Which is better, Atari 400/800 vs. Commodore-64 (GRAPHICS ONLY!)

[Nickolasgaspar]

Can't really disagree with anything you said. I would also agree with your main criterion. "It has to make the fewest concessions with nearly every game type. "

I didn't own an Amstrad  in my childhood and my opinion is based on how capable the machine looks in Home brew projects. It appears that the Z80 is powerful enough to scroll things around on its own.

It is true that C64 games(as I already wrote) reached the limits of the machine during his commercial life...earlier than any other 8bit. Its also true that the Atari's custom chips/architecture were far more advanced and the Z80 is a superior  cpu in many ways for the programmers to take full advantage of them(Atari's  "embargo" on third party software did really help lol).

This is why we never managed to see in full the limits of those machines. Complex hardware and the invasion of 16bit machines in 1985 made things even more difficult.

Now even the Speccy has amazing " tech demos" of games producing more inviting end result(graphically) that the good old C64, in limited cased of course).

Sure the fluidity in animation by a dedicated hardware can not be matched by those two British machines , but our brains also need color and graph to be trick in the "story".

So I guess its all about how ready you are to  accept reduced colors and graphics  or reduced quality in animation. This is why I believe the Atari 8bit line holds a sweet spot. Many colors, great animation.(and I know that there is some bias in there).

[youxia]

18 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

Sorry, but I just don't see the appeal of the Amstrad CPC as a games machine. The proof is in the games and very few games hold up to the performance of either of the two platforms in question. In terms of the palette, sure it can push a good amount of color, but they're often quite garish due to other limitations. The CPC platform feels like a better Spectrum, which is really not saying much, and many of the games lack speed or smoothness.

Rather disappointing to read this not-so-slightly biased view, not just from some random poster, which would be normal here, but an acclaimed videogame historian. While it's not really a big mystery that C64 was overall the best machine, it was defintely not flawless and also had some serious limitations. Hearing about the "garishness" of Amstrad's palette made me chuckle, seeing as C64 with its prevalent  mixture of shades of brown and sickly greens is really not a contender here. Adding the mostly lo-res look to the mix wasn't helping (ditto A8), same as its weaker 3D performance. It did excell in other areas of course, but it's not at all as one-sided contest as your post suggests. The "speed and smoothness" are important factors, but not in all the genres, plus there are many examples of arcade-type games which are actually much more playable on the "inferior" machines (Bomb Jack, Renegade - off top of my head)

 

ZX Spectrum was undoubtedly the weakest of the lot hardware wise and yet it actually has worked in its favour, since its limitations forced the devs to experiment and come up not only with some astounding coding feats, but also kickstarting entire genres, just like it happened with Knight Lore. And the implication that people who appreciate the Z80-based machines have the nostalgia-glasses firmly stuck on is also quite unfair. I'm sure it's true for quite a few people, but there are also many who actually appreciate big chunks of their library for its timeless brilliance, and not because of childhood memories.

 

Amstrad CPC is a bit of a curious case, since it has appeared when ZX already ruled the UK and with its lower user base and bigger price was obviously getting both less games and lesser quality ports (something its fans still like to moan about, unfairly blaming it on the ZX). But there are enough examples of great games to let us know it was a capable machine too. Alas, hardware history is a harsh mistress, something A8 found out about only too well, since despite being the king of innovation and software up till 1983, it had fallen off the table around 84-85 and was only sustained by the Eastern European market later on, missing out on most of the famous later titles.

 

So, while going to a desert island I'd no doubt pack a C64 (mainly thanks to its "big" games, such as Pirates! or Zak McKraken) that does not mean I'd be really gutted if somebody swapped it for a ZX or a CPC (or, indeed, an MSX, my current darling). They are as viable as gaming machines as their US 8-bit 6502 brethren.

 

 

[Bill Loguidice]

It's OK that something is better than something else, especially when we're being specific about a use case. It doesn't necessarily mean the other thing is bad or doesn't have ways in which it shines. I've been very clear on all of that, so to pull the "how dare you!" card on me is being disingenuous. 

 

Gaming-wise, especially as a US gamer, the ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPC, and BBC Micro are all sub-standard games machines in comparison to what we had in the US, which AGAIN and for ALL TIME doesn't mean that there weren't instances where each of those systems shined or have a special appeal. We also had the benefit here in the US of more or less standardizing on disk drives by 1984, for instance. Different markets, different tastes, different experiences. It's hard to appreciate the lack of smoothness on Amstrad CPC games or the color clash on the ZX Spectrum when we rarely had to deal with such things here in the US on our most dominant platform. And yes, despite the extra colors on the CPC, they were often not used well in actual games. No crazy statement made there.

