The Xbox and the Dreamcast

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sega-dreamcast (More info?)

The Xbox has been called the "spiritual successor to the Dreamcast." Is
this true? I mean, what's up with that statement?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sega-dreamcast (More info?)

I have been told that Xbox was originally going to be backwards compatible with
Dreamcast games, but that feature was scrapped. Xbox also has some
similarities with Dreamcast in the controller layout (A-B-X-Y), particularly
since the Controller S became standard. Xbox and Dreamcast also put a big
emphasis on online play right from the get-go, whereas it initially wasn't a
selling point for Sony and still isn't for Nintendo.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sega-dreamcast (More info?)

> I have been told that Xbox was originally going to be backwards compatible
with
> Dreamcast games, but that feature was scrapped. Xbox also has some
> similarities with Dreamcast in the controller layout (A-B-X-Y),
particularly
> since the Controller S became standard. Xbox and Dreamcast also put a big
> emphasis on online play right from the get-go, whereas it initially wasn't
a
> selling point for Sony and still isn't for Nintendo.

Xbox compatible with dreamcast? That's the first time I've heard that
rumour....
Anyway, for me it's not so much the button layout or the online strategy,
it's about the way the games feel on the xbox. You'll be playing a game and
it just feels somehow wonderfully Sega-ish. Obviously, this feeling applies
to any Sega game, especially ones that had prequels available for the DC,
but you'll get it at odd moments. Just a little flash of a feeling you had
when you were playing on the DC. It's really, Really hard to explain, you
just experience it. I'm rambling now but I can probably best sum it up for
me when after a prolonged gaming session that left me feeling really good, I
looked down at the console and expected to see my DC but I was playing on my
xbox. Just kinda felt like a torch had been passed.....

Lord Deckard

PS. I still REALLY love my DC and currently own 3 and I think BoR is one of
the best things anyone has ever made )

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sega-dreamcast (More info?)

On the more tech side, XB and DC are alike in the fact that non-standard
discs make the games harder to crack. I tried putting an XBOX DVD in the
DVD-ROM drive of my PC. The PC acknowleged <-(SP?) that a DVD was inserted,
but to the PC, it the DVD appeared to be blank, execept for one tiny VOB
file that *will* play if the disc is inserted into a set-top / table-top DVD
player.

The DC discs had a distinctive split in them. Towards the inside was a
low-density side that could be read by a PC. Towards the outside edge was a
high-density sector that held 1GB . Hence, the name GD-ROM. Blank GD-ROM's
for the devlopers kit, were available. But you had to be a licensed
devloper. My understanding was that the GD-ROM burners, were very slow, it
took 1 hour to burn a full disc.

The way you crack the DC discs is with the BBA and homebrew software that
makes the DC act like an FTP client. Once you had the files from the DC
disc, you compacted the game to fit on normal CD-ROM's by removing FMV
sequences or putting the game data in compressed files.

Hope this helps,
"The Colonel"
New York

"Luke Sineath" <l.v.sineath45688@att.net> wrote in message
news:W0Osc.27574$fF3.706255@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> The Xbox has been called the "spiritual successor to the Dreamcast." Is
> this true? I mean, what's up with that statement?
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sega-dreamcast (More info?)

On Tue, 25 May 2004 20:29:42 GMT, "Luke Sineath"
<l.v.sineath45688@att.net> wrote:

>The Xbox has been called the "spiritual successor to the Dreamcast." Is
>this true? I mean, what's up with that statement?

There is few reasons for that..

When Sega pulled plug out of DC first bunch of new sega games were
primary made for xbox. At a same time some DC non-sega games were
ported or got new editions on xbox. One of those games was PGR which
was and still is one of brightest xbox exclusives.

And given that in that point in time DC fanboys didn't like PS2 they
were more "comfortable" with sega on xbox, than sega on ps2. So they
grabbed xbox instead ps2.

There are some hardware similarities like design of controller. Xbox's
controller is just improved DC pad and I like it.

However lot of things has changed..

Now most of SEGA games is PS2 based, while xbox gets some sega
multiplatform titles and few chichiro games.

Xbox is not hip console like DC was. DC had lots of very unique titles
while most of time Xbox feels mainstream just like PS2, although it
has JSRF which rocks..

I still hope that Shemue 3 will come out. On xbox.
However I am afraid that this SammySega merge will create EA Zwei and
we shall never see again some SegaUnique titles (think REZ, PD, JSR,
Shenmue) which were strongest point of DC..

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sega-dreamcast (More info?)

