Trelach24

I have no idea if they made other genre games because what I care about most is the sports games.

Yes, I know that NFK2K1 and NBA2K1 are fantastic games. But it wouldn't hurt if there were EA Sports games out there.

Just curious.

broadwayblue

why spend millions of dollars to develop games for a system that's being discontinued? they knew the dc was a failure and wisely stayed away.

CryForSurvival

They had exclusive contract with sony is why. Sony takes less royalties in turn for making games only for PS2

Spicollidriver1

I love how everyone keeps referring to the dreamcast asa failure. As someone who owns.owned just about every system I play my Dreamcast the most, and easily got my $200 out of it. Right now I consider my PS2 a failure although Star WArs, and ATV is changing my mind.

Deftones

actually that's not true. Back when Sega was coming up with the design for the Dreamcast they were very, very close to using a chipset from 3dfx. EA basically told them, use that chipset or you won't get any games from us. Well, Sega decided to use the NEC Power VR chipset instead, and EA has snubbed Sega ever since. This was one of the few reasons why Sega couldn't sell the some of the same numbers as the PSX.

Gallant Pig

So basically EA wanted a system they could dump PC ports, basically recycling the stuff they did in glide. What lazy bast@rds. Isn't it funny they wouldn't touch the DC which isn't difficult to program for, and they jumped ass first into the PS2, which makes programming a Super-Computer look like programming in QBasic.

Too bad they now have competition on every platform, Visual Concepts is gonna eat them alive.

Deftones

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!! It isn't really known why EA was so adamant about Sega using the 3dfx chips. EA didn't really have any kind of special marketing deal with 3dfx, so I would assume it was more for the ease of use.

As for the visual concepts, just wait until their football and basketball series hit the Xbox. Drool...........

Darknight

They jumped on the PS2 because Sony was the market leader and they knew the PS2 would fly off the shelves. Look at how big the installed base is of the PS2 already. There was no exclusive contract. It was simply Sega putting stake into who they felt would be the market leader.

broadwayblue

How can anyone call the DC a success? It has been discontinued after less then 1 1/2 years! The companies stock went up when they announced they were no longer making it. OK, so there are some very good games for it and a few more will be coming out. But for you to say it is a successful console is totally laughable. It may have been a great deal for you financially, but the bottom line is that the system was a failure. successful products are not discontinued by the manufacturer years ahead of schedule, plain and simple.

and about it being such a great deal financially, i disagree. so you paid $200 for a system that had a life span of just 2 years (i'm assuming that come september the last batch of good games will be coming out...2 years from the date of its release.) so that system ended up costing you $100 per year. Even if the ps2 were to be discontinued for the ps3 in the fall of 2003 it would have cost the same amount ($100) per year to own. And even though it's unlikely to be dead by then (the ps1 is still being produced 5 1/2 years after its launch) if it was there would still have been something like 4 or 5 times the amount of software available for it. So, once again, I ask you...how is the the DC a success and the ps2 a failure? You got it backwards!



[Edited by broadwayblue on 02-25-01 at 12:10 PM]

Gallant Pig

As a console, it is successful. If you judge consoles by how much money they make and marketshare they have, it isn't successful. If you judge consoles by how many cool games it has, and the quality of the games, it is very successful.

If you want to talk about how successful a PS2 is, call me back in 2 years. BTW, is a PS3 what the PS2 was supposed/promised to be? Afterall, Sony sh!t themselves when they saw how good the Dreamcast was so they basically rushed it out to market, half assing the hardware, specs, and launch games. Or was the gigantic shortage, lack of good games, and wimpier specs a good thing?

Spicollidriver1

Yeah a $100 a year, and I enjoyed it. Worth way more then $100 a year. No it is not a success, but it's not a useless system I don't feel cheated because I bought it. Like 32x,saturn,sega cd, jaguar,3do. See my point.

cloud

The 3DFX chip being one of the reasons for EA not developing for the Dreamcast may or may not be true. Another reason why they stayed away from the Dreamcast and I why it took them so long to develop for the N64 was financial viability, i.e. could they actually make enough money to justify it.

By the way it seems to me that most of the people who posted in this thread are not true gamers. If you are true gamers you would not be criticising the various systems or deeming any of them failures. The proof is in the pudding. Most people would agree that the Dreamcast has had the highest percentage of quality games of any platform. Unfortunately Sega did not stand a chance against Sony and would have a hard time competing against Microsoft which is a real shame.