 

Again, I can personally appreciate - and DO personally appreciate - any and all machines, warts and all, and can simply state there never was a perfect computer. I also don't think it's outrageous to say that the C-64 was the best all around 8-bit games computer, both back in the day and homebrew-wise now. You just can't match its extensive library and the consistent audio-visual quality pulled from a single machine, the one machine you could buy in 1982 and not have to do anything special with to enjoy 99% of its library even today. It doesn't mean the generic "you" has to agree with that statement about the C-64 being the best overall 8-bit games computer, especially when it comes down to personal taste and a preference for how other machines do something, but if we have to pick, you'd have a hard time convincing me there's a better option out there based on my experience with, well, nearly everything.

 

As just one example, there are of course die-hard fans of the ZX Spectrum (mostly outside the US, of course) that despite the color clash and other limitations vastly prefer it, but to say it's better than the C-64 is a stretch, particularly since it has gaps in its library in comparison thanks to variable memory configurations and standardizing on cassettes. In other words, I'd argue that the Spectrum has many of its fans because of its very special quirks, including the atypical keyboard usage and color clash, etc., things we'd say define the platform's "personality." That's a good thing, but also one of the indicators of why it's not reasonable to say it's a better games machine than something like the C-64. And to tie it back to the C-64 vs. Atari 8-bit comparison that's the actual thread topic, the Atari 8-bit is a brilliant architecture and a class act, but again, has more architectural limitations overall than something like the C-64 and is thus harder to get the same consistent results, even putting aside the big gaps in depth and breadth of libraries, which really has to be a significant factor in this type of evaluation. Theoretical power, prowess, or gameplay possibilities are one thing, but to see consistent quality implementations in actual practice is something else entirely. 

 

Anyway, I've basically been saying the same thing throughout this thread. That's just my opinion and the reasons why I feel that way. It's OK that other people may and do feel differently. I'll happily continue to enjoy anything and everything, because that's one of the great luxuries of being an enthusiast today. We have no limits to what we can enjoy or experience and that includes the absolute best each platform has to offer.

[Nickolasgaspar]

This thread's title is about the graphics abilities of two 8 bit micros.  I threw in CPC because even coders of that period accepted CPC's superiority over C64's capabilities. (Virgin Software quote in the video below).

 

The homebrew community has proven that all 8bit machines are capable game machines and provided a larger pool of "data" for our evaluations. Some are better in specific genres than others.

Sure, scrolling looks great on C64 and Atari machines with their dedicated  hardware, Pseudo 3d and scaling is superior on atari 8bit computers due to Miner's advanced architecture(I saw a new C64 racing game with impressive scaling), and "16bit" like appearance is CPC's strong point  without having many serious drawbacks in  scrolling or sound.  

In my opinion and based on  old and new game library , the Atari 8bit line and the CPC are  the most balanced machines since  they both score really high in all categories (graphics/colors,scrolling/scaling,sound).

Of course we are forgetting MSX2 machines with their objectively  superior graphics and Speccy's  aesthetic which is so unique and artistic in so many instances.

 I would be equally happy owning any  of the 8bit classics micros but I have to admit though,  in the case of the C64, its the support this machine enjoyed  during his commercial life not its graphics  that would justify my satisfaction.

Well I don't really play games anymore(I just test them for some secs) so  my critique is solely  based on my initial impressions on their graphics, sound and control response.

 

 

 

[Bill Loguidice]

While I greatly admire and enjoy "super" 8-bits like the MSX2 (and beyond) and CoCo 3, etc., I still go back to the whole depth and breadth thing when it comes to both impressive games and visuals (say static images or demo scene stuff).

 

I mean, the C-64 can hold its own with still images, like in the examples that follow (don't know if they've been posted earlier in the thread), but then I feel like EVERY system, even the super modest ones like the VIC-20, can output impressive still images with the right tricks employed. That's why I'd personally rather focus on actual games and gameplay above all else:

 

 

 

 

Again, because we can find beautiful pixel art by talented artists who know how to take advantage of still image creation quirks, just about any system can be pushed to do all kinds of things not really possible in an actual game (and don't get me wrong, I love to look at them, but that's not the end-all, be-all for me). That's why I'd personally rather point to actual games like Sam's Quest, A Pig's Quest, Zeta Wing, etc., on the C-64, that are super colorful, super smooth, and have pixel-perfect control for reasons why I'd give the overall (there's that word again, "overall" rather than in all cases) nod to the C-64 over other 8-bit systems, again, adding in all the stuff that came before. I just don't experience that same combination of color, smoothness, control, etc., regularly on any other 8-bit system. And when I do, I acknowledge it's something pretty special.

