Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 19:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am certainly not going to miss this dance after our Master System and Saturn exploits! May not have the review done until later in the week, but I look forward to working together on yet another Sega hardware article. Indrian (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a heads up for both of you: I might chime in with a few pre-FAC second opinions during this review. After all the reading I did when I scanned those magazines, I feel I'm qualified to assess the article. But I'll try to stay out of the way for the most part. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, JimmyBlackwing, fire away. I tend to think the purpose of a GA review is to make the article better, and I've worked with Indrian a lot and know he won't mind as long as we hit all the bases. I don't feel it's FAC-ready yet, but that's part of why I want the GA review - to make every improvement possible. I do want to say thanks for the sources; they proved quite useful in this total rewrite. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. Those sources might come back to haunt you a bit: I can already see areas in the article that could be expanded based on coverage I noticed while scanning. But I'll leave this review to Indrian for now—he's the pro, here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't count as haunting; it's just opportunity. I'm to the point of information overload by myself trying to sort all of it out; the eyes of others will be needed now to help point out the missing areas before this hits FAC. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 00:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • All comments are certainly welcome. It's a big topic. Indrian (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Slightly off-topic given we are only at GAC, but @Red Phoenix, indeed, this article should look at least as good as the Saturn article before FAC. Given the subject matter and the combined knowledge of everyone here, we should aspire to make this the best video game console article on Wikipedia. I believe it can be done!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • • @TheTimesAreAChanging: I'll have to ask you sometime what it is about these reviews that get you fired up, haha. That being said, I'm also going to pester you to send Sega Saturn to FAC again if this is the way things are going. With Master System already at FAC, Sega's video game consoles are very near to being a featured topic if Master System, Saturn, and Dreamcast all get FA stars. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • The answer is simple: I prefer to let you do the heavy lifting to get the articles into manageable shape before I get involved.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we go. I'll get this up in sections over the next day two.

Lead

•  Done Each of the first two sentences give the year of release, which is redundant.
  • Whoops. Fixed. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done Technically, the Gamecube and Xbox were never "rivals" of the Dreamcast, as it was discontinued in March 2001 and the other consoles launched in September and November respectively.
  • "Rivals" -> "other consoles of the same generation". Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done You mention the discontinuation date twice in the lead. The first mention at the end of the first paragraph is unnecessary and can be eliminated.
  • Done. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done "the design of the Dreamcast was intended to cut costs after the expensive hardware in its predecessor, the Sega Saturn, had contributed to its demise" Lots of passive voice and awkward phrasing in that sentence.
  • Reworded. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done "as hype was built" Passive voice, use "as Sony built hype" or something similar instead.
  • Used your wording. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done "the Dreamcast has been considered by reviewers" More passive voice. Should be "Reviewers have considered the Dreamcast"
  • Fixed. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done "It saw the release of many new game series which have been considered creative and innovative" Awkward. Try instead something like "Many new game series considered creative and innovative were released on the system" or, to eliminate passive voice "Publishers released many new game series considered creative and innovative on the system"
  • Used your first wording set. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done Dreamcast did feature the first built-in modem, but the Philips CD-I actually featured a game allowing online play over the Internet, so Dreamcast was not quite first there.
  • Changed to "for Internet support". Wording didn't quite go as I meant it. Also worth noting the Sega Genesis did as well, see Sega Meganet and Tel-Tel Stadium. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've pared the lead down even further.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

•  Done I've done enough of these with you to know your MO here, but I think you went too far back. This is the longest section of the history, when it should really be one of the shortest. There is no need to rehash the Genesis history or the Saturn launch and all of that. There is too much detail here for a "background." Keep it simple, discuss Sega's support for too many incompatible formats and some of the difficulties the Saturn faced in terms of price and difficulty to program. Discuss the executive changes since they have direct bearing on Dreamcast development and briefly describe how Sega was losing money and marketshare. I think the five paragraphs could be reduced to three without losing any important historical context. I can get into more specifics on this if you want, but right now I am going to avoid commenting in detail until this has been reworked a bit.
  • I've done some bulk reworking and stripped it down to three paragraphs so far. I was having a lot of trouble trying to decide how much detail to go into just because some of the sources have opined how much Sega's reputation had affected the Dreamcast and wanted to set the proper tone. That being said, it was quite large but should be ready for finer processing and reviewing now. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 15:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm completely reworking the first paragraph, which I feel assumed far too much regarding the reader's knowledge of the subject matter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is part of the back-and-forth I had: how much is too much, and how much is too little? Assistance definitely appreciated, thank you. I think I've just spent way too much time with the material in general over the past year and a half to be sure and don't really have fresh eyes to see it. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Development

