The article describe it as if the design was surprising with how many chips there were etc, but it's important to understand the context : complete lack of synergy and "fight for dominance" between the Japan and USA team, SEGA JP was making a 2D console, SEGA US was making a 3D console, the JP team was about to win that fight and then the PSX appeared so they, essentially, merged the two together.
You end up with a 2D console with parts and bits of an unfinished 3D console inside it. It makes no sense.
For a tech enthousiast and someone who loves reading dev postmortem, it's glorious. For someone who likes a clean design, it's irksome to no ends. For mass gamers of that era, where the big thing was "arcade in your living room" it's a disapointement, and SEGA not knowing which side to focus on didn't help at all.
This is largely incorrect. The Saturn was entirely a Sega of Japan design. There's an interview (https://mdshock.com/2020/06/16/hideki-sato-discussing-the-se...) with the Saturn hardware designer that gives some perspective into why he chose to make the hardware the way he did. Basically, he knew that 3D was the future from the response the PSX was getting, but besides AM2 (the team at Sega that did 3D arcade games like Virtua Fighter, Daytona USA, etc), all of Sega's internal expertise was on traditional 2D sprite-based games. Because of this, he felt the best compromise was to make a console that excelled at 2D games and was workable at 3D games. I think his biggest mistake was that he underestimated how quickly the industry would switch to mainly focusing on 3D.
The actual result of Sega's infighting was far more stupid IMO. Sega of America wanted a more conservative design than the Saturn using a Motorola 68020 (successor to the 68000 in the Genesis) which would have lower performance, but developers would be more familiar with the hardware. After they lost this fight, they deemed the Saturn impossible to sell in the US due to its high price. SOA then designed the 32X, a $200 add-on to the Genesis that used the same SH2 processors as the Saturn but drew graphics entirely in software and overlayed them on top of the Genesis graphics. The initial plan was that the Saturn would remain exclusively in Japan for 2-3 years while the 32X would sell overseas. Sega of America spent a ton of money trying to build interest for the 32X and focused their internal development exclusively on the 32X. However, both developers and the media were completely uninterested in it compared to the Saturn. After it became evident that the 32X wouldn't hold the market, Sega of America rushed the Saturn to market to draw attention away from the 32X, but had to rely exclusively on Japanese titles (many of which didn't fit the American market) because they'd spent the past year developing 32X titles (the 32X had more cancelled games than released ones). All of this ended up confusing and pissing off developers and consumers.
I've looked into it, and from what I can tell, the "3D was added late to the Saturn design" narrative is flawed.
It's commonly cited that VDP2 was added later to give it 3D support. But VDP2 doesn't do 3D at all, it's responsible for the SNES "mode 7" style background layers. If you remove VDP2 (and ignore the fact that VDP is responsible for video scanout) then the resulting console can still do both 3D just fine (Many 3D games leave VDP2 almost completely unused). 2D game would take a bit of a quality hit as they would have to render the background with hundreds of sprites.
If you instead removed VDP1, then all you have left are VDP2's 2D background layers. You don't have 3D and you can't put any sprites on the screen so it's basically useless at 2D games too.
As far as I can tell, the Saturn was always meant to have both VDP1 and VDP2. They were designed together to work in tandem. And I think the intention (from SEGA JP) was always for the design be a 2D powerhouse with some limited 3D capabilities, as we saw on the final design.
I'm not saying there wasn't arguments between SEGA JP and SEGA US. There seems to be plenty of evidence of that. But I don't think they munged the JP and US designs together at the last moment. And the PSX can't have had any influence on the argument, as the Saturn beat the PSX to market in Japan by 12 days.
If you check the other articles about the PlayStation [1] and the Nintendo 64 [2], you'll see that the design of a 3D-capable console in the 90s was a significant challenge for every company. Thus, each one proposed a different solution (with different pros and cons), yet all very interesting to analyse and compare. That's the reason this article was written.
The latest episode of the excellent video game history podcast They Create Worlds (https://www.theycreateworlds.com/listen) does a good job debunking some of these myths.
Is this the PSX[0] you're referring to? I had no idea this existed, or what impact it had on gaming consoles.
Edit (answered): "Why is PlayStation called PSX? Wishing to distance the project from the failed enterprise with Nintendo, Sony initially branded the PlayStation the "PlayStation X" (PSX)."
