Review of Retro Gamer's 32X "Retroinspection"

[Benjamin]

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.

1992 Kirby's Adventure HAL Laboratory
1993 Yoshi's Cookie Nintendo R&D1
1994 StarTropics II Nintendo R&D3

Precisely because primary development by Nintendo for the NES dried up in 1991. The above is the extent of Nintendo's output to support the NES during the SNES life, a bone a year, as I've noted. The Famicom got a few more smaller titles, but nothing of note. You're not seeing Mario games, Zelda or Metroid, anything that'd drive people to come in and buy a NES for its new releases because Nintendo had already moved on. This is how the companies operate and have always done.

Actually, Microsoft's marketing and all press statements, Gamesindustry.biz and all indie developer interviews made that case, I am only repeating it.

...

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.

On one hand, you buy into the sensationalistic ramblings that get picked up by the media by the handful of XBLIG developers which aren't satisfied that his game hasn't sold tons of copies (never mind Barker's Crest, Zeboyd, and dozen plus others have done well). On the other, you say that I only view success as a zero sum game, which I most certainly do not. Interesting. That said, success in this industry is generally viewed over the life span and support a product receives, basically the same for any product. Microsoft's Kin is a failure. So, too, was the 32X. People got enjoyment from both, but that doesn't negate the facts here. No company goes into manufacturing a product with the notion that if they can just make one person happy, then they've done their job.

Sega apparently could not support the Genesis-32X and Saturn simultaneously.

There's nothing apparent here. Sega dropped the 32X like a rock. It could not support both. Such is history. This is not bashing the unit, its nice but small library, or the technology behind it but just facing facts. I see no reason to deny reality just for being a Sega focused 32X board.

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.

I agree with that. I also agree with your idealized history where the Sega CD was the sole add-on for the Genesis. So disappointing that it didn't address the color limitations. Had it done so, I doubt we'd ever see the 32X in the first place; just refining the CD unit so that it becomes cheaper to produce, more marketable, and with an increasing amount of games which taxed the system. Who knows? Maybe that was part of the drive behind the CDX?

[Da_Shocker]

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.

What fact's have you presented? Just about everything you have stated is pure speculation. And on earth am I derailing a thread about the 32X when i'm talknig about the 32X?

[sheath]

1992 Kirby's Adventure HAL Laboratory
1993 Yoshi's Cookie Nintendo R&D1
1994 StarTropics II Nintendo R&D3

Precisely because primary development by Nintendo for the NES dried up in 1991. The above is the extent of Nintendo's output to support the NES during the SNES life, a bone a year, as I've noted. The Famicom got a few more smaller titles, but nothing of note. You're not seeing Mario games, Zelda or Metroid, anything that'd drive people to come in and buy a NES for its new releases because Nintendo had already moved on. This is how the companies operate and have always done.

I see what you are saying, but please explain how "support" is limited to first party releases when Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft all use first party releases to bolster sales and leave the rest to third party titles.

How many games did Sony release as a developer/publisher for the PS1 in 1995, eight?

Kileak: The DNA Imperative
Battle Arena Toshinden
ESPN Extreme Games
Raiden Project, The
Jumping Flash!
NFL GameDay
Twisted Metal
Warhawk

What about 1996 developed/published Sony games for the PS1, fifteen?
Philosoma
NBA ShootOut
Jumping Flash! 2: Big Trouble in Little Muu
Beyond the Beyond
Bogey: Dead 6
Project: Horned Owl
Crash Bandicoot
Epidemic
MLB Pennant Race
Motor Toon Grand Prix
2Xtreme
Blades of Blood: Samurai Shodown III
Jet Moto
Twisted Metal 2
NFL GameDay '97

Was Sony not supporting the PS1 during this time?

On one hand, you buy into the sensationalistic ramblings that get picked up by the media by the handful of XBLIG developers which aren't satisfied that his game hasn't sold tons of copies (never mind Barker's Crest, Zeboyd, and dozen plus others have done well). On the other, you say that I only view success as a zero sum game, which I most certainly do not. Interesting. That said, success in this industry is generally viewed over the life span and support a product receives, basically the same for any product. Microsoft's Kin is a failure. So, too, was the 32X. People got enjoyment from both, but that doesn't negate the facts here. No company goes into manufacturing a product with the notion that if they can just make one person happy, then they've done their job.

All of this is equally extreme and unsupported by you or any facts whatsoever. The burden of proof here is on you. How is the Kinect a failure? How is the last two years of Gamesindustry.biz and indie developer gripes about Xbox Indie games not getting the same treatement as other 360 games "rambling"?

There's nothing apparent here (true statement). Sega dropped the 32X like a rock (in 1995, fact). It could not support both (opinion based on nothing). Such is history (history is still being written). This is not bashing the unit, its nice but small library, or the technology behind it but just facing facts. I see no reason to deny reality just for being a Sega focused 32X board.