•  Done I don't know why reputable video game journalism websites seem incapable of understanding Sega's corporate structure. Shoichirio Irimajiri was president of SOA in 1997, not president of Sega as a whole. He did not replace Nakayama as president of Sega until early 1998. That's why he commissioned a US-based team to start Dreamcast development. He did not tell Sega Japan to do anything.
  • I wanted to ask you about that. Sources seem to be very unclear on both Irimajiri's and Stolar's roles all throughout. Many have noted Stolar as president of SOA, but we know he wasn't hired into that role. Do you, by chance, know when said transitions happened with both Irimajiri and Stolar? I've canvassed all of my sources and can't find anything to help me out here; the corporate roles of Sega executives have not been easy to figure out by my sources alone. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, here is the chronology based on newspaper articles from the time. The dates reflect when the articles were published, so they may be off by a few days in terms of the actual appointments: 7-16-1996 - Shoichirio Irimajiri named chairman and CEO of SOA upon resignations of Kalinske, Nakayama, and Rosen. He also retains his position as executive vice president and representative director of Sega Enterprises. Bernie Stolar named executive vice president for product development and third-party relations. 3-17-1997 - Bernie Stolar named COO of SOA, a position vacant since the previous July (when Paul Rioux stepped down), 1-13-1998 - Sega announces Hayao Nakayama will step down as president of Sega Enterprises and be replaced by Shoichiro Irimajiri (I am not positive, but I think the actual transfer of power may have occurred at the end of Sega's fiscal year that March), 3-30-1998 Bernie Stolar promoted to president SOA and retains COO title. Indrian (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a related note, the exact date of Stolar's firing (not mentioned in the article) was August 11, 1999. See this timeline: [1], [2], [3], [4]. The console's sales figures by certain dates are available in there, too. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @JimmyBlackwing: Do you have a source on Stolar's firing? What's in the article is all that was said in the source. @Indrian: I'd like to work in those dates if you have the original sources (and they'd be great if/when I can ever get around to redo Sega), though I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding where we have accuracy-offending text here based on the comment. The Gamasutra account of the assignment of Dural and Blackbelt seems to be the closest thing I can find; even so, it doesn't specifically say Irimajiri assigned Sato; it says Sega of Japan did and also assigned the Blackbelt team (possibly implying through Irimajiri? I do question the accuracy of this particular source in this case.) Would you be willing to quote the specific section I'm missing here? Pardon me if I seem lazy; I did look, but I can't find it specifically though I am awfully tired tonight. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only source I've got is that timeline scan I posted, really. As it says: "August 11: Bernard Stolar relieved of duties as president of Sega with a reported $5-million severance package." A source from Nov 1999 mentions that Sega employees credited Stolar with the successful NA launch and were sad about his being let go, and that Stolar himself made no comment on the affair. The timeline is from Next Gen September 2000 (Lifecycle 2 vol. 2 issue 9); the other scan is in Next Gen November 1999 (Lifecycle 2, vol. 1 issue 3). JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done "but was later asked to also use the SH4 and PowerVR chips" This is not what the source says. Yamamoto's team was asked to use the SH4, but stuck with the 3dfx graphics chip and did not switch to PowerVR.
  • Oh, good catch... I missed that, and see it upon rereading the source. Thanks, fixed. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done "According to former Sega of America vice president of communications Charles Bellfield presentations of games using the latter architecture showcased the performance and low cost delivered by the SH2 and PowerVR architecture, and stated that "Sega's relationship with NEC, a Japanese company, probably made a difference too." The source does not make this clear, but Bellfield was at NEC before joining Sega. These comments relate to Bellfield's experiences while still at NEC.
  • Noted that Bellfield was an NEC brand manager, which is in the source, actually. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done "Sega of Japan executives were furious with this; despite reports that Yamamoto's new chipset was more powerful than the PowerVR architecture, Sega decided to cut their ties with 3dfx" Again, this is not quite what the source says. Many have speculated that Sega cancelled the contract in anger over the reveal, but the source specifically says no one knows for sure. As Sega management had a history of rejecting external, American-led solutions to next-gen console hardware, its just as likely that the company just preferred its home-grown designs. Remember, Irimajiri was not actually in charge of Sega when he commissioned the IBM project, nor when the final decision was made, so he did not actually have the power to force Sega Japan to accept this design. Heck, even if he had been in charge he may not have been able to force his design due to the consensus management practices of Japanese companies.
  • Reworked a little bit, might this address it? Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done "Selection for the final name of the new console came from the knowledge that Sega had tarnished its reputation with the Saturn, and thus would have to represent a new beginning and distance itself from its past. As a result, Sega chose to rebrand the system entirely and remove its name from the console, similar to Sony's approach with the PlayStation" Again, this is overly convoluted and includes some passive voice. Try something like "The Satrun had tarnished the Sega name, so the company decided to remove its name from the console, similar to Sony's approach with the PlayStation"
  • I used your wording. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done "Despite the new name, the word "Katana" was still written on the motherboard of the system" This seems a trivial fact to me.
  • Fair enough, removed. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I emailed Indrian about this a couple hours ago because he interviewed Stolar, have not heard back yet, but in light of this article I'm bringing up the matter here. IGN's "History of the Dreamcast" says the modem was Stolar's idea; BusinessWeek says Okawa was convinced to add it by future Sega.com CEO Brad Huang. Any thoughts on how we might reconcile these sources?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kent pg. 577 says Okawa "insisted that Dreamcast include a modem".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, I think these sources mostly align. My own interview with Stolar does not shed any further light on the specifics, but he did reiterate his strong support for online gaming. I believe he was probably pushing for a modem as the other sources say. In addition to being COO and later president of SOA, Stolar was also president and COO of SegaSoft, the PC game company that was a joint venture of SOA and CSK. In 1997, SegaSoft launched Heat.net on Stolar's watch, an online multiplayer service. Stolar did tell me that he saw SegaSoft as a way of encouraging PC developers to make games for Sega that could then be ported to consoles and that Heat.net was meant to play a similar role in creating online content that could eventually end up on Sega hardware. Based on the existence of Heat.net, I find the contention that Stolar lobbied for a modem to be credible.