The Sega Saturn had a pretty complicated hardware architecture. I can understand that scaling out the game "work" into multiple CPUs and dedicated processors makes sense from a cost-benefit perspective, but I'm sure this contributed to the Saturn's relatively poor sales.
Many people said that ultimately it was hard for companies to justify the investment in learning it all to make games that fully utilize the hardware. Somehow this reminds me of Sid Meier's saying that the player must have fun, not the game developer - and in this case, perhaps the hardware designers were having too much fun!
Growing up in the 90s, it was bizarre to witness the downfall of Sega. Here the Mega Drive (Genesis) was almost as successful as the SNES. Everyone either had a Mega Drive or played it regularly with friends. It was a very popular piece of hardware.
Then the generation after everyone had a Playstation, and I knew of only one kid who ended up with the Saturn. It's so strange considering that the Saturn was released several months ahead of the Playstation here.
I dont't know if it was due to the Saturn being seen as the inferior option at the time, pricing, availability or some other factor, but the Playstation absolutely killed it. After that Sega was gone.
> I can understand that scaling out the game "work" into multiple CPUs and dedicated processors makes sense from a cost-benefit perspective
IIRC it was not that, the Saturn was the most expensive to manufacture of the big three, and the need to price match the PS made it a financial disaster for Sega.
> Consequently, the VDP1 is designed to use quadrilaterals as primitives, which means that it can only compose models using 4-vertex polygons (sprites).
This gave the 3D Sega Saturn games a more boxy look than PS1 counterparts. Comparing Resident Evil on Saturn and PS1 is a good side by side to see the difference. The overall result is that Sega Saturn games have a unique aesthetic in 90s 3D gaming.
It's also worth highlighting that the Sega Saturn's emulation is far behind other platforms. Perhaps it's the lack of success in the west, paired with the complex architecture.
Best alternative to emulation, im not sure where FGPA is but it gives me a peace of mind to just mod the console to support SD cards filled with every single game released for that console, picking up the original game from ebay if I really like the title and show support
Its such a hassle to take out the CD from its plastic casing with rubber gloves to preserve value and put it back in each time but you don't want to trade original game experience with emulation
The Sega Saturn had quite a few gems (e.g. Panzer Dragoon Saga, Shining Force III, Burning Rangers, Dragon Force I & II, …) that were never ported or re-made afaiu.
I assume the complexity of the platform contributed to games being rarely ported off of it. In fact, the only games I know to exist on it and other platforms, are ports to the Saturn, never the other way around, although maybe someone can correct me.
From what I understand, emulating the platform is still tricky to this day, although there have been some significant advances in the last 10 years.
I love Copetti's work (and have previously used it with citation), but it always feels too high-level. But since I know how much work it is to write those, it always feels unfair to ask for more. Anyway, thank you Rodrigo if you're reading this !
In the end, PR and Sony's pockets beat SEGA. That's really it. SEGA had many self-inflicted wounds for sure.
Games: what games set the world on fire on PSX, really? Resident Evil in '96 and FFVII in' 97? And the Saturn had killer games esp in '96. So it's def not the library IMO.
Hard to code for: devs had no problem dealing with the Playstation 2 a gen later, and the DC was easy to utilize but everyone dropped it when SEGA discontinued it, even tho the user base was good (in the USA at least, not sure about EUR).
Consumer good will toward SEGA: yeah, but look at reliability issues with Sony and MS systems. They were pretty bad, esp with the 360, but these didn't hurt their console long-term health at all.
The SEGA CD was not a flop in the States at least. It was always a high-end, kind-of-unnecessary cool product with some great games, but no killer app. It was successful for SEGA. (The 32x WAS a huge eff up tho for everyone involved. But I don't think on a mass-consumer level it's brief existence single-handedly crippled the Saturn).
People will buy anything that's marketed well in the States (can't speak for EUR). The Saturn was marketed like CRAP in the US. SEGA had its head up its ass and threw out all that made the Gen more successful than the SNES.
We can talk tech and minor details about what worked and didn't work for the consoles, but it's really just marketing and no good Sonic at launch (or ever) that doomed it.
It's fair to say that the consensus is that the PSX had a superior library to the Sega Saturn, particularly in the US. 1997 was a banger of a year - FF7, FF Tactics, Tekken 3, Symphony of the Night, etc.