The issue isn't the unit or its library, both are fairly well liked by anybody who bothers to look past the journalist "histories". The issue is what constitutes a viable product, we don't even need to qualify success here. The 32X was made a liability by one thing only, historically speaking, Sega of Japan undermining Sega of America's efforts and then canceling it six months after launch. Your assertion that Sega could_not have supported the platform on any level is baseless.

Sega was building theme parks and hiring weapon's manufacturers to build them 3D arcade boards. The 32X certainly could have been kept on the market for a couple of years, even if only to let it die quietly.

[sheath]

What fact's have you presented? Just about everything you have stated is pure speculation. And on earth am I derailing a thread about the 32X when i'm talknig about the 32X?

Is it pure speculation that the Gameboy was on the market and marketed by Nintendo at the same time as the NES and SNES? Is it speculation that the Gameboy Color incrementally upgraded the Gameboy? Was the Super Nintendo and N64 on the market at the same time as more than one Nintendo brand handhelds were being sold, redeveloped and resold? How many revisions of the GBA were there exactly? How about the Nintendo DS? Wasn't the PS1 and PS2 supported at the same time by Sony? The PS2 and PS3 were as well, even with the PSP and its numerous revisions. Microsoft has even more recently been discussed and summarily dismissed even though it juggles numerous products and platforms all the time.

What is speculative about these, and many more, platforms being coexistent in healthy markets simultaneously?

[Da_Shocker]

Is it pure speculation that the Gameboy was on the market and marketed by Nintendo at the same time as the NES and SNES? Is it speculation that the Gameboy Color incrementally upgraded the Gameboy? Was the Super Nintendo and N64 on the market at the same time as more than one Nintendo brand handhelds were being sold, redeveloped and resold? How many revisions of the GBA were there exactly? How about the Nintendo DS? Wasn't the PS1 and PS2 supported at the same time by Sony? The PS2 and PS3 were as well, even with the PSP and its numerous revisions. Microsoft has even more recently been discussed and summarily dismissed even though it juggles numerous products and platforms all the time.

What is speculative about these, and many more, platforms being coexistent in healthy markets simultaneously?

You are comparing apple to oranges my friend, that is the normal thing as to what companies do. They will typically support 3 consoles at one time at the max. Sega on the other hand didn't do that they had what 6 or 7 consoles going at one point: Genesis, SCD, 32X, 32XCD, GG, Saturn, Pico and we might as well count the arcade games. Which means that at one point Sega was working on 8 platforms. Oh yeah I forgot about the PC so good grief that's 9 platforms LOL. Now looking back at Nintendo specifically here Nintendo NEVER released expensive add-ons here. But they had way more clout than Sega did and a more loyal fanbase but Nintendo even tried it with the Virtual Boy and we all so what a disaster that was. Now Kinnect became the first uber expensive add on to succeed but MS poured in 500 million dollars alone of advertisements so what exactly does that say about addons. They can succeed only if you pour in buckets and buckets of money. I'm pretty sure with 500 million dollars for advertisements that the 32X could've been a success.

[sheath]

You are comparing apple to oranges my friend, that is the normal thing as to what companies do. They will typically support 3 consoles at one time at the max. Sega on the other hand didn't do that they had what 6 or 7 consoles going at one point: Genesis, SCD, 32X, 32XCD, GG, Saturn, Pico and we might as well count the arcade games.

Half of this I agree with, half is pure exaggeration I cannot imagine you didn't make on purpose. All of the "successful" companies in the industry have supported up to and over three platforms at once. This is true, and they also work on diversifying at the same time, which sometimes means releasing the next platform while the previous one is still selling well and supporting both for however long that is beneficial.

The 32X and 32X CD are not individual platforms by any stretch of the imagination, that is an exaggeration. At best the 32X and Sega CD are individual formats/platforms, but neither one fully qualifies because they both require the Genesis. This is significant from a development standpoint and a marketing standpoint. Both the Sega CD and 32X are add-ons to the Genesis platform, once they are purchased the consumer only needed to choose between Genesis carts or the new add-on library.

The Pico was hardly a full blown game console platform, that is also an exaggeration. If anything it is an example of what Sega should have been attempting with the 32X. Family friendly was all the rage at that time, especially following the witch trials in the Senate about violence in games, and edutainment was the latest marketing buzz workd (and still sells garbage today).

At best you have five actual separate gaming formats here in the Game Gear, Genesis, Sega CD, 32X and Saturn. The Game Gear was languishing and needed to be reformatted or dropped. The Genesis was failing to maintain sales, the Sega CD was little more than a blip in sales outside of the US, the 32X was a splash (or flash in the pan, it is yet undetermined) in the US. The Saturn, by the time it was really available at full retail, was Sega's only remaining platform.

Which means that at one point Sega was working on 8 platforms. Oh yeah I forgot about the PC so good grief that's 9 platforms LOL. Now looking back at Nintendo specifically here Nintendo NEVER released expensive add-ons here. But they had way more clout than Sega did and a more loyal fanbase but Nintendo even tried it with the Virtual Boy and we all so what a disaster that was. Now Kinnect became the first uber expensive add on to succeed but MS poured in 500 million dollars alone of advertisements so what exactly does that say about addons. They can succeed only if you pour in buckets and buckets of money. I'm pretty sure with 500 million dollars for advertisements that the 32X could've been a success.