"Luke Sineath" <l.v.sineath45688@att.net> wrote in message
news:W0Osc.27574$fF3.706255@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> The Xbox has been called the "spiritual successor to the Dreamcast." Is
> this true? I mean, what's up with that statement?

It can't be proven "true" or "false"--it is just a statement of opinion.

As to why someone would call the Xbox the DC's spiritual successor, here are
my suggestions: The DC was compatible with Microsoft's Windows CE, and it
was easier to port PC titles to both the DC and the Xbox. The DC came with a
built-in modem, just as the Xbox has a built-in Ethernet connection. The
controllers for the Xbox and DC are similar--both have triggers, both have
red/yellow/green/blue buttons, both have an analog stick above a D-pad, and
both have a slot for a VMU/memory card. Also, both systems were more
powerful than the competition, and nevertheless were outsold by that
underpowered competition. Finally, when Sega stopped supporting the DC, it
threw the majority of its software support to the Xbox (followed closely by
the GameCube).

However, there are important differences. Sega stopped supporting the DC (in
the US anyway) at just over 2 years after launch, whereas MS is still
supporting the Xbox three years later. The DC sold fairly well in Japan; the
Xbox hasn't. The DC is known for a lot of quirky, niche, hard-core gamer
titles, whereas the Xbox has more mainstream titles. Finally, EA didn't
support the DC at all, but they have supported the Xbox.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sega-dreamcast (More info?)

Android wrote:

> It can't be proven "true" or "false"--it is just a statement of opinion.

Well done there Android, a good balanced view, and explanation.
>
> As to why someone would call the Xbox the DC's spiritual successor, here are
> my suggestions: The DC was compatible with Microsoft's Windows CE, and it
> was easier to port PC titles to both the DC and the Xbox. The DC came with a
> built-in modem, just as the Xbox has a built-in Ethernet connection. The
> controllers for the Xbox and DC are similar--both have triggers, both have
> red/yellow/green/blue buttons, both have an analog stick above a D-pad, and
> both have a slot for a VMU/memory card. Also, both systems were more
> powerful than the competition, and nevertheless were outsold by that
> underpowered competition. Finally, when Sega stopped supporting the DC, it
> threw the majority of its software support to the Xbox (followed closely by
> the GameCube).

Bits you missed why the X-box would be called a "spiritual successor to
the Dreamcast." are faily well known too.

The DC did of course allow M$ their first foray into the console market
with a version of it's WinCE OS, which obviously helped M$ enormously in
developing their X-box, but when you look closer under the skin of the
two consoles things are even more comparable. The DC used a Power VR2
graphics chip, which was also used in a range of PC graphics cards from
Videologic, called Kyro. The XB uses a variant of the nVidia GeForce
graphics chip in much the same way, which is also used in PC graphics cards.

Taken at it's most basic both the DC and X-box have strong ties to PC
hardware, and OS's. While the two actually has no compatible hardware,
their design, development of internal parts, and online use out of the
box (well the DC was certainly online from the word go) are quite
similar. In fact it could be argued that the Dreamcast and the X-Box are
more similar than the PS1 and PS2! It is likely that because of this
basic similarity and previous experience that Sega found it far easier
to support M$'s offering than the others initially, but even the
Gamecube with it's ATI based graphics (another PC link) is a more known
quantity than what the PS2 uses.

With regards EA and their non support of the DC, many game mags and
sites reported at the time that EA had their PC games ported and ready
to sell for the DC, but in much the same way as they did with the Saturn
vs PS1, EA held their releases back until the PS2 finally arrived,
citing they thought the DC's wouldn't last (er...EA? What console lasts
long without software support?). Whether this was because of some sort
of Sony / EA "arrangement" will never become anything more than conjecture.

Historically speaking the Saturn was out in most countries months before
the original PS1 too, yet EA games always tended to appear on the Sony
console first. EA fans could say that the Saturn with it's more
complicated hardware was harder to program for than the PS1, so games
were slower to appear, even though the Saturn was first on the scene.
But that has to be balanced against the fact that the DC is a much
easier platfrom to program and port for than the PS2 and it was on
shelves almost a year ealier than Sony's PS2, but still EA games never
appeared for the DC! More than a bit strange, I think everyone would agree?

Gordon.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/gording

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sega-dreamcast (More info?)

Gording <gording@nospam.Netscape.net> wrote in message news:<cao913$r9f$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
> Android wrote:
>
>The DC used a Power VR2
> graphics chip, which was also used in a range of PC graphics cards from
> Videologic, called Kyro.

Just a minor correction. Kyros I and II were PowerVR Series 3 chips,
while DC used a series 2 chip. There were substantial differences
between these generations.

