Hideki Sato on the Sega Saturn (incredible new interview)

[Gryson]

Thanks for the thoughts. Some small comments:

My thing is why oh why didn't they drag Yu Suzuki from his work to help out with the Saturn. Clearly nobody from Sega knew anything about 3D technology except for him.

Yu Suzuki was at the forefront of a whole new generation of gaming technology. Sega undoubtedly wanted him there where he would have the biggest impact. Remember, Sega's primary focus in making home consoles in the first place was to give them a platform to freely publish their arcade games. Their arcade games mattered more than anything.

We all know that but the real question is why was the 3rd party support so abysmal? Both Battle Arena Toshindens looked bad on the Saturn then you have games such as Dead or Alive and I think Anarchy in Nippon(?) both used the VF2 engine and look pretty good. There are so many 3rd party ports on the Saturn that just look really really bad in comparison to there PSx counterparts.

When doing ports, 3rd party devs didn't bother to make use of both SH2s in many cases. So they were only using one under-powered CPU.

But the Megadrive failed in Japan. So being I guess a half-hearted success in America made Sega want to stick it out? Even though SoJ couldnt really gain any market traction in their own country?

That might be misunderstanding how the business was run. The success of the Genesis in North America was very much a point of pride for Sega of Japan. Since the 80s, many Japanese companies have targeted America as their biggest market, and that's precisely what Nakayama did with the Genesis (he's said as much). In this interview, Sato himself praised the success of Sega of America (and praised his "trusted friend, Tom Kalinske"). In other words, Sega of Japan never saw their market as only Japan - it was the world. Sega of America was a daughter company primarily responsible with advertising and distribution (and later development, of course), and it received heaps of praise for doing a great job.

So yes, I would say the Genesis being a success certainly made it difficult for Sega did drop out of the console market.

[Da_Shocker]

Gryson, most 3rd parties didn't even use the VDP2 chip either. Hideki said that the 3rd party support was awful well damn why was it so bad? Looking back would it had been that difficult for Sega to provide 3rd party support on par with Sony? Most of the time the PSx would get the game first and then whenever the Saturn version would come out sometimes months later it would look worse than the PSx version.

[Gryson]

It's because Sega didn't really value 3rd parties at the time.

This book about the creation of the PlayStation, which I own but hadn't read in forever until forum member Folco mentioned it recently, talks about this in a bit more detail.

Basically, Sega was focused on using their consoles to promote their own games. 3rd parties were a necessary evil, in the sense that Sega needed them to expand the library of the console, but to do so meant introducing competition for their own games. So while they did want 3rd parties, they put the development of their own games ahead. Hence they didn't make development tools until much later.

Sony, on the other hand, didn't make any games for the PS1 from the start. Instead, they focused entirely on the 3rd parties. They worked very closely with Namco from the middle of 1993 (!) to create and improve the PlayStation SDK (the president of Namco said that they provided so much feedback to Sony that they were basically a 2nd party). They also went to companies such as Konami and actually involved them in the hardware development process (according to the book, Sony got feedback from Konami on what hardware and type of controller they would need and such).

Sony even had a verbal commitment from Square and Enix in 1993 to publish games on the PlayStation if Sony could sell 3 million consoles. That was huge.

[MushaAleste]

So if SEGA took a 100$ USD hit per sold saturn console, what about the JVC and Hitachi variants? Did those companies make minus too?

[zyrobs]

So if SEGA took a 100$ USD hit per sold saturn console, what about the JVC and Hitachi variants? Did those companies make minus too?

They were stock units, only the top of the case had a custom colour + logo, so it is fair to assume that they took the exact same amount to manufacture. The Hitachi probably cost more since it came bundled with the MPEG card.

But we don't know exactly who took the cost and in what way, especially since those companies were involved with manufacturing the hardware.

[Blades]

This book about the creation of the PlayStation, which I own but hadn't read in forever until forum member Folco mentioned it recently, talks about this in a bit more detail.

Just picked up this book. Thanks for the recommendation! It's very interesting.

[Team Andromeda]

They were stock units, only the top of the case had a custom colour + logo, so it is fair to assume that they took the exact same amount to manufacture..

I'm not so sure, At a guess I would imagine Hitachi using its own manufacture plants to save on costs and the like. Its also thanks to the likes of JVC and Hitachi SEGA got such good sales in Japan, SEGA was also able to use Hitachi and JVC retails supply networks to get Saturn into to more shops and break Nintendo hold over Japan. Very much like how SEGA America had to fight Nintendo grip on the retail network in America

[zyrobs]

Hi-Saturns and V-Saturns were assembled by the same manufacturers as stock units were (Seiyo Denshi, Tokai Denshi, Asahi Electron). The only special thing about them is the boot rom and the custom finish, and the fact they came bundled with MPEG cards.
IIRC the Hi-Saturn was sold as a high-end multimedia device, not simply game consoles, probably because of the MPEG card bundle.

I don't know how much their retail supply network helped, but keep in mind that they didn't make many of those units. V-Saturn comes out to 320k or so, Hi-Saturns to less than 40k (including less than 2000 Navi units).