That being said, we know Stolar and Okawa did not get along and did not have much of a relationship. According to my interview, both Nakayama and Irimajiri backed him strongly, but Okawa never did. Other newspaper sources indicate that this was a period when Okawa and the bankers were fighting the hardware enthusiasts like Nakayama and Irimajiri over costs due to Sega's losses, so adding a modem would be a big commitment. I have no doubt that even if Stolar was advocating a modem, it would have taken someone with a closer relationship to Okawa like Huang to actually make this a reality. Therefore, I find the Business Week article credible. Also, I believe all sources agree that Stolar was a proponent of online gaming, but I don't believe he has ever taken credit for the Sega.com idea, which is a little broader and more ambitious. As the IGN article does not directly quote Stolar saying that he convinced Sega to go with a modem, I suspect that IGN may have extrapolated this information based on Stolar's strong support for online gaming, as I find IGN writers love making leaps of logic in their history articles. I can't be sure though. Alternatively, it could be a limited knowledge thing: Stolar knows he pushed for a modem and knows Sega included a modem and logically assumes his role was decisive when in truth other people outside the company were pushing for the same thing and had more influence. As for Kent, while I rarely trust his account, this actually dovetails with the Business Week article: while Huang convinced Okawa, Okawa had to force his Japanese executives to go along with the plan.

So in summary, I think it's okay for the article to say that Stolar pushed strongly for online gaming, that Huang conceived of Sega.net and convinced Okawa to include the modem with every system, and that Okawa had to fight his own executives in Japan to make it happen. That accounts for all the reliable sources without heading too deep into OR territory. Indrian (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Launch

• Starting this in place of Indrian. "Before the launch in the United States, Sega had already taken extra steps in displaying Dreamcast's capabilities in stores nationwide" is apparently unsourced. There were 18 launch games rather than 17, 11 of them available on day one (as one of the sans helpfully provided by JimmyBlackwing says). Instead of jumping around with the chronology, we should state that Stolar was fired before the launch. There should probably be a sentence on the importance of Soul Calibur, and more emphasis on the contrast between the Japanese launch and the American launch, which "started the trend of carefully orchestrated hype and anticipation culminating in an epic launch the likes of which the industry had never seen before." I fully intend to make changes to that effect, unless I am beaten to the punch.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, is there really no mention of 9/9/99 for $199?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Have a revised version in my sandbox, will add momentarily.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done And I'm back. Sorry for the delay, but I want to make sure I give each section the attention it deserves, so I am tackling chunks as I have time. I would start by reiterating some of what Times says above. I don't think there is enough emphasis on the marketing plan in North America. Stolar envisioned a $100 million media blitz with a heavy focus on TV advertising and building hype around the 9/9/99 release date. Moore was then brought in to execute the plan based on his proven track record as a brand manager. Moore's contributions are well covered, but the marketing spend commit, which was unprecedented for Sega, was a pretty big deal. Of course, according to Bellfield, Sega never actually lived up to that commitment.
•  Done Also, as Times states, the Stolar firing should be in this section. I don't think the full details on this are out in reliable sources, but it was basically disagreements in direction between Stolar and Okawa, who was asserting more and more control over Sega even before he officially became president in 2000. The article covers this pretty well already, its just in the wrong place.
•  Done I am not sure the Travis Fahs quote adds much to this section. In addition to being more appropriate for a retrospective section, I just don't think its true. Software had already seen Sonic 2uesday and Mortal Monday (and going even further back, Atari had National Pacman Day), and the PlayStation "You are not ready" viral campaign did a similar thing with consoles. Heck Sega itself had already tried this approach with Sega Satrunday before SOJ mucked things up. 9/9/99 was a major event and highly successful, and I think its fair to say the Dreamcast launch was the first to put extensive focus on pre-orders and day 1 sales, but to say carefully orchestrated hype had never played a role in a launch before, that's a bit much.
•  Done "Sega had announced that they had reached one million consoles sold six weeks ahead of their prediction. Chris Gilbert, the senior vice president of sales at Sega of America, said on November 24, 1999: "By hitting the one million units sold landmark, it is clear that the Dreamcast consumer has moved beyond the hard-core gamer and into the mass market." This sentence is smack dab in the middle of the section on the European launch, but despite being a BBC article, its referring to sales in the US market only. This should be moved to the end of the preceding paragraph, and could perhaps replace the Fahs quote. Also, instead of saying Gilbert "said" the Dreamcast had entered the mass market, this should be "claimed." I don't think this statement is really true -- even back then there were well more than a million "hardcore" gamers out there -- and is an example of corporate hype.

