Leeroy ST

So you have nothing. See the problem is F18 proves it's more capable 3D, which is why it was mentioned, but you're trying to twist things to make it seem like it doesn't. That was always the point from the start despite you acting obtuse/disingenuous. But you don't have a game that showcases otherwise despite it being obvious to you. It's also clear at this point you never will. Remember you're informed, but can't find the software to support you are informed. I mean you brought up SCR again yet it's not as demanding as F18. So I'll take this as a concession. Since you don't have the moral compass to admit you have nothing. Now since you lost that discussion, even though you won't admit it, we could use the 2D flight simulators on the 7800 to prove it can do better than XEGS and friends at pseudo-3D too. But I guess you won't have a game to counter those either? Maybe the problem is you think you're informed.

Rest of your post is an attempt to roll the subject. This is very simple, you are the one that has nothing to back up their position. I have in execution the 7800 software title F18 Hornet. Since you think you're informed all you have to do is show that obviously more technically demanding game on the XEGS or earlier A8 line computers. It's really just that simple. All you're doing so far is making pointless paragraphs trying to confuse the topic to act like your winning an imaginary argument, you're not. You either can show the obviously technically impressive commercial release that's more demanding than F18 on 7800, or you admit you put your foot in your mouth. You're only supporting the position no one had been able to produce a comparable or better software title. That's why you tried shifting the posts earlier to a less demanding game that "may" run worse on the 7800 because of hardware features of the A8 line, but that is the same as saying a game on 3DO being better than on PSX because it took advantage of the formers hardware features proves the former is more powerful than the latter. We both know that's false Remember your informed, but can't find that game to prove you are. You're ignorance is noted, but the gifs of the game have already been posted in the 7800 subforum thread about this same game. Also it's been talked about here and other sites in the past, Several objects and all the buildings are polygons, you can look at them from multiple angles, they are solid, they are not sprites. Including one enemy as well. There are however SOME other enemies and some other objects are sprites that scale in. However to say the polygons are shifting sprites is nonsense. In that thread there is even a gif of a player going past a building and you can view part of the side and the shadows as you go past and nothing shifts around, it's a polygon object you are literally passing and moving away from. And considering you can flip the plane south you can see the front and back of the polygons as well. Any write up on the game talks about polygons, you'd think someone somewhere would call them sprites if they were shifting sprites as you say. Strange how only you came to this conclusion over the years they were sprites. Hmmm.

But we are taking in the US, and the C128 hurt the brand there. It may have been worth it worldwide but it was a factor in commodore losing an important market.

If XEGS was two years earlier the turn into computer feature may have been a good deal, especially if it retained an old price. It would also be when the 16-bits were new with problems and weren't so hot out the gate. By end of 87, so may as well be 88, you are basically selling a machine that can turn into an A8 or C64 (which many already had) with the Amiga and cheaper ST now with more software and better pricing. In Europe there would be even more options making the Xegs computer hybrid approach even more irrelevant. They really should have just went all in on Xegs being a game machine imo.

You are continuing to not name any titles more technically impressive/demanding on XEGS than F18 on 7800. I did bring up in execution. On paper theoreticals are fine but that's just that, on paper. F18 is evidence the 7800 could produce a relatively demanding 3D game than a XEGS specced machine. If you make the claim that the XEGS specced machine is better, or in your case obviously better, than you should be able to find a company who released a game showing this. You wouldn't make this poor argument with the Jaguar, why is the XEGS different? This is not addressing the point, instead you're trying to move the post. While possible, I never made this argument I said there wasn't any polygonal game (yet seen) that is as demanding on XEGS or more as you imply, than F18 on the 7800. Mentioning Stunt Car racer actually works against you because it's not a more hardware demanding title. The possibility that SCR may or may not work as well on a 7800 because of features of the hardware has nothing to do with actual power, otherwise games superior on 3DO than PSX due to hardware features would mean 3DO is stronger than PSX. It's not, instead with an original game of the same genre/type the PSX would prove much more powerful. Issue is I see no commercial release proving better 3D on XEGS or before than F18 on the 7800. This is what happens when YOU the accuser are uninformed and think you're smarter than you actually are. Resulting in dishonest tactics and trying to spin the argument. You can easily resolve this by just acknowledging and fulfilling the request. Just post the game and it's done that's more demanding. This was not only not said, but you attempted to cut out the context by removing the word "with" to create this intentionally fake argument. Various objects and all the buildings are polygons, you can view them at multiple angles, they are all filled, close up there's limited texturing, and one of the vehicles is also made up polygons though more flat and pixelated. In addition there's scaling sprites with the polygons, it's an ambitious and technically impressive game, if the XEGS spec or lower Atari computers were more capable of polygon 3D titles, let alone having that combined with another graphical implementation that requires relatively powerful hardware, then where is the game that shows it? Remember F18 was thrown together by a small team way after it was clear 7800 would have a limited buying base. The 8-bit line until death of Xegs is 79-90/91 surely you can just post this powerful game that just ends the argument showing more demanding graphics, if it exists. And Battlezone isn't that game.

Was Pac & Pal ever released on any console or computer before the compilations?

