Intentionally crippled games...

[pacgreg]

A minute ago the AA homepage showed me this part of trivia:

It is rumored that Coleco intentionally crippled their games for other systems in order to make their own system look better.

 

What immediately came to my mind was: Not only Coleco did that.

 

In fact, I think even Atari did it. Do you know the C64 version of Galaxian? Compare it to the Atari-8bit-version... The C64 version looks and sounds like crap, and it doesn't play nearly as well as the Atari 8-bit version. Yeah, Atari made both versions. I think that's very suspicious, as the possibilites of both machines are very comparable, but the C64 version is FAR inferior.

 

Do you agree?

 

Perhaps this thread can be used to collect some more examples of this "marketing trick"...

 

 

I hope this is the right board, couldn't figure any place where this thread would fit better...

Look what atari did to Pac man on the 2600, then the 5200

I know thats not what you mean but still...

[gdement]

Seems like a small segment of people would be misled by improper use of the term, and 99.99% of everyone else would understand the gist of what I meant anyway.

 

Agree. it's just a pet peeve of mine. It's led to a great many, "so if the NES is an 8-bit system, what is the Atari 2600 ... a 4-bit system?" type questions.

 

All of these systems from 1977 through 1987 have very limited 8-bit processing power, with enhancements being made in terms of graphics hardware, sound and available memory as opposed to the processors themselves. That was the Genesis's thing.

 

In any case, my obvious point stands. The Colecovision games should have looked better because the system itself could do things the 2600 could not, and was not designed for.

 

Totally. It's graphics and sound hardware were more advanced and it had more memory than the 2600.

 

I've noticed how the word "power" seems to bug you...

To me, any statement of one system being "more powerful" than another is a comparison of the overall capabilities of the 2 systems. I don't see how the term "power" should only refer to CPU speed.

 

Power - "1. The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively."

 

But to be more technical, I'm sure the ColecoVision power supply pulls lots more watts than the 2600. So there.

[potatohead]

Hate 'em. As soon as I find out, I am DONE.

 

BTW: HALO is one of these. The damn thing needs keyboard mouse for two people! Would completely change the thing. Microsoft should sell an add on, just for that. Huge profit item.

[TwiliteZoner]

Here's a better question. Why didn't Coleco release 5200 versions of their games?

[BydoEmpire]

I always felt it was a matter of the programers experience working with the game system and the time they were giving to make a game for said system.

 

Plus i bet some of these game systems like the Sega CD could be a bear to work with but i could see a company focusing more on a profitable system than another so a conversion of one game to other game system could suffer as a result.

Agreed 100%. I doubt it was intentional.

 

Here's a better question. Why didn't Coleco release 5200 versions of their games?

Because they didn't want to make the CV look bad, of course!!!!!!! ^_^ Edited April 20, 2009 by BydoEmpire

[Video]

I think it's a lot more to do with how much more powerful the Coleco is than the Atari, than it does with Coleco programming intentinally bad games. Look at Donkey Kong, it's a horrid piece of shit, yeah, but it's playable, and within the 2600's limitations. It could have been better for sure, but why would Coleco devote a lot of time towards a competitors console....for that matter, did Coleco actually program donkey kong for the 2600?

 

Could be that some dude was ripped off a coleco game and thrown at the Atari, to them a pretty alien hardware in comparrison, but no, the factthat they are both 8 bit consoles does not mean they are the same. They didn't know what they were doing, were given a limited deaddline, on unknown hardware (remember, this is the early 80's here, no internet to help with unknowns like today) and a lot of things that could have made the game better probably never even crossed they guys mind.

 

Of course, I could be wrongg, look at Donkey kong for the Intellivision, people think the 2600 sucked, but there was a real stinker. At least the 2600 used more color in its palate.

[Rik]

I do not believe anyone intentionally makes crap games which will in turn hurt their reputation,and kill their profit.Sure crap games come out by all makers,cant expect every game to be amazing.Just bad or lazy programming AFAIC.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Rik

[gdement]

I do not believe anyone intentionally makes crap games which will in turn hurt their reputation,and kill their profit.Sure crap games come out by all makers,cant expect every game to be amazing.Just bad or lazy programming AFAIC.

 

With the exception of some publishers, who do consistently release garbage for easy money.

But with quality developers like Coleco, I agree they wouldn't deliberately cripple their games to make Atari appear inferior - it's not like the CV needed any help to look more powerful than the 2600.

 

I don't even think there's anything wrong with DK Jr on the 2600. That was one of my favorite games, I didn't know it was supposed to suck until reading it on the internet. I've never played any of their other 2600 games.

[BydoEmpire]

I don't even think there's anything wrong with DK Jr on the 2600. That was one of my favorite games, I didn't know it was supposed to suck until reading it on the internet. I've never played any of their other 2600 games.

It's been a long time since I've played it, but I always really enjoyed DK on the Inty. Everyone says it sucks now, but I sure had a blast with it back in the day.

[Rik]

I do not believe anyone intentionally makes crap games which will in turn hurt their reputation,and kill their profit.Sure crap games come out by all makers,cant expect every game to be amazing.Just bad or lazy programming AFAIC.

 

With the exception of some publishers, who do consistently release garbage for easy money.

But with quality developers like Coleco, I agree they wouldn't deliberately cripple their games to make Atari appear inferior - it's not like the CV needed any help to look more powerful than the 2600.

 

I don't even think there's anything wrong with DK Jr on the 2600. That was one of my favorite games, I didn't know it was supposed to suck until reading it on the internet. I've never played any of their other 2600 games.

Exactly!couldn't agree more Glad you mentioned those who release garbage for the quick buck,thats definetly true,especially back in the 2600's heyday.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Rik