[Meat Miracle]

doc eggfan, on 06 May 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

It's probably been asked before, but was backwards compatability considered for the Saturn to allow it to play mega drive games (and potentially Mega CD and 32X games). I know much of the press at the time speculated that it would be possible through the cartridge slot on the Saturn, and Sega had provided backwards compatability is every previous intergenerational transition.

If backwards compatibility was ever considered, it was either before the hardware looked anything like the final version, or it was meant to be via add-on cards (which the Saturn WAS explicitly built for).

[drx]

ICEknight, on 06 May 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

drx, on 02 May 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

I posted an interview I conducted with Mr. Kalinske in 2011. Hope this helps with thinking up new questions for him.

drx, on 02 May 2014 - 11:52 AM, said:

The 2D Saturn Sonic project I mentioned -- I guess this is as good a time as any to mention this. What ended up as Knuckles Chaotix was at first a true Sonic 2D game (think Sonic 4) for the Sega Saturn. It was instead ported to the 32x and Sonic & Tails were cut and the rest is history. I know this from talking to people involved in Sonic Saturn / Chaotix developers.

I'd ask about anything he can remember about Sonic Crackers' evolution. He might not have been given much development info about it, but just in case, it would be nice to have any kind of information that could answer questions in the lines of these:

-Initial concepts, characters and target system
-Was it ever considered as a sequel to Sonic 3?
-Was Sonic Team ever involved with it?
-Was "Casablanca" the team's name? Or what was that?
-Title changes (was Sonic Studium the initial name project?)
-Why were Sonic and Tails removed from the game?
-Character evolution and changes (the palettes inside Crackers suggest that Knuckles and Vector were the other two initial characters, but they're nowhere inside the ROM. Perhaps they were compiled into a separate ROM without Sonic & Tails?)
-Why does the first 32X prototype of the game play such messy sounds (was it being programmed for a different hardware revision?)
-Did it end up being rushed? The first selectable level in the Training mode is completely empty, and there's many hints to unimplemented stuff in the unused graphics (Super Sonic, water levels?)
-What were those dizzy character animations and why were they removed? (did SEGA think that kids would say the characters were drunk or something?)


...And any details about the development hell that may have happened with this game, but nobody has ever dared to speak of.



EDIT: Also, any development problems Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles had.
Did development have to switch countries at one point?
Initial concepts and evolution of the lock-on idea
What was the idea with releasing S3&K in one cartridge, what was it really called, was it going to be a limited edition, original timing of the planned release, any exclusive differences compared to the two locked-on cartridges... anything about it.


EDIT 2: Also, was the music in the Mega Drive version of Sonic 3D made originally for an unreleased Sonic 4 or something? Seems odd to have such music made for a Traveller's Tales game. (Also, that unused Boss track later used in the real Sonic 4, but that might have just been Jun trolling)

I have some answers to your questions.

Cassablanca was a working title.

Sonic was removed because SOJ didn't believe either 32x or the game would succeed, partly because of the bonding mechanism. They made Knuckles the main character instead of cancelling the game altogether.

[Cooljerk]

drx, on 07 May 2014 - 01:37 AM, said:

Sonic was removed because SOJ didn't believe either 32x or the game would succeed, partly because of the bonding mechanism.

They were entirely correct.

[Meat Miracle]

Cooljerk, on 07 May 2014 - 04:49 PM, said:

drx, on 07 May 2014 - 01:37 AM, said:

Sonic was removed because SOJ didn't believe either 32x or the game would succeed, partly because of the bonding mechanism.

They were entirely correct.

Funny how they were forcing the machine forward though.
It's like they were actively trying to kill themselves for most of the 90s. By the time they got their shit together with the Dreamcast, it was too late.

[TheKazeblade]

Meat Miracle, on 07 May 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

Cooljerk, on 07 May 2014 - 04:49 PM, said:

drx, on 07 May 2014 - 01:37 AM, said:

Sonic was removed because SOJ didn't believe either 32x or the game would succeed, partly because of the bonding mechanism.

They were entirely correct.

Funny how they were forcing the machine forward though.
It's like they were actively trying to kill themselves for most of the 90s. By the time they got their shit together with the Dreamcast, it was too late.

Yeah. People heap unfair blame at Bernie Stolar, but considering the shipwreck he was given to work with, the fact that the Dreamcast turned out the way it did was pretty impressive. The real problems pre-dated him by years.

[Black Squirrel]

It can't really be simplified to "Sega killed itself" - the company shifted its focus from one market to another and the Japanese arm did rather well (particularly the arcade division). It was just the US branches that forgot how to function. And Bernie Stolar tops the clueless chart.

[Cooljerk]

The way Sega was working, they could have only been really successful if they were globally popular, all at the same time. At one period or another, Sega was really popular in every market... just never at the same time.

[TheKazeblade]

Black Squirrel, on 08 May 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

It can't really be simplified to "Sega killed itself" - the company shifted its focus from one market to another and the Japanese arm did rather well (particularly the arcade division). It was just the US branches that forgot how to function. And Bernie Stolar tops the clueless chart.

They didn't forget, they were effectively neutered when SoJ relegated Kalinski to a figurehead, which made him leave. If I remember right (please correct me if I'm wrong) wasn't the Saturn losing money with every console sold? Stolar killed it yes, but either way, Sega was dying. One could argue his 9.9.99 for $199 campaign was the biggest reasons for the DC's success in the west. He made terrible decisions too, of course, but I think he bears too much of the blame.

