b156f157   
   XPost: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2, alt.games.video.xbox,    
   ec.games.video.nintendo   
   From: weaponx013@yahoo.com   
      
   frogacuda@gmail.com wrote:   
   > On Apr 28, 12:08 pm, Scott H  wrote:   
   >> Some of this jives with other publications on the   
   >> topic.  Have you considered the effects of the   
   >> televised senate hearings, aired in November of 1993,   
   >> that implicated Sega as marketing "digital pornography"   
   >> to children?   
   >   
   > Yeah. I consciously chose to omit it for the same reason I omitted the   
   > Sonic X-treme story: It's a long, interesting period in game history   
   > in its own right, and too much to get into. That said, those senate   
   > hearings increased sales of Night Trap, not hurt them.   
      
   Right before it got banned?   
      
   >> None of which were designed to work together?  How did the system output   
   >> anything then?   
   >   
   > What I mean was, the parts themselves were not customized for their   
   > purpose. Not that they couldn't work together, but that they weren't   
   > very good at it. The timings in the system were very awkward, which   
   > made it very finnicky.   
      
   I was running it to the absurd, I understand what you meant but the   
   system's software seems to get around this very handily.   
      
   >   The "difficult to program for" bit was advocated by Sony   
   >> in their book "Revolutionaries at Sony" and has been successfully sold   
   >> to the media for over a decade now.   
   >   
   > It's also been advocated by just about anyone that's ever had to work   
   > with the system, including Yu Suzuki. Just because a pro-Sony book   
   > said it doesn't mean it's not true.   
      
   I've seen developers complain about it being relatively difficult to   
   program for in the context of the PS1's proprietary development kits.  I   
   have not seen any comparison to programming the PS1 in assembly   
   language.  It is not in question that Dual VDPs and Dual SH2s makes a   
   more complex system.  What is in question is whether or not developers   
   actually wanted more complex architecture.   
      
   >> "It was not that Nakayama made his decision in the dark. He knew full   
   >> well that Nintendo CEO Hiroshi Yamauchi was spending millions of dollars   
   >> that Sega could not hope to match in arranging secret alliances with   
   >> technology companies and software houses, many of whose products would   
   >> be destined for the SNES. "   
   >   
   > I never said it was Nakayama that made the decision. He vetoed the   
   > Sony deal for business reasons, and it was his hardware team that   
   > passed on the MIPS chipset.   
      
   That is the first time I've seen MIPS referenced in this discussion.   
   Did some primary source mention MIPS as what was under consideration?   
      
   >> The placement of this contradicts Kalinske's statements in the Sega-16   
   >> interview.  According to that interview, Kalinkse's interaction with   
   >> Olaf Olafsson was after the Sega CD's launch, or prior to the highly   
   >> public Nintendo-Sony divorce at E3 2000, and totally independent of any   
   >> discussion of the Saturn.   
   >   
   > The Nintendo Sony divorce was at CES 1991, not E3 2000, and the simple   
   > answer is that Kalinske was wrong when he said that to Ken. You'll   
   > have to trust me that I talked to him for a long time sorting these   
   > things out, and what you see in the article is only a tiny fraction of   
   > what we discussed. You're siding against me arbitrarily here.   
      
   That was a very bad typo on my part.  E3 did not even technically exist   
   at the time, and I couldn't remember if it was 1990 or 91 and didn't   
   bother to check.  I was primarily pointing out a contradiction in   
   Kalinkse's own testimony here, which poses a problem to the discussion   
   over all.   
      
   >> This statement needs massive corroboration.  What was the actual timing   
   >> of Kalinske's attempts at hardware design?  Did Sega of Japan have any   
   >> pre-existant contracts with chip manufacturers for their next gen   
   >> system?  What were the actual in game performance numbers of the   
   >> hardware supposedly designed by the Sega-Sony SGI ventures?  What   
   >> percentage of these specs were actually used in the PS1 and N64?  These   
   >> questions must be answered before the above statement can be made with   
   >> any credibility.   
   >   
   > There weren't any chip manufacturer contractual conflicts, it was just   
   > hardware issues. The MIPS chip likely evolved considerably by the time   
   > the N64 was released, but it would be reasonable to assume the same   
   > would be true if Sega worked with them. The Sony deal I think pretty   
   > much was the PlayStation as we know it. I don't think Sega had a great   
   > deal of influence on the system's design. It was more like they had a   
   > list of specs they needed that happened to fit with what Sony was   
   > already working on. Exact dates are hazy, but we can place this   
   > sometime in 1993.   
      
   I've seen the final specs for the PS1 and Saturn delivered to the press   
   by mid 1993.  This whole discussion has contextual problems, fascinating   
   as the implications are.   
      
   >> Sam Pettus' page explains that Kalinske wanted to allow the Genesis to   
   >> drive in more revenue prior to the Saturn launch, not that Kalinkse   
   >> didn't want to launch the Saturn at all.   
   >   
   > And now you know that Sam Pettus was wrong (about this and many other   
   > things, despite some very good work that he did). Again, the IGN logo   
   > at the top of the page doesn't make me wrong. I have the words from   
   > the man himself, and he does not.   
      
   I agree, I've found more than a few issues myself, most prominently in   
   his theories about how politics affected gaming at large.  I understand   
   your defensiveness, I did outright attack your article at the start of   
   this thread, but that is not what I am doing now.  Peer review is an   
   absolute necessity for any historical article.  Since there is no   
   "history of videogames journal" in academia forums and usenet is all we   
   can use.   
      
   >> Is this in reference to the Neptune?  Genesis 2 launched in 1993 as a   
   >> paired down Genesis console with integrated audio chips.   
   >   
   > No, it's not a reference to Neptune. It is what it is. It's closer to   
   > what NEC did with the SuperGrafx. It's a project that never came to   
   > fruition. It's mentioned in Steven Kent's book as well.   
      
   That's interesting, I'll look it up.   
      
   >> The same could be said of many to most multiplatform 3rd party efforts.   
   >   
   > The common hardware with the Genesis made it particularly egregious on   
   > the 32X which would frequently use the Genesis hardware to display   
   > backgrounds and such. It was an especially great problem for the   
   > system.   
      
   Definitely, MKII being the perfect example.  On a technical note I do   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)