Talk:Sega Saturn/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Marketing Techniques

Should that section be merged into the market performance sections? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sales

I've discovered a book source, written by David S. Evans and published by MIT Press, that states the Saturn sold 17 million units. While this is much higher than the 9.5 million figure given by the GamePro article, the GamePro article did not give any references to back up its figure, whereas Evans has referenced shis 17 million figure to a market research article published by In-Stat published in December 2000 giving figures for Sega/Nintendo/Sony console shipments from 1989 onwards. I've tracked down the original In-Stat source, both on its own site as well as MarketResearch.com (see here), but the price tag to view the article is nearly $2500! In other words, I can only assume that since the Evans source is a reliable source published by the MIT Press, its 17 million figure is accurately sourced to that market research article. Jagged 85 (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems a solid source, and I certainly have no problem with using it. Doing a little more digging, the only place I found the 9.5 million figure in a late 1990s source was an article in a magazine called Brandweek that claimed the figure but did not say where it came from. The last official number I see from Sega is a 7 million figure from the end of 1996 in a press release already sourced in this article. It seems a litle odd that Sega managed to sell an additional 10 million units of a the console in just over a year during a time of platform decline, but who knows. Indrian (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little curious myself, but that market resarch paper is far too expensive to access, hence why I just went with a second-hand book source referencing it. If I had to guess, I would say that it's because the 7 million figure for the end of 1996 was referring to the installed base rather than total sales (which may have been higher than 7 million at the time), and that most of the additional sales after that came from Japan (as well as Asia and to a lesser extent Europe), since the Saturn was apparently increasing in popularity during that time in Japan just as the console was declining in the West (though not sure if that's enough to nearly double the sales). Jagged 85 (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

We've dealt with this 17 million number before. It just makes no sense and doesn't fit in with any known existing data. 2 million is the final number sold in the US, and at only 7 million a year before it's discontinued, I see it as impossible and conflicting with much stronger sales sources.--SexyKick 00:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we go. "Close to six million"--SexyKick 01:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, 1998 - 8.2 million--SexyKick 01:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree it seems greatly out of step with other numbers. Looking at the source Jagged presented more closely, its hard to tell what is actually taken from the study. The only footnote appears at the end of the paragraph and specifically after the sentence stating that Sony never dropped below 33% market share. It could be the study was used for the entire paragraph, or it could be for just that sentence. I agree as stated above that the idea it sold an additional ten million units in such a short time when on decline everywhere, even Japan by that point, seems strange. I do not know that the sources you provided help much though. I don't think the first one has any more or less indicia of reliability than Jagged's source. The second one was not showing me any Saturn sales, so maybe the link is bad? As I stated above, there is an article in a magazine called Brandweek that gives a 9.5 million figure in early 1998 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BDW/is_n9_v39/ai_20352855/) Indrian (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You basically have to redo the search to get the clip quote. That's a good article you posted yourself though.--SexyKick 04:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Just found something else fun. A screen digest chart (you may remember them from the Master System debate) that shows sales of next-gen consoles in Western Europe between 1995 and 1997. This shows that the system sold 971,000 units in Western Europe during that time period and that sales peaked in 1996. I doubt 1998 figures added much to that. It probably sold less than 1.5 million units in Europe, which makes since because there are a few other places where sales have to be accounted for too like Brazil. This 17 million number is looking more suspect all the time. Indrian (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sales Figure Source

http://www.giantbomb.com/saturn/3045-42/

I cannot get the source edit page to work on my PC. The old sales figure was incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.69.16 (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That source is of no use anyway. First of all, the only thing it says about the Saturn's sales figure is "Estimates for the Saturn's worldwide sales range from 9.5 million units to 17 million units." Second, and more important, the page is free-to-edit, so it can't be used as a source anywhere in Wikipedia.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sales mismatch for U.S. figures.

Someone should look over this. The Saturn box on the right has 1.83 million for North America, but there is a link in the first paragraph of the article stating 2 million. Nevermind, seems there is a user changing the numbers. KombatPolice (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Clean Up Completed

There were lots of areas that needed fixing. I did not get all of them but there were numerous instances of un-cited claims being made as fact, information not being in the references provided, unreliable sources, and comparisons when one side is cited and one side is not. Let's find more sources to expand this article and make sure the information is 100% as accurate as we can make possible. John Mayor ERS (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Jakandsig/John Mayor ERS/KombatPolice, can you please stop ruining this article with no reliable basis on improvement? ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 01:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you are saying buddy but what was removed was un-sourced material, unreliable sources, info that is not in the source, and comparisons with no cites. That latter one was actually probably made by a person who does not like the Dreamcast. Pitting cited Playstations sales against un-cited Dreamcast sales. John Mayor ERS (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope anyone interested in improving this article would find reliable sources for everything John Mayor ERS removed. ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 02:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I am actually going to wait for anyone who can first. If no one comes forth for awhile then I may later remove those sections again since there are a lot of issues with the article containing un-cited and false material. As well as bias for and against the system. I like the Sega Saturn, but let's not go crazy. John Mayor ERS (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll actually do it tomorrow. People who read this please be sure to check the references that I originally removed. Otherwise the bad information is way to one sided against and for the Saturn to leave on the page. John Mayor ERS (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever pinged me on my talk page and requested I take a look at this article. This is an article on my list of upcoming projects I have planned for sure, but it's a little behind my current active FA, FL, and GA candidates (Sega 32X, Sega CD, List of Sega Genesis games, SG-1000), and I was also looking at doing Master System soon, too. I would actually like to start with a similar approach and suggest stripping the article out when it's ready for construction. As I can see it, a total overhaul is necessary, and that would include changing the format, removing unsourced information and WP:TRIVIA, and aligning a proper focus with the four key sections of a console article: History (including development, release, decline, etc.), Technical specifications, Game Library, and Reception (includes legacy), as well as any subsections warranted by coverage in reliable sources. A team, including myself, did so on Sega Genesis this year with amazing results, creating a FA and laying the groundwork for a Genesis WP:FT, which I'm working hard on completing. On a side note, I would encourage that nobody panic; I think the message I received was one of desperation in a sense. The truth is, nothing will happen overnight here. This will be a project to change over, and I appreciate users who are willing to be bold and stand up to correct the issues, and I would be willing to work with any editor willing to do so once I'm done with my current active projects. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good work Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever for getting him on board, as you can see ^{let's talk...}, I have performed a most through sweep of the article. There was some material I did not delete, change, or alter since we may have to discuss some of these references at length. I will be waiting for your suggestions on what we should add to the page to make it more accurate, I have mostly just been cleaning up articles for now. John Mayor ERS (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your "sweep" of the article was not a proper one, because you removed the "unsourced" information again. ~~IX|(C"<)~~ 03:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Principles of reformatting

It'll be a little bit yet before I can really get my hands dirty with this article. That being said, a total restructure is definitely in order. The four key sections of any console-based article should always be as follows:

History:
- 1. Background info (i.e. company's previous establishment, past ventures, decisions leading to new console, etc.)
  2. Development
  3. Launch (release information, marketing)
  4. Relevant events during the console (release of a legit killer app, legal issues, paradigm marketing shifts, etc.)
  5. Decline (and eventual succession)
Technical specifications:
- 1. Hardware details (processors and internal specs, ports, input/output, etc.)
  2. Peripherals
  3. Models (sometimes can work in History if a major redesign)
  4. Network services
Game library:
- 1. Overview of game library, listing of a few select titles.
  2. Criticisms over the library as a whole.
  3. Traits and issues common to games across the library.
Reception:
- 1. Critical period and retrospective reviews of console
  2. Impacts on company, market as a whole, etc.
  3. Relevant later impact (new development, revival of titles, etc.)

Some subsections may be warranted if topics are large enough (Genesis, for instance, had enough to be said about Add-ons and Variations to warrant two full sections entirely. I can see taking this article in that direction as well, and the following current sections would follow into these four categories: History - Development, some of Architecture, Performance in the Marketplace, Marketing techniques Tech specs - Some of Architecture, Saturn models (needs some reduction), Technical specifications, Compatibility, Accessories Library - Needs to be created Reception - Needs to be created

Proper research and reworking will fix a lot of things wrong with this article. I can't promise I'd honestly keep everything because not everything is relevant, source able, and important to understanding the console, but I do promise there's enough information out there to make a decent article out of this. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 04:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sega Saturn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 04:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC) I'll take a look at this for you Red, though I probably will not get to it until tomorrow.

Oh Indrian, you caught me by surprise that you picked up this review so quickly. I'm honored, and I'll be glad to wait. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 04:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy

So I think the best way to do this is to take two separate passes at the article. Before I get to the heart of the GA criteria, there are several accuracy concerns that need to be addressed. I specifically wanted to review this article because there is some bad misinformation and speculation taken as fact that has crept into the few reliable sources on the topic and I was afraid that a less well-versed reviewer might pass this along on the GA criteria without delving deeper into these factual issues. Once these issues have been addressed to my satisfaction, I will do a second evaluation that addresses issues of structure, coverage, image and reference formatting, etc. With that in mind, here are my first round of comments:

Done *Original designs for the Saturn began in the early 1990s at Sega of Japan's research and development department, as "GigaDrive" The GigaDrive name comes up sometimes as a code name for what became the Saturn, but this appears to be just rumor and speculation rather than verifiable fact. The GigaDrive name apparently first appeared in EGM #15 in October 1990. This is well before the Saturn was in development, as an interview with a Sega product manager in June 1994 reveals that the system had been in development just over two years at that point (and that specifically includes the conception stage). Looking at the text of that original EGM article, the news about GigaDrive is merely part of their rumor section and even the author himself is not particularly convinced by what he has heard. The common belief today is that this "Gigadrive" project was probably actually the Sega CD. As for the name, it continues to appear sporadically for a couple of years, but there is no proof it was actually an official code name for anything. It would be okay to include the Gigadrive name in the article, but you would need to say something like "rumors of a 32-bit Sega console first surfaced in 1990, when EGM reported that a new system code-named 'Gigadrive' was in development. While this name has never been publicly confirmed by Sega, the system did eventually acquire the code name 'Saturn.'

- Retro Gamer hedges their bets here by saying "early 1990s" as well. You don't happen to have access to this article with EGM, do you? It would be an interesting read. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  - This forum post quotes the material in EGM 15 and 16. I do not have access to 15, but I can confirm the poster quotes 16 accurately. Long story short, GigaDrive does not appear to have ever been a name for the Saturn and may not have been the name of anything at all. Indrian (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    - Check me, I think I've got this weeded out. Phew, the tough part about accuracy in these circumstances is that it's tricky to weed out what is and what isn't the actual, synthesized truth. It's taking me a little while to get through all of these; I'm actively working them out one at a time. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 22:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
      - There is still a problem here. The GigaDrive name appears to have been invented by the press. It would be better to first state that rumors first circulated about a new 32-bit console in 1990 that the gaming press labelled GigaDrive, then go with the quote from the Sega employee that indicates that development actually started in 1992. Then we can say the project acquired the internal codename Saturn, which ended up being the final name. These are all facts backed in sources and sidesteps the issue of whether it was actually named GigaDrive by Sega without ignoring the name entirely. To do it any other way risks spreading GigaDrive as an official Sega codename when it may not be true. Indrian (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
        I mentioned EGM here specifically since that's the earliest occurrence we have, and I removed the future release dating of GigaDrive as that's more than likely speculation. Hopefully that fixes it. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
        I don't have time to go in-depth on this right now, but since I believe I may not have made my original objection completely clear, I did want to pop on for a second to further explain. Rumors of a new console began circulating in 1990, but there is no evidence that Sega was actually working on anything at that time. For all we know, these rumors could have started because of the Mega CD project, which was not publicly announced yet, they could have started because some arcade hardware was mistaken for consumer hardware, they could have just started because someone was bored one day. The only concrete info we have is that the Saturn project was in development for "over two years" as of June 1994. This implies a start date no later than early 1992. Its okay to say that rumors of a new console began circulating in 1990. It is not okay to say that Sega actually started to develop a console in 1990. There are no good sources to support that claim. Indrian (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
        No, it wasn't clear. I feel like we've been beating around the bush this whole time. It would have been simpler to say, "Your source is wrong. Get rid of it." Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 15:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
        Reliable source removal by fiat? That is the exact wrong way to do it. Its also disingenuous to claim that if I said that without any proof that you would have not argued against it. Also, I clearly stated in previous posts that "the GigaDrive name appears to have been invented by the press" and that "GigaDrive may not have been a code name for anything at all" and yet the name continued to appear in the article as an official code name for a 32-bit system. I also stated in the very first comment that most observers believe the GigaDrive rumor started because of the development of the Sega CD rather than a 32-bit system, and followed that up by suggesting we mention a 32-bit system was rumored to be in development in 1990, but that there was no actual development until 1992. Beating around the bush? Hardly.