If you feel that you can include PC and Arcade games in addition to the Pico in Sega's supported platforms, that opens up every other industry Sony and Microsoft have their talons in, not to mention Apple's numerous efforts, and cellphone companies. I honestly don't know how you don't see it. Companies diversify, they make money, reinvest and look for ways to spread their money out in more areas. It is completely normal, Sega was just doing it more aggressively, and creatively, than companies do today.

If you are serious at all about exploring this topic, I would like to separate the idea that the 32X had_to_be the biggest hugest most impressive platform ever to its day and after, including the Saturn, PS1 and N64, from the reality that it was a Genesis add-on.

[Da_Shocker]

[QUOTE=sheath;458719]

Half of this I agree with, half is pure exaggeration I cannot imagine you didn't make on purpose. All of the "successful" companies in the industry have supported up to and over three platforms at once. This is true, and they also work on diversifying at the same time, which sometimes means releasing the next platform while the previous one is still selling well and supporting both for however long that is beneficial.

The 32X and 32X CD are not individual platforms by any stretch of the imagination, that is an exaggeration. At best the 32X and Sega CD are individual formats/platforms, but neither one fully qualifies because they both require the Genesis. This is significant from a development standpoint and a marketing standpoint. Both the Sega CD and 32X are add-ons to the Genesis platform, once they are purchased the consumer only needed to choose between Genesis carts or the new add-on library.

The Pico was hardly a full blown game console platform, that is also an exaggeration. If anything it is an example of what Sega should have been attempting with the 32X. Family friendly was all the rage at that time, especially following the witch trials in the Senate about violence in games, and edutainment was the latest marketing buzz workd (and still sells garbage today).

At best you have five actual separate gaming formats here in the Game Gear, Genesis, Sega CD, 32X and Saturn. The Game Gear was languishing and needed to be reformatted or dropped. The Genesis was failing to maintain sales, the Sega CD was little more than a blip in sales outside of the US, the 32X was a splash (or flash in the pan, it is yet undetermined) in the US. The Saturn, by the time it was really available at full retail, was Sega's only remaining platform.

Was Sega not developing for 9 different platforms at one time? Yes or No

If you feel that you can include PC and Arcade games in addition to the Pico in Sega's supported platforms, that opens up every other industry Sony and Microsoft have their talons in, not to mention Apple's numerous efforts, and cellphone companies. I honestly don't know how you don't see it. Companies diversify, they make money, reinvest and look for ways to spread their money out in more areas. It is completely normal, Sega was just doing it more aggressively, and creatively, than companies do today.

If you are serious at all about exploring this topic, I would like to separate the idea that the 32X had_to_be the biggest hugest most impressive platform ever to its day and after, including the Saturn, PS1 and N64, from the reality that it was a Genesis add-on.

Again comparing apples to oranges. Sony and MS weren't originally game companies. They have blown billions upon billions that Sega and Nintendo would've both wend under even in there peak. I see what you're saying but being aggressive and taking risks well it has risks. Sega's margin of error was extremely small. RROD is said to have cost MS 1 billion dollars. 1 billion dollars of there money was lost because they wanted to be aggressive and take a risk. But they have that luxury. Nintendo doesn't have it and Sega doesn't. Hell it's coming back to haunt Sony now a little bit.

[sheath]

Risk is risk, I am not arguing whether these companies should take them. I am showing that they ALL take them, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. The video game industry has very unfortunately supported the anti-competitive corporations more than the ones that made more and better products. Nintendo had the luxury of being the supreme leader of the industry when Sega really started pushing into consoles.

Let's not forget that we are principally talking about Sega/CSK here and not just Sega alone. I haven't even seen sales figures discussed in earnest here, much less total revenue for Sega, CSK and Nintendo.

As for Sony and Microsoft and their expensive risks, why do you think they take them? What do you think would happen if they never took that risk and instead just let their revenues decline year on year with no new products to show to turn that decline around?

If we want to define "platforms" as loosely as you have, Sega was designing for dozens of platforms at once if we include the Arcades, and that isn't even getting into the business of creating Amusement parks. But then, the same would be true for Sony and Microsoft now wouldn't it? Nintendo similarly paints their history like this:

Company History

Nintendo Entertainment System

Introduced in 1985, the NES was an instant hit. Over the course of the next two years, it almost single-handedly revitalized the video game industry. Selling over 60 million units, people brought games like Mario and Zelda into their homes for the first time on the NES.

Game Boy

The screen was four-colors-of-gray but the device defined portable gaming and was enormous fun. Game Boy, which came out in 1989, was closely associated with the classic game Tetris when it debuted. Game Boy is the most successful video game system ever released. Since its introduction in 1989, Game Boy has sold well over 150 million systems worldwide. Originally bundled with the game, Tetris, this little handheld became an instant phenomenon.

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

The SNES was released in 1991 and featured 16-bit technology. More processing power meant more entertaining games which helped the SNES sell more than 49 million systems worldwide.