 

 

[Nickolasgaspar]

Since my first job was  creating digital illustrations I have to say that I do love C64 still images. The higher resolution, the earthy colors and creative use of that grey and purple colors produce real art in my opinion. I really appreciate creative art  on limited resources. But again the problem is that there aren't enough colors to produce dramatically different results, without ignoring advantage of  the higher resolution in the detail of these images.

On the other hand, images on the Atari 8bit line are a bit more "rough"  from a resolution perspective but the available hues and colors can  produce a huge spectrum of different color schemes.

Here is a great image from Lamer's demo "Prozac".(Scrolling picture).

If you check this thread you will see many examples of converted still images. Of course they are not "art" but they can roughly  show the  abilities of the hardware to produce images in a variety of different color schemes.

An other great example is the conversion of the  "Defender of the Crown" title screen.

 

[Steril707]

If I may give my 5 cents on this topic in this super old thread  :

 

The C64 is an all around good games hardware.

 

The A8, like with every Jay Miner hardware, you need to build the games around the concept of verticality.

But then it really shines.

 

I am just researching the possibilities on the A8 currently, so not sure yet about my final verdict, but at the moment I am mighty impressed by the Atari 8 bits capabilities. 

 

And I guess, you could do a lot of the stuff you see on the C64 on the A8 as well.

[Nebulon]

After playing Space Harrier on a stock Atari 800XL, that sealed the deal for me and placed The Atari 8-bit line at top of the stack in my books:

 

Super Pac-Man was nicely ported to it as well. And Mr. Robot is a great example of GTIA colors put to good use. 

 

Having said that, there are a few gems that get me to visit the C64 from time to time like the excellent port of Satan's Hollow and -- or course -- R-Type.

 

Again though, the Atari 8-bit systems get more attention from me for sure. I really appreciate the wider color palette, compared to the C64 (and the brighter colors that are available, along with the cool shading that the A8 series can do). 

 

It's worth noting that, although the C64 is capable of scrolling more smoothly, the A8 can scroll pretty darned well. 

[Atari130XE]

Hello all , nice to be here. 

 

As per my username, my first computer was an Atari 130XE.   All my friends had C64s or CPC 464 or 6128s or spectrums.  

I am not going to go into the 'which machine was better' argument as such as the ZX for example was much worse.  

I remember going along with my friends to the game shop and there were NO Atari games for me to buy. There were the same Atari 2600 quality like games on the shelf for years. I can't remember exactly but I think there were No games past 1986 ..or I don't remember any. 

 

So given the Atari's capabilities, whatever those were, they were not insignificant, why did all the other platforms share game launches but Atari was not invited to the party?  

What made Atari such an undesirable machine to make games on ? 

 

I really, really want to know, seeing how I am scarred for life by this...

Edited March 12 by Atari130XE
typo

[Bill Loguidice]

1 hour ago, Atari130XE said:

So given the Atari's capabilities, whatever those were, they were not insignificant, why did all the other platforms share game launches but Atari was not invited to the party?  

What made Atari such an undesirable machine to make games on ? 

 

I really, really want to know, seeing how I am scarred for life by this...

My theory, at least in regards to the US and US companies, is that Atari 8-bits had too big of a range of RAM, from 16k - 128k. To ensure maximum reach, you didn't really want to go beyond targeting 16k - 48k, though of course Atari had a relatively late 16k base machine with the 600XL. 

 

In contrast, the C-64, besides selling really well, was one model with a standard 64k RAM. Easy to support. Similarly, the Apple II, although having a similar RAM range to the Atari 8-bits, had a more affluent user base that upgraded memory more aggressively, so you could more consistently target 64k, and even 128k, and ensure sufficient sales.

 

Now, it's true that non-North American markets were more budget conscious, and thus, less saturated with higher RAM 8-bits, but the Atari 8-bit line didn't have a particularly strong comparative presence elsewhere and was competing against much lower priced, more home grown competition. Few things were in the Atari 8-bit's favor overseas.