The reason I did not tell you to "get rid of it" is because I wanted to leave it up to you whether mentioning the GigaDrive rumor was worthwhile to the article. There is nothing wrong with saying that a 32-bit system was rumored in 1990; the only problem is treating that rumor as fact. I even gave suggestions on how that could work. I think it's only fair to let the nominator decide what he thinks is best so long as accuracy is maintained in the final results. Finally, if you are going to be so sensitive about criticism regarding your editing, you should avoid being overly critical of another editor's reviewing. We are all on the same side here. Indrian (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Responding to the PlayStation announcement, Sega redesigned the GigaDrive into the Saturn So this gets messy in a hurry, and there are probably not any good reliable sources to sort it out perfectly. It does not appear that the Saturn was redesigned so much as enhanced by cramming more chips and more RAM in. This would explain why the board layout is so haphazard and why certain features were not well documented at launch and not used by early games. There would have been no time to redesign the system and still hit the launch date.

According to specs published in Edge Magazine, the system was originally going to be powered by an SH1. This would make sense, because an SH1 is included as a CD-ROM controller on the final system, which is really overkill for that function. These were rumored specs though, not from Sega itself, so they cannot be certain. Even if the SH2 was planned from the start, it probably had just a single SH2 and a single VDP. There is a fairly elaborate discussion about this here that includes some interesting technical information and includes scans and quotes from relevant magazine articles (be sure to click on some of Koolkitty's links to previous discussions). The forum stuff is not a reliable source, of course, but the magazines they reference are useful for attempting to straighten this out. We will not be able to come up with a perfect solution, but some of this material needs to be taken into account.

Actually, yes, Retro Gamer mentions GigaDrive as a single-CPU system, and yes, I know it's not made clear in the article (something I missed, I guess). Nothing about the SH1 has come up in anything I've looked at, though. The role of Jupiter is one I didn't even go into because of its complexity and odd role as well in Project Mars, the Sega 32X. I would happen to agree with you on the cramming chips in, and we can use Retro Gamer to back the addition of the second processor, but it will be tough to hammer out what really went down. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please take the time to read through the forum post links I provided above, they provide information about 1990s magazine articles that discuss the SH1 and some of the other points. There is no definitive information on Sega's intent, so any discussion in this article on how Sega may have altered the Saturn in response to the PlayStation needs to be treated as speculation by reliable sources rather than as provable fact. Indrian (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any SH1 stuff here, but I've added the note from Retro Gamer about GigaDrive's single CPU planning and made it a little more ambiguous about whether or not Saturn was altered due to PlayStation. The problem with calling it speculation is that both Retro Gamer and Next Generation (a 1995 issue, no less), speak of it like they're absolutely certain of it - no bet hedging, nothing of that sort. That being said, I've tried to remove the connection by creating a new paragraph. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 22:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this is okay. Its not the whole truth, but I think its as far as we can get with currently available reliable sources and does not introduce any information that may be false. Indrian (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at this from another perspective. 32X was born at the January 1994 CES following a teleconference with Hayao Nakayama, Joe Miller, Hideki Sato, Scot Bayless, and Marty Franz. You must have access to Retro Gamer's 32X "Retroinspection" (issue 77), since you used it in the Sega 32X page. It seems that the dual SH-2s inside the Saturn were already well-known by January 1994, when Franz sketched two SH-2 processors with individual frame buffers on a hotel notepad and 32X was conceived. In his Retro Gamer interview (pg. 47), Franz elaborates on his design: "We really liked the Hitachi SH-2 CPUs that the Saturn had and felt they were the star of the show." Bayless (perhaps unsurprisingly showing preference for his team's design) notes that while Saturn and 32X shared the same dual CPUs, they used them very differently: Saturn's hardware rendering was bottlenecked by a "very high" pixel overwrite rate and "memory access stalls," whereas 32X "did everything in software" but had "two fast RISC chips tied to great big frame buffers and complete control to the programmer." Bayless concludes (pg. 46) "There's a part of me that wishes the Saturn had adopted the 32X graphics strategy, but that ship had sailed long before the greenlight call from Nakayama." While I don't know just how how "long before" 1994 the Saturn's design was finalized, Bayless' recollection casts doubt upon the popular theory that Saturn was redesigned in response to the announcement of PlayStation's specs in November 1993.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The evidence that Saturn was redesigned late in development is pervasive and convincing. One interview with a vague timeframe comment does not really refute it. It's possible that Sega had a rough idea about the PlayStations capabilities before the public unveiling, of course. If we change this it should just be to hedge bets on the timing by taking out the November 1993 date and saying it was tweaked when Sega learned of the PlayStation's capabilities. Indrian (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not just the interviews; it's the fact that 32X was conceived in January 1994, at which point Saturn's shared dual-CPU approach must have been known throughout Sega. Either there was no redesign, Saturn was redesigned within one month, or Saturn was redesigned prior to PlayStation's public unveiling in November 1993. Since you are no doubt better informed about this from a technical point of view, I yield to your authority when it comes to determining which of these possibilities is most likely.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, first I want to be clear that I am not particularly technical. People far more technical than I, however, find it strange that the system uses an SH1 for a CD-ROM controller because that is complete overkill. They also note that there are two different blocks of RAM with different speeds, which would be a really odd choice for a cohesive design. It would therefore logically follow that the system was originally built around a single SH1 chip and less RAM. This actually matches up perfectly with rumored specs published by Mean Machines and Edge in 1993. While all rumors have to be taken with a grain of salt, the rumored specs and the strange final architecture sync up perfectly in this case. As I understand it, plugging in two SH2 chips, a second VDP, and more RAM would not require extensive changes since the board would already be configured for an SH chip architecture. I don't think its outside the realm of possibility that a decision could be made on that in November and up in a rudimentary form by January. The fact that Sega was apparently uncertain in early 1994 when the Saturn might finally ship lends credence to the idea that the project had suddenly and unexpectedly changed recently. For these reasons, I think its okay to go with what the reliable secondary literature says. We cannot prove 100% that they are correct, but we can give them the benefit of the doubt under WP:V and WP:TRUTH. Indrian (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Within the same week, David Rosen resigned as the chairman of Sega, and Nakayama resigned as CEO of Sega of Japan, though they remained with the company. Kalinske was replaced by Bernie Stolar, Sega of America's COO and a former Sony employee who had secured third-party developers to create games for the PlayStation. This is not accurate at all and is a good example of how Kent messes up his facts quite a bit. David Rosen and Hayao Nakayama were co-chairmen of Sega of America. This is the position Nakayama left in 1996. He remained CEO of Sega Enterprises until 1998, when he stepped down in the wake of a failed merger attempt with Bandai. Stolar was brought in as COO when Kalinske resigned, but he was not placed in charge of SOA. Shoichiro Irimajiri was named president of Sega of America in 1996 and would later become CEO of Sega Enterprises in 1998 when Nakayama resigned. Irimajiri had been specifically brought into Sega in 1993 as an executive vice president to bolster Sega' in the consumer realm since Nakayama's prime experience was in the arcade. Therefore, while Stolar's opinions on the Saturn were no doubt important, Irimiajiri was almost certainly calling the shots on how to handle the Saturn in the U.S. between 1996 and 1998.
- Kent doesn't clarify this, you're right, and even IGN has this slipped up if that's the case (they mention Irimajiri but not at all in context of Saturn, only in Dreamcast). I have a little on the Bandai merger, but much of this is pretty scattershot across my sources and not too well tied in. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  - There is no need to discuss the Bandai merger in the context of the Saturn, but the article needs to be changed so that it no longer claims that Nakayama left the company in 1996. Indrian (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    - Done. I think this ought to be all straightened out. Still not anything said about Irimiajiri, but Stolar certainly does have fame for his correlation with Saturn and, of course, what he said at E3 in 1997. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 21:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
      - Stolar was clearly the public face of the company as the top ranking American, just like Reggie was the public face of NOA even before he was the president. I have no doubt he was intimately involved in the decision-making process as well. Ultimately, however, he was answerable to Irimajiri, who was in charge of the North American subsidiary. With Dreamcast it was different, because by then Irimajiri had moved on to Japan. Indrian (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    - This is not quite done yet, since there is still no mention of Irimajiri. Here is the press release that discusses both his and Stolar's appointments (Note: if you follow that link directly it wants you to log in, if you access the same press release through google instead, it displays the full thing. Even the truncated version shows that Irimajiri was in charge of SOA). Indrian (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
      - That worked for me too. Weird... oh well. I've got that press release cited now, although I'm not so sure about where I put the {{subscription required}} template. That now has Irimajiri added. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 22:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
        I reworded this because it still implied more power than Stolar had in this period. The press release is clear that Irimajiri replaced Kalinske and that Stolar was brought in as an EVP to improve the software situation for the system. With my changes, I am now satisfied that this concern has been addressed. Indrian (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Done Not so much an accuracy thing, but if you look at the sales conversation near the top of the Saturn talk page, you will see that some European figures were unearthed. These should be added to the article for completeness.
- Done. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 22:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

And that's it for round one. Once we have dealt with these issues, I will look at the other criteria more closely. A quick browse leads me to believe there will be few problems in this regard, but I will not make a detailed evaluation until we are done with the above. I believe this article will have no trouble achieving GA status with just a little work, so I am placing the nomination On hold as we work to resolve these relatively minor issues. Indrian (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be a common issue with retrospectives, especially since they tend to use ambiguous wording. My access to period sources, though, is limited, so I appreciate the accuracy review. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, points 2, 3, and 4 have been satisfied. I am still not satisfied with the GigaDrive situation and feel we need to discuss that some more. I will start a more formal GA review below now, though it will probably be a few more hours before my comments are posted. I believe we are getting fairly close. Indrian (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Outside drive-by comment from an uninvolved editor- A-freaking-plus to both of you for going so in depth on sorting out these complex, murky issues from 20 years ago. Indrian's right- most GA reviewers would have never even known to look for this stuff. --Pres N 03:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Round 2

I will start my formal review now, taking the article a section at a time. Of course, as previously stated, the GigaDrive concerns above also still stand.

Lead

Done Note: I should have included this in as a placeholder from the beginning. I am not going to comment on the lead yet because the changes I have requested to the body will ultimately require changes to the lead as well, so I feel it is better to tackle all of that at once. I have also moved a thread from below up to here for better organization.