Nintendo 64

The N64 set new standards in realistic 3D gaming when it came out in 1996. Super Mario 64 was the system�s showcase game and thrilled millions with its amazing graphics and gameplay.

Game Boy Pocket

The same year the N64 came out, the Game Boy Pocket found its way into gamers� school backpacks all over the world. It was smaller than the original Game Boy and came in a variety of colors.

Game Boy Advance

Featuring a larger screen and better graphics than previous versions of the Game Boy, the GBA would go on to sell tens of millions of units worldwide after its North American debut in 2001.

Nintendo GameCube

2001 also saw the release of the Nintendo GameCube which one-upped the graphics and gameplay of the N64. It was the first Nintendo system to use optical discs instead of cartridges for its games.

Game Boy Advance SP

Released in 2003, the Game Boy Advance SP had the same size screen as the Game Boy Advance, but the GBA SP was dramatically smaller, lighter, and folded in a clamshell design to become truly pocket portable. It also featured a rechargeable battery and backlit screen.

Nintendo DS

Featuring two screens, including a touch screen, a microphone, built-in Wi-Fi capability, and backward compatibility, the DS is an incredibly successful portable gaming device beating its rivals in the marketplace by a wide margin.

Nintendo DS Lite

The Nintendo DS is smaller, lighter, and has brighter screens than the previous model and has been embraced by fans. Tens of millions of DS Lites have sold worldwide since its release in early 2006.

Wii

In 2006, Nintendo introduced the Wii and with it several advanced, revolutionary features. Wireless motion-sensitive remote controllers, built-in Wi-Fi capability, and a host of other features have made the Wii the best-selling latest generation console system in the world.

Nintendo DSi

In April, Nintendo DSi introduced a revised portable system with two cameras and wireless access to downloadable games via the Nintendo DSi Shop. Wii Sports Resort built on the Wii Sports phenomenon and included the new Wii MotionPlus accessory, which made motion controls even more precise. Wii Fit Plus brought new options and activities to the fitness software and New Super Mario Bros. Wii brought the hand-held game to the home console. The Nintendo DS family of systems set a new all-time calendar-year U.S. sales record for any console or hand-held system.

Nintendo DSi XL

Nintendo DSi XL debuted with screens that were 93 percent larger than those on Nintendo DS Lite. Nintendo and Netflix announced a partnership that would allow most Netflix subscribers to stream movies and TV shows directly through their Wii consoles. The American Heart Association and Nintendo of America formed a multifaceted strategic relationship aimed at helping people create healthy lifestyles through physically active play. The iconic American Heart Association brand appeared on boxes for the Wii Fit Plus and Wii Sports Resort software and for the Wii system itself. Super Mario Galaxy 2 was just as well-received and well-reviewed as the original, Metroid: Other M took the franchise in a new direction and Donkey Kong Country Returns revisited a classic franchise. The Wii Games: Summer 2010 competition brought thousands of people of all ages together in fun competitions.

Nintendo 3DS

On March 27, 2011 in the United States, Nintendo launches the Nintendo 3DS system, which allows users to view 3D content without the use of special glasses.

[Da_Shocker]

Risk is risk, I am not arguing whether these companies should take them. I am showing that they ALL take them, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. The video game industry has very unfortunately supported the anti-competitive corporations more than the ones that made more and better products. Nintendo had the luxury of being the supreme leader of the industry when Sega really started pushing into consoles.

Let's not forget that we are principally talking about Sega/CSK here and not just Sega alone. I haven't even seen sales figures discussed in earnest here, much less total revenue for Sega, CSK and Nintendo.

As for Sony and Microsoft and their expensive risks, why do you think they take them? What do you think would happen if they never took that risk and instead just let their revenues decline year on year with no new products to show to turn that decline around?

If we want to define "platforms" as loosely as you have, Sega was designing for dozens of platforms at once if we include the Arcades, and that isn't even getting into the business of creating Amusement parks. But then, the same would be true for Sony and Microsoft now wouldn't it? Nintendo similarly paints their history like this:

So are you telling me rushing an incomplete system is a good idea? Trying to get the jump on the PS3 cost MS a billion dollars. MS risk's haven't stuck out to me much. I'd love to see them attempt to buy Square to see how the Japanese would respond to that. But the bottomline is that Sega took a risk and where are they now? Making games for the likes of the enemy Nintendo and Sony. It's like taking the game winning shot you either hit or you miss. And Sega, well they took alot of shots and missed alot of shots and now they are out of the league.

[sheath]

Why would you even think that I am supporting incomplete systems? That doesn't even describe the 360 by the way, even though they had over heating issues, unless we get to include the NES for bad cart ports, the PS1 and PS2 for bad drives, and whatever else had large errors.

[kool kitty89]

Risk is risk, I am not arguing whether these companies should take them. I am showing that they ALL take them, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. The video game industry has very unfortunately supported the anti-competitive corporations more than the ones that made more and better products. Nintendo had the luxury of being the supreme leader of the industry when Sega really started pushing into consoles.

This is half right.