Game Development

•  Done"Stolar considered NFL 2K superior to Madden NFL" Of course he did, the company that he purchased to build sports games for the console he was responsible for selling created it. That said, I believe there is a general consensus that the NFL 2K series was superior to Madden, which is one reason the reaction to EA's NFL exclusivity a few years later was so strong. I believe this sentiment should be in the article, but not sourced to Stolar, who is clearly biased.
•  Done "Later titles developed by Sega would start to experiment with game design and genres, such as Samba de Amigo, a maracas-based music title" This is a little nitpicky, but I don't think Samba de Amigo makes sense as a poster child for experimentation on the Dreamcast since it was an arcade game first. Console exclusives like Seaman, Jet Set Radio, and Shenmue would make more sense.
•  Done I would agree that Sega's decision to decentralize game development and give individual auteurs so much control over development led to a remarkable burst of creativity and some wonderful, quirky, and influential games. Most of these games, however, were commercial failures. For balance sake, the bad (poor sales) needs to be reported along with the good (innovative concepts).
•  Done In general, there is a lot of reworking I think needs to be done between this and the game library section. I think this section is probably a bit redundant, and the material can be split between the "launch" and "competition" sections here and the "game library" section below. Material relevant to history would include the porting of games from NAOMI hardware and the corresponding praise for "arcade perfect" conversions, the determination to have a new Sonic game ready at launch (which ended up being shortly after launch) in contrast to the Saturn, the courting of Midway for NA third-party support, the purchase of Visual Concepts for sports games, and the failure to sign Electronic Arts. Subjects more suitable to the game library section would be the spinning out of the development studios, the release of all the innovative titles like Space Channel 5, Rez, Jet Set Radio, and Shenmue, the revival of certain Genesis franchises like Ecco, and the push into online gaming with games like ChuChu Rocket! (which is not currently mentioned in the article, but probably should be) and Phantasy Star Online.
  • I still need to examine the reorganized game library material more closely for grammar and flow and the like, but I think the organization is solid now.

Competition

•  Done I think this section under reports the import of the Sony announcement a little bit. Factually speaking, the PS2 was going to be somewhat more powerful than Dreamcast and offer the ability to play DVDs. This alone would have certainly crimped Dreamcast sales a bit, but the Sony announcement went far beyond these claims. Ken Kutaragi greatly exaggerated the power of the system, making it out to practically be a super computer, and positioned the console as the new center of the living room, with connectivity and online features that would far exceed the Dreamcast or any other system. Most of that, as it turns out, was not true at all. It was the promise of SO much power and SO many features that not only killed Dreamcast momentum, but scared Microsoft so much that the company backed the Xbox project.
•  Done"the initial release of games were not as important as the PS2's potential as Sony succeeding in delivering its much hyped graphics" I took the liberty of rewording the first part of this sentence myself, but did not want to touch the quoted text. I think this reads a little awkwardly. I understand the point is that Sega had a software and ease of development advantage, but Sony delivered on technology, so both developers and consumers flocked to it anyway, but I think the point can be more artfully made.
•  Done I don't think the second paragraph of the new "competition and decline" section is necessary. That's too much detail on the PS2 for a Dreamcast article. The only aspects of the PS2 that are relevant are the overhyped capabilities and the consumer decision to wait out PS2 shortages rather than buying a Dreamcast, both of which are points adequately covered elsewhere.
  • I sort of sneaked this one in, as it was the only comment I added up here when I restarted the review down below. I therefore went ahead and removed the paragraph myself since nobody else did. If anyone strongly objects, just let me know. Indrian (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline

•  Done Again, I think some major reworking needs to be done between the "game development", "Competition", and "Decline" sections. Game development and competition should probably be consolidated under a new name, so that we basically have one section on the launch, one section on the critical period before the PS2 launch when Sega tried to counter Sony's hype and build an install base, and one section on the death of the system. If it feels like the resulting sections would be too stubby, we could even reduce it to two, but I think there is probably enough material for three. The first two paragraphs currently in the competition section can be combined with the material relating to EA and the football games, which I think would give it enough meat. The final paragraph of competition on aggressive pricing relating to the Internet should go into the decline section, because it was part of the last desperate grab for marketshare.
  • I didn't add the Fahs quote because Sega invented hype, or even primarily because of the emphasis on pre-orders and whatnot. I added it, rightly or wrongly, because there needs to be more of an emphasis on how the Dreamcast went from the most successful console launch in history to being discontinued a little over a year later. How did that happen? Part of the explanation is that the record-breaking launch was not the masses embracing Dreamcast and forgiving Sega's past mistakes, but simply the new normal.
  • I've been thinking along the same lines that a lot of this content needs reorganization. I was imagining the merger of "Competition" with "Decline". The Dreamcast found itself adrift in the market almost immediately after its initial success faded, and it never really recovered. Even more than the PS2 vaporware, the broader point may be the complete lack of faith in the Sega brand among consumers: When there were PS2 shortages, disappointed consumers did not take a chance on Dreamcast, but simply purchased a PS1 instead.
  • In addition to improving the discussion of the Dreamcast's decline and Sony's PS2 hype, we could probably add a whole paragraph retrospectively analyzing why Dreamcast failed. We could reiterate (say) that it received no support from EA/Square, the biggest third-parties in the U.S./Japan in the same section we include the retrospective comments from Gamasutra. We could cite the comments from EA executives in Gamasutra, and even Victor Ireland from 1UP's "Dreamcast memorial". The context-free line from 1UP in "Reception and legacy" to the effect that the death of the Dreamcast was a tragedy for hardcore gamers could be used to expound on 1UP's point, which is the decline of the arcade gaming scene Sega focused on. There are sources explaining why Sega got out at the right time in the face of more powerful competition with greater financial resources. In fact, we could even explain, hyperbole aside, that the Dreamcast really was sorely underpowered compared to its eventual competition. Of course, as mentioned, placing the Stolar firing right before Moore's decision to discontinue the Dreamcast doesn't help the reader.
  • Remember, I am still planning major changes on the "Game library" front, though any input you might have would be very appreciated. I certainly intend to discuss the commercial failures of Jet Set Radio, Shenmue, and Rez. I put the reorganization under "Game development" because I did something similar for the Saturn, when some of Sega's arcade teams who were more familiar with 3D graphics were asked to start making Saturn games in 1993. That's not to say your suggestion is unwise, of course, but that was my rationale.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have finished my overhaul of the article. You may now resume the review without having to worry about me changing it on you. Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds good. I haven't forgotten about this, and now that the major overhaul is done, I will continue the review this weekend. Indrian (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any ETA on the next part of your review, Indrian?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I had not intended to let this go for so long. Should have more in the next couple days. Indrian (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after an unplanned hiatus, I am back. I really love the rewrites done to the history section, which I feel address most of my concerns. I still feel the game development section is unnecessary, however. I think most of that material, including the developer restructuring, should be moved to the actual game library section down below, while the info about EA refusing to support the system should be included in the section on the NA launch. Then the "Competition and Decline" section can be split back in two since it is much longer than any of the others (though not necessarily with those names), with the split coming where Okawa takes control of the company.

I know that you like the info about the developer organization where it is because it mirrors the Saturn page, but the circumstances here are different. The reorganization of Sega's teams for the Saturn launch was an important part of the history of the console because Sega was blending its staff with 2D and 3D experience to address a radically different console design. The spin-off of Sega's development teams into subsidiaries, on the other hand, occurred after the launch of Dreamcast and is not as directly tied to the Dreamcast's history. Its still worth mentioning, of course, just maybe not here. I am going to hold off on reviewing the "Game Library" section until we reach some agreement on these issues, but I will continue my review of the rest of the article below. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware

•  Done "with a 128-bit vector graphics engine, 360 MIPS and 1.4 GFLOPS using the vector graphics engine" I think there may be a word or two missing in that phrase. I assume it should read "capable of 360 MIPS and 1.4 GFLOPS" or something similar. Also, there is probably a way to say all this that does not involve stating "vector graphics engine" twice in rapid succession.
•  Done "The graphics hardware is a NEC PowerVR2" This is really minor and something I would normally take care of myself, but I don't know what the Wikipedia MOS has to say. Generally speaking, the indefinite article "an" is always used not just before a vowel, but also before a vowel sound. I believe NEC is pronounced "en ee see" (as opposed to, say, "neck"), so "an" is appropriate. Like I said though, not 100% sure.
•  Done "capable of drawing more than 3 million polygons per second peak performance and trilinear filtering" again, seems like some words missing, also should be "and of trilinear filtering" for parallel structure.
•  Done "per-pixel translucency sorting (also known as order independent translucency)" Just curious why the first term is used when the term in parentheses is the one linked. Is "order independent translucency" the common term? And if so, why include both? If there is a reason for it, then I don't have a problem with it.
•  Done "16.77 million colors color output" One of those "colors" needs to go.
•  Done Should "interlaced" and "progressive scan" be linked since all the other technical terms are?
•  Done "capable of running at its maximum speed when in constant angular velocity mode" I have no idea what this actually means.
•  Done "in Japan and the US after September 9, 1999 featured a 56 kbit/s modem" I realize that 9/9/99 was the US launch date, but this would probably read better if it said "in the US and in Japan after September 9, 1999"

Models

•  Done "The Dreamcast was constructed in several variations by Sega. Most variations were exclusive to Japan." The first sentence contains passive voice, and I think they could be combined for flow. Something like: "Sega constructed the Dreamcast in several variations, most of which were exclusive to Japan."
•  Done "The R7 model, consisting of a special refurbished Dreamcast unit that was originally used as a network console in Japanese pachinko parlors in a black case, has been noted for its exterior being similar to the Mega Drive" This reads awkwardly due to the long dependent clause. Should probably be reworded.
•  Done "Several color variations were also sold through the Dreamcast Direct service in Japan" The Dreamcast Direct service is not defined anywhere in the article.
•  Done "An unofficial Chinese variant called Treamcast was a portable version of the system." If this was a bootleg, it probably should not be listed here.

Accessories

•  Done "include extra features such as additional buttons for performance on different genres of games" Such as?
•  Done "Steering wheel controllers were also created by companies such as Mad Catz and Agetec for racing games" Passive voice again.
•  Not done "Sega refused to release an official light gun" Did Sega give a reason for this? I cannot recall.
  • This is not done, but I never intended it to be a bar to GA status, so that's fine. If I recall, the reason for not releasing the gun in the US was the Senate Hearings that year regarding video game violence and school shootings, but if we don't have a source for that its not an essential fact for the article.
•  Done "despite having done so with the Menacer for the Sega Genesis before" Not sure this phrase really adds anything to the article.
•  Done "Various third-party cards also provide storage; some provide only storage while others also contain the LCD screen addition" Should be reworded so that "provide storage" is not used twice in rapid succession.
•  Done "Video for the console can be supplied by several accessories" I assume this refers to different methods of connecting the console to a television? If so, then the accessories are not supplying video to the console, they are transferring a video signal from the console to the television.

Reception and Legacy

•  Done So, I am not happy about this rumors of a Dreamcast 2 stuff. Overzealous Sega fans have for years latched on to every vague statement and licensing agreement and patent application to convince themselves another Sega console was one the way. In truth, all of these sources were referring to arcade hardware or to licensed console remakes (like the AtGames consoles) or figments of these people's imaginations. There has never been a credible basis to believe Sega would build another console, so even though these rumors were reported in reliable sources, the fact that they were rumors mean that they are not encyclopedic considering Sega has never reentered the console business. That said, if we have a source stating that rumors continued to surface over the years because the Dreamcast was so well loved, I think that would be okay as one part of analyzing the impact the console had on its devoted fan base. Just to say there have been rumors though? I am not sure that belongs in a GA.
•  Done "IGN named the Dreamcast the 8th greatest video game console of all time" When?
•  Done "PC Magazine named the Dreamcast the greatest video game console ever" Again, when?
•  Done "Edge named the console the 10th best console of the last 20 years" You know what I am going to say. As a note, I realize that the date will be included in the citation, but the reader of the article needs to see this up front in the text to put these statements in the context of what consoles existed at the time these rankings were decided on.