 

Although they had their weaknesses, there really was nothing wrong with Atari 8-bit technology, especially considering the relative vintage of its original release. It still lasted just about as long as any other 8-bit platform and was easily in the top tier of sales. It was not a failure by any stretch, it just didn't get the length of top level third party support found on the C-64, Apple II, and PC DOS after roughly 1985 (not that I would count that with the 8-bits, but it still received contemporary support that never ended).

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

1 hour ago, Atari130XE said:

Hello all , nice to be here. 

 

As per my username, my first computer was an Atari 130XE.   All my friends had C64s or CPC 464 or 6128s or spectrums.  

I am not going to go into the 'which machine was better' argument as such as the ZX for example was much worse.  

I remember going along with my friends to the game shop and there were NO Atari games for me to buy. There were the same Atari 2600 quality like games on the shelf for years. I can't remember exactly but I think there were No games past 1986 ..or I don't remember any. 

 

So given the Atari's capabilities, whatever those were, they were not insignificant, why did all the other platforms share game launches but Atari was not invited to the party?  

What made Atari such an undesirable machine to make games on ? 

 

I really, really want to know, seeing how I am scarred for life by this...

"I am not going to go into the 'which machine was better' argument"

Then why comment HERE? That is the point of THIS THREAD, so continuing a conversation about the questions you have asked would derail this topic. 

You should have asked your questions in a new separate thread.....................

 

 

[Atari130XE]

26 minutes ago, OldSchoolRetroGamer said:

"I am not going to go into the 'which machine was better' argument"

Then why comment HERE? That is the point of THIS THREAD, so continuing a conversation about the questions you have asked would derail this topic. 

You should have asked your questions in a new separate thread.....................

 

 

oh... lesson learned. Although one could argue, no matter how poorly I phrased it that by identifying if there was something that made the Atari 8bit hard for developers to produce games for then it adds to any argument for or against some machines. 

Nonetheless, didn't mean to make people upset. 

[CPUWIZ]

1 minute ago, Atari130XE said:

oh... lesson learned. Although one could argue, no matter how poorly I phrased it that by identifying if there was something that made the Atari 8bit hard for developers to produce games for then it adds to any argument for or against some machines. 

Nonetheless, didn't mean to make people upset. 

I would suggest doing a search next time, take a look at where the "conversation" usually ends up.

[Atari130XE]

Just now, CPUWIZ said:

I would suggest doing a search next time, take a look at where the "conversation" usually ends up.

I am afraid -as a non native English speaker- that I am not following you. How would a search help me not upset our friend as I did? 

 

Nevermind, as dictated by the previous poster, I will derail this conversation if I continue, so ..thanks 

 

[zzip]

4 hours ago, Atari130XE said:

Hello all , nice to be here. 

 

As per my username, my first computer was an Atari 130XE.   All my friends had C64s or CPC 464 or 6128s or spectrums.  

I am not going to go into the 'which machine was better' argument as such as the ZX for example was much worse.  

I remember going along with my friends to the game shop and there were NO Atari games for me to buy. There were the same Atari 2600 quality like games on the shelf for years. I can't remember exactly but I think there were No games past 1986 ..or I don't remember any. 

 

So given the Atari's capabilities, whatever those were, they were not insignificant, why did all the other platforms share game launches but Atari was not invited to the party?  

What made Atari such an undesirable machine to make games on ? 

 

I really, really want to know, seeing how I am scarred for life by this...

In the beginning, the Atari 8-bit got almost everything ported to it.   After the 1984 Atari sale, third party support for the 8-bit line went on hiatus to wait and see if the new Atari would still support the line.   When it was clear they would,  then 3rd party support picked up again, but it was never as robust as before, many titles skipped Atari.   It didn't help that C64 was now outselling Atari 8 by a wide margin.

[Nickolasgaspar]

6 minutes ago, zzip said:

In the beginning, the Atari 8-bit got almost everything ported to it.   After the 1984 Atari sale, third party support for the 8-bit line went on hiatus to wait and see if the new Atari would still support the line.   When it was clear they would,  then 3rd party support picked up again, but it was never as robust as before, many titles skipped Atari.   It didn't help that C64 was now outselling Atari 8 by a wide margin.