Anticompetitive companies don't come from nowhere, they need to be very good in the first place to gain the power to assert such tactics, and Nintendo was certainly no slouch there at all. Nintendo took a massive risk with the Famicom in Japan, but pushed hard and it paid off and they kept pushing and expanding, pulling well ahead of all the competition in Japan until they had established a monopoly through the success of their outstanding hardware and software (for the time) as well as good management/marketing.

Nintendo genuinely had THE best (and most advanced, innovative, etc) product on the market (hardware and software wise), and they jumpstarted video games into the mainstream in Japan.

Their position later allowed them to control the market to a large extent and limit 3rd party software developers' freedom as well as competing hardware companies, but that doesn't change the fact of how they gained their position in the first place. (if they didn't have a genuinely excellent product backed with excellent management -and some serious investment risks- then they'd never have gained that dominant position -they were far too small and limited to push a more mediocre product to success via powerful marketing/market positioning alone)


Sega (among others) was right there against Nintendo from day 1 with their own console, but their products were far less compelling than Nintendo's, and that gap widened as stronger software materialized. The Mk.III marked genuinely competitive (in many ways superior) hardware and some strong software, but by that point, Nintendo had already established their stranglehold on the market and ensured that their software support (as well as PR) would remain generally stronger than the competition. (Sega's marketing didn't do much to break through that either, a failing that was far greater in the US -where the SMS had a very real chance for competing with the NES of even ground- though European management/outsourcing ended up doing very well -much better than Nintendo in many ways)

[Da_Shocker]

Why would you even think that I am supporting incomplete systems? That doesn't even describe the 360 by the way, even though they had over heating issues, unless we get to include the NES for bad cart ports, the PS1 and PS2 for bad drives, and whatever else had large errors.

[kool kitty89]

Don't mean to nitpick but I thought the interview made clear that it was SOJ top brass and not Sato's intention himself to keep costs down, Sato actually by all accounts thought the original 32X was a neat little design.

Keeping cost down is always important (rather ironic that the Saturn ended up the way it did yet the 32x was apparently stripped down), though in general "stripping down" a design is a rather inefficient way to go about it compared to laying down a minimalistic streamlined design from the get-go. (unless said stripping/streamlining was done in the early on-paper design phase, we before even preliminary prototyping begun -this is the same reason that any "last minute" design changes on the Saturn would have been very limited in practicality -the main sorts of changes are with minor chip revisions or changes in configurations of off the shelf components in areas of the design that are flexible enough to allow some variations -like the CPUs or amount of RAM -and CPU choice could be very limited too in terms of what the interface supports in terms of bus architecture)

And drifting into the context of the Saturn specifically, there's very little they practically could have done in the late 1993 timeframe to "correct" the Saturn's disadvantages (high overall manufacturing cost, complexity, mis-matched feature set with wasted performance -aside from 2D vs 3D, there's the sound and CD-ROM subsystems that were hardly cost-effective).
As such, any potential cuts that might have gotten cost down also wouldn't have greatly impacted overall cost to performance ratio as the overall architecture would remain similar. (a much more aggressive, streamlined design approach would have been necessary early in the design -as well as setting the feature set to cater to the perceived needs balanced for all major regions)

I agree that it's a neat/quirky design to look at though, and certainly interesting from a historical (and hobby) perspective, and I personally like it too. (but liking and appreciating something is different from considering it a good/practical design or concept, and IMO the concept itself was impractical)

Hey, I also wonder if we'll get another writer using a few interview sources, and some old magazine clippings to hypothesis how the 32X was originally designed, and then afterward have there subjective narrative history qouted as the verbatim truth! *Cough Pettius* *Cough Saturn*

I take all of this with a grain of salt and try to point out possible variables in many of my posts (part of the reason for bulk in some of them is addressing some of those variables).
Unconfirmed historical accounts are definitely among those variables. (the resounding question for many things is "why did they do X?" or "who decided to do Y", and there's many claims and supposition of that, but relatively few truly confirmed examples -some things that definitely could be addressed in future interviews)

I think you're far too casually brushing off just how terribly it'd split the market, but you are trying to make the best of an impossibly bad situation. Fact remains that the 32X should never have come to market. Poor planning by Sega -- that the company was surprised that Saturn was ready in '94 is insane -- is the culprit here. You can't fault the technology. There's a definite argument to push for an all-in-one add-on to avoid the high SVP pricing seen in Virtua Racing, but that add-on cannot be $150. You lose the argument that it benefits consumers doing that, and then you fail to make significant penetration to get developers to sign on to support it.

Jupiter would have split the market such that the true potential of the Saturn would never be realized as developers target the LCD to ensure everyone can buy their games. The Saturn was already outclassed by early PSX games visually; I'd hate to think what comparisons to 32X-ish titles would have done for sales and the brand. No one would buy Jupiter. There would be no incentive.