Game Library

•  Done "The most notable studios were..." Judgement calls as to relative notability need to be backed by sources or can be considered original research. Something like "these studios included" would bypass this issue.
•  Done "Sega became 'the most prolific publisher in the business.'" Yes this is sourced, but prolific is a poorly defined concept in this context. Did the company release more games than any other company? Did the company just have more internal development teams working than any other company? Can Kent (notorious for overstatement and inaccuracy) even back up this claim at all? The general concept being articulated here is fine, but lets try to articulate it without using absolutes.
•  Done "and Shenmue (the first part in a planned 16-part interactive novel and a striking attempt at creating a detailed in-game city." As Shenmue is discussed in detail down below, this may be redundant.
  • I remain convinced this is redundant. The other games discussed in this sentence are all never mentioned again, but this exact same info is repeated later in the article in a whole paragraph devoted to the game. If you feel there is a good reason for this, that's fine, but I would like to hear your thinking. Indrian (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since nobody else has addressed this one or objected to my reasoning, I went ahead and removed it myself. Indrian (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. Once we have discussed the "game development" section a bit more I will still need to critique the "game library" section, but otherwise I believe I have articulated all my concerns. This article is a massive undertaking on an unusually beloved piece of console hardware, so it comes as no surprise that there are still a fair number of areas that need work. That said, kudos to User:Red Phoenix for crafting an informative and nuanced look at the Dreamcast and to User:TheTimesAreAChanging for rewriting and polishing many sections for additional brevity and clarity. We may be looking at another couple of weeks of hard work to finish this off, especially with the holidays in full swing, but I am confident that we can bring this to GA status in the near future. Therefore, I will now officially place this nomination  On hold (yeah, I realize it has really been on hold for weeks now, but meh) while the final issues are worked out. Thanks again for all the hard work! Indrian (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to reorganize the article, including the "Game library" and "Game development" sections, to meet your concerns as soon as possible.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another couple of weeks sounds about right... since I work in retail management, this particular week is the nightmare of my year, if you catch my drift. That has been a major factor in my absence from Wikipedia recently, but I will try to dive in as much as possible. Thank you Indrian for the very detailed review. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 05:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the major reorganization. I will leave the "Tech specs" to RP, as I've scarcely touched the section, and this is not my nomination.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Red Phoenix, is everything in "Technical specs" properly sourced? For example, there is no citation next to "Physically, the Dreamcast measures 190 × 195.8 × 75.5 mm (7.48 × 7.71 × 2.97 in) and weighs 1.5 kg (3.3 lb). The Dreamcast's main CPU is a Hitachi SH-4 32-bit RISC at 200 MHz with a 128-bit vector graphics engine, 360 MIPS and 1.4 GFLOPS using the vector graphics engine. The graphics hardware is a NEC PowerVR2 CLX2 chipset, capable of drawing more than 3 million polygons per second peak performance and trilinear filtering" and ect. I don't believe this would be hard to source--in fact, I have a source in front of me right now that could singlehandedly source most of that material, although some of the details are a bit different (my source says 19.0 cm × 19.6 cm × 7.6 cm, for example)--but I wanted to check with you first.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all of the that information comes from the EGM source in the paragraph - when I did this section, I started over from the beginning and pretty much wiped out the whole text that was there. As it's all to the same citation without another source being cited in between, I found it redundant to add a bunch of little blue links, but it can be clarified by copying the citation as needed. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good, less work for me. Thank you for clearing that up.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have just about all of the text cleaned up in the specs. Sorry, I realize I'm not around nearly as much anymore. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Hardware" still needs a little work. "The original Japanese model and all PAL models had a transfer rate of 33.6 kbit/s, while consoles sold in the US and in Japan after September 9, 1999 featured a 56 kbit/s modem" is of course true, but not in the reference. Where does EGM 115 say "the system features a Yamaha AICA sound processor with a 32-bit ARM7 RISC CPU operating at 45 MHz"? All I can find in the article is "Super Intelligent Sound Processor with 32-bit RISC CPU built in", while my source says 67 MHz. Also, per JimmyBlackwing, much of the EGM material is on page 27 rather than page 26.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the technical specs section a bit over the past couple days to clarify that Windows CE was not the only operating system, Sega had an official light gun but refused to release it in the U.S., there were two slots in the controller for the VMU and other peripherals, the VMU could connect to NAOMI, ect., and also changed the sound processor's clock rate since I believe the previous figure was inaccurate. One detail not covered is the Dreamcast's ability to link up with the Neo Geo Pocket Color, which I have had trouble finding sources on.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I think we are close now. I will try to give the article a (hopefully) final pass tomorrow. Indrian (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I read through the whole article, made a few tweaks, and asked for a few final changes above to the newly revamped "game library" section. Once those issues are addressed, I think we may just be done here. Indrian (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason you haven't sourced the bit about Eno yet? I was aware that (in Irimajiri's words), "We contacted lots of companies in the brand business, and collected hundreds of ideas from people, and we also asked our alliance companies such as Yamaha to show us their libraries of names. I think there were more than 5,000 names at one stage.", but had never heard that Eno submitted the name before, even in any of the obituaries following his death.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Indrian, one more thing. On Sega's financial losses, the article currently has some problems:

• "Poor Japanese sales left Sega with a US$412 million net loss in the quarter ending March 2000—double the loss Sega first expected." However, the source doesn't say that Sega actually posted this loss, only that the company "expected" to do so. More importantly, the time period is not "the quarter ending March 2000", but "the year to March".
• "Sega suffered a JP¥17.98 billion loss for the 6 months ending September 30, 2000, and a yearly loss of JP¥42.88 billion, making it Sega's third consecutive annual loss." The "third consecutive annual loss" is not in the source. Notably, the source says Sega "now expects its full-year loss to widen, to ¥23.6 billion", but Sega later increased this estimate to ¥58.3 billion.