I'm not sure where to put this, but the lead states that "the Saturn's development was originally designed to play titles popular on Sega's arcade system hardware, but was modified for 3D capabilities in response to the announcement of the PlayStation". Sega arcade games like Virtua Racing and Virtua Fighter were pioneers in 3D graphics; whatever Saturn's 3D limitations, it's dubious to allege that 3D was added at the last minute to combat Sony.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this was a case where over simplifying to keep the lead concise led to trouble. As the body of the article correctly states, the original specs would have been capable of 3D, but would not have done it nearly as well as the PlayStation, so the specs were beefed up. Honestly, I deliberately avoided commenting on the lead yet, because some of the changes I have asked for in the body will probably result in the need for extensive changes in the lead so that it accurately summarizes the whole article. Indrian (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of updating the lead to reflect some of the changes made to the decline section. I believe the lead covers the salient points of the article and requires no further changes at this time. Indrian (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

History

Done As this is an article about the Saturn, starting with the Mega Drive comes across as a little jarring. I know this is your standard MO and I don't have a problem with the concept at all, but there should probably be a topic sentence to start the section that ties it in better. Something to the effect of "At the time Sega was developing the Saturn, the company was enjoying great success with its 16-bit home console." Then the paragraph can continue with the info you already have. Feel free to use different wording, but this helps the reader understand why the article is no longer talking about the Saturn after the intro.
- Inserted "Prior to the release of the Saturn", to introduce Saturn first. I felt it was important to start here as it was the precursor, without going back to Sega's formation as we did with the Genesis article. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Done "Success for Sega had also come in arcade games." This sentence is really awkward. The subject of the sentence should be "Sega," but instead it is the object of a preposition and "success" is the subject.
- Reworded. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Done "which were very well received by gamers." This needs a better source. The Retro Gamer article says the games on the Model 1 were "wowing gamers," which is a vague statement that is probably more about technical capabilities than whether or not the games were actually liked. Now, I realize that Virtua Racer and Virtua Fighter were, in fact, well-received; I would just appreciate better sourcing of this fact.
- Changed to "impressing gamers". I'm not sure I have a better source about the Model 1. Heck, if I had better sources at all, I'd have redone List of Sega arcade system boards a while ago. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Development

Done "The later commercial failure of the 3DO also suggested to Sega that the console marketplace may not have been ready for full 3D technology." The source does not actually say this. It claims Sega was worried the market was not ready for 3D and argues that the later failure of the 3DO vindicated that concern. In other words, the source claims Sega was already concerned before the 3DO failed.
- Rectified. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Done "Observers of the PlayStation who were involved with Saturn development said that the PlayStation appeared to be more powerful than the Saturn project." Another overly long and convoluted sentence.
- This should be clearer. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Done "By 1994, the Genesis was starting to lag in its capabilities when compared to its main rival..." Again, this sudden transition is jarring. The entire section is about the Saturn, but suddenly we have a paragraph that starts off talking about the Genesis. Again, its not the info itself that is bad, but rather the transition. It should read something like "As Saturn development continued into early 1994 with no release date in sight, Nakayama worried more advanced systems like the Atari Jaguar and technically impressive games slated for release on the SNES would undermine the Genesis and seriously damage Sega's home console business." Then you can start in on the 32X stuff with a stronger foundation in Saturn development. Again, the sentence above is just an example and you can be free to use different words.
- Took this right out of the 32X article with some alterations, so I'm not surprised. I rephrased the opening into this. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Launch

Done "Within the first two days, the system sold over 250,000 units, but sales diminished over the next few months." I realize that this is what Retro Gamer says, but it feels pretty off to me. The Saturn was fairly successful in Japan, outselling the N64 in the region. Sales did fall off, of course, but that took more than a couple of months. In High Score, the authors claim that by the end of 1994, Sega had an edge over Sony 500,000 to 300,000. Momentum later shifted to Sony's favor, of course, but sales took awhile to trail off. Its probably also worth mentioning that the reason Saturn did so well in Japan when all its previous consoles failed was the popularity of Virtua Fighter. Kent can be used to source that.
- I've gone ahead and removed the sale diminishing statement. I'll have to track down the Virtua Fighter Statement.
Done 32X stuff. I realize that the 32X and the Saturn were similar systems planned to fill a similar niche and launching at a similar time. Still, there is a lot of switching between the 32X and Saturn with no clear transition. This section is about the launch of the Saturn, yet right in the middle of a paragraph on the Japanese launch, the reader is suddenly confronted with the 32X. There is no good reason for this. Furthermore, I see no reason in discussing the market performance of the 32X at all unless you have sources that state the 32X was important in some way to the Saturn. The Saturn helped torpedo the 32X, but I do not believe the 32X had any real impact on Saturn.

I have a question. The article says Virtua Fighter was a pack-in game, but Kent pg. 502 says that "no games were packed in with the console." Which is true?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed I missed that. Kent is correct so far as I know, as bundling was not a common practice in Japan. The Retro Gamer article used as the primary source for that section does not claim it was a pack-in either. This needs to be changed to reflect that Virtua Fighter was available at launch and drove early sales, but was not packed-in. Indrian (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

In any regard, I've removed about two or three sentences on this, basically just to highlight its similar launch time and approximate price. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes at Sega

Done There is a lot of extraneous material here again. The market fragmentation and strain of supporting too many systems at once is relevant to Saturn, but the launch of the Sega Nomad does not matter one bit in context. Mentioning that Nintendo performed well by focusing on 16-bit is fine, but calling out specific SNES titles in an article about the Saturn? Not so much.

I took out a few sentences, and I agree. That's why it's nice to have an extra set of eyes on an article. Does more need to come out? Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sonic X-Treme

Done This section is out of proportion to the rest of the article. Its the longest section in the entire history section and contains details better suited to the article on the game itself. This should be trimmed to stay focused on elements that are important to Saturn as a whole. It might actually be nice to rework this section to discuss NiGHTS briefly as well, which ended up being the most important release of 1996 when Sonic X-Treme failed to materialize.

I agree about the undue length of the section, since no-one really knows what effect X-treme might have had on the market. I'm also concerned about the following unsourced statements--misattributed to IGN's "Sonic X-treme Revisited"--which apparently were copied from the Wikipedia page on Sonic X-treme (which, in turn, does not provide a source): "The boss level engine began to evolve into a game of its own using this new source of inspiration, trying to stay closer to its 2D roots by adopting a 3D but side-scrolling viewpoint. The new boss engine gameplay prototype adopted a more pastel color scheme and organic flow of the inspirational Nights into Dreams..., made by Sonic creator Yuji Naka." Only Nintendo Life's description of the boss engine as "a NiGHTs-like 3D affair" in "The Sonic Games That Never Were" comes close to supporting these assertions; none of the sources allege (similarities aside) that the boss engine was "inspired" by NiGHTs.

It's unfortunate that none of the sources on X-treme are particularly good. For example, IGN's assertion that Sonic Jam was intended as "a big middle finger to STI" strikes me as sensational; Yuji Naka doesn't appear to recall this supposedly intense "rivalry". All of these journalists seem to be relying on Senn as their main/only source, and he is an interested party. Obviously, we must deal with the sources we have, but I do want to call attention to Nintendo Life's claim that "Although Sonic X-treme is the most well-known it's the untitled Sonic Saturn that arguably showed the most promise." Was there a separate, equally important cancelled project called Sonic Saturn? Apparently not, since the very Chris Senn FAQ Nintendo Life links to states that "Sonic Saturn" was merely an alternative name for X-treme!

How did they manage to show Nakayama an "old, outdated version of the main game's engine"? Apparently, the footage Nakayama saw was (in IGN's words) "ported by a subcontracted developer, reportedly running at a horrible frame-rate and looking less than impressive." Whether or not this is important enough to note I leave to your discretion, but according to Nintendo Life and Senn's FAQ, the name of this subcontracted developer was "POV".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've boldly trimmed down the section.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to point out the UNDUE issues with Sonic Xtreme too. Don't get me wrong, I'm personally fascinated with the game...but much of that information is available at its own article. (I wrote much of it myself.) So yeah, I definitely support trimming. Sergecross73 msg me 03:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"The main game levels were developed in a tubular mode, allowing level rotation and gravity directions" seemed a bit vague, so I added a little more detail.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it's been stripped down already; hopefully it ought to be adequate. Facts aside, I'm of the opinion that Sonic X-treme could have been what Super Mario 64 was for the Nintendo 64. If there's one thing the Saturn was missing, it was definitely a Sonic title. Having played Sonic R on Sonic Gems Collection, it's almost not even a fun game, as unbalanced as it is with only five tracks. Just an interesting bit of input. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with the sentiment, and that's why I support it having its own subsection like this, I just thought it was a little too long considering how much is already available at its own article, which was linked in the section. Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I personally doubt X-treme would have had anything remotely comparable to Mario 64's impact on the market, I agree that the absence of an exclusive Sonic platformer is a salient fact about the Saturn.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I never advocated removing the section, just trimming it. This looks much better now, and I thank everyone who stepped in to help whip it into shape. Indrian (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline

Done I'm sorry, but the claim that Sega distancing itself from Saturn destroyed Saturn is just silly. By the time Stolar made that statement in mid-1997, the N64 had been launched and created a one-two punch with the PlayStation that buried Sega. Stolar was only stating a fact that was already obvious. This needs to be reworked to acknowledge the actual market forces that defeated Sega.

I do believe that Sega's issues with designing and abandoning the Saturn hurt things...but you are correct, there probably should be more emphasis on the damage done by the PS1, N64, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 03:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, to clarify, I am talking about mid-1997 on specifically and the Stolar quote in the article. Saturn was difficult to program, limited in its 3D capabilities, and did not offer the same profit margins for developers as PlayStation did, because Sega stuck to an old-fashioned royalty structure based on a ROM cartridge model unlike Sony even though they moved to CD. This caused developers to flock to Sony with exclusives and players to flock to Sony for games that played better on that system even if they appeared on both. Stolar publicly stating that Sega was abandoning the system may have cost them a few sales, but they were already barely above a single-digit marketshare by then, so the performance would have still been dismal. Saturn died the minute the N64 took off in the US in late 1996, because the market was just not big enough for three systems. Even though Nintendo lost its momentum in the latter part of 1997, Sega was in no position to catch up by then regardless of development commitment. Indrian (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Kent book notes market percentages by that point, highlighting that Sega only had 12% of the market. I know Kent's accuracy is in question periodically, but might this be a reliable figure to throw in the article to illustrate this? Also... none of my research indicated anything about the royalties and development on Saturn. The most I found was about developers who left in disgust after Sega abandoned the Saturn despite its success in Japan. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Despite the errors, Kent is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Therefore, as long as we do not have evidence that he is wrong, he can be used. Feel free to use Kent in this instance. Indrian (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Redone. I actually quite like the result - the Osborne effect is played down but not forgotten - it certainly did damage Sega's reputation a little bit, but Sega started falling out because Saturn couldn't keep up with its competitors. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

While I have no objections to the current text, I will note that other sources give Sega's market share during the entire 1995-2000 period as 23% (versus Nintendo at 28% and Sony at 47%), with a fraction of that due to the Dreamcast. This doesn't contradict Kent's claim that Saturn was at 12% in 1997, but since Kent doesn't seem to provide a source for the figure or mention Saturn's standing by the time of its discontinuation, I thought it might be worth mentioning this data here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Technical Specifications

Done The section starts by stating that the system contains eight processors, but it subsequently only lists six that I can see. One of the missing ones is the SH1 that served as the CD-ROM controller. I do not know what the other one was off the top of my head, but it should be easy to find. They should all be mentioned briefly.l

Believe it or not, I couldn't find the other two in the refs I had. It's not as easy as it looks. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I will try doing some digging as well. If they can't be found, they can't be found. I certainly will not fail the article over it. Indrian (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we can leave this be for now. Indrian (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The 8 processors are: 2xSH2 CPUs, VDP1 and VDP2 graphics processors, 68EC000 sound CPU, SCSP (sound chip with integrated FH1 DSP), SH1 (CDROM controller) and a DSP in the System Control Unit (SCU). Info taken from the development manuals. 81.174.170.145 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

NetLink

Done I do not know why this section exists. Its the only subsection, which is poor form, and its just a tiny paragraph. The section header should probably be removed. The info itself is fine.

It exists because I was planning to do more with it, and then couldn't find any sourcing. I guess I was hoping to make it like the Network services section of Sega Genesis, but in fairness that had two sections and those were two of the hardest GAs I've ever written due to lack of sources. Section header removed. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Reception

I have no concerns with this section.

Sweet. I am actually concerned myself with how short it is and think it needs more (akin to the reception in Sega 32X), but that can be dealt with on the pathway to an FAC if I can get it that good. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Its short for a FAC, but I think it fine for a GA. It is a slightly lower standard. Indrian (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the recent deletions have harmed this section, making it less organized and informative.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Done*Infobox. There are two items cited in the infobox, which I believe is usually frowned upon. The final sales figure is already cited later in the article, so this is not necessary at all. The NA discontinuation date is not even mentioned in the article, so that should be fixed, probably by placing the date and the source in the "decline" section. Come to think of it, the Japanese and European discontinuation dates are not mentioned in the article at all and are also not cited. These should also be added to the "decline" section with appropriate sources. Also, SegaNet is discussed in the infobox, but not in the article. If you want to keep it in the infobox, you should discuss it briefly in the peripheral section. Finally, Virtua Fighter is listed as the best-selling game, but there is no source for this. I personally hate best-selling game sections in infoboxes, because sales data is usually incomplete and we really have no idea in most cases which game sold the best.