The problem was that the Saturn itself was very heavily flawed (technically and -more so- in actual management/support), so much so that the Jupiter may have been more successful than the Saturn itself due to lower cost/etc. (but more likely, the Saturn would have been better off alone . . . and the main advantages of the Jupiter -greater market pennetration early on and overall lower price point, are more arguments against the Saturn's design than ones in favor of the Jupiter)

I definitely agree that a single next-gen platform would have made the most sense, the saturn was far from ideal (from feature set to manufacturing cost to developer tools, etc), but it was technically good enough to be reasonable as Sega's mainstream platform in spite of the disadvantages to the competition (especially Sony's more cost effective hardware with even greater advantage of vertical integration).

So, yes, with the Jupiter, I was speaking in a "best of a bad situation" type of scenario (where Sega was forced to release an interim platform), but there was little sense in releasing such a platform for many reasons:
-They already had a complex and expensive add-on in the Sega CD (which arguably shouldn't have been released as such either and was wasted in the way it was managed, but they were stuck with it by that point for better or worse).
-Any substantial add-on would cross over too far into the Saturn's market and make marketing difficult to manage (as well as software development and manufacturing/distribution logistics)
-Even a modest add-on (like an SVP cart adapter) would still have been rather late for 1994 when Sega should have been focusing on easing the Genesis into the late-gen (and eventually budget market) while optimizing profitability (the late gen tends to have the highest profit margins for highly successful/mainstream platforms, usually putting an emphasis on a limited number of new releases along with re-releases of many popular titles and marketing emphasis on the low cost), though a low-cost SVP-like module might have worked out fairly well in the end (especially if launched in early 1994, in place of the standalone VR cart), otherwise simple low-cost ASICs for late-gen games would have made more sense. (more like SNES/NEC enhancement chips for RAM/mapping/sound/compression/coprocessing/etc -actually reducing the cost of games in the case of compression allowing smaller ROM sizes)
-On top of all that, the Genesis architecture itself was a horrible bottleneck for both of its major add-ons and greatly reduced the cost effectiveness or practicality of either. (albeit the Jupiter would avoid that while still sharing the other disadvantages above)


Sega made tons of other mistakes on top of the 32x/Saturn conflict alone . . . like the disastrous early US launch of the Saturn (arguably more harmful than the 32x conflict itself), and then the less than ideal in-house software development plan. (no really good installments in flagship franchises -especially sonic and Sega sports- and even relatively few mediocre installments)
And then there's Sega's general over-spending and stretching resources too thin in general. (streamlining operations as much as possible would have made far more sense, especially after the Genesis got established in the mainstream in 1991/92 -prior to which, heavy investment spending was essential in breaking through Nintendo's monopoly . . . but they didn't seem to temper/refocus things after that point, and the mixed purposes/priorities and apparently limited cooperation between different regional divisions didn't help things either)


Some of these arguments are a bit undirected though due to limited historical information: for example, there are claims that it was SoJ who initiated (or indeed forced) the development of an interim platform (which became the 32x), other claims that SoJ upper management forced the premature Saturn launch in the west, and general implications that the Saturn iself was designed in a vaccum without significant input from other regions. (or at least no direct input or collaboration to direct maximum efforts in designing a platform that best fit the needs of the world market in terms of cost, feature set, and overall performance)

Splitting the market isn't necessarily a bad thing. If customers want a budget system with entry level 3D and the premiere 3D consoles were going to take three to four years to reach the mass market, then keeping the Genesis as the budget console, while giving that already existing userbase the option of 3D gaming with an add-on, makes sense.

There's a point where you just can't practically support so many different things properly, in terms of software (1st or 3rd party), marketing, consumer awareness, etc. (it's hard enough to make compelling advertising of tech for "dumb" consumers if you have few products to focus on, but muddying the water with a vast array of overlapping products is far more problematic)

I think a cartridge based Saturn would not have worked at all though, my pocket history rewriter on my new dual core HTC smart phone says that the 32X plus Neptune could have generated more revenue for Sega in the critical years of 1994-1996.

It would have worked better than the 32x (in terms of offering a low cost, competitive, Saturn-complementary, platform), but overall I think a single next-gen platform would have made far more sense.

If there was need for a lower-cost entry in that arena, then the Saturn itself should have been designed to be cheaper from the get-go, or specifically engineered to be low-cost at launch while reserving support for considerable expansion later on. (in a cost-effective and simple to install manner -with plans to limit expansion to very few or just a single upgrade module to avoid complicating logistics or marketing, and preferably designing it such that it could cheaply be integrated as standard for all later model units). -A lower cost, but still reasonably capable CD-ROM based platform would have been extremely significant for the time. (the cart-based Jupiter suggestion was my argument for what Sega could have done to make the best of a bad situation with the existing Saturn design and interim console proposal -for a truly good low-cost CD based 3D/multimedia system, the Saturn's design should have been much different from the outset, as above, and as I've argued before)

From a 1994 standpoint, neither the Saturn nor the 32x made sense for the US market . . . the Sega CD arguably didn't either, but at least that was already there (so making the most of it made sense).

However, from the standpoint of the existing Sega Saturn and Japanese launch in '94, the most sensible decision for the time would have been to focus purely on their existing/established products (MD, GG, MCD) with emphasis on maximizing profits and market stability while making provisions to facilitate the Saturn's release in 1995.