Kalinske's '06 interview makes me believe the real blame may lie with Hayao Nakayama.

[Black Squirrel]

The money's in software - hardware usually sells at a loss (unless you're Nintendo in the pre-Wii U days).

But ultimately I see most of Sega of America's problems being a home-grown thing. From simple things like the game boxes sucking, to long-term marketing tactics like openly claiming the Saturn to be a 3D powerhouse and dismissing RPGs on the grounds of them not being as popular as the latest throwaway sports title. But honestly this isn't really all that interesting because it's blindingly obvious what was done wrong.

More interesting is all these wacky console ideas like the Neptune and the Pluto and the big VR craze and the bazillion cancelled games, and what Sega of Japan's position on all this experimentation was. It's a hilarious mess.

[TheKazeblade]

Black Squirrel, on 08 May 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

The money's in software - hardware usually sells at a loss (unless you're Nintendo in the pre-Wii U days).

But ultimately I see most of Sega of America's problems being a home-grown thing. From simple things like the game boxes sucking, to long-term marketing tactics like openly claiming the Saturn to be a 3D powerhouse and dismissing RPGs on the grounds of them not being as popular as the latest throwaway sports title. But honestly this isn't really all that interesting because it's blindingly obvious what was done wrong.

More interesting is all these wacky console ideas like the Neptune and the Pluto and the big VR craze and the bazillion cancelled games, and what Sega of Japan's position on all this experimentation was. It's a hilarious mess.

Yeah, Neptune and Pluto are fascinating historically, no doubt.

But actually, Saturn was more powerful than most people give it credit for. It had the capability of being excellent for 3D, though its strength lay in enhanced 2D games. The issue was (as it was in the PS3 a decade later) is that it was confounding to program for with its dual CPU structure. The PS1 was much easier to program for, so obviously developers would gravitate towards it. I'm not very technically minded, nor can I say I know anything about the Saturn technology first-hand, but I've actually seen a lot of evidence that the Saturn actually was more powerful than the PS1. It all came down to ease of development (ironic that Playstation got it right the first time around just to make the same mistake as Sega in the PS3.)

It's hilarious to see how Sega actually shot themselves in the foot with the Saturn. Again, in Kalinske's '06 interview, he states that the chipset being developed in the US for the Saturn was deemed "Not good enough" for SoJ, but it ended up being implemented in the N64 instead. Nakayama must have been beating himself up over that decision.

SoA's policy regarding RPGs was more broad than that, the 5-Star Game policy applied to all Sega software, and the final say was made in SoJ. Stolar applied a no-RPG policy to Sony while he was there, but he never instigated that at Sega from what I can tell. Again, most of the blame for that is on SoJ.

This post has been edited by TheKazeblade: 08 May 2014 - 01:20 PM

[Meat Miracle]

Black Squirrel, on 08 May 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

The money's in software - hardware usually sells at a loss (unless you're Nintendo in the pre-Wii U days).

That's a chicken-and-the-egg situation.
If you don't have enough hardware sold, you won't have a userbase to sell software to.

No pain, no gain.

My impression was that SoJ didn't understand this properly, and that's why they disagreed with bundling Sonic (their best selling software) free with the console back in 1991. It's like they had absolutely no long-term plans, just a series of knee jerk reactions.

[Black Squirrel]

Meat Miracle, on 08 May 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

That's a chicken-and-the-egg situation.

Only if there are no games at launch - the first purchased game tends to bring the platform holder into the black, and attachment rates are usually more than one.

Marketing plays a bigger role these days and usually sucks out all the cash. Back then things were simpler, and I reckon Sega's mistakes stem entirely from their inability to sell things on a different merit than "we have the best specs". Saturn's not better because of its arcade quality games and backing of years of development experience... it's because it has THREE PROCESSORS and THREE DEE

[360]

So are we going to get confirmation of whether our questions will be included or not? It would be great if potentially Barry could write up a confirmed list of planned questions or something so we know beforehand which questions Tom's going to answer. Interested in listening to the podcast regardless.

This post has been edited by 360: 08 May 2014 - 03:04 PM

[Cooljerk]

Platform makers don't make money from software sold, that's not how it works. They make money on software developed, which is passed on to the customer at the end. Hardware makers are unconcerned with software sales beyond that software needs to sell in order for more people to develop for it (and thus hardware needs to sell to make software sell well enough to entice developers to develop for it).

This is a major reason why video games are priced the way they are - because a large deficit is built up during development through various licensing agreements. After deduction from all hands involved, on a $60 game, a publisher/developer sees an average of $7 at retail. Game prices can't drop too low below the standard MSRP because, after a certain point, people start being unable to recoup development costs entirely and lose money on the game. This is how a game like Tomb Raider can sell 5 million copies and still lose money.

The so-called money hat arrangements that consumers like to go on about? It's not actually cash for games, it's a massive reduction in licensing fees. So, where a normal developer might have to pay $10 million in development fees on a normal project, microsoft might "money hat" a developer by lowering the cost of fees to, say, $1 million instead.

The way you guys are talking about software generating revenue is actually much closer to how steam works - steam monetizes the sale of games, microsoft and sony and nintendo monetize the development of games.

[Barry the Nomad]

360, on 08 May 2014 - 03:04 PM, said:

So are we going to get confirmation of whether our questions will be included or not? It would be great if potentially Barry could write up a confirmed list of planned questions or something so we know beforehand which questions Tom's going to answer. Interested in listening to the podcast regardless.

Yeah, I'll go through here next week and post the list of questions I'll be asking.