- No, it should be gone. It's just a leftover from before. I didn't WP:TNT it all the way, I just stripped it out and salvaged what I could, then rebuilt the rest. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)'
  - And poof, gone. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Done *The "PONG" article. This article is riddled with small errors and I question its reliability. Regardless, it only states that the Saturn was discontinued in 1998, it does not give an exact date. A different source will be needed to support the contention that the Saturn was discontinued in North America on August 10 of that year.

- I agree, actually. This is one I just haven't removed yet and should be. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
GamePro worst selling consoles of all time. This article is a travesty that appears to pull half its numbers out of thin air and does not include numerous consoles like the Studio II, Channel F, and PC-FX that only sold in the hundreds of thousands or low millions. I would not use this article to source anything. In the case of the Saturn, GamePro probably pulled its 9.5 million figure from a March 1998 Brandweek article called "Looking for a Sonic Boom" that gives that figure. This is not the final figure since the system was sold a little longer than that, but it is close to the final figure. The article should be cited directly rather than the GamePro piece. I can provide the citation info if necessary.
- If you've got it, great. We already debunked its 200k number for the 32X (as further backing, Next Generation claims 400k for 32X in December 1995, possibly North America only, and we know it was officially discontinued in 1996.) Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  - I'll get this in before the review ends. Indrian (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Done *Yu Suzuki and the "killer app." The source is fine, but it does not say what our article claims it does. According to the IGN piece, Suzuki was "charged" with creating the game, and Suzuki believed it would be a "killer app." That is different from saying management charged him with creating a killer app.

- This would be a paraphrasing issue in an attempt not to plagiarize, that's all. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  - No, its not. Our article currently states that management charged Suzuki with creating a killer app. In other words, management decided they needed a system seller and ordered Suzuki to create a game that would very likely determine the future of the console. That is in no way what the source says. This is exactly how facts get distorted into untruths in secondary sources and is just plain sloppy. Indrian (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)]
    - Reworded, but I would strongly appreciate it if you put down the criticism of my editing. It was done that way in an attempt not to plagiarize, and you could have been kinder in saying it needed to be reworded differently. I don't appreciate the response here. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
      - Wait a minute, I think I understand now. I thought you were saying there was not an issue, which did not sit well with me. Now that I read your comment again, it looks like you were saying that the issue was introduced accidentally while attempting to paraphrase. Also, I had no idea who put that info in, so the comment was not directed at you. My apologies if I offended. I think this was just a misunderstanding. Anyway, thanks for changing it. Indrian (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Done NintendoLife. This source is not generally considered reliable. Is there good justification for using it?
- Not necessarily. It was used in Sega Genesis in its FAC, as far as I'm aware, so I didn't reason that it wasn't considered reliable. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

--

And that's it. I admit, that is more than I was expecting, so there is a bit of work ahead. I hope the review does not come across as too negative, because on the whole I feel you have done a remarkable job of reworking a terrible article into something worthwhile in a remarkably short period of time. I have nothing but admiration for your efforts, and I am still confident that this can be sorted out in relatively short order. The last thing left to comment on are images and references, which I hope to get to later today. Good luck, and I am happy to provide any assistance I can. Indrian (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

These will take me a while to respond; I've skimmed the notes for now. I had to pick up an extra day at work today and will have much more to do over the next few days, limiting my available time to work on this. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Take your time, I am in no hurry. I don't know if the bot automatically fails an article after seven days or not, but I personally see no reason for you to have to finish all of this in seven as long as progress is being made. Indrian (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Quick jumping into the discussion here: to answer your question, Indrian, the bot does not automatically fail an article after seven days, even if it is not changed from "Review" to "On hold". If you look at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report#Exceptions report, you'll see that there are 32 reviews open that are more than 7 days old. The bot updates the article history but leaves passing or failing to the reviewer. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. So, Red, feel free to take as much time as you need. As long is actual progress is being made, I won't fail this on time grounds. Indrian (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I ended up being called into work yesterday and then told that I have to work extra days through the end of this month—if you can, avoid ever getting into retail management. Having looked over all of the notes by now, I'm honestly surprised, and yet not surprised. That's a lot more teardown than I expected on accuracy grounds, but at the same time, my resource access is limited (maybe I should enroll in school again just to have access to resource databases, ha ha), and believe it or not I've never actually owned, or even played, a Sega Saturn. Most of what I knew of it before working on this article a few days ago came from my research on the 32X, which again I've never played. We found out a while ago that Genesis retrospective references had a lot of issues, too, so I'm honestly not surprised there have been so many more. Many of the "wording" issues and what the article says above being different come from my attempts to rephrase and not plagiarize the sources. I'll try to do some in my evenings, but I work 12-hour days. It may be until my next day off until I can really give it a good polish, but with some luck I may get it in the next couple of days. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, don't get discouraged by the large number of notes. As I stated before, overall you have done a tremendous job whipping what was a truly atrocious article into shape. I have no doubt that once you have the time to dig into the article and give it a few revisions that it will take relatively little effort to address my concerns. Indrian (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I just marked most of my issues as resolved. The remaining big issues are the whole GigaDrive thing and expanding the "Decline" section. We are getting really close. Indrian (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Those two should be resolved. Nice. If this gets passed tomorrow it'll likely be passed as a GA on the same day Sega 32X gets passed as an FA. I'm so excited. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not planning to touch this at all for a couple of days. Too bothered by all the recent goings-on here to say anything. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 04:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who exactly this is directed at or which specific goings-on you are referring to, but this article is really close to reaching GA status. If you are not going to work on the last few, relatively minor, points because you feel discouraged, I am not sure the review should be kept open. It seems to me,though, that you, me, and TimesAreAChanging have put too much work into this over the last several days just to quit because hashing out an article can be hard sometimes. It's your decision, but I would urge you to reconsider. Indrian (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It should all be addressed by this point; deletion of one paragraph should have finished it. If you have any further concerns about it, let me know. I'm not sure what else needs to be done except that all of the restructure efforts need to be stopped to allow this article to pass the stability criterion. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 15:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I added the Brandweek reference we discussed and updated the lead. I am going to give the whole article one more careful read before passing. I anticipate passing it shortly. Indrian (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It is now my priviledge to promote this article to GA status. I know this review became a little contentious at times, but I would like to thank everyone who joined the discussion here and helped this process along to a successful result. Particular kudos to User:Red Phoenix, who has once again taken one of wikipedia's worst console articles and in a relatively short time transformed it into something both he and the project as a whole can be proud of. I do not believe this article is quite ready for FAC just yet -- both the reception and game library sections feel a bit short still to me and I think that more can be said about the system's commercial fortunes -- but there is no doubt it is worthy of the GA title. Well done! Indrian (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

G4 Icons source

The episode can be viewed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMXlyzyyLlE

Since that is not an official host, that particular link can't be used as a citation. The episode itself is a very useful source for the console. I'm not 100% on the rules. Even though it can't be legally accessed online, it can still be cited correct? I used this episode as a reference for the quote in the Sega_Saturn#Reception section. I believe this source should also be used elsewhere in the article.

Please double check that I used the proper referencing formatting:

Sega_Saturn#cite_note-G4_Icons-68

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think it's worth citing in its current state, but future expansion of the Reception section may make use of it if more retrospective quotes from Sega executives come to light, like the whole paragraph of Sega 32X. The IGN source also has the quote. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a high quality retrospective documentary series, that passes as a WP:RS. That is a rarity with video games. Many retrospectives are low quality amateur Youtube sources that do not pass as WP:RS. It should be used more.

Also the quote is interesting since it's the President of Sega of America listing all the problems with the system. It's a nice summary of the issues that led to its downfall. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Reception

I'll move discussion here. Information in here should be moved around a bit. The first paragraph's information should be incorporated into the history section.

The third paragraph should go to the decline of the history section.

The section should be relabeled "Legacy" and focus on how the Saturn affected Sega, the industry and how it's viewed today. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

and its game library contains a number of arcade ports as well as original titles.

Is this actually needed? Because this can be said for the N64 and Playstation, not even mention others. Should we remove it? 64.134.64.30 (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It's poorly phrased. The relative focus of the Saturn was more on Arcade ports relative to the N64 and PS1. That's what it should say. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It should definitely be mentioned to come capacity. This was more prominent for Sega, especially since Sega themselves were making some of the arcade games. (Versus Sony or Nintendo, who had arcade games, but were not made by them.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Article reorganization

I believe that Saturn programming deserves its own section. The N64 article has a section on this as well. Both systems were notoriously hard to program for. So I created a new section for it. And a new sub-section for accessories. This reduces the size of the game library section a lot. That section should probably be expanded.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you said this. I already felt the "game library" section was a bit short. I intend to look into the matter and expand the section soon.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've also moved Sonic X-treme to the Game libraries section. That section is more about the game, than the Saturn itself. It's a very large amount of space to dedicate to a single game. Might make sense to trim the Sonic X-treme section and merge it with the rest of the Game Library section. As it stands, that section discusses the Sonic games twice and it's redundant. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Reception section can also be split up among Game library, History and other sections. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the changes you made to "Reception". It seems less organized now, and it was concise enough that I'm not sure it needed to be trimmed. Does anyone else feel the same way?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It is messy. I'm not done. And it needs to be fixed. However, I don't see how long quotes really help anything. Also it should be renamed Legacy and maybe focus on the after effects of the console and how it is received today and affected later consoles, Sega and the gaming industry. The early reception should also be merged into the history section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Harizotoh, I believe you have some good ideas for this article and think much of your reorganization makes sense -- especially the new programming subsection -- but you are leaving us a bit of a quandary. You began your work in the middle of a GA review, meaning that the article as it exists now is different in several substantial ways to the one I began reviewing. While I believe many of your changes will make the article stronger in the long run, I do feel that in the short term they are threatening a successful outcome for this review. I am not advocating a course of action here myself, but I think you and User:Red Phoenix need to talk and figure out what each of you wants to accomplish here. Indrian (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If it's an issue I can just revert the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with restructuring the article. It's designed this way for a reason, and it's drawn up not to be too technical. Nintendo 64 is a bad example: Sega Genesis, Sega CD, and Sega 32X are better examples of proper structure of a console article, and it's not supposed to be too technical, per WP:NOTMANUAL. I've spent most of my efforts here and elsewhere trying to weed out and remove all this technical cruft that's unencyclopedic. Sonic X-treme belongs in the History because it's a key point of the console's history, the failure to create a flagship title using the company's mascot. I don't mind adding more to Reception, but it has to be balanced with more third-party feedback and outside reliable sources before we add in the primary responses, to keep use of primary sources sparse. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 15:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well sourced technical information is valid, in their own sections.

Both the N64, and Saturn were notoriously hard to program for and information on this

As currently organized, some section don't make much sense. The Game Library section starts by saying the Saturn uses CDs, and with a quote saying it is difficult to program for. Then the second paragraph discusses programming. It's only one actual paragraph discussing the game library itself. Most of it is actually hardware and programming discussion.

The technical specifications section is also very big and needs to be split up. A subheading for accessories. And a subheading for Programming. The paragraph on quadrilaterals goes to programming.

In general the article needs a few more subheadings since many of them are too big. See this for how I had it set up. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I read the diff and generally didn't like the suggested setup. The article actually doesn't need more subheadings - subheadings should always comprise at least one full paragraph, with two to four preferred. I wouldn't mind some tech spec reorganization, but not if it gets excessive with the programming and not at the cost of the other sections. There's nothing wrong with valid tech info that's sourced, but not if it's excessive to where the article loses focus. A console's focus should be on its cultural relevance and notable sections, i.e. History and Reception. Technical specifications and Game library are also important principles, but focus needs to be on the former two most of all. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Quads versus triangles

I'm not completely satisfied with how this topic is addressed in the article. I believe from experience that the quads in 3DO and Saturn resulted in less texture warping than was common on PS1. I can even post Youtube videos to that effect (e.g. here from 24 minutes in to 29 minutes in), though I can't find any truly reliable sources. If anyone can find some, that would be great.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Texture warping from PS1 was the result of lack of texture perspective correction. I think. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

True, and Saturn didn't have that either, but I believe the warping with quads was less extreme.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"Reception and legacy" or "Game library"?

