CD-i Recommendations?

[Bubsy3000]

He’s just saying it seems odd for you to put it that way when Phillips literally defined the standard CD and marketed the CD-i for playing those as well. CD-i was their attempt to also standardize interactive CD-ROMs and yet you said it wouldn’t play Sega CD because “CD-i doesn’t play standard CD’s.” The Sega CD format is the one that made no attempt to conform to an interoperability standard.

 

The thing is, CD-i’s base hardware couldn’t even match the capabilities of a bog-standard Sega Genesis, much less, Sega Genesis with Sega CD. The disc is just a storage medium for code. The base hardware is more relevant than the standard used for storage because that dictates what code will run. It’s a bit like asking why NES can’t play Super NES or Sega Genesis or Nintendo 64. Even if it could read their carts, the base hardware for executing them just isn’t there.

My original post did forget to put in the extra words because I assumed people would have known what I was talking about, but my main point was that interactive CDs could not be played on CD-i because CDs at that time where still being experimented on what they could do, the CD-i was designed specifically to add a feature that many THOUGHT was not possible/feasible on regular CDs, and it turned out that CDs were more capable than Phillips thought. Nothing to do with hardware, any CD with interactive elements even if the machine playing them originally was weaker than the CD-i, could not be played for the above reason.

 

However, you are correct that the CD-i was weak, and that's why it's best games are CD-audio enhanced ports of other popular titles like Flashback or FMV games. Phillips though the finalized specs in 89 would be fine for a few years and they were gravely mistaken. I'm mean look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj0GFhxTsi0

 

Nothing much to say about the CD-i otherwise though. In 2018 there's really nothing there unless you want to collect for historical reasons. Most of the Movie/Music software is impossible to find, and half the gaming software is also very hard to find. Then you have the issue that there's only 5 or so models that you'll commonly find in online stores and there's really not much to collect for it. If you're in Europe you might find a few extra things but you'll generally still face the same problems.

 

I'd say half of the CD-i's existence is erased from history already outside those who got stuff on day 1, all 5 of those people.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Bubsy3000

[+x=usr(1536)]

My original post did forget to put in the extra words because I assumed people would have known what I was talking about,

How does forgetting to type something because of an assumption on your behalf work, exactly?

 

but my main point was that interactive CDs could not be played on CD-i because CDs at that time where still being experimented on what they could do, the CD-i was designed specifically to add a feature that many THOUGHT was not possible/feasible on regular CDs, and it turned out that CDs were more capable than Phillips thought. Nothing to do with hardware, any CD with interactive elements even if the machine playing them originally was weaker than the CD-i, could not be played for the above reason.

So let's go through a bit of history involving CD-ROM and CD-i.

 

CD-ROM first surfaced as a standard around 1985. It took some time to gel, but it predated CD-i's release by about six years. Philips themselves have a fairly decent overview of the timeline involved.

 

Interactive CDs also predated CD-i by a number of years. By mid- / late-1988, even Atari (slightly late to the game) had announced the CDAR 504 for the ST. Although sold in tiny numbers, it had interactive CDs with features that had already been seen on other platforms a couple of years previously.

 

The point here is that - with the exception of CD-i - there is no one published standard for interactive CDs. Interactive CDs are platform-dependent, much as CD-i is. They're just data stored on a CD that software on a given machine reads and executes. There is no universal interactive CD format.

 

Philips knew full well what the CD was capable of in terms of being a data storage medium more or less from the get-go. They also realised that in order for it to be broadly-accepted, cost had to be driven down, partnerships with other manufacturers had to be forged, and a use for it that people could relate to (namely: playing music at higher fidelity than tape or records) needed to be found - at least initially.

 

Data storage on CD was a secondary consideration in 1982 because in a world of 5.25" floppies (remember: the 3.5" floppy was still a couple of years out from hitting the market), nobody in the consumer market had use for a $5000 peripheral that held 650MB of data. By about 1987, that was slowly starting to change.

 

Your assertions simply aren't correct. Please stop presenting them as fact when history shows that they aren't.

[phoenixdownita]

....

Your assertions simply aren't correct. Please stop presenting them as fact when history shows that they aren't.

.... awwwwwww ... and now you did it.

Facts vs opinions ..... it's never a fair fight, opinions always win obviously.

So I tell thee GTFO (or Get The F.....acts Out) exactly like WWE did when they had to change their name from WWF.

 

We don't want the facts. we can't handle the facts.

We don't want the facts because deep down in places we don't talk about at parties, we want opinions on that wall -- we need opinions on that wall.

You should have neither the time nor the inclination to explain yourself to men who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very facts that you provide and then question the manner in which you provide them ......