Well that doesn't really answer the "why" aspect of  the question. It only describes the ups and downs of software support. There were many reasons why  the platform didn't enjoy the same support  other platforms had at that time.
First of all Atari was  a game company with  a main goal  to sell their own games. Atari tried to keep the market for themselves by suing those who attempted to write games for their systems and  by not sharing any info on how to program their custom chips. De Re Atari came too late (1982) only after  they saw the  competition closing in and even then the effort was made by employees not the company itself.
After all these legal disputes and the video game crash which affected Atari,  third party software houses didn't trust the company, plus software piracy was growing , especially in Europe, due to the popularity of dual cassette decks. Commodore's price war and marketing practices (selling computers in SM and game stores) didn't help either. Atari low quality of games also confused the customers  who most of them, even today,  are unable to tell the difference between 2600 and computer 8bit games.

Another crucial  detail was that, Atari 8bit  machines had to fight as computers against the reputation of the company (known for game consoles) but they arrived early at a high price but when  the market matured (for home computers) around 1982, they were identified as the "older machines". The Atari 1200's  flop didn't help either.
As with many ''disasters" the Swiss cheese model accurately describes  the disaster of  the lack of support by major software houses of the system.
In Europe things were a bit different.  During the 90's and 00s, Central and Eastern European groups   provided  a remarkable support enabling the rise of the modern home-brew  community with all those great software tools and releases that we enjoy to this day.

[zzip]

3 minutes ago, Nickolasgaspar said:

First of all Atari was  a game company with  a main goal  to sell their own games. Atari tried to keep the market for themselves by suing those who attempted to write games for their systems and  by not sharing any info on how to program their custom chips. De Re Atari came too late (1982) only after  they saw the  competition closing in and even then the effort was made by employees not the company itself.

That didn't stop the software from being ported, though.  It meant that third party software didn't fully utilize the capabilities of the system and a lot of games from 82 and earlier just look bland.   Up through 1983 just about every significant computer game came to Atari and that's one reason I chose the platform.   Then suddenly it all dried up and we got crumbs, while all these great-looking games started appearing on C64/Apple II.    Soon even the PC and Atari's own ST became higher priority for developers than the 8-bit in the US market.

 

13 minutes ago, Nickolasgaspar said:

After all these legal disputes and the video game crash which affected Atari,  third party software houses didn't trust the company, plus software piracy was growing , especially in Europe, due to the popularity of dual cassette decks. Commodore's price war and marketing practices (selling computers in SM and game stores) didn't help either. Atari low quality of games also confused the customers  who most of them, even today,  are unable to tell the difference between 2600 and computer 8bit games.

Piracy didn't help,  but I don't think it was a unique to Atari either.  But there were so many more C64s out there, that piracy didn't hurt sales there as much.

 

I don't agree that Atari8 games were indistinguishable from 2600 titles though.    Yes that was a criticism of Activision's ports, but most companies had noticeably better graphics and sound on the 8-bit ports.

 

[Atari130XE]

 

1 hour ago, Nickolasgaspar said:

Well that doesn't really answer the "why" aspect of  the question. It only describes the ups and downs of software support. There were many reasons why  the platform didn't enjoy the same support  other platforms had at that time.
First of all Atari was  a game company with  a main goal  to sell their own games. Atari tried to keep the market for themselves by suing those who attempted to write games for their systems and  by not sharing any info on how to program their custom chips. De Re Atari came too late (1982) only after  they saw the  competition closing in and even then the effort was made by employees not the company itself.
After all these legal disputes and the video game crash which affected Atari,  third party software houses didn't trust the company, plus software piracy was growing , especially in Europe, due to the popularity of dual cassette decks. Commodore's price war and marketing practices (selling computers in SM and game stores) didn't help either. Atari low quality of games also confused the customers  who most of them, even today,  are unable to tell the difference between 2600 and computer 8bit games.

Another crucial  detail was that, Atari 8bit  machines had to fight as computers against the reputation of the company (known for game consoles) but they arrived early at a high price but when  the market matured (for home computers) around 1982, they were identified as the "older machines". The Atari 1200's  flop didn't help either.
As with many ''disasters" the Swiss cheese model accurately describes  the disaster of  the lack of support by major software houses of the system.
In Europe things were a bit different.  During the 90's and 00s, Central and Eastern European groups   provided  a remarkable support enabling the rise of the modern home-brew  community with all those great software tools and releases that we enjoy to this day.

Thank you, that is a very good view, that I did not have to this day. 

1 hour ago, zzip said:

That didn't stop the software from being ported, