Sega’s Bellfield speaks on GameCube gaming, the death of Dreamcast and Electronic Arts rip-offs
Frank talk shocks all. Bellfield puts us all straight
In a recent interview, the gregarious Vice President of Strategic Planning and Corporate Affairs Sega of America, Charles Bellfield outlined his thoughts on the GameCube, Sega gaming and the demise of the Dreamcast.
“I laughed out loud two weeks ago when at an investor conference in New York, Peter Main put up a slide in his presentation with a picture of Sonic and said, "Well obviously Sonic prefers Nintendo's hardware," said Bellfield. “And, you go back to the days of the early 90’s, when I first entered this industry. The rivalry between Sega and Nintendo was legendary. You could say that in the consumer entertainment space, it's the start of any inter-company rivalry that you see in this market. As we go forward, what I think you're seeing today, is the synergy between Nintendo and Sega is huge. We both share, not just a common heritage in terms of being around for as many years, but the same desire.” Excellent anecdote. Laughing is better than starting a fist-fight though.
When quizzed, for what must be the millionth time, over exactly how and why the Dreamcast was canned, Bellfield shot straight from the hip, possibly the first time anyone from Sega hasn’t skirted around the issue.
“So, how did it all start off? We started the company realising (sic), even prior to Dreamcast launch, that the competition we were going to face was stiff and it's a different market that's evolved as we go forward. With Dreamcast we tried to change the business model. Ultimately what we wanted to do was subsidise the full cost of the hardware by providing entertainment on a monthly basis to consumers. Through both packaged goods and software sales, but also pay-for-play subscription type models as well.” It is well known that the pay-to-play model was considered by Sega from the outset, and its development and expertise in the field sets it as the market leader for such technologies. This is the first time that Sega has gone on record to say that this revenue model made up such an important part of Sega’s strategy.
Bellfield continues, “I think the announcement in January this year was done with a lot of work to it. Looking back, I think it's very amusing to see that Dreamcast was essentially hugged to death by consumers and gamers everywhere. In hindsight, everybody adored the product, it's still considered one of the best game platforms ever created for the price and the content that we had on it in the first two years. It was those who didn't buy Dreamcast that eventually killed the product, and they didn't buy it largely because of hype created by other console manufacturers. It's really interesting to go back and have a look at the chronological order of when other companies announced their products. We announced Dreamcast in May 1998 and it shipped November in Japan and in September here in the US the year after, 1999. Sony announced PlayStation 2 in March of 1999 and that didn't ship until end of October 2000. Nintendo announced Dolphin, which then became GameCube, at E3 1999 and didn't ship here in the US until last week. Microsoft announced Xbox at Games Developer Conference 2000 and it didn't ship until last week. So Dreamcast has to face a lot of phantom competition, which basically didn't allow it to build an install base to continue.” Brilliant and true. It must have been utterly exasperating for Sega to have a console of great merit on the market, and watch the promises of future technology gradually erase its potential market space.
Speaking somewhat openly, Bellfield went on to outline Sega’s strategy for announcing its upcoming titles and how it has changed during the company’s transition from hardware manufacturer to third-party publisher. “I don't want EA to know what our content line-up is for next fall. I really don't need them to know that and it doesn't harm Sega today by not telling you what they are.” Bellfield continues, “With a hardware platform under our belt we had to show to the consumers that there was a forward line-up of content that needed to reassure them to buy the system. We no longer have that role, so we don't have to tell you. Every platform company is desperately asking us to announce our line-up but we're saying no at this point, because there's no benefit to us. I'll sell platforms, but what I don't want to see is a continuation of the rip-off games by other publishers that rip-off our technology and I don't need to say ‘Simpsons’ at all. And even cel-shading is a concept being ripped off by other publishers as well. That's why Sega doesn't need to be quite so advanced in its announcements.”