[Team Andromeda]

I don't know how much their retail supply network helped, but keep in mind that they didn't make many of those units. V-Saturn comes out to 320k or so, Hi-Saturns to less than 40k (including less than 2000 Navi units).

Hitachi didn't just use its supply network for its own branded Saturns, but also to sell SEGA's. In a intreview SEGA Japan said it was able to use Hitachi's then 700 odd supply outlets, which helped get the Saturn to more stores that wouldn't have been possible without the partnership.

[Folco]

The SH3 wasn't released until around 1997, and as zyrobs said, without Sega's initial interest in adopting the SH, there likely never would have been an SH3. See:

http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthr...he-Sega-Saturn

I can't see how a delay of any sort would have benefited Sega. It would only have made the problem of Sony gobbling up all the 3rd parties even worse.

In my opinion, it was "game over" for Sega as soon as Sony entered the market. Sony's business strategy as outlined by Sato and talked about elsewhere was the real damning factor. Sega was never invested in 3rd parties the way Sony was, because Sega wanted to limit competition on its own platform. Even after Sega created basic development tools for the Saturn (I believe based off of Virtua Fighter tools), they kept them internal. As Sato says, Sega tried to do it all on its own (see the development of Panzer Dragoon Saga as an excellent allegory for Sega's unsuccessful attempts to do everything itself). But they didn't have the money to pull it off, and that just wasn't a viable business plan anymore. Nintendo suffered a similar fate, although to a lesser extent. And I don't think this was an easily solvable problem for Sega. Given the option, there was no way in hell Namco wanted to appear on its primary competitor's platform (and Sega sure didn't want Namco stealing sales away).

Conversely, the Mega Drive/Genesis is essentially defined by its 1st and 2nd party titles (with notable exceptions, of course).

Sorry for the late bump, I've only read this thread now.
I want to comment your post because you correctly identified the difficult spot all the traditional console manufacturers were once Sony entered the market.
This is regardless of the mistakes Sega or Nintendo may have done.
Essentially Sega and Nintendo grew stronger on the power of their in-house software and their strategy was based on their software pushing the console and being the main selling game on the platform.
All their business model revolved around making sure it was their in-house software that had all the advantage compared to the comepting software from third-parties.
Sony though, since they didn't have any worthy in-house development team , changed the equation for winning the race from who have the stronger in-house software to who have the more software available therefore giving third-party software an unprecedented role.
Sony may have not have the same talented developers that were at Sega but why bother? They could just get a deal with Namco.
What Kutaragi knew is that Sony could have produced the better platform in term of perfomance/cost and that by making enticing to third-parties in a way no one tried before it would have been enough to defeat Nintendo through sheer quantity and variety (of course among many games there were also the good ones).

Nintendo was the only pure gaming company that survived Sony revolution because they had deeper pockets, were more cautious, and could rely on their first-party games that had far better sales than Sega games (Nintendo was the biggest publisher in the world and it is still among the biggest publishers in the world today).

It's because Sega didn't really value 3rd parties at the time.

This book about the creation of the PlayStation, which I own but hadn't read in forever until forum member Folco mentioned it recently, talks about this in a bit more detail.

Basically, Sega was focused on using their consoles to promote their own games. 3rd parties were a necessary evil, in the sense that Sega needed them to expand the library of the console, but to do so meant introducing competition for their own games. So while they did want 3rd parties, they put the development of their own games ahead. Hence they didn't make development tools until much later.

Sony, on the other hand, didn't make any games for the PS1 from the start. Instead, they focused entirely on the 3rd parties. They worked very closely with Namco from the middle of 1993 (!) to create and improve the PlayStation SDK (the president of Namco said that they provided so much feedback to Sony that they were basically a 2nd party). They also went to companies such as Konami and actually involved them in the hardware development process (according to the book, Sony got feedback from Konami on what hardware and type of controller they would need and such).

Sony even had a verbal commitment from Square and Enix in 1993 to publish games on the PlayStation if Sony could sell 3 million consoles. That was huge.

I (re)confirm that Revolutionaries at Sony is a book that should be read to understand why Sony was setup to dominate the console business with their first PlayStation despite being a new comer (a very resourceful one I add).
Nintendo and Sega own DNA that brought them to success, which was based on first-party games, was at the same time their strength and their weakness to hold the hegemony in the console market.
If you look at all the success stories Nintendo had afterward they were all achieved by being very "Nintendo" that is offering a unique selling point and then spread the console adoption with their own software.

Of course this works also in reverse that is Sony's DNA prevented them to understand and react when Nintendo changed the rules of competition with the PSP vs DS battle.
For Sony it was still matter of who offered the best tech and third-party would have surely followed since many of them were entrenched in the PS2 ecosystem.
Nintendo however designed the Nintendo DS to change the standard proposition, they though that by introducing new user interface that could lower the barrier to play games for less expert people they would open up a big new ocean of costumers (through software the used said new interfaces obviously, it's all about software and in Nintendo case it's all about first-party software).
Before the PSP and DS release everybody (even third-parties) heavily bet on a PSP victory but history proved that Nintendo was correct in their assumptions, just like history proved that Sony was correct in their assumptions with PS1.

