, the 32X kept Sega's console revenues above Nintendo's in 1994, but just barely.

The Saturn and PS1 were entirely elite gamer products in 1995, anybody who bought them that year are just one step above an early adopter at best. The systems were not making sales records, they were not making blockbuster games, they were simply there, and steadily increasing in sales, and generating a ton of hype for 3D games.

The 32X could, and almost did, coexist in that environment in a better position than the NEO GEO, 3DO and Jaguar did. It didn't need to take all of Sega's resources to do better, it just needed to stay on the shelves without all of the murmuring of internal conflicts and management fallouts over product lines. I really cannot see this any other way, Sega having leaks all over the place about its internal confusion, and that confusion being real in the first place, is THE real problem in this discussion.