My analysis of Saturn's failure
- Thread starter Geometric-Crusher
- Start date
RetroGamingUK
Member
1. Focus on 3D from the beginning
2. Better dev tools a year before launch
3. Call it UltraDrive instead of Saturn
4. Change the Japanese controller design to include handles, use that worldwide
5. Sonic Team to focus on Sonic first. Sonic Jam/World at launch, proper Sonic 3D by Xmas 96, save NiGHTS for a bigger audience in 1998
6. No shitty cardboard boxes in PAL regions, DVD style from day 1
7. Big new franchise that appeals to global 20 something audience similar to WipEout
8. Offer both the black western design and grey Japanese design globally, the latter will suit more modern TV styles
9. More console exclusive content/features in arcade ports (eg: a couple more cars/tracks in Sega Rally)
10. 32X, just no
Last edited:
Signalis
Member
Saturn didn't have enough bussy back in the day. That caused it's failure
Team Andromeda
Member
I'm so glad I bought the Saturn then and not the She/her trans PS1.
RetroAV
Member
The way Sega could have saved the Saturn would've been to fully commit to 3D from the start. Instead, Sega seemed intent on easing developers into 3D since most were still accustomed to working in 2D—meaning they could pump out Saturn software faster. On top of that, Sega didn't want to devalue their arcade business by bringing near-arcade-perfect games to consoles too quickly.
The problem was that Sony completely changed the game. The PS1 had both the specs and the developer-friendly tools to make 3D the clear standard, and suddenly Sega was scrambling to catch up with hardware not truly designed to excel in that space. The Saturn might have thrived as a "super-scaler" machine for System 32–style games, but once Sony set the bar for 3D, that vision was outdated overnight.
If it were up to me, the first move would've been to delay the Saturn and rework it into a more capable 3D competitor, while assigning a smaller team to maintain the 32X as a temporary stopgap. Realistically, I doubt anything Sega could've done would've flipped the outcome entirely—Sony was too smart in prioritizing the right development tools alongside their hardware, something Sega wasn't in a position to match. But at the very least, Sega could have made things more competitive. In the end, their fear of cannibalizing arcade profits by making the Saturn too powerful is what cost them the generation.
The problem was that Sony completely changed the game. The PS1 had both the specs and the developer-friendly tools to make 3D the clear standard, and suddenly Sega was scrambling to catch up with hardware not truly designed to excel in that space. The Saturn might have thrived as a "super-scaler" machine for System 32–style games, but once Sony set the bar for 3D, that vision was outdated overnight.
If it were up to me, the first move would've been to delay the Saturn and rework it into a more capable 3D competitor, while assigning a smaller team to maintain the 32X as a temporary stopgap. Realistically, I doubt anything Sega could've done would've flipped the outcome entirely—Sony was too smart in prioritizing the right development tools alongside their hardware, something Sega wasn't in a position to match. But at the very least, Sega could have made things more competitive. In the end, their fear of cannibalizing arcade profits by making the Saturn too powerful is what cost them the generation.
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
The problem with this "3D from the beginning" theory is that the Saturn has been 3D from the beginning. Yes, there was something 2D until early 1993, but that wasn't the Saturn ,again that wasn't the Saturn. The Saturn is what it is, and the marketing campaign determines what the product is, and the marketing of both the Saturn and the 32X was 3D again 3D. Sega should have just made clone games of Guardian Heroes at some point these games would burst the bubble but they chose to make 3D games, this was a fatal mistake because with each new 3D game, it was like a free marketing campaign for the PS1, it tacitly positioned itself as a second-class PS1. When competing against more powerful hardware, the fight needs to be asymmetrical; they needed to insist on the massive production of non-3D games. Because making 3D was like going to fight on terrain that favors the enemy.
RAIDEN1
Member
The other thing being, I think instead of the 32x, Sega should have made the cartridge slot at the back of the console compatible with Genesis games, that would have been the better "bridge" to 32 bit gaming, than the 32x ever was or could have been....if they could do it with the Genesis and Master System, then why not for the Saturn.....
RetroGamingUK
Member
I remember mates asking me if the cartridge slot played MegaDrive games back in the day and I think I just lied and said "yeah, think it does".
If it could have doubled up as a Memory Card & MegaDrive cartridge slot with just a small extra cost I say do it!
People would have traded their existing MegaDrives to cover cost.
RetroGamingUK
Member
Yup, Saturn was always going to have the dual VDP set up.
In hindsight they should have designed it for polygons as per PlayStation, N64 and PC.
RetroAV
Member
Sony's rise wasn't inevitable—it was accelerated by Saturn stumbling out of the gate. Remember, in '94/'95 Sony had zero track record in gaming, while Sega was coming off the Genesis, one of the most successful systems of its era. Consumers trusted Sega. If Saturn hadn't been rushed and underpowered, people wouldn't have jumped to PlayStation nearly as quickly.
It's like the Dreamcast vs. PS2 years later—people looked at what Sony had and said, "if this looks good now, imagine what PS2 is going to be like." Back in the mid-'90s, the same logic would've worked in Sega's favor: "if PS1 looks this good, imagine what Saturn is going to be like." Without Saturn's weak launch as a direct comparison, Sony doesn't get that instant credibility.
Sure, Sony still had killer third-party support, and that would've mattered in the long run. But the speed of their rise? That was fueled almost entirely by Sega giving them an easy win.
