Bring back the Sega Dreamcast? [Updated]

The Digital Home:

Simply put, the Sega Dreamcast was great when it was released on 9/9/99 (in the US) and I'm a firm believer that Sega should release Dreamcast 2 on 9/9/09.

So where did this sudden change in mentality come from? Well, I got a bit nostalgic last week and I decided it was time that I break out the old consoles to have a go at some of the games that played an important role in my life -- Shenmue, Virtua Tennis, all the Sega Sports games and of course, Sonic Adventure.

After playing through each of those games (and a few others -- Fighting Force, Toy Commander, Skies of Arcadia), I realized once again just how great that console really was.

Consider this: the Dreamcast was the first major console to offer networking capabilities and although the device was only capable of dial-up connectivity (a major blunder), it still set a precedent that obviously had a far-reaching impact.

I wouldn't normally comment on this kind of thing--after all, no one gets more nostalgic about old technology than do I--but this one is sort of wrong-headed and historically inaccurate: Apparently, this guy isn't aware of how much Microsoft had to do with the Dreamcast. And after all, the Dreamcast 2 did come out, years ago. It was called the Xbox. There was even a Dreamcast 3. You may know it as the Xbox 360.

And for the record, yeah, VMUs were dumb. :)

Update: But wait, there's more!

Discuss this Article 3

benjwah
on Dec 6, 2007
I'm somewhat skeptical about this one. Nostalgia can make one believe things that aren't true. Sure, we look back now and say "What a wondrous system", but at the time we were saying "It's not good enough for me to purchase one". And when he says that the networking capabilities of the Dreamcast had a far reaching impact, is he really suggesting that consoles would never have gotten the networking bug without Dreamcast? I'm pretty happy to say that absolutely nothing would be different. It's like saying we wouldn't have porn without Hugh Heffner. We would. We'd have a whole lot, just like we do now. What I'm really interested in is Paul saying that MS had a whole lot to do with the Dreamcast. I didn't know that and wikipedia doesn't mention it, where can I find out more? Anyone?
Maffrew
on Dec 6, 2007
Have to say, I bought a Dreamcast at launch (or, recieved one as a gift, cos I was 15) and it was a very good console with some great games, even at launch. I was aware that the Dreamcast used some version of Windows CE, but assumed they just licensed it. As mentioned previously, Wikipedia (and yes, I realise it's not exactly reliable all the time), doesn't mention Microsoft at all. So what's the skinny on this bit of Microsoft history, Paul?
lotsamystuff
on Dec 8, 2007
Paul (and Maffrew): Prior to the Dreamcast, there was the Tandy VIS ("Video Information System") which actually used a precursor to Windows CE called "Microsoft Windows Embedded". I have one of the VIS systems, and it's actually not horrible; the worst part is the crappy wireless remote. It was marketed by Radio Shack and also rebranded, IIRC, through Memorex. Some of the VIS discs I have would actually work under Windows 3.1, but most require the console. Windows CE came AFTER "Windows Embedded". According to Wikipedia, a version "1.1" of Windows Embedded was developed but never used. So really, the VIS was the first "XBox", not the Dreamcast. Paul, I agree with "Maffrew"...you should do a history of all this. In your spare time, of course! ;-) Until then, here's some interesting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandy_Video_Information_System http://www.computercloset.org/TandyVIS.htm And this tidbit from "TidBits", from August, 1992 (search the page for "Windows Does CDs": http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-140.html "The hardware comes from Tandy, and they call it the Video Information System, or VIS, and hope to sell it for about $700. The software, as usual, comes from Microsoft in the form of Modular Windows, which Microsoft optimized for use with a television as a display device. Microsoft obviously wants certain developers already working on Windows products to scale them down for use with Tandy's VIS, and since Modular Windows for VIS is based on Windows 3.1, developers shouldn't have too much trouble, assuming they have already mastered programming Windows, something which various programmers of my acquaintance have likened to eating okra (that ought to get both okra aficionados and Windows programmers, all in one sentence :-))."

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use