Nice analysis! I still have an original Sega Saturn I’ve owned since 1996 that I fire up occasionally for a nostalgia bomb. The thing still runs perfectly, same as the day I unboxed it! They may have ended up with quite a complex hardware architecture, but you’ve gotta love the reliability of the older consoles. The same cannot be said of the more modern consoles I’ve had over the years - burning themselves up or failing in other ways.
It's not just old consoles that are reliable, it was SEGA (and Nintendo). When Sony and MS rolled in their consoles are ready cut corners in reliability, and here we are today. PSX and Playstation 2 disc-read errors are extremely common and crippling, even back then. But by the time people noticed they already owned a bunch of games and would just buy a new console lol.
Speaking of awkward Sega architecture, MattKC recently did a video[1] on his second channel about the 32X, which if you don't know was a weird module that slotted into the cartridge slot of the Genesis to enable it to play a separate lineup 32-bit games.
Since it was essentially 2 consoles working in tandem, it was another situation where you had 2 CPUs working together to pump out a video image. He tried to wire up his own video cables and found you could cut out the video signal from one machine and only get the output rendered from the other. The 32X itself would pump out 3D rendering while the Genesis would supply 2D graphics for e.g. menus, HUD, sprites, etc.
The thing had two custom RISC chips which could be used as CPU (one with additional GPU capabilities and the other with DSP) plus a 68000 devs were not supposed to use.
[+] [-] nolok|2 years ago|reply
You end up with a 2D console with parts and bits of an unfinished 3D console inside it. It makes no sense.
For a tech enthousiast and someone who loves reading dev postmortem, it's glorious. For someone who likes a clean design, it's irksome to no ends. For mass gamers of that era, where the big thing was "arcade in your living room" it's a disapointement, and SEGA not knowing which side to focus on didn't help at all.
The wikipedia article has a lot more details [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Saturn
[+] [-] ndiddy|2 years ago|reply
The actual result of Sega's infighting was far more stupid IMO. Sega of America wanted a more conservative design than the Saturn using a Motorola 68020 (successor to the 68000 in the Genesis) which would have lower performance, but developers would be more familiar with the hardware. After they lost this fight, they deemed the Saturn impossible to sell in the US due to its high price. SOA then designed the 32X, a $200 add-on to the Genesis that used the same SH2 processors as the Saturn but drew graphics entirely in software and overlayed them on top of the Genesis graphics. The initial plan was that the Saturn would remain exclusively in Japan for 2-3 years while the 32X would sell overseas. Sega of America spent a ton of money trying to build interest for the 32X and focused their internal development exclusively on the 32X. However, both developers and the media were completely uninterested in it compared to the Saturn. After it became evident that the 32X wouldn't hold the market, Sega of America rushed the Saturn to market to draw attention away from the 32X, but had to rely exclusively on Japanese titles (many of which didn't fit the American market) because they'd spent the past year developing 32X titles (the 32X had more cancelled games than released ones). All of this ended up confusing and pissing off developers and consumers.
[+] [-] phire|2 years ago|reply
It's commonly cited that VDP2 was added later to give it 3D support. But VDP2 doesn't do 3D at all, it's responsible for the SNES "mode 7" style background layers. If you remove VDP2 (and ignore the fact that VDP is responsible for video scanout) then the resulting console can still do both 3D just fine (Many 3D games leave VDP2 almost completely unused). 2D game would take a bit of a quality hit as they would have to render the background with hundreds of sprites.
If you instead removed VDP1, then all you have left are VDP2's 2D background layers. You don't have 3D and you can't put any sprites on the screen so it's basically useless at 2D games too.
As far as I can tell, the Saturn was always meant to have both VDP1 and VDP2. They were designed together to work in tandem. And I think the intention (from SEGA JP) was always for the design be a 2D powerhouse with some limited 3D capabilities, as we saw on the final design.
I'm not saying there wasn't arguments between SEGA JP and SEGA US. There seems to be plenty of evidence of that. But I don't think they munged the JP and US designs together at the last moment. And the PSX can't have had any influence on the argument, as the Saturn beat the PSX to market in Japan by 12 days.
[+] [-] flipacholas|2 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles/playstation/
[2] https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles/nintendo-64/
[+] [-] dymax78|2 years ago|reply
One exception to this is the shmup genre. The Saturn was inundated with Japanese Shmups and many are perfect (or near perfect) arcade ports.
