[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> Even though the Dreamcast had similar or better specs than the PS2 it wasn’t considered a real 3D platform by a lot of the game magazine critics.

Wat? That sounds like you confused the Saturn and DC. The Saturn had iffy hardware choices for 3D (because nobody saw the PlayStation coming), but the DC was a 3D system through and through. I don't recall anyone at the time claiming otherwise.

[markkanof]

Your right about the aspects of the Dreamcast being a legit 3D console. I do remember at the time though a lot of people bying into Sony marketing regarding their “emotion engine” chip that would render 75 gagillion whats its a second and would be the most astonishing thing you have ever saw. Once the system was released it was pretty underwhelming from a visual perspective, but that didn’t stop many people from arguing with me about how graphically superior it was.

[yardie]

> That sounds like you confused the Saturn and DC.

No, the logic was the game critics were underwhelmed by the 3D hardware of the DC at the time. While it was state of the art for 1998. When Sega started shipping the DC Sony put out videos of PS2 previews and DC sales tanked. Also, at $499 the Saturn was DOA. No one but enthusiasts could afford that.

Part of it was the DC came out in between cycles. An undecided buyer would sit out purchasing waiting for all 3 consoles to arrive. By then the DC was years old hardware wise.