This material seems a little confused, not least of all since part of the first statement is actually taken from the second source. We may need to look into this a little more carefully to determine what losses Sega actually ended up posting, or at least revise the language to better reflect the sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Per this report, Sega posted a net loss of ¥42.881 billion in fiscal 1999, ¥42.88 billion in fiscal 2000, and ¥51.73 billion in fiscal 2001.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the numbers; I'll look through my files as well. As for Eno, I've got it, I just keep forgetting to add it when I have the source handy. Its in The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers by John Szczepaniak. Indrian (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking it over, the Saturn figures are equally flawed, I just wasn't going over the material as carefully back then. We are effectively counting the same set of figures twice, because both Kent and Allgame are referring to the same fiscal year ending March 31, 1998. Kent's account is taken straight from the March 14 New York Times, which predicts a 21% drop in sales (it ended up being 24.6%, although the more damning figure is the 54.8% decline in consumer product sales, including a 75.4% decline overseas) and mentions that Sega expected to "write off $450 million to cover losses at its United States subsidiary". According to the NYT, Sega was expected to post a $254 million consolidated net loss for the year, which is very close to the loss they ended up posting. I can't quite determine where Allgame got $309 million from, but it appears to be a slightly different estimate of Sega's expected 1998 parent loss than the $302 million reported by Nikkei Weekly on March 16. So, a lot of work is needed here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The financial data has been taken care of.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I want to go over the whole article carefully one more time now (hopefully tomorrow), but this will probably do it. Indrian (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there is one outstanding issue left above from the "game library" section. Right now, I am beginning my final read through of the article and will be adding final comments and changes below. Hopefully, there will not be too many. Indrian (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final Pass

•  Done There are two citations in the infobox. Per the MOS, we generally only cite in the infobox if the material appears nowhere in the body of the article. I believe this info does.
•  Done We have trimmed down the lead a lot, which is fine, but it has left some holes. Right now, we skip straight from the design of the system to the US launch. There should be a brief mention of how it fared on launch on Japan.
•  Done "The PlayStation was immediately successful on launch" I think this refers to the US launch, but the article does not make it clear. The Japanese launch probably does not count as immediately successful, since it did not sell out on preorders and lagged behind the Saturn. Certainly, the console became successful in both markets after a short time.
•  Done The verb "launch" is used four times in the first paragraph of "Background." I know this is the standard term for the release of new hardware, but maybe we can provide a little more variety.
•  Done "which saw the company's revenue decline from a 1992 peak through 1995 as part of an industry-wide slowdown" I assume this sentence is about how revenues peaked in 1992 and then fell each year through 1995, but the phrase "1992 peak through 1995" does not actually convey this and makes no sense grammatically.
•  Done "With the Sega Saturn losing against the PlayStation" I can't quite put my finger on it, but this phrase just feels wrong. Conjures up images of two professional sports teams playing a match rather than one video game system trailing another.
•  Done "The Dreamcast shared the same technology as Sega's latest arcade board" This sentence is tacked on to the end of a paragraph in development and comes out of the blue. Which technology is shared? Certainly not the GD-ROM, Microsoft development tools, and modem, which are the main pieces of technology described in this paragraph.
•  Done "when EA—the largest third-party video game publisher" Is EA's position as largest third-party publisher sourced? There are no citations in that sentence, but it may be covered in one of the other sources in the paragraph. Its a true statement, but it should be backed up. More of a big deal for FA than GA though, so I will happily pass without this being fixed.
•  Done "Though the Dreamcast launch had been successful, Sony still held 60 percent of the overall video game market share with the PlayStation at the end of 1999" Is this worldwide marketshare, or a specific market? Article needs to specify.

I think that does it. Once these final minor issues are addressed, I believe a promotion will be in order. Indrian (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't, but it is now.
• The Japanese launch was never part of the lead and was not trimmed, but it's there now.
• Fixed.
• Fixed.
• Rephrased slightly; does this address your concern?
  • I tweaked it a little more. I think it's fine now.
• Changed wording.
• Removed as redundant given the material in "Game library".
• That's in the Gamasutra article.
• The BBC doesn't elaborate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire first section of the article appears to be discussing North America, so I think its safe to say that this is NA market share. I'm going to go ahead and make this change.

Very well, with this last round of tweaks, I am now confidant that Dreamcast meets the criteria. @TheTimesAreAChanging: and @Red Phoenix:, thank you so much for all your hard work. Once again you have produced a Sega console article that wikipedia can be proud of. Indrian (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your thorough review.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]