What Nintendo did with SNES marketing and software in 1994 made far, far more sense than what Sega did . . . and Nintendo had far more internal resources to risk investing on top of that. (yet they chose the more conservative and practical approach -which Sega had far more reason to take)



And, as much as I argue the technical details a lot, I still firmly believe that the bigger problems by far were management decisions. (ie the Saturn design, while far from ideal, would have been OK had it not been for the mess of management problems resulting in the 32x/Saturn conflict, mismanagement of the MD/CD/GG in the mid 90s, misdirected software development on the Saturn, and botched US launch of the Saturn -among other things)

To put it simply, in terms of a 1994/95 "what if", the most significant changes would have been to never develop the 32x, keep supporting the mainstream 16-bit market in '94/95, and release the Saturn with full fanfare in fall of 1995 with an emphasis on promoting holiday sales.

If Sega had stuck to the plan it simply could have rode the residual sales of the Genesis and Sega CD and 32X and their software while the Saturn took its time ramping up. It isn't just the TV industry that maintains different products simultaneously, all business diversifies or dies.

They could have done that better without the 32x to complicate things (less marketing and R&D spent on the 32x and instead on maximizing profits on the vanilla Genesis and perhaps MCD, though the MCD itself arguably was impractical too and Sega would have been better off with no add-ons at all -or just simplistic low-cost on-cart enhancements or maybe a single low-cost lock-on cart adapter)

Sega had a consistent tendency for releasing too much new hardware too soon, and doing so to the detriment to their mainstream platforms' support and profitability. (albeit, up to the MD, the short turnaround for new hardware made sense due to the lack of success -ie, had the SG-1000 or SMS been massively successful like the MD, either of those could have been major mistakes by comparison . . . though the 32x is particularly odd as it saw a simultaneous release with the Saturn, unlike the other cases where there was at least a 2 year gap)

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.

Among other things, the Kinect doesn't conflict with a full next-gen console release as the 32x and Saturn did.

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.

Regardless of whether it was a good idea to launch the 32x at all, they definitely made things worse after the fact with the way they managed the 32x/CD/MD and launched the Saturn early. (if they were trying to do damage control on the 32x/Saturn conflict at the time, it definitely doen't show very much -they seem to have doen little to minimize the PR/media backlash on the 32x or minimizing monetary losses for that matter -and it hurt the Saturn too, where waiting longer and smoothing over the hickups/conflicts might have done wonders)

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.

Splitting the market on the consumer end wasn't so much the problem as splitting the marketing/software development (1st and 3rd party) and other resources among those platforms. (if those resources weren't limited, then they could have invested enough to simultaneously support all platforms for a variety of niches, but that's not the case -every investment made for one product is an investment taken from another -and even if the former product is profitable, it may be less profitable than if the same investment was made solely in the latter product)

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.

This is one of those "unclear" areas of historical documentation I mentioned above. There's conflicting information on Sega's revenue (some pointing to 1993 being the peak year). And then there's conflicting information on whether Sega of America was netting profit in that period or netting losses due to investment spending.

A delay until 1996 might have made sense after the fact of the 32x (though a fall 1995 release would have been a huge improvement too), but having a 1995 launch and no 32x release at all would have made much more sense. (with Sega putting more focus on profits and less on revenue in that period -investors would be wise to notice a profit improvement in spite of revenue decline, especially for a razor and blade product where the high-cost based hardware has little or no profits but the lower cost software reaps the real profits -and having a well-established userbase with limited new adopters and mainly software sales would be the desired outcome).

[kool kitty89]

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

Allowing for color DAC+CRAM expansion (as an external RAMDAC) would have made more sense, similar to what the System C does. (as such, Sega should have connected the 10 VDP expansion pins to the cart slot and/or expansion port)

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.

Given how simple and low-cost such an add-on would have been, it would have been bad to limit it to the MCD. So a cheap/simple module would have made more sense, as would integrating the feature as standard for later models. (but including it in the MCD also would have made sense on top of that)

The MCD itself arguably shouldn't have been released (supporting the MD alone could have been much more stable/profitable), but if anything, designing the MCD to be simpler/cheaper overall would have made a lot of sense too. (cutting RAM and added processing power would have been significant in reducing cost and perhaps allowing an ealier release -at worst it would have meant less wasted features and less investment wasted on hardware R&D and manufacturing, but at best the lower cost and earlier release could have meant much greater market acceptance in Japan as well as the west -more so with better overall management of the system, catering to all of its technical advantages from lower cost software to multimedia to storage space to the potential for a duo system that was considerably cheaper than the combined prices of the standalone systems)

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.

This could all remain true even with a lower-cost MCD.

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.