[+] [-] gxqoz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karmakaze|2 years ago|reply
Edit (answered): "Why is PlayStation called PSX? Wishing to distance the project from the failed enterprise with Nintendo, Sony initially branded the PlayStation the "PlayStation X" (PSX)."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSX_(digital_video_recorder)
[+] [-] glimshe|2 years ago|reply
Many people said that ultimately it was hard for companies to justify the investment in learning it all to make games that fully utilize the hardware. Somehow this reminds me of Sid Meier's saying that the player must have fun, not the game developer - and in this case, perhaps the hardware designers were having too much fun!
[+] [-] ZaoLahma|2 years ago|reply
Then the generation after everyone had a Playstation, and I knew of only one kid who ended up with the Saturn. It's so strange considering that the Saturn was released several months ahead of the Playstation here.
I dont't know if it was due to the Saturn being seen as the inferior option at the time, pricing, availability or some other factor, but the Playstation absolutely killed it. After that Sega was gone.
[+] [-] masklinn|2 years ago|reply
IIRC it was not that, the Saturn was the most expensive to manufacture of the big three, and the need to price match the PS made it a financial disaster for Sega.
[+] [-] gamepsys|2 years ago|reply
This gave the 3D Sega Saturn games a more boxy look than PS1 counterparts. Comparing Resident Evil on Saturn and PS1 is a good side by side to see the difference. The overall result is that Sega Saturn games have a unique aesthetic in 90s 3D gaming.
It's also worth highlighting that the Sega Saturn's emulation is far behind other platforms. Perhaps it's the lack of success in the west, paired with the complex architecture.
[+] [-] wk_end|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spxneo|2 years ago|reply
Its such a hassle to take out the CD from its plastic casing with rubber gloves to preserve value and put it back in each time but you don't want to trade original game experience with emulation
[+] [-] tosh|2 years ago|reply
edit: oh, and of course Saturn Bomberman
[+] [-] flykespice|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thevagrant|2 years ago|reply
Saturn and following on, the Dreamcast were quite good and deserved more success.
[+] [-] SuperNinKenDo|2 years ago|reply
From what I understand, emulating the platform is still tricky to this day, although there have been some significant advances in the last 10 years.
[+] [-] PUSH_AX|2 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOyfZex7B3E
[+] [-] itomato|2 years ago|reply
Some of the same OEMs and publishers made it through until today.
I’d like to see an infographic and may be so motivated that I make one.
[+] [-] Aissen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ghaleon|2 years ago|reply
Games: what games set the world on fire on PSX, really? Resident Evil in '96 and FFVII in' 97? And the Saturn had killer games esp in '96. So it's def not the library IMO.
Hard to code for: devs had no problem dealing with the Playstation 2 a gen later, and the DC was easy to utilize but everyone dropped it when SEGA discontinued it, even tho the user base was good (in the USA at least, not sure about EUR).
Consumer good will toward SEGA: yeah, but look at reliability issues with Sony and MS systems. They were pretty bad, esp with the 360, but these didn't hurt their console long-term health at all.
The SEGA CD was not a flop in the States at least. It was always a high-end, kind-of-unnecessary cool product with some great games, but no killer app. It was successful for SEGA. (The 32x WAS a huge eff up tho for everyone involved. But I don't think on a mass-consumer level it's brief existence single-handedly crippled the Saturn).
People will buy anything that's marketed well in the States (can't speak for EUR). The Saturn was marketed like CRAP in the US. SEGA had its head up its ass and threw out all that made the Gen more successful than the SNES.
We can talk tech and minor details about what worked and didn't work for the consoles, but it's really just marketing and no good Sonic at launch (or ever) that doomed it.
[+] [-] lizardking|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thearrow|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ghaleon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hbn|2 years ago|reply
Since it was essentially 2 consoles working in tandem, it was another situation where you had 2 CPUs working together to pump out a video image. He tried to wire up his own video cables and found you could cut out the video signal from one machine and only get the output rendered from the other. The 32X itself would pump out 3D rendering while the Genesis would supply 2D graphics for e.g. menus, HUD, sprites, etc.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl9fjoolS2s
[+] [-] donatj|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flykespice|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] busfahrer|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cubefox|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] masklinn|2 years ago|reply
The thing had two custom RISC chips which could be used as CPU (one with additional GPU capabilities and the other with DSP) plus a 68000 devs were not supposed to use.
[+] [-] pjmlp|2 years ago|reply