 

LOL

[Bubsy3000]

How does forgetting to type something because of an assumption on your behalf work, exactly?

 

 

So let's go through a bit of history involving CD-ROM and CD-i.

 

CD-ROM first surfaced as a standard around 1985. It took some time to gel, but it predated CD-i's release by about six years. Philips themselves have a fairly decent overview of the timeline involved.

 

Interactive CDs also predated CD-i by a number of years. By mid- / late-1988, even Atari (slightly late to the game) had announced the CDAR 504 for the ST. Although sold in tiny numbers, it had interactive CDs with features that had already been seen on other platforms a couple of years previously.

 

The point here is that - with the exception of CD-i - there is no one published standard for interactive CDs. Interactive CDs are platform-dependent, much as CD-i is. They're just data stored on a CD that software on a given machine reads and executes. There is no universal interactive CD format.

 

Philips knew full well what the CD was capable of in terms of being a data storage medium more or less from the get-go. They also realised that in order for it to be broadly-accepted, cost had to be driven down, partnerships with other manufacturers had to be forged, and a use for it that people could relate to (namely: playing music at higher fidelity than tape or records) needed to be found - at least initially.

 

Data storage on CD was a secondary consideration in 1982 because in a world of 5.25" floppies (remember: the 3.5" floppy was still a couple of years out from hitting the market), nobody in the consumer market had use for a $5000 peripheral that held 650MB of data. By about 1987, that was slowly starting to change.

 

Your assertions simply aren't correct. Please stop presenting them as fact when history shows that they aren't.

Because I'm correct, your historical distraction doesn't even have anything to do with what I said. It's completely off topic.

 

CD-i can't play standard interactive CDs. Phillips in numerous interviews and PR positioned the CD-i as a universal interactive format specifically because no one, including them, was expecting CD-roms to be a feasible interactive medium BECAUSE it was device dependent as you said, and CD-i does interactivity differently than Standard CDs, therefore the machines were designed with this in mind.

 

You can put an interactive standard CD in almost ANY MACHINE that has Compact Disc compatibility, and usually it will at least read the disc before telling you it can't play the content on the disc or other error messages. Cd-i machines can't even read it.

 

Yes proprietary use of Standard interactive CDs were a thing, correct, however a device like the PlayStation, while it can't play a Sega CD game, it can still READ the disc(some CD games from other consoles can get audio pulled out in the CD player on PSX.), all I'm saying is the CD-i can't even read the disc. Nothing more than that, nothing complicated at all.

 

Anyway I've already given my opinion on the CD-i, you may like it, I don't, I think it's best games are just CD versions of other popular titles like Flashback and maybe an FMV game or two from American Laser games, I see nothing else worth getting on it, and most of its library is more rare than a golden egg. I'm not trying to shit on the machine just to shit on it if that's what you thought.

 

Please do not take this an attack against you my good man.

[Eltigro]

Just wait for the CD-i classic edition.

[jaybird3rd]

Because I'm correct, your historical distraction doesn't even have anything to do with what I said. It's completely off topic.

You really have a way with arrogance. It just got you banned from the thread. If you don't want to be banned from other threads, I'd refer you once again to my reply to you from about two weeks ago.

 

(And yes, I think we all know by now that it's still you.)

[+chicgamer]

Just wait for the CD-i classic edition.

 

Wow ... that's unexpected. The problem is that they wouldn't be able to include the Mario and Zelda games, and that is what would attract most people to a CD-i mini.

 

Mutant Rampage: Bodyslam in HD, though, especially if they did a little tweaking and added coop play ...

[CZroe]

So let's go through a bit of history involving CD-ROM and CD-i.

 

CD-ROM first surfaced as a standard around 1985. It took some time to gel, but it predated CD-i's release by about six years. Philips themselves have a fairly decent overview of the timeline involved.

 

Interactive CDs also predated CD-i by a number of years. By mid- / late-1988, even Atari (slightly late to the game) had announced the CDAR 504 for the ST. Although sold in tiny numbers, it had interactive CDs with features that had already been seen on other platforms a couple of years previously.

 

The point here is that - with the exception of CD-i - there is no one published standard for interactive CDs. Interactive CDs are platform-dependent, much as CD-i is. They're just data stored on a CD that software on a given machine reads and executes. There is no universal interactive CD format.

 

Philips knew full well what the CD was capable of in terms of being a data storage medium more or less from the get-go. They also realised that in order for it to be broadly-accepted, cost had to be driven down, partnerships with other manufacturers had to be forged, and a use for it that people could relate to (namely: playing music at higher fidelity than tape or records) needed to be found - at least initially.