The chip in DC (CLX2) was only used in DC and arcade systems and
certainly not PCs, although there was a series 2 PC chip (e.g. Neon250
graphics card) which had some technology in common with CLX2.

Simon

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sega-dreamcast (More info?)

Simon F wrote:

> Just a minor correction. Kyros I and II were PowerVR Series 3 chips,
> while DC used a series 2 chip. There were substantial differences
> between these generations.
>
> The chip in DC (CLX2) was only used in DC and arcade systems and
> certainly not PCs, although there was a series 2 PC chip (e.g. Neon250
> graphics card) which had some technology in common with CLX2.
>
> Simon

I stand corrected Simon. I'd forgotten about the Neon250 even though I
wanted to upgrade my ancient Apocalypse 3Dx (which used original Power
VR1 chip and was the main competitor to 3Dfx's Voodoo 1 to those history
buffs out there!) to one for years!

Now all we need is a Power VR5 card eh?

8¬)

Gordon.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/gording

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sega-dreamcast (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:50:27 +0000 (UTC), Gording
<gording@nospam.Netscape.net> wrote:

> The DC used a Power VR2
>graphics chip, which was also used in a range of PC graphics cards from
>Videologic, called Kyro. The XB uses a variant of the nVidia GeForce
>graphics chip in much the same way, which is also used in PC graphics cards.

As Simon put it this is not bro of kyro but of Neon250 PC chip.
Kyro is later and better product. And PVR series is very different
from anything other seen in PC world (or any other console for that
matter). PVR's are deferd rendering chips while all other products
(any chip from NVidia, ATI, 3dfx, S3 etc.) are immediate mode renders.
However video chips in xbox and DC are similar in a way that feature
set of PVR2x is basically subgroup of GeForce3 feature set.


>Gamecube with it's ATI based graphics (another PC link) is a more known
>quantity than what the PS2 uses.

Chip in Gamecube has nothing common with any other ATI chip because it
was developed by an independent company which was bought by ati after
design of chip was basically over.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sega-dreamcast (More info?)

bariole wrote:

> As Simon put it this is not bro of kyro but of Neon250 PC chip.
> Kyro is later and better product.

Simon already correct me, (but thanks again) and I really should've
remembered the venerable Neon 250. Maybe the Hercules 4500 I owned which
did use the Kyro II graphics chip boggled my mind a little, but remember
the nature of this thread.

The question was about why the X-Box was often called the "spiritual
successor to the Dreamcast."

>And PVR series is very different
> from anything other seen in PC world (or any other console for that
> matter). PVR's are deferd rendering chips while all other products
> (any chip from NVidia, ATI, 3dfx, S3 etc.) are immediate mode renders.

If only this thread asked "what's a tile based rendering graphics card?"
eh? lol. The thread question was to try and explain some of the possible
reasons why the two consoles are sometimes considered related, even
though they aren't. Some might've read about tile based (not polygonal
like normal graphics chips use) and deferred rendering (doesn't draw
what you don't see!) and realised that Power VR works differently than
"most" other graphics chips. But others are trying to catch up (ATI
X800XT / nVidia 6800 Ultra / S3 Delta Chrome all use some form of
deferred rendering apparently) without breaking or impinging on
Videologic / Imagination Technologies / Pure / NEC / SGS Thomson's (The
world?) Intellectual copyrights probably. 8¬)

> However video chips in xbox and DC are similar in a way that feature
> set of PVR2x is basically subgroup of GeForce3 feature set.

Um...confused. While each developement and generation of the Power VR
graphics cards and chips are all diferent from each other, they are
still the same family as the original Power VR PCX1 design, but they
aren't a subgroup of an nVidia GeForce feature set!

The DC's Power VR graphics are linked directly to the family of PC
grpahics cards, and closely related to the Naomi arcade unit's graphics
too. M$'s X-box in virtually the same way as the DC pioneered, uses it's
own development of a GeForce graphics chip, but it is still the same
family as the graphics chips as seen in on PC cards, and that hardware
is also used in arcade cabinets (another similarity to the DC / Naomi).

> Chip in Gamecube has nothing common with any other ATI chip because it
> was developed by an independent company which was bought by ati after
> design of chip was basically over.

I only said that ATI was another PC link, I never said that the ArtX
designed graphics chip was, because it obviously isn't. As Sega had
previous experience with derivatives of PC graphics chips, and ATI
aren't slouches when it comes to PC graphics, this may be why Sega
offered more support initially for the Cube than for the PS2.

Now if all this doesn't explain why the X-Box is sometimes referred to
as the "spiritual successor to the Dreamcast." I hold up my hands in
defeat! 8¬o

Gordon.