[Leynos]

I don't have a link for this because the article I read is from a website that no longer exists but early DS dev kits were a 2D machine. Basically a GBA with a touchscreen and a SNES controller. I have not seen a picture of that kit since then in maybe 2004-05. Many 3rd party early DS games were basically GBA games with touch added. I believe it mentioned that DS late in development upped the specs to have the 3D capability in response to PSP. This isn't confirmed but in a strange turn of fate. N64 shit the bed going with the cartridge. PSP going disc hurt it. People always spread SEGA panicked last minute with Saturn adding more chips to make it 3D capable. So seemingly where Saturn/N64 went wrong and PS1 went right, DS did the same thing and it worked.


People/media also predicted PSVita would also beat out 3DS. Oh well, they didn't win in sales but they won me over. Much prefer PSP/Vita.

[Team Andromeda]

It wasn't the Saturn spec that was wrong that is just a rather lame excuse. The PS3 was a monster to code, its CPU was unlike anything around at the time and like the Saturn, it suffered from ports (unless it was the lead platform).
What killed the Saturn was the lack of a 3D Sonic game and the fact that SEGA saw fit to have its own rival with the 32X Vs the Saturn. A SEGA Just focused on one platform, would have done so much better and while it never would have beat SONY, it really could have outdone the N64 IMO.

[Folco]

I don't have a link for this because the article I read is from a website that no longer exists but early DS dev kits were a 2D machine. Basically a GBA with a touchscreen and a SNES controller. I have not seen a picture of that kit since then in maybe 2004-05. Many 3rd party early DS games were basically GBA games with touch added. I believe it mentioned that DS late in development upped the specs to have the 3D capability in response to PSP. This isn't confirmed but in a strange turn of fate. N64 shit the bed going with the cartridge. PSP going disc hurt it. People always spread SEGA panicked last minute with Saturn adding more chips to make it 3D capable. So seemingly where Saturn/N64 went wrong and PS1 went right, DS did the same thing and it worked.


People/media also predicted PSVita would also beat out 3DS. Oh well, they didn't win in sales but they won me over. Much prefer PSP/Vita.

You are thinking about Alpha Dream own devkit before they got the official DS devkit.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDexIhhXoAA4V1a.jpg

It doesn't prove that 3D graphics wasn't planned for DS (Mario & Luigi games on GBA and DS were all 2D).

N64 going with carts lost Nintendo a lot of third-party support but was also beneficial for Nintendo bottom line because without the CD subsystem the N64 was more cost effective.
https://i.imgur.com/QLBcV.jpg

"So seemingly where Saturn/N64 went wrong and PS1 went right, DS did the same thing and it worked."
That's because any analysis on the outcome between N64 vs PS1 and DS vs PDP that focus chiefly on optical medium/cart medium are wrong.

"People/media also predicted PSVita would also beat out 3DS."
Only who didn't know anything about the industry would have picked Vita over 3DS (as far as business success of course).
PSV, like WiiU, was dead on arrival,

[Leynos]

That's not the kit I saw. It was a circuit board with 2 screens and a SNES controller. I know N64 going cart lost them 3rd party support (why I specifically mentioned it) and only just now 22 years later are they are somewhat recovering. On forums (SEGA fan forums mainly) are the people I'm talking about thought Vita would succeed over 3DS. The bullet points were a better tech and even rumors it would be cheaper to develop for NGP than a PSP despite the horsepower difference. For a fleeting moment, NGP (Next Generation Portable was the codename) seemed like it had the tools to at the very least be a worthy successor to PSP. Beat out the 3DS? lol no but may be successful. PSVita died the moment we found out about the memory cards and the nail that sealed its fate was AT&T. They were booed at E3 on stage live.

I know about the medium...again why I said it. You are telling me nothing new.

As for media. May I point you to this little gem. https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/10...set-to-succeed

It's become a tradition every year for people to comment and rag on this idiotic article.

[Folco]

It wasn't the Saturn spec that was wrong that is just a rather lame excuse. The PS3 was a monster to code, its CPU was unlike anything around at the time and like the Saturn, it suffered from ports (unless it was the lead platform).
What killed the Saturn was the lack of a 3D Sonic game and the fact that SEGA saw fit to have its own rival with the 32X Vs the Saturn. A SEGA Just focused on one platform, would have done so much better and while it never would have beat SONY, it really could have outdone the N64 IMO.

To outdo the N64 without PS1 third-party support you would need to outdo Nintendo software sales.

I don't think Saturn hardware performance was the biggest problem for Sega, the big problem was that the hardware wasn't cost effective and when Sega tried to be competitive with Sony they end up losing a lot of money.
If Sega lost less money or even could squeeze out little profits, they would have had a better chance with the next hardware cycle.

Nintendo had it's fair share of dud consoles but always had the resources to subsequently releasing a smashing hit because they were always profitable or when they lost money (3DS/WiiU era), they steered the ship and got tidy profits awaiting for the next hardware cycle.