While the goal seems to be mixed, it's clear Infogrames Atari SA intended for the VCS to he somewhat competitive, and being able to run windows on it is a plus. It's basically a computer posing as a console. Well I guess that's not much different from Sony and Microsifts latest offerings...hmm. But anyway, I think one thing I find baffling is that Atari SA did not include a DVD drive. If you run windows or Linux there is much software on discs, especially if you configure things to run older software. Some software require disc for install, there are still games released on DVD for PC (though more for just the license and 90% of the time the games barely on the disc), and of course DVD playback for movies, and storage for storing files. Maybe also disc burning. As it is, it seems lacking without the Disc slot. It also would have helped Atari reach more retailers having new fp or third party software in boxes. Making it a more serious competitor to the general consumer. While pricy for questionable reasons, it's cheaper than the new consoles and has decent specs. It's the one thing they are missing to really sell the "game console" vibe to the general consumer instead of a "dedicated device" vibe, or the "Pi+" reception it's getting now. It's still not to late to make another version with one but Atari would likely price the device higher than the current VCS, even though from breakdowns I've seen, the current VCS price is already inflated. And yes I know the new consoles have 4K BR drives, but PC never really went in that direction and those drives are expensive, unlike cheap DVD drives. It's not really necessary.

Curious, what ways is the TCC3 version better?

A non polygon game more technically demanding than a polygon game with pse-scaling sprites? You both use emojis but have not listed anything to show otherwise. Classic youtuber comment tier behavior when you have no argument.

Because Atari Corp didn't have the money to back Atari like warner and unrelated actions of warner Atari pissed of retailers and the Atari brand still had an uphill battle in 1985. Then in 1985-87 Atari had rebounded and was the leading force of video games on the new generation of computers. On console end there was a new competitor out of nowhere that had $$$ from overseas who worked with a distribution company to pressure retailers and hugged the shelf space while stuffing the shelves with stick and having exclusivity deals from eastern developers and scared most western devs away from consoles. Leaving little support. Even then Atari corp sold out and ended up 2nd without the cash flow or chest if the other two, and if you combine their 3 active consoles before 88 one could argue they were number one until then. Oh wait, you wanted it to just be an influx of bad games, my bad. Also lol ET. how is one title (that still sold decent) a influx of "games"? Most of the writers to news papers and journalists complaints about the quantity:quality issue were after the crash, because they were the result of the crash not the cause. Did you forget Atari was misleading to investors and the press until right before the crash happened? Then sometime after Atari reported likely hood of (much) lower than expected sales and crashed almost all the video game stock but Coleco and maybe a couple others? The IGN version of things has always been wrong.

No, the crash CAUSED the influx of bad (and some decent) games on shelves, usually at rapidly shrinking prices, not the games themselves. The reason why retailers were freaking out and deciding to effectively damage themselves and the industry is they took out too many orders from too many companies, and the crash bankrupted those companies, so there was no one around for buybacks. Retailers believed they had no choice but to crash the prices and throw out video game stock at bargain value because they gave up since they had one big set back with gaming. The price wars didn't help either coming from the computer industry. All of which happened also due to retailers, retailers basically caused the crash and made it worse. Even then there weren't that many clones of Pacman as people think there were, at least not on the big 3 consoles everyone knew about. Same with others big games, if anything space shooters was were most of the rehashing went. I mean even the heavily invested gamers barely knew what KC munchkin was and O2 was mail order in many places in the US by then.

I didn't say this at all. It's likely looking at Coleco sales data here and elsewhere that 1.4 millon was probably shipments. This would explain why only 600k would sell from mid 83 to fall 84 with a two million article for CV. A bunch of that stock was likely in preperation for the adam, and you have already said yourself that CV was harder to find in late 83. Granted it was probably worse in Canada then the US. But in either case this is from March 83 latimes found on my drive: So it definitely seems like to me the 5200 was ahead for a bit. At worst dead even, but as I said above that's unlikely. By the time the CV sold or shipped the 1.4 million, Atari was already winding things down, and the negotiations for the GCC deal started a few months after that. Heck, the negotiating could have been even earlier for all we know. It's just clear Atari was ready to replace the thing. But as I said, I believe they could have done well keeping the machine alive but Warner will Warner.

Just played Driv3r on GBA. It's a pretty ambitious attempt at an open world on the device. It's no Ngage but pretty impressive. It at least shows Rockstar didn't need to result to overhead gameplay on GBA, although I like GTA1.

I didn't say this at all. 1983. Didn't say no 5200's, you're implying low sales and stock didn't make sense for the rest of 1983 after the 5200 hit 1 million earlier in the year. Yet are ignoring there was basically no presence of the 5200 in 84 in general. The wind down happened in the second half of 83 along with GCC negotiations for the 5200s replacement. I'm not sure how much more you think Atari would have sold. CV was ahead during the wind down and the press was eating them up, I doubt there was more than 300k 5200s sold, IF that, between post selling 1 million in early 83 and the discontinuation in April 84. So it makes perfect sense that 5200 had the lead and basically gave it to CV because Atari bit off their own arm. You can also see this with the CV sales you posted, 1.4 million q2,1983, I assume closing of the quarter, so June? To reach two million by late 84 from that point would require sales of 600k+ units, and that includes a bunch of months AFTER the 5200 was discontinued. So how much did the 5200 from early 83 until mid 84 cancellation when CV was the major seller? Remember no increase in sales was big enough to stop reports from reusing the 1 million sold, so it had to be at best 300k or less. There's no way Atari sold anything more than table scraps (comparatively) after they hit 1 million. They reached that number first and then died off. But even in the other case, it still would have been close either way, so no matter which scenario you believe Atari still was competitive and gave the win to CV for free. I believe they would have been in a better position just supporting and keeping the console alive. I think killing the 5200 was a mistake since it had good performance despite losing money, which eventually would have reversed.

The issue as I said, is execution. There's generally a more common point of comparison between a CV and a base famicom than a 5200 and a base famicom due to this. Even though on paper the 5200 should be obviously closer. The C64 has nothing to do with the subject There are, but reading on here apparently not all of those apply to the 5200.