I just read at dreamcast.ign.com that Sega of Japan is going to stop the Dreamcast hardware but further devolp software this year although they are scrapping Dreamcast after this year and devolping for the PS2 and Game Boy Advance. Wondered if anyone else had heard anything about this.

[Chimpmaster]

that really sux. It doesnt suprise me however as here in aus, all the major retail stores have stopped supplying dreamcast altogether. You cant buya console and the games supply here is drying out.

Its a shame because its still got better games than the ps2 to date, and is only a qtr of the price.

Nevermind, Ill jsut wait for gamecube and xbox to come out, or until ps2 comes down in price to buy a console.

That is interesting here in the U.S. Dreamcast is going strong. Although I got suspicious of Segas plans when Shenmue II the trailer was already unvailed. That was not supposed to be out for a while but it seems like it will be out soon. I think Sega had this plan in mind all along. They did a similar thing with the Saturn.

[Adam Silver]

The Dreamcast is not going strong in the United States. Sales for the console and its games are much below what was expected and third party support is small and getting smaller. (The Dreamcast is doing far better in the United States than in the rest of the world, however.)

I suppose the best thing about this news is that we will see Ecco, Phantasy Star, and Sonic on PS2 and Game Boy Advance; the two game systems I plan on buying.

[Cipher13]

Dreamcast majorly flopped down here, as did the Saturn.
Sega has lost it. Should merge with Nintendo... that'd be a killer team.

Cipher13

The rumor is that Nintendo offered 2 billion (could that number be right?) for Sega's business.

[Archangel]

Who cares? Consoles suck.

------------------
"Elvis has left the building!"

[Cipher13]

Not really... they're better than PC's in most ways for games.
Well some ways.

Cipher13

[Archangel]

No, they suck.

[Cipher13]

No, they don't

Cipher13

Would you two stop fighting!? (Not realy, it's accualy kind of funny) Anyway I'm here to solve this problem. Yes, computers are better for stratigy and Graphics games but the PS2, N64, Dreamcast, Xbox, etc. are much better for action games!

Forgive spelling errors! The check didn't work!

[Adam Silver]

I think you're oversimplifying it a bit.

Console gamers and computer gamers are not the same. This is why we rarely see console games ported to computers and vice versa. When this does happen, the results and/or sales figures are usually terrible. Unreal Tournament was not a big seller on the PS2, but it was big among hardcore computer gamers. (It wasn't a big seller on computers, but FPS fans are a vocal niche.) Additionally, did anyone play Sega's computer games? I didn't think so.

Besides, for the time being, consoles (or at least the PS2, GAMECUBE, and Xbox) are better for graphically intense games. It will be a few months before nVIDIA and ATI sell video cards more powerful than the next generation consoles.

As far as I'm concerned, console games are better than computer games because the games I like are rarely made for computers.

I agree. Councils just have the better games. I use my Mac for games as well but nothing very intense. It's a wonder in it's self that my Mac will run Oni with V-RAM set to 315mb! I like the little games like Baldur's Gate and Marathon. I work with graphics more often on my computer than games. Sorry!

I disagree with all of you. You really cannot compare console games to computer games. The audience is totally different as well. Computer games I feel apply to more mature audiences. Theyare more apt for older guys sitting at home in a desk chair surfing the net that wanna play cool games. Where as console games are for people who wanna lay in thier recliner and enjoy fun titles. I feel console games have the upper hand over computer games mainly the quality of games is higher they are easire to use and mainly have a larger audience. Who wants to get a new game and download a 2mg patch before a certain weapon works. I have to say the only good computer to DC port was Starlancer.

[scaught]

i think the audience differs too in the fact that it takes a 2000 dollar computer to play compared to a 200 dollar console.

[osiris]

Some good points here, I used to think that console's were better. But there is so more much in a desktop machine that can make games better - faster video, faster/larger harddrives and more ram. Plus the resolution of most TV's is aweful, the pixels are huge compared to a good monitor.. So I've been holding off on buying a console for years now .

I am curious about X-box, but I also hate MS (especially after the BUNGIE incident) I suppose the main benefit of a console is that plenty of games are available. There's none of this "wait two years after the PC release for a cheesy port BS)

perhaps having both?

[nigeljedi]

The Dreamcast went down to $99 dollars here recently. That might indicate something. I mean, the N64 took quite a while longer to reach that discount. I'm not sure WHAT, if anything that implies, but it is weird that Sega would drop the price that dramatically since it's inception.

Yeah, that price on the Dreamcast now has me interested. The game lineup doesn't look that bad. I have a hankering for a good snowboard game right about now, and don't want to pay $350 for a PS2+SSX.

What's interesting is a lot of Dreamcast games are still going for $49, half the cost of the console itself.

You'll be sacrificing quality by going with a Dreamcast for a snowboarding game. SSX is simply the best snowboarding game out there. Also, you'll see dwindling game releases for the Dreamcast after Sega ceases production next month.

I'd just save your pennies and shell out for the best console.