 

Data storage on CD was a secondary consideration in 1982 because in a world of 5.25" floppies (remember: the 3.5" floppy was still a couple of years out from hitting the market), nobody in the consumer market had use for a $5000 peripheral that held 650MB of data. By about 1987, that was slowly starting to change.

 

Your assertions simply aren't correct. Please stop presenting them as fact when history shows that they aren't.

Technology Connections on YouTube has some great videos about the development of CD as a format, including great examples of how data storage was definitely a secondary consideration during development

 

Don’t skip the ones on Nyquist-Shannon and Sound by Numbers! Really cool stuff.

 

Because I'm correct, your historical distraction doesn't even have anything to do with what I said. It's completely off topic.

You are decidedly incorrect and the history is very relevant, especially when you keep saying things like “interactive standard CDs.”

 

CD-i can't play standard interactive CDs.

CD-i literally is the standard for interactive CDs. What “standard” are you speaking of? Enhanced CD? Karaoke CD? MIL-SPEC?

 

When x=usr(1536) said that there is no one published standard for interactive CDs except for CD-i, it must have gone right over your head. All “interactive CDs” are platform-dependent, exactly like CD-i is, and in the exact same ways. Without an industry standard designed to operate on multiple different platforms, software is tailored to hardware. What “interactive CD standard” did IBM and 100% compatible PCs adopt? Even though CD-i was pushed as a standard, no one wrote software to interpret the CDs until modern emulation of the CD-i itself. The software was not written to run natively on anything else.

 

Phillips in numerous interviews and PR positioned the CD-i as a universal interactive format specifically because no one, including them, was expecting CD-roms to be a feasible interactive medium BECAUSE it was device dependent as you said, and CD-i does interactivity differently than Standard CDs, therefore the machines were designed with this in mind.

It’s just another platform with another set of requirements except that this one had a set of shared standards for others to adopt. 3DO did the exact same thing and marketed it the exact same way (“open standard,” “like a VCR but for CD games, movies, and software!”). The fundamental difference (other than having completely different hardware/capabilities) is that one was from the creators of the industry standard CD format and the other was licensed from game industry veterans without the same clout to push industry adoption. Obviously, neither was going to be a success as some timeless standard since they were both obsolete within a couple years (heck, CD-i was obsolete at launch).

 

You can put an interactive standard CD in almost ANY MACHINE that has Compact Disc compatibility, and usually it will at least read the disc before telling you it can't play the content on the disc or other error messages. Cd-i machines can't even read it.

This doesn’t make a bit of sense. Just what is this mythical “interactive standard CD” you keep talking about if not CD-i?

 

There is nothing special about a CD-i discs that keeps it from being read by anything else and the CD-i is not more limited in what it could read than any other CD system of the era. It’s simply a matter of the device not understanding what is on the disc, since it was made for another device. It’s literally no different than popping a 3DO game into your Sega CD. You’ve created some strange distinction without a difference and, in the process, imagined some “interactive standard CD” format that isn’t CD-i. Do you honestly believe this or are you digging your hole deeper just to avoid admitting when you are wrong?

 

Yes proprietary use of Standard interactive CDs were a thing, correct, however a device like the PlayStation, while it can't play a Sega CD game, it can still READ the disc(some CD games from other consoles can get audio pulled out in the CD player on PSX.), all I'm saying is the CD-i can't even read the disc. Nothing more than that, nothing complicated at all.

This isn’t helping. How is it that a CD-i is any less capable of reading other discs? CD-i can read and understand VCD MPEG movies, CD audio, CD-i software, Kodak PhotoCDs, and more. It isn’t capable of running incompatible software in the exact same way that a Sega CD can’t run Jaguar CD and a 3DO can’t run Sega Saturn, but it’s certainly capable of reading their discs. You imagined some fundamental difference where there was none to explain something easily explained by the fact that systems can only run software written for their hardware. Even though IBM PC never supported CD-i, the drives could certainly read the CD. Heck, the only time I ever watched Silence of the Lambs was by sticking my CD-i copy into a standard DVD players and picking the video file (it’s just MPEG).

 

I understand that you can’t respond now but, unless you are admitting you were wrong (which we already know), you’d really only be digging your hole deeper.

[godslabrat]

 

Wow ... that's unexpected. The problem is that they wouldn't be able to include the Mario and Zelda games, and that is what would attract most people to a CD-i mini.

 

Mutant Rampage: Bodyslam in HD, though, especially if they did a little tweaking and added coop play ...

It's Nintendolife. They're rapidly trying to become the Buzzfeed of the retrogaming world.