I've argued something like this before (or more so for 1993 -in combination with the aformentioned simplified MCD), but since then I've come to the conclusion that having an add-on to the MD+CD would really complicate things further.
However, assuming it's a lock-on cart type add-on that could work with the MCD or with the MD alone, it could make some sense (especially assuming the CD remained fairly niche and/or region-specific), and it definitely would have made sense if the MCD were never released at all. (further streamlining marketing to just the MD and said add-on)

If the cart module was simple enough, embedding it as standard with late model base hardware would have made sense too. (but, in favor of keeping logistics down, perhaps it would have been best to combine any such coprocessor add-on with the RAMDAC color upgrade too)

It very well may have made more sense to limit add-ons entirely and just focus on a standalone next-gen console sooner . . . or limit the MCD to Japan (keeping cost/logistics down) while releasing only the cheap/simple RAMDAC color upgrade module (and embedded standard) worldwide. Then, in 1993 they could have launched an early entry into the high-end 2D/3D/multimedia CD-ROM based market (say something in line with the 3DO's performance -but without the massive retail mark-up and maybe lower cost hardware in general), thus allowing a far more capable early entry in that category that they could push in the high-end niche in parallel with the mainstream MD.
And, following that (now going on pure hindsight), such a console could have transitioned into a lower-cost category of the next generation lineup next to the PSX with much lower performance, but also lower price point and large existing library. (plus, but the time the PSX fully hit mainstream in 1996/97, Sega could have had their next-gen platform on the horizon for a 1997/98 JP/US release -something like a slightly earlier/lower powered dreamcast)

1993 also would have been just right to cache in on the boom in 3D/multimedia PC game revolution.

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.

Ignoring my 1993 3DO-a-like suggestion, that sounds about right . . . but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a new Sega console in 1993 (and no CD or 32x-a-like at all -though a cheap CRAM/RAMDAC upgrade would be nice)

Thinking more on this issue: with such a 1993 (3DO/Jaguar class) system, Sega would have had the only reasonably priced multimedia/3D capable platform with the ability to run PC (or better) quality games of the time at reasonable cost (say around 1/2 the price of the 3DO -and also far more accessible than multimedia PCs, even reasonable frugal home-built ones) while also allowing arcade quality 2D at a time when 2D was still dominant. (and still leaving the cart based MD as the mainstream lower-end option up through 1994)

With the shift to a newer 3D system around '97/98 (a year earlier than the DC), you'd largely avoid the period of consoles dominated by "ugly and primitive" 3D in the mid/late 90s, and truncate that to a far shorter period with far more overlap of high-end 2D games. (and while the N64 technically should have marked another early entry in the "smooth/modern 3D", the limited development tools and use of carts heavily restricted that as well)


This alternate history also omits a potentially more successful Master System. (had the SMS been a stand-out mass-market success in North America as well as Europe, then there'd have been ton of merit in pushing back MD development and release until around 1990 -the SMS was a newer and more capable design than the NES overall, so it should have held up reasonably well a bit longer -especially if the FM sound had been made universal/standardized in all regions)

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.

I disagree with a number of those conclusions.

1) for the hardware it offered, the Sega CD was technically a much better value . . . and by the time the 32x launched, the price of the 2 was equal anyway. And, in terms of the 32x itself, taking into the account the overhead of both the MD+32x costs relative to performance (and nominal technical limitations), it wasn't that good of a deal either. (and that's just from the consumer standpoint, not addressing the various management/marketing/logistical support issues)

2) the Hardware was gimmped and horribly bottlenecked even for an interim platform. RAM was very limited, hardware acceleration was nonexistent, and the limitations of the MD along with rushed developed severely impacted cost-effectiveness.

3) It had potential to be decent, but compared to the market at hand (even without the Saturn) it was pretty ill-suited (either as an SNES competitor or as an early next-gen platform capable of handling decent versions of contemporary PC and 3D arcade games), and much worse still in regards to the Saturn.

4) Totally agree here.



That said, it's still a neat footnote to history and cool for existing at all and offering a unique facet in gaming . . . something fun to try out and tinker around with for homebrew. (and also something that actually did bring joy to a few people who owned it back in the day)

[Team Andromeda]

The MCD itself arguably shouldn't have been released (supporting the MD alone could have been much more stable/profitable), but if anything, designing the MCD to be simpler/cheaper overall would have made a lot of sense too.

Can we really stop the wind up crap now ? For one thing the Mega CD used basic off the shelf parts, bar the ASIC chip so the cost to SEGA R&D would have minimal at best . SEGA never sold it at a lost (so the cost to SEGA's bottom line was minimal) and even with developing and releasing the Mega CD SEGA Japan reported its best ever profits in 1992/3 so its not like Mega CD development or PR impacted much on SEGA's cash flow
I'm getting so very bored of you wind up's.... We never hear from you that Nintendo shouldn't have released the Virutal Boy , N64 DD (which NCL wasted millions on) Famicom Disc drive, or Sony with the PSX, or Atari with the Jaguar (a move that killed the corp) and load of other doomed systems or add-on's . Its always SEGA, always the Saturn or now Mega CD and your change of tune is talking the piss too; You've go from SEGA should have backed the Mega CD more, supported it for longer delay the Saturn and even bring out the likes of Virutal Racing for it , to now SEGA should have never brought it out at all.

And please can we stop looking back with the wonders of hindsight .