In which section does the following text belong? "Franchises that started on the Saturn include Tomb Raider, Grandia, Panzer Dragoon, Sakura Wars, and the first console port of Dead or Alive." User:Harizotoh9 and I have come to a disagreement about this matter, so outside comments could help us reach a consensus. Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I would put that information in game library. Legacy is more for the impact of the console itself, and most of these games would have been created whether the Saturn existed or not. Heck, Tomb Raider and Grandia experienced their greatest success on the PlayStation. Indrian (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I would remove the sentence altogether. "Game library" already mentions all of these games, including their greater success on PlayStation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is undue...

...Because Victor Ireland is a primary source and there is already a mention in the article that Stolar received criticism for ending support for the Saturn. However, I did find Ireland's criticism in 1UP's retrospective interesting:

"At the E3 show where it all went south for SEGA/WD, we had contracted with SEGA to share booth space, and then SEGA of America told us at the last minute (literally weeks before the show) that we would not be allowed to share the space. We complained to SoJ, and got the space back when SoJ forced SoA to honor the deal, but when we got there, we were literally BEHIND a wall on the back side of the SEGA booth - they buried us because they didn't want to show any Saturn support. They had about half the booth dedicated to Genesis games, and almost no new Saturn games showing! We had come to the show to announce the Shooter megapack with Tecnosoft (Hyper Duel, Blast Wind, and Thunderforce packs) and some other stuff, and when I saw what SEGA had done, I nixed the E3 announcements and cancelled the deals (which ended up including transferring LUNAR to PS). It was clear that they wanted to wipe the Saturn away artificially."
"Bernie absolutely contributed to the early demise of the Saturn in the US. He pushed for it. Having seen the Dreamcast R&D, and either ignoring or being naive about the reality of the timeline necessary to bring it to market, he pushed to kill the Saturn so he could start over with Dreamcast and "save" Sega. The sad thing about the choice made by him was that the Dreamcast wasn't as close as he thought and killing the Saturn so early when it was a viable platform left a gap until the Dreamcast was released and a large bad taste with retailers and consumers. The platform started badly and ended in disaster, and it didn't deserve it."

The reason I find this interesting is because (in seeming contrast to most secondary sources) Ireland appears to take SoJ's side over SoA's (painting a picture of a SoA that never fully backed the Saturn, developed few games for the American market, and failed to properly localize or market Japanese titles). While Ireland isn't equivalent to a journalist or historian, I feel he may have a point about Dreamcast not being ready and there being a large gap with no Sega console in the West between the abandonment of Saturn and the launch of Dreamcast. I would even go further and say that, given Sega's financial situation, the decision to launch Dreamcast was highly irresponsible (although--given how expensive Saturn was to manufacture thanks to all the chips crammed inside it--doing so may have been Sega's last slim chance to stay in the hardware race). Should any part of Ireland's criticism be added to the article, or was I right to post it here instead?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

So as you say, since Ireland is a primary source we have to be careful in how we use him. His recollection of the E3 setup is probably okay since he was actually there. The Stolar stuff, however is presumably based on speculation and personal opinion, as there is no way that the head of a relatively minor third party developer would have actually been privy to the inner workings of SOA, Stolar's strategies, or the state of Dreamcast development at any given moment. I would be incredibly hesitant to take his word on any of that. Indrian (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. I did mention that there was a falling out between Sega and WD, but I didn't go into the details from E3 because I'm not sure it really matters.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

To do

Sorry I keep spamming the talk page, I just prefer not to change too much (especially to a Good Article) without discussion, but I'm leaving this here to note a couple of small additions I plan to make to the article sometime in the near future.

Mentioning Sega's short-lived merger with Bandai in 1997 under "Changes at Sega". (Perhaps also mentioning the launch of GameWorks that same year.)
Adding Kalinske's comments in 1UP that SoA "fought against the Saturn's design for quite some time".
Noting that Sega apparently turned down the SGI tech used in N64 (Nintendo claims they were simply a more appealing partner than Sega).
Sony approached Sega as well as Nintendo before deciding to enter the market on their own.

Any other suggestions?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of that looks good, but I am not sure what you mean by your last point. Sony Imagesoft, that is the North American video game publishing arm of Sony of America, approached Sega of America to gain expertise in creating video games. This was a software collaboration, not a hardware collaboration, and was completely separate from Sony Computer Entertainment, which was a joint venture between Sony and Sony Music. It sounds like you want to add something about a hardware partnership between Sega and Sony, which as far as I know never existed and was never attempted. I think a couple of Internet articles erroneously claim that Sony helped design the Sega CD, but Sega actually partnered with JVC, not Sony. Indrian (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This is what I was referring to:

“Sony came to us after they had been rebuffed by Nintendo,” remembers Kalinske. “They had wanted Nintendo to use some technology that they had, and Nintendo instead chose to work with Philips. That really annoyed Sony. Olaf Olafsson [Sony Electronic Publishing President] and Micky Schulhof [President of Sony America] came to my office and said: ‘Tom, we really don’t like Nintendo. You don’t like Nintendo. We have this little studio down in Santa Monica [Imagesoft] working on video games, we don’t know what to do with it, we’d like Sega’s help in training our guys. And we think the optical disc will be the best format.’

“Well I agreed with them, I thought CDs would be the next format as well. But in those days nobody knew how to programme on optical discs. So I said, “Ok. Let’s combine our efforts. Let’s finance Imagesoft, and let’s finance this little developer called Digital Pictures, which seemed to be furthest along in knowing how to programme on optical disc.’ And they financed three titles from Digital Pictures and we did as well. “So our relationship with Sony was very close and very tight. We together worked a lot of these things out. And Sega of America and Sony were both convinced that the next platform had to use optical discs. We had been working on this CD ROM attachment to the Genesis [Mega CD], which we knew really wasn’t adequate, but it taught us how to make games on this format.

“We had the Sony guys and our engineers in the United States come up with specs for what this next optical-based hardware system would be. And with these specs, Olafsson, Schulhof and I went to Japan, and we met with Sony’s Ken Kutaragi. “He said it was a great idea, and as we all lose money on hardware, let's jointly market a single system – the Sega/Sony hardware system – and whatever loss we make, we split that loss. Next we went to Nakayama and the Board at Sega, and they basically turned me down. They said: ‘That’s a stupid idea, Sony doesn’t know how to make hardware. They don’t know how to make software either. Why would we want to do this?’ That is what caused the division between Sega and Sony and caused Sony to become our competitor and launch its own hardware platform.”

So, no, it didn't go anywhere; but I thought that was an interesting anecdote.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I have read that interview, but I forgot about it. Including the info is not a bad idea. It was, however, completely separate from the PlayStation. This was a plan concocted between Kalinske and Olafsson, who already had a working relationship due to the software collaboration I mentioned above. It had nothing to do with PlayStation or Kutaragi's plans, or at least very little. I know Kalisnke said they met him, but Revolutionaries at Sony, the inside look at the creation of the PlayStation, does not mention it, so its hard to say how serious the idea was. So it would not be accurate to say that Sony approached Sega. It was just an executive at a Sony subsidiary pitching an idea to the parent company. Sony was already committed to the PlayStation at that point, so a potential Sega deal probably did not factor into their thinking too much. Indrian (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"Reception and legacy" or "Decline"?

I disagree with User:Harizotoh9's decision to move the following text from "Reception and legacy" to "Decline":

Some criticism has befallen Sega's management in both the creation and handling of the Saturn. Retro Gamer's Damien McFerran criticizes Sega's management at the time of the Saturn's development, claiming that they had "fallen out of touch with both the demands of the market and the industry." Bernie Stolar has also taken some criticism for his decision to end support for the Saturn. According to Travis Fahs of IGN, "Stolar's decision to abandon the Saturn made him a villain to many SEGA fans, but he had more vision than most gave him credit for. SEGA had a lot of work to do before they'd be ready for the next battle, and it was better to regroup than to enter the next fight battered and bruised. Dreamcast would be Stolar's redemption." Stolar has defended his decision, stating "I felt Saturn was hurting the company more than helping it. That was a battle that we weren't going to win."

What does everyone else think? Personally, I prefer the way User:Red Phoenix originally organized this information. (Not least of all because the lead sets up the "Reception" section quite nicely: "Reception to the Saturn is mixed based on the console's game library and complex internal hardware. Sega's management has also been criticized for its decision-making on the system's development and cancellation.") Harizotoh's edit summary suggests that he wants to keep everything chronological, which is understandable. However, I believe he is taking that noble aspiration too literally. As I see it, "History" should lay out the facts, and "Reception" should explain how critics reacted to them. In any case, it's hard to see how Sega's management "falling out of touch with the industry" during the creation of the Saturn chronologically belongs in "Decline".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Reception and legacy - More accurate for the info included, more neutral too. Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be organized chronologically. Reception on the fall of the system goes to decline, reception on the release goes to release section, etc.

This is partly a history article. They're set up in chronological order. Views of later historians (or in this case reviewers who are acting like historians for consoles) go into the section. They don't tend to have "Reception" sections.

Also Console page, even FA or GA rated ones don't seem to have a "Reception" section. They might have a Legacy section.

Regular video games have a plot, gameplay, etc and reception sections but I don't think this article should be treated like regular video games. For those articles, "reception" is harder to put into any other section, so it gets its own. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You may have a point, but the Featured Article Wii has a fairly massive "Reception" section.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That section is waaaaaaaay too big. I would also argue canabalizing that section and spreading a lot of it (maybe all) to other sections of the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Any thoughts, User:Indrian?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot there, and it could be done better, but the system was very divisive, so its not as excessive as you'd think really...it should be a lengthy part of that article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This may sound presumptuous, but if the vote remains 2-to-1 in its favor, then I believe we should revert to Red Phoenix's original GA version (at least until a more solid consensus is established).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the issue here, but I would agree that the original version is best. The criticisms currently in the article are not contemporaneous with the system, but are analyses far after the fact by journalists. If these were instead conclusions drawn by historians, I could see the point about keeping it chronological, but that is not the case here. I think it therefore fits better in the reception and legacy section, but I do honestly wonder if it should be included at all. Journalists posing as historians don't strike me as particularly suited to this type of analysis. Its not something I care enough about to do something about, however. Indrian (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll try and take care into treading the water here, as I think it's apparent which way I would support. There are a few cases before where I've placed reception at the time into the history, such as in Sega 32X (a featured article) where I placed a note about hype leading up to its release and the concern of journalists on Sega's approach in releasing the add-on. Critical reception, though, I think fits more logically into the base reception section. Chronology is a nice thing, but I think the categorization of the article as I've structured it nicely and neatly organizes History as a series of relevant events, Tech specs as an overview of what's inside the system and what works with it, Game library as an overview of the games which sets the tone for the system, and how it's received both past and present in critical reception. I actually feel that Sega Genesis is missing a lot of that past reception that it needs, and should be expanded in its own Legacy section. If nothing else, I think it helps its neutral point of view by contrasting past receptions with the present and legacy. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 00:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Pre-launch Prototype information

I have with me articles and scans establishing pre-development of the Sega Saturn from japan and some information about it about 1 and 2 years before launch per private statements sent to SOA.

Now, I am not sure if this early information is information that would be beneficial since the article seems to be more like a quick summary of its history than in depth detail, but I wanted to let people know in case pre-launch information would be helpful. All the sources are reliable and some are directly or indirectly from Sega themselves. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to share whatever sources you want, and we can help deem them usuable or not. The article is currently being monitored by a number of experienced users, so there should be no shortage of feedback. Sergecross73 msg me 23:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's always strangely disappointing when the Jak socks fail to deliver on their proposed overhauls, expansions, and additions. He really is just a troll.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't get it either. He does this all the time, and then either gets blocked for being disruptive or confirming he's a sockpuppet elsewhere, or ceases to edit from the account ever again. Why? Does he think one of these days, I'll go "Hey there, brand new user on their 2nd edit of all time, we may have had trouble with new users adding info to the article lately, but I'll randomly unprotect the article for you though?". Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Launch and other areas with room for improvement

This is a minor point, all things considered, but I have question about the launch sales. Both Kent and IGN's "History of Sega" refer to an initial shipment of 200,000 Saturns which quickly sold out. Kent says Sega waited to ship more units until the PlayStation's December 3rd launch. Is Retro Gamer's 250,000 units sold in two days more accurate than the 200,000 figure cited by Kent/IGN? (I don't have access to that source.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I also tried to find reliable sources about the original US launch port of Daytona being somewhat incomplete and perhaps rushed out the door, but could not find any that discussed the matter in such terms, let alone established notability. (Although Kent pg. 509 notes that "Sega star arcade-game designer Yu Suzuki openly admitted having trouble with the dual-processor design while working on the Saturn version of his hit game Daytona.")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe it'd be best to rework that part to emphasize Suzuki's troubles, which can be sourced, rather than it being sloppy, which could of just been somebody's personal conclusion... Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't completely clear. There is no mention of Daytona being a weak port in the article, but I have seen bloggers claim that it left a bad impression at launch when compared to PlayStation's Ridge Racer. (Sega later put out an enhanced version of Daytona with NetLink play, and it's clear that the quality of subsequent arcade ports like Sega Rally was much higher, but that doesn't mean the launch Daytona was rushed.) I was just leaving a note here in case anyone wanted to investigate the matter further.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I also considered mentioning that Panzer Dragoon was one of the more critically acclaimed launch titles--perhaps especially in the West where Virtua Fighter (as the first of its kind) was slightly upstaged by prettier (if shallower) 3D fighters like Battle Arena Toshinden--but decided against it because there's no evidence that PD had a significant impact on the market, while its sequels are adequately covered in "Library".