It’s about time that Sega stood up for itself in this way. Simpsons Road Rage was undoubtedly ‘inspired’ by Crazy Taxi, and the much-heralded use of cel-shading, in both SRR and Cel-Damage, both Electronic Arts games, pays no royalty to Sega, the technological and innovational parent of both titles.
“I laughed out loud two weeks ago when at an investor conference in New York, Peter Main put up a slide in his presentation with a picture of Sonic and said, "Well obviously Sonic prefers Nintendo's hardware," said Bellfield. “And, you go back to the days of the early 90’s, when I first entered this industry. The rivalry between Sega and Nintendo was legendary. You could say that in the consumer entertainment space, it's the start of any inter-company rivalry that you see in this market. As we go forward, what I think you're seeing today, is the synergy between Nintendo and Sega is huge. We both share, not just a common heritage in terms of being around for as many years, but the same desire.” Excellent anecdote. Laughing is better than starting a fist-fight though.
When quizzed, for what must be the millionth time, over exactly how and why the Dreamcast was canned, Bellfield shot straight from the hip, possibly the first time anyone from Sega hasn’t skirted around the issue.
“So, how did it all start off? We started the company realising (sic), even prior to Dreamcast launch, that the competition we were going to face was stiff and it's a different market that's evolved as we go forward. With Dreamcast we tried to change the business model. Ultimately what we wanted to do was subsidise the full cost of the hardware by providing entertainment on a monthly basis to consumers. Through both packaged goods and software sales, but also pay-for-play subscription type models as well.” It is well known that the pay-to-play model was considered by Sega from the outset, and its development and expertise in the field sets it as the market leader for such technologies. This is the first time that Sega has gone on record to say that this revenue model made up such an important part of Sega’s strategy.
Bellfield continues, “I think the announcement in January this year was done with a lot of work to it. Looking back, I think it's very amusing to see that Dreamcast was essentially hugged to death by consumers and gamers everywhere. In hindsight, everybody adored the product, it's still considered one of the best game platforms ever created for the price and the content that we had on it in the first two years. It was those who didn't buy Dreamcast that eventually killed the product, and they didn't buy it largely because of hype created by other console manufacturers. It's really interesting to go back and have a look at the chronological order of when other companies announced their products. We announced Dreamcast in May 1998 and it shipped November in Japan and in September here in the US the year after, 1999. Sony announced PlayStation 2 in March of 1999 and that didn't ship until end of October 2000. Nintendo announced Dolphin, which then became GameCube, at E3 1999 and didn't ship here in the US until last week. Microsoft announced Xbox at Games Developer Conference 2000 and it didn't ship until last week. So Dreamcast has to face a lot of phantom competition, which basically didn't allow it to build an install base to continue.” Brilliant and true. It must have been utterly exasperating for Sega to have a console of great merit on the market, and watch the promises of future technology gradually erase its potential market space.
Speaking somewhat openly, Bellfield went on to outline Sega’s strategy for announcing its upcoming titles and how it has changed during the company’s transition from hardware manufacturer to third-party publisher. “I don't want EA to know what our content line-up is for next fall. I really don't need them to know that and it doesn't harm Sega today by not telling you what they are.” Bellfield continues, “With a hardware platform under our belt we had to show to the consumers that there was a forward line-up of content that needed to reassure them to buy the system. We no longer have that role, so we don't have to tell you. Every platform company is desperately asking us to announce our line-up but we're saying no at this point, because there's no benefit to us. I'll sell platforms, but what I don't want to see is a continuation of the rip-off games by other publishers that rip-off our technology and I don't need to say ‘Simpsons’ at all. And even cel-shading is a concept being ripped off by other publishers as well. That's why Sega doesn't need to be quite so advanced in its announcements.”
It’s about time that Sega stood up for itself in this way. Simpsons Road Rage was undoubtedly ‘inspired’ by Crazy Taxi, and the much-heralded use of cel-shading, in both SRR and Cel-Damage, both Electronic Arts games, pays no royalty to Sega, the technological and innovational parent of both titles.
Read More Like This