It's like the Dreamcast vs. PS2 years later—people looked at what Sony had and said, "if this looks good now, imagine what PS2 is going to be like." Back in the mid-'90s, the same logic would've worked in Sega's favor: "if PS1 looks this good, imagine what Saturn is going to be like." Without Saturn's weak launch as a direct comparison, Sony doesn't get that instant credibility.
Sure, Sony still had killer third-party support, and that would've mattered in the long run. But the speed of their rise? That was fueled almost entirely by Sega giving them an easy win.
nkarafo
Member
Yeah but Sony targeted the casuals and non-gamers, which was a much more massive crowd compared to dedicated gamers.
Saturn failing only made Sony's already massive base a little bit bigger but it's not like it made any big difference. But even if every single Sega Genesis owner bought a Saturn, it would still only sell 3x as much as it already did worldwide (30 million instead of only 9 million) which would only help the Saturn compete with the N64 for the distant second place.
cireza
Member
For the same reason Wii U is BC with Wii and GC, but Switch is not BC with Wii U.
Saturn was already complicated enough it didn't need to include the MD VDP and the MS Z80 on top of everything else.
Last edited:
RAIDEN1
Member
Yeah but the conditions were there ripe for them. a Saturn that was a haphazard design, a Nintendo stuck in 2nd gear with Ultra 64....3DO throwing in the towel....so it is little wonder that all Sony had to do was avoid what Sega is doing..
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Lots of mistakes. The only things it did well were if youre a big fan of Sega arcade ports and JRPGs (minus FF). And if youre a huge fan of black coloured systems so it blends in with your TV and stereo.
High price, blacklisted by some stores for releasing early at other stores without telling them, lots of bad games (esp sports), laughably bad 3D/transparency effects/CGI quality, lots of missing big third party support and IPs. Internal memory system worse than cheap mem cards. Even the gamepad in the US stunk. And the system itself was giant like double the size of PS1.
High price, blacklisted by some stores for releasing early at other stores without telling them, lots of bad games (esp sports), laughably bad 3D/transparency effects/CGI quality, lots of missing big third party support and IPs. Internal memory system worse than cheap mem cards. Even the gamepad in the US stunk. And the system itself was giant like double the size of PS1.
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
It doesn't work that way, comrade. If the PS1 hadn't performed well, Sony would never have increased subsequent investments . The other user is right, Sega had the advantage of having IPs recognized throughout the west, but Sega made the conscious decision to ignore them all and create new games without charisma. Sega consciously decided to give up that advantage. That's why I insist that the intellectual capabilities of Sega's teams were limited, note that only 5 PS1 games were decisive, 5 games! Sega produced 17 games in the period but 5 was enough.
Last edited:
RetroAV
Member
Sony didn't have a "massive base" at launch—they started from zero. What gave them their foothold was Sega fumbling the Saturn. Sega already proved with the Genesis that targeting casuals and non-gamers worked, Sony just pushed it harder with the PlayStation. And without Sega dropping the ball, Sony's rise would've been slower. Their "massive base" was built on Sega's mistakes.
Physiognomonics
Member
Back then the SONY brand was well established and very liked by the general public with its high quality electronic products.
For many it was a no-brainer to buy a Sony gaming product.
For many it was a no-brainer to buy a Sony gaming product.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Problem with Sega is most of their arcade ports were literally barebones. Great if someone wanted that. But at that time I think most gamers wanted more meat and potatoes in their games.
At the time, their biggest games were VF and Sonic. They messed up Sonic on Saturn and VF is the most boring fighting game out there. That's why it sells poorly and Sega barely even makes them anymore. Tekken is a million times better. Looks better, sounds better, more characters and variety and way more move sets. You get bone crunching hits in Tekken. VF is two fighters tapping each other.
At that time of fighting games being huge, VF games had the tech. All they had to do is make VF more exciting. But it's like they made it as boring as possible with hardly any characters and moves. Which is the opposite of what fighting games should be. Fighting games are similar to sports games. You want more variety, players, teams etc... VF is like a sports game purposely making it only a 10 team league. Gamers will move on to better games with all 30 teams.
Last edited:
Parazels
Member
I wonder how the modern audience would perceive an Apple console.
Last edited:
th4tguy
Gold Member
Sales for Saturn were pretty in line with psx the first two years. Really dropped off a cliff after that.
Few things Sega needed to do to have the system do better.
1: prioritized sdk and documentation/ best practices for developing on the system. Share tech with partners. In English
2: give away dev kits cheap and buy into 3rd party support. Marketing deals. Exclusive deals. Funding ports.
3: 3d sonic wasn't working. Not with that gen. Too slow and limited with what could be displayed.
They should have done a 2d/3d hybrid sonic game and leaned into fast, tight gameplay, with as flashy effects as they could muster.
4: stop relying on arcade ports. With expanded storage of cd, psx was getting tons of exciting, longer, story driven games with nice pre-rendered backgrounds. We hardly got any of that on Saturn.
Segas biggest failure with Saturn was simply it being so competitive with its own self. They rushed release. Didn't have a good sdk ready. Wouldn't share any development tech, even among themselves so no one took full advantage of the system.
It was almost like they DIDNT want others to develop for the system.
Parazels
Member
They should have adopted pseudo 3D graphics from games like Doom.
Generally speaking, I'm surprised the technology wasn't used outside of first person shooters.