Other: This article could also use information on Saturn price drops and (as mentioned earlier) good sources on quads versus triangles.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no evidence for quite a few of your edits. But that's why we work together as a community instead of having one person try and control an article. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is going on the wrong direction.

I have been looking at this article for awhile now and it seems that many people here don't notice the lack of neutrality and filler that comprises about 2/3rds of this article.

Investigating the primary editor of this article, TheTimesAreAChanging, it actually doesn't make sense to have him lead the editing of this article. It should be someone who is neutral in the project to the device, or someone from the outside.

Furthermore, there are many paragraphs or statements based off assumptions instead of being from an actual reference. OR, a reference is used to make a conclusion based on other information on this page. I forgot which wiki rule it was, but I am pretty sure there is a rule against that type of editing on Wikipedia.

In addition to the above problems, there are also claims that are written but not shown. Sometimes leading in a paragraph or hidden with in others. Considering they have nothing to prove they are true in the form of sources, the only purpose of these claims is to inflate the article. An above conversation actually solidifies my suspicion.

I did check through some past posts to make sure I am caught up here, and it seems clear that you guys are trying to make this a GA article that is deserving of that stamp. However, after looking at other GA articles, and then seeing the problems mentioned above, it seems like you guys are moving further and further away instead of closer.

Of course, I am not all talk, I'll put my two cents in to help out. But I can't do that quite yet. I think I can tomorrow if I am not mistaken. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I am doing my best to be completely transparent with all of my edits here, Jak. Can you provide more concrete feedback? (It shouldn't be hard for an article that is "2/3 filler".)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe you're doing your "best" with comments like this, but I am going to help anyway regardless. We could start by writing out my full statement correctly instead of misquoting in your own words.

Now then, from what I see, there are about 4 problems that can probably be solved rather quickly. Filler, information that is different from the source provided, writing assumptions in the from of facts, and finally, a mix of smaller problems. Examples would be information accuracy, cutting time talking about things unrelated to the Saturn, and checking reliability.

It may be possible to change things around in as little as a day or two. I say this because the problems are not spread too much throughout the article. I would say that the racing article you recently edited is actually worse. Fixing these problems should be easy, and I will be here to help as well. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay then, what specificly are you unhappy with then? Sergecross73 msg me 22:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You must have skimmed over it without reading the whole thing. I understand, I did write a bit too much. Please stay tuned tomorrow and we will go over everything then. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We're not asking for your "whole plans", we're just looking for an example or two. You may want to start there, to see if you are on the right track. You're brand new to the project, only a few edits in. This article is in rather good shape, so I'm wondering if maybe you don't really understand the end goal here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, I suppose I written too much and you based your statement off skimming. I understand that. I want to let you know however, you have the wrong Idea what I am trying to do. Also, this article is not in good shape. It's the exact opposite of good shape. Several Wiki guidelines are ignored, there's irrelevant information, assumptions written as fact with no references, and claims written as fact without support .But it will take time to point these out so like I said before please wait. It would be much better and easier if I had more time to go through them with you guys. Specifically, when I am more available and will not be busy for the next few hours. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how you have time to keep writing these wall-of-text responses but not have time for a mere example. Not sure how you expect to be taken seriously with all generalities. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Why did AfroMan blame TheTimesAreAChanging for making Sega Saturn "worse"? This article is not worse, it is better. Red Phoenix improved it because I said to him he had to take a look at it. And he turned it into a GA, despite being rushed. That's why he accused TTAAC (not Red Phoenix) of making the article "worse". ~~Mr*|(60nna)~~ 23:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, since I was pinged here... AfroMan, with respect and assuming good faith that you are concerned, I don't really see what you're getting onto. Accuracy and such statements about "assumption" were addressed in the GA review by Indrian, who gave it a very thorough review. I happen to trust his judgment and know him as an editor that he reviewed this entire article in order to correct all of that. I do feel like some sections have a little bit of "filler" myself, but as long as it's relevant and well-sourced information (which I have ensured), and it quotes the sources accurately (which it does, he actually nitpicked some of that which I misinterpreted when working with the references), it shouldn't be a problem. Please do explain in specific what is an issue, because I fail to see it right now. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 23:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I see, AfroMan is a sockpuppet of disruptive sockpuppeteer/editor Jakandsig. ~~Mr*|(60nna)~~ 23:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, no one should get too concerned about this. Pretty sure this a block evading sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or just a troll. If things follow the usual path, either this person will disappear, suggest things that will never gather consensus for support, or get blocked for letting his guard down. Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty clear you are intentionally trying to sway people away from offering constructive criticism. Instead, I see you are attempting to try and convince people that I am troll. Good maturity there mate, good work. *clap* *clap* Now if you are done with your fit, let us address some of the issues in this page instead of random fighting.

I am going to start from the top instead of addressing the main concerns first because that would in my eyes, be easier than trying to edit things within the article. Top to bottom will get rid of all issues as we go down, then once we are finished we will pretty much be done. Not a bad plan eh?

Guess I should separate the two posts for organization give me a second. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Article Discussion

Article discussion one

NOW THEN Of course, I won't do everything all at the same time, just some things that I personally found that are questionable. Now, I could be wrong so bare with me.

1. Looking at "History" the first paragraph has no point of existing. If this somehow tied things together to the launch and thoughts of creating the Saturn, then it would be important to include. but it does not. It just seems like some information to make the article inflated. This is made even clearer, when you look at the comments for the Sega-CD and the 32X respectively.

What could replace this whole paragraph is something that has to do with the beginning stages of development. When say, they started even thinking about Saturn as a possibility. I am actually working on that now. Prototype information is crucial and should be first priority. I just need one more non-primary reference and we can put all this information in. In the meantime, this whole paragraph would probably be better off removed. There's no tie-in and it does not connect to the rest of the article in any beneficial way.

2. Now here are a couple of head scratcher sentences here. The first is, When Sega learned of the PlayStation's capabilities, Sega CEO Hayao Nakayama is said to have approached his research and development department team members and criticized them for allowing Sony to develop a console more powerful than theirs. and the second is, Sega apparently redesigned the Saturn in a short amount of time.

The first sentence does not have a source. The other odd thing is the wording of "is said", and the fact that none of the surrounding links show this to have been true. this should be removed, unless someone has a direct source to such a statement. (The magazines without direct links also do not have this statement said or implied in them as it is written.)

The second is easy. Reference number 9 which contains an interview with Kalinske on MCV, has the man quoted himself saying that they rushed the console. Or rather, it was slapped together and not ready. So we should completely remove this confusing "apparent" statement and write the actual quote from Kalinske himself.

3. Next, Because the Genesis was starting to lag in its capabilities when compared to the SNES. This does not seem reliable. The source for this is IGN, which looking at the article carefully, it's an assumption and there's nothing concrete. However, a bit after that the Jaguar is mentioned with a concrete link (I have that issue of the mag) and the jaguar is also mentioned in sources I can find easier on Google. I would say remove this unless you guys can find a better source showing that it was STATED that the SNES was a key reason for the 32x. I personally find it strange to believe that though, given the name of the 32-x implies a stop-gap for 32-bit consoles, not the SNES.

CON.I think we have enough to talk about here. Don't want to put in too many, and it's easier to keep track of this way. I do have a small issue with MCV as a source, but I guess for video games they are fine. The interview seems too well done to not be legit, so it's good. I find it strange that this source is not really used many other times in the article though, especially when it contains direct quotes. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The "slapped together in very short order" quote is from Sony's Steve Race, hardly a reliable source for factual claims about the Saturn's development. I do agree to some extent about the material copy-pasted between Sega Genesis, Sega CD, Sega 32X, and Sega Saturn. (In fact, there are some parts of FA Sega Genesis that I would do differently if I were editing that page.) However, I already deleted most of the excessive stuff about Super Metroid and the Sega Nomad, and am satisfied by the historical overview currently provided. You may have a point about the 32X.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually you are incorrect. The quote was from a time period when Steve was at Sega (not talking about the interview time itself which is 2013). You seem to ignore that, and then there is the fact about Kalink trying to get the launch delayed because of the rush. No matter how you slice it the "apparent" sentence doesn't make sense when we have TWO direct quotes. Don't forget the others. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You're blatantly misrepresenting the source. The Saturn was already out in Japan, but Kalinske wanted to delay the US launch until more software was ready--which makes sense considering there were no third-party games available during the US launch. (Here's the exact quote: "I tried to get the launch date delayed so that we had a reasonable amount of software supporting it.")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

So here's my two cents on these issues. Steve Race's opinion on the Sega Saturn is relevant to the article and probably worth including. He worked as a consultant for Sega of America throughout the period in question and would therefore have inside knowledge of the state of Saturn development. He did not join SCEA until January 1995. As for the use of the word "apparent," I believe that crept in during the GA review as we went back and forth over the extent of the Saturn redesign and whether it was done specifically in response to the PlayStation announcement or not. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that a redesign occurred, but as yet no good direct evidence, at least not in English-language sources. I don't mind if that language is taken out, but I also see no problem with leaving it in. The story of the development of Saturn remains murky. Indrian (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That is actually the very quote I am referencing. First, let me state that i did confuse that sentence for the U.S. launch. But this line is still a problem, "Sega apparently redesigned the Saturn in a short amount of time" which claims that the SAT was redesigned in a rush. If we want to be technical, there is no source for this statement at all and I checked all the surrounding links. So I will admit I misread this quote by mistaking it as a U.S. thing, but now my opinion is that it should be removed because I don't see statements that confirm this. if they did, then we should replace it with the quote itself, which ties into my original point. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The source is Retro Gamer. The fact that it's impossibly difficult to assign different operations to both SH-2s suggests that the system had more chips crammed into it to compete with the Playstation, although I'm not aware of any anecdotal confirmation of this from Sega's engineers.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Point #1 - I see nothing wrong with the opening paragraph. Its common for fully developed articles to provide a bit of background in regards to the topic at hand, to start off. Commonly events prior to it are used as extra info to "set the stage" for the main subject. Its especially prominient, for example, in music album/band articles, where prior touring or album details are listed to show how they led into the main article. Common practice.
Point #3 - I can find more sources, but the common sentiment is that developers started harnessing the power of the SNES better, and that started to make the SNES pull ahead of the Genesis in the end. The special graphics of Donkey Kong Country and Super Mario RPG are commonly referenced examples. I can do search sourcing if you really need proof of this, but its pretty commonly understood, and IGN is a reliable source that would be in the place to make such a claim. Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that the information provided is not "background" of the Saturn. This is an encyclopedia, people seem to forget that. Your example of bands does not mak any real sense because the subject is about the band in those opening paragraphs. The opening paragraph here has no connection and nothing to do with the Saturn.

Yes, the SNES was stronger. But it has nothing to do with this sentence, Because the Genesis was starting to lag in its capabilities when compared to the SNES which in the paragraph, is used the claim the SNES was the reason for the making of the 32x. Now if you can find a source for THAT, then yes, it would be fine. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Time, I viewed the Retro gaming source, it does mention the chips being put in, but it does not have statements proving that Sega put placed them in a hurry. More chips than the PSX? Sure, but remember, the quote says "Sega apparently redesigned the Saturn in a short amount of time" and that info is not confirmed in any of the surrounding sources. It's a guess. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, its not the background information, its information that lead up to the development of the Saturn. It shows the company's history a bit. I can at least understand a claim of it being excessive, though I have no idea how you'd call it "unencyclopedic". If you take some time to look at some good articles and Featured Articles, you'd see what is there now is pretty common.
As far as your other point, the IGN source clearly states the statement regarding the 32x/SNES. IGN is a reliable source. Its reliably sourced, there is no problem here. (Ironically, the IGN source even cites the DKC and SMRPG examples that I came up with on my own, I didn't even realize that when I said it.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The IGN statement is verifiable, and Wikipedia favors verifiability over truth, but I could still see it being challenged as undue. There were late-generation Genesis titles such as Vectorman (pre-rendered 3D models comparable to DKC), Sonic 3D Blast (isometric 3D), Virtua Racing (chipped cart easily on par with Super FX games), and Ranger X (got around the Genesis' color limitations) that also pushed the system to its limits, while its faster processor helped it retain its edge in sports and action games. Sure, the SNES could do things the Genesis couldn't (unsurprisingly considering that Nintendo had two extra years to develop it), but Sega continued to dominate the North American market through 1995. I'm not sure we need to inject this article with rhetoric from the previous generation's "console war".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, "32X Follies" names not Mario RPG but Yoshi's Island (which uses a special hardware chip inside the cartridge to achieve effects not possible with the SNES alone) as an example of the Genesis' "definitely lagging" capabilities.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes! see? This is why I never just go with mainstream sources without checking. IGN did not have the information to back up the claim. The main reason why I usually have issues with a few VG mainstream sources like IGN, GS, etc. is because they are usually used to prove certain things are true, yet they never quote from the actual source. A lot of the time they are guessing, and a lot of the time they recruit fan editors for general articles so the reliability is never consistent.

As for Sergecross' comment, the opening to the article is a bit excessive which is why it caught my attention. It should be simplified, and then tie in with the start of Saturn development, instead of being about just Sega in general. Kind of have the opening bridge into the development tab.

TheRealAfroMan (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding to opening suggestion, it goes back to my first post, the 32X is a brief mention, but the Sega CD ends with it being considered a disappointment. What we can do is follow that up with the launch of the 32x and it ending up be disappointing, and tie that into the need for the Saturn. Then when people get to the development section, it all comes together.

This leaves just point number two to be solved, and that "apparent" quote. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think everyone here likes the opening, so it really is incumbent upon you to submit a trimmed version, rather than our responsibility to revise it until you are satisfied.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll get to it when I put to prototype information in (I know I need more than primary sources). Anyway, about replacing "Sega apparently redesigned the Saturn in a short amount of time" with a direct quote. Do you agree with this motion? TheRealAfroMan (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No, since there are no direct quotes that support it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll get to that in a second. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you just say that there is nothing to support this sentence? TheRealAfroMan (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, just that there is no "proof". If you meant a quote from Retro Gamer, we could discuss that, although I think the summary is preferable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

But if there's not proof then what? NVM, The wording is still wrong regardless, I have made a new section below. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Circumstantial Evidence

Time, you stated that there is enough circumstantial evidence for the sentence, Sega apparently redesigned the Saturn in a short amount of time. The word "apparently" itself is based off of a guess, it's not a sure thing, and I am pretty sure that is actually against some of the editor rules on Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that "apparent" and "apparently" are two completely different words just in case you got the definitions mixed up.

If you change the words around, then your claim of circumstantial evidence would make much more sense. You would still need to attach a source to the changed sentence though, at that point, it would be a direct claim. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand. There are reliable secondary sources that directly state that the Saturn was redesigned due to the PlayStation. The only primary evidence we have is circumstantial. By wikipedia policy, however, we can take reliable secondary sources at their word unless there are compelling primary or secondary sources that directly refute them. I would agree, however, that the introduction of the word "apparently" in our article is clouding the issue. I do not think there is a need for it. Retro Gamer flat out says it was redesigned, it does not use hypothetical language. Indrian (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Your original objection was to the words "apparently" and "short amount of time", but in your edit you attempted to remove mention of a Saturn redesign altogether (even though other parts of the article still alluded to it). The former qualifier is appropriate because we do not have the incontrovertible proof you demand at threat of deletion. "Short amount of time" is speculative, based on the supposition that Sega's probable redesign was motivated by the PlayStation's specs, which were announced in November 1993 (the dual SH-2 design must have been finalized by the end of the year to match up with the timeline of 32X development). Since Sega might have had some idea of the PlayStation's specs prior to their formal announcement, I added the phrase "When Sega learned of the PlayStation's capabilities" to hedge our bets. Deleting "short amount of time" would be appropriate, were it not for the qualifiers already present, and the fact that we want the article to be as informative as possible.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As usual for suspected Jakandsig sockpuppets, your reasoning jumps all over the place. You wanted to remove Retro Gamer and replace it with a primary source directly saying the same thing, but none appear to be available, and you didn't cite one. You leaped from that to deleting the entire sentence, apparently believing you had achieved some sort of consensus on the matter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm rather shocked you've given Jak as much time as you already have. Its becoming more and more apparent, between the reverts, the strange logic that no one else seems to follow/support, etc. I'm pretty close to convinced... Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm still curious to know which unspecified sources I have allegedly misrepresented to push my POV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And there's still all that juicy "prototype info" coming too! Sergecross73 msg me 02:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Both of you don't seem to be using any logic. First of all, Serge, if you were actually paying attention to the conversations above instead of random strange nonsense claims of "duck" with NO basis, you would have seen that there was an actual consensus for an edit and that edit was applied to the article, which is still there. The 2ND edit, was not, which seems to be where you are focusing. Then there is a fact another user has basically shared my view to change the "apparently" sentence. Now, I am not trying to attack you, but everything you said above makes no sense because for it to make any sense, then no progress would have been made, which is false, because of this, everything you said is basically invalid, so it may seem you have not been following the whole conversation clearly.

Now, for the most interesting of part of this, Time, how did you get from this whole conversation, that I wanted to remove Retro Gamer? How did you come to that conclusion? Because I can't even fins an implication!?!?! That sentence with "apparently" in it had no source? Not on that, did you not notice you were the only person until this paragraph to have said "Retro Gamer" by name(outside of Indrian) in the conversation at all?!?! If you go back to the beginning, you will see the reason why I wanted to remove it in the first place is BECAUSE THEIR WERE DIRECT QUOTES talking about the subject, and you yourself JUST NOW have AGREED with me without even realizing it! Do you remember this quote, "we should completely remove this confusing "apparent" statement and write the actual quote"???? Yes, I wrote that. Claims of ME being all over the place and such don't make any sense when it's your OWN statements that are confusing you.

I actually found the cause of the confusion quickly, when I wanted to add a direct quote from a source to that sentence, you thought Retro Gamer was the reference for that sentence, and IN TURN, you thought I wanted to replace it. When In reality, that sentence did NOT have a source during my edits or before, and you did not notice that I wanted "any" source to prove the sentence was true, or to remove it outright if we could not find any. I am also not the only one who has an issue with that particular sentence. Which you will see below.

Finally, new 4th member Indrian has come in with his thoughts. I am still getting used to how Wikipedia decided truth from source reliability rather than a direct truth, so I appreciate you clarifying that to me. I also noticed that you also want to remove "apparently" and replace it with either a quote that flat out says it was rushed, or to remove it outright.

I actually think that a direct quote from retro gamer would work really well here. Let's focus on that instead of more strange misunderstandings. Instead, we should be going over parts of the article to improve it. Although you guys have "slightly, proven me a bit wrong,I still think you guys aren't to open with others input. Even with this very small approach I made for just a few sentences. I am going to fix up another article like you have ever seen, and you will see that communities together can make good articles not just, basically, a single person primarily and a few supporters. Don't get me wrong though, I learned quite a bit from you guys and I appreciate the help. Even now, I still have a lot of editing tools I don't know how to use. But let's avoid future off-topic arguments.

TL;DR= Who's for using a direct quote from Retro Gamer instead of the current "hypothetical" sentence as Indrian had put it? Seems like a pretty good idea. I am all for it. The other possible option is to remove that sentence outright and maybe rework a later statement to include a source mentioning the "quick" redesign. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

AfroMan's comments are clearly nonsensical. How could he be this irritating as he is a Jak sockpuppet? ~~Mr*|(60nna)~~ 22:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a Jak "No one is siding with me" type rant. Unfollowable, angry, wall-of-text. Sergecross73 msg me 23:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You're gonna have to learn how to be a troll much harder. You clearly did not read a word I said because then you wouldn't be speaking at all period. First off, good job trying to make this a "siding" contest in an OPEN COMMUNITY website were people should be contributing together. BUT, I thought I would just show that you SEEM TO LACK reading comprehension(hey look that edit is still there!) and are intentionally pretending things like this have never happened, or this either, because you apparently want to stop other people from giving their input, and will ignore someone agreeing to the same decision as me in some form multiple times because I am not one of the only 2 people trying to control the article.Then there's still 2 others I have not put in to add to that. Guess no progress was made hm?

Odd, I though I was some crazy old man and not one shared the same crazy old views when somehow, Time did once(and forgot most of his old posts later because...?) and Indrian did twice! Both of the latter posts were ignored as I figured they it would if I did not address them. Those silly old crazy links sure show some crazy old truths, guess I'm no longer that mad nonsensical crazy old man anymore you all made yourselves believe I was because....??? Now if you are done failing to prevent constructive discussion, we can move on to improving the article.

BTW, I send you a message.

Now if you are done, we already have another user (Indiran) who is for removing the "apparently" sentence. Anybody else want to put in their thoughts on removing or changing it? We already have 2 for. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm for removing the word apparently, but not the whole sentence as I stated above. Indrian (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if the new sentence works for you. I put in, "In response, Sega hurriedly redesigned the Saturn to compete with Sony's console" I probably should have put the words "new console" but I'll check back later to see what people think of the change. I'm finished for today. 184.178.51.136 (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought your original objection was that "hurriedly" wasn't in the source (hence the qualifier "apparently"). Since I don't have access to that article, I don't know if your claim was accurate, but I would appreciate clarification on this matter. Personally, I favor a phrase like "evidence suggests" or "reportedly", but since Wikipedia does not pretend to know the full truth I will have to concede if consensus is against me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm back. So looking at what you wrote here, how about something like, "In response, Sega reportedly redesigned the Saturn's architecture quickly before launch to compete with Sony's new console."??? TheRealAfroMan (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So, the Retro Gamer source does report that the redesign was quick, despite your earlier claim to the contrary? Yes or no?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I support something like this.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are stuck on the retro gaming source, I am not using that source unless you still think the RG reference is attached to the original sentence. As I explained before, it is not. I am using MCV interview. Remember we were discussing Steve race? That's what I have been using. Indrian way above, had also stated that race was relevant, and he was with Sega during early Saturn development.

As for your edit, i agree with it, except but I'll have to switch the reference with the one from the MCV interview. I'll use your wording, it's a good combination of my current one, while also placing importance on the MCV interview. Done!TheRealAfroMan (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

OHHHHHH I see what's going on here, so basically... what's going on is you were looking at this post right here and thinking that it was my original objection. My actual objection was HERE, where I wanted to use the MCV quote to replace the sentence with "apparently".

The first link was only in response to you explaining why I did not agree with the Retro Gamer source, which did not have actual statements saying the chips were put placed in a hurry. MCV did however so you must have thought I was still referring to Retro gamer. This should clear up everything hopefully.

Now we are stuck because your recent revert on the Saturn article tells me that the RG source was for both sentences. My issue here though is that RG has no statements saying that Sega slapped the new chips in quickly. Then while Race does not say anything about a redesing he does tell MCV that the Saturn was slapped together quickly for launch. I'll get back to you later though, something came up. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference and Info check

Continuing on, I noticed a lot of reedits and deletions. I think it would make more sense to check each articles source and see if it connects with the statements before it. Then, delete the ones that don't, which will most likely make reviewing the article easier. Here are some that I have recently removed. To star though there seems to be a reliance on RG's retroinspection(s), which contains different or in some cases, different worded information than what is "quoted" from the magazine, from the ones I have seen anyway, but that's another discussion. Without further delay, here are just a couple that I have recently removed:

The whole paragraph about VF/VR popularizing 3D, Model 1, and other stuff I removed. The reference was one lone Gamespot source, which would be fine (kinda) BUT it is an unreliable source. First, because their reasoning for this is wrong, which is tied into the second reason, which them magically pretending that the Sega Saturn was the first 3D console. Not only that, they say it was the "first console launched with 3D/Polygon gaming in mind" which is not true at all historically, and technically. There are other unrelated issues with the article as well that would send many head turning.
I removed the following, "Due to Sega's decision to cut support to its 16-bit business to focus on the Saturn, Nintendo was able to capitalize by its continued focus on the SNES and the Game Boy from 1995 onward." since this does not have support and doesn't make sense. First of all what region are we talking about? Following the whole paragraph, it seems it is referring to the U.S. or/and European market. one of which Nintendo did not even exist. The other Sega had majority share and was still making games after the Saturns launch. What did Nintendo capitalize on? Only other choice is japan, which makes no sense, because the MD was already struggling there for awhile behind Nintendo and NEC. So this is a must remove.
I removed the word "only" from "Sega only sold 9.5" because such a thing is not "quoted" that way in Segas loss report, and that is a pretty big number.
Why is fighters Megamix listed as a Saturn Exclusive? If you are omitting arcades, than why is this specific game the only one with that in parenthesis? Not to mention the Game.com. I fixed that.

That's what I found recently.

Another small thing I noticed is that the information about the birth of the 32X before Joe Millers interview contradicts parts of Joe millers interview about the birth of the 32x with Sega-16. Might have to check on these a bit more.

thing, I am not sure "Sakura Wars" should be listed as that "game that did not come to the west" that could have made the Saturn popular. But That's another discussion. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

About Sakura Wars series: the Sega Saturn Sakura Wars games "did not come to the west". ~~}IMr*|(60nna)I{~~ 23:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't be the only one who sees how slow this guy is. I can't it's impossible. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. ~~}IMr*|(60nna)I{~~ 23:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This is most likely a set-up, but I have to say it's been funny so far. (or maybe it's not a swt-up, this guys edit history and talk page conversations are hilarious. But I am going to be careful just in case.). TheRealAfroMan (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hash out your personal qualms on each others talk pages or something. Article talk pages are for comments on content, not editors. Sergecross73 msg me 02:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Afroman's proposed deletions, in brief: 1). That is just truth. 2). That's explicitly in Kent's book, even if you dispute his analysis. 3). 9.5 million is well behind the PlayStation and Nintendo 64, contributing heavily to Sega's financial disaster. 4). I am aware of the Gamecom version of Megamix, but it bears little resemblance to the Saturn original and isn't noteworthy. (The relative popularity of Sakura Wars in Japan is attested to by 1UP, IGN, and Famitsu's "Top 100 Games" list--which includes four entries in the series.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

1. It does not matter if you think it's the truth if you have a source that pretends the Saturn was the first 3D consoles and is unreliable. We need another good reference if you have it 2. It doesn't make logical sense and is factually untrue because where did Nintendo Capitalize? In a region it already won in, or the 3 regions that it lost in? 3. That has nothing to do with the fact the word "only" is making the number seem lower than it really is in relative terms. We don't put only 33 million on the N64 page. 4. It's still not excusive. It's also in the arcades, which is closer to the same, and it makes no sense call the game an exclusive when that's not how it works. Panzer Dragoon Saga is exclusive, Megamix is not. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, for the record, you can't just deem a source "unreliable" every time you disagree with what they say. Please be mindful of what it means to be reliable and how Wikipedia works. Sergecross73 msg me 22:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You basically just showed me even more so why the information in that source is unreliable and we should not take it seriously. I invite you to heck the source yourself if you would like to verify. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

1) We're not citing GameSpot's claim that the Saturn was the first 3D system (we're being quite careful to avoid citing dumb statements from nominally reliable sources). 2) The article actually handles this quite well, noting that while "Nakayama's decision undercut the Sega of America executives" Sega "was still able to capture 43 percent of the dollar share of the U.S. video game market as a whole." 3) There is abundant evidence that Saturn's low market share compounded its poor third-party support and contributed heavily to Sega's disastrous financial situation. (One of the Next Generation issues I was just looking through had a Sega spokesperson saying they needed at least 50% market share to be successful.) 4) Fighters Megamix, along with Virtua Fighter RPG (canceled, moved to Dreamcast as Shenmue) and an obscure music game featuring a Japanese pop star, was one of three games AM2 developed exclusively for the Saturn. Despite the subsequent Gamecom "port", Fighters Megamix was never released in arcades. Maybe I will put adding another source on the importance of the Model 1 board somewhere on my personal to-do list, but you should really do some research yourself.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Quick question for those with access to the "Retroinspection"

Is "By September 1995, Sega of Japan had several ports of games from its popular Model 2 arcade board ready for release, including Virtua Cop, Sega Rally Championship, and Virtua Fighter 2, helping sales for the Saturn" based on the Retro Gamer article, or is it just a remnant of an earlier version of this page? The reason I ask is because Next Generation January 1996 pg. 16 features a strikingly similar sentence: "Many reported a slowing in PlayStation's dominance after news seeped out about the excellent quality of Sega's new games--Sega Rally, Virtua Fighter 2, and Virtua Cop, in particular." But Next Generation puts this in the broader context of the Saturn's recent (September 1995) price cut to $299. Also, a port of the Model 2 arcade game Daytona USA arrived on the Saturn several months earlier, although critics (see Edge June 1995 pg. 12 & 72-75) preferred Ridge Racer.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This does get mentioned in the Retro Gamer article. While our sentence is similar to the one you point out, this is an example of our editor paraphrasing in a way that resembles Next Generation. The Retro Gamer article actually discusses this over a whole paragraph, which I will not quote here due to its length. Suffice to say, the article does call out all three of these games as successes and states that because of their success the Saturn "started to catch up in global sales." I find that last claim somewhat ridiculous. Indrian (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Kalinske and the surprise launch

It seems that the surprise North American launch was Tom Kalinske's idea:

"We needed to do something shocking because we were $100 more than the other guy...I still think [the surprise launch] was a good idea. If I had it to do over again would I do it a little differently? Yeah, definitely. I wouldn't take the risk of annoying retailers the way we did. I would clue them in and do an early launch in a region or three regions or something so we could include everybody."-Kalinske, "Is War hell for Sega?", Next Generation, January 1996
"We all knew PlayStation was coming so we wanted to pre-empt them. Japan basically ordered us to be on shelf in the Fall, [so] I thought up the surprise launch as a way of generating excitement and PR. However, the downside was not enough software was ready, which was a significant problem, and the surprise benefited some retailers but annoyed others who were either not included or didn't receive a large enough initial allocation of hardware. On top of that, the price was really too high. If we'd had a larger number of units to launch correctly with all retailers, and if we'd had a few more software titles, I think the result would have been significantly better. On the other hand if we'd waited until PlayStation was in the market I think the results would have been even worse."-Kalinske, "Sega Saturn: The Pleasure and the Pain", 1UP.com

At first glance, this appears to contradict Kalinske's Sega-16 interview, in which he states:

"I felt that we were rushing Saturn. We didn't have the software right, and we didn't have the pricing right, so I felt we should have stayed with Genesis for another year."

Of course, the seeming contradiction can easily be explained away. Kalinske may not have liked the Saturn hardware or its price, and he may have resented the pressure Sega of Japan was placing on Sega of America, but it appears that under the circumstances he felt an early launch would help make the best of a bad situation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with your last point and do not see a contradiction. It sounds like SOJ wanted to launch in September to beat PlayStation to market, but Kalinske felt they would not be ready and should wait until 1996. When SOJ refused to push back the release, Kalinske figured if they were not going to be ready anyway, they might as well make a big splash by launching really early and announcing it at E3. It was a bold gamble that ended up backfiring. Indrian (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Proof that the Saturn was always designed around the SH-2 and vice-versa

Out of my own personal interest in this matter, and my desire to look at things from every possible point of view, I have continued researching the various conflicting rumors about the Saturn's development. The more I read of the Sega-16 forums the more I am convinced that Kool Kitty has absolutely no idea what they are talking about, but one of their comments did inadvertently lead me to discover this September 1993 New York Times article based on Sega's first public statement on its 32-bit plans, which provides incontrovertible proof that the Saturn was designed with the SH-2 in mind from the start. Moreover, the article states that the "new chip being developed by Hitachi" was "designed with Sega's needs in mind", thus corroborating the account provided by Hamada and Next Generation! The article reports that "Yamaha is expected to provide sound chips and JVC the circuitry for compressing video images", the system will feature "special chips" to "manipulate images and sound" in addition to the SH-2's capabilities, it "might be sold through Hitachi's retail outlets", and is "due in the fall of 1994". From a more dubious website, here is a 1995 press release in which Sega directly states "The SH2 was especially designed for the Sega Saturn by Hitachi."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff. Nice to have something from the mainstream press to go along with the gaming magazines. Indrian (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nakayama

Just curious but it says Nakayama forced SOA to focus on the Saturn, but this doesn't make sense to me because isn't that the same Nakayama who issued the command to build the 32-x? Then he nevered forced them to focus on the Saturn that year then. Potatoechip (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you've got your years a little mixed up. 32X development occurred in 1994 and it was rushed to market, making it by Christmas that year in Japan and North America. The decision to focus on Saturn came in early 1995, which is part of why the 32X died a painful death so early. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 22:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jak. 32X was very much Sega of America's baby, and some of the reputed drama between SoJ and SoA may be a bit sensationalized, as SoJ extensively assisted SoA in developing 32X around the same dual SH-2 architecture also used in the Saturn. My reading of the 32X "Retroinspection" is that Nakayama always wanted the Saturn to make it out by the end of 1994, but many at SoA were expecting/hoping that SoJ would fail so 32X would come out first. When the Saturn beat it to the punch in Japan, the 32X was basically dead on arrival. As for North America, as Bayless puts it, many consumers were asking "why should I buy a 32X when the Saturn is only a few months away?" (Of course, Bayless is exaggerating slightly, since no-one knew the Saturn's surprise launch was only a few months away.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed the claim that Nakayama "forced" SoA to focus on the Saturn, because it's simply not in the source (Kent's actual statement, that Nakayama made the decision to focus on the Saturn, is perfectly succinct without any of the added colorful POV language). The original version of that sentence, from Sega Genesis, also includes a similarly unsourced claim that Nakayama engineered the Saturn's surprise launch (which, as we have established above, is demonstrably false). I actually do agree with Jak that Kent's analysis here may be a little misleading; the raw numbers show that Sega did have enough inventory to dominate the 16-bit market in 1995, and anecdotal evidence (see the infamous Working Designs feud above) suggests that SoA was concentrating on the Genesis for at least a couple of years after the Saturn launched (Virtua Fighter 2 even got a Genesis release in 1997). That doesn't necessarily mean that I advocate removing Kent's analysis altogether, of course, but I do think that Sega Genesis needs to have fewer console war POV statements like "making good Genesis games required more effort than making good SNES games" and more of the crucial history which is totally neglected (think EA's bold reverse-engineering of the Genesis, or Sega's attempts to get retailers like Wal-Mart/Target/K-Mart to carry the Genesis in the days of Nintendo's near-monopoly, or even some discussion of the system's development) and which I would expect from a FA.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Marketing Techniques

Sales

Sales Figure Source

Sales mismatch for U.S. figures.

Clean Up Completed

Principles of reformatting

GA Review

Accuracy

Round 2

Lead

History

Development

Launch

Changes at Sega

Sonic X-Treme

Decline

Technical Specifications

NetLink

Reception

See also

References

G4 Icons source

Reception

and its game library contains a number of arcade ports as well as original titles.

Article reorganization

Quads versus triangles

"Reception and legacy" or "Game library"?

I'm assuming this is undue...

To do

"Reception and legacy" or "Decline"?

Pre-launch Prototype information

Launch and other areas with room for improvement

This article is going on the wrong direction.

Article Discussion

Article discussion one

Circumstantial Evidence

Reference and Info check

Quick question for those with access to the "Retroinspection"

Kalinske and the surprise launch

Proof that the Saturn was always designed around the SH-2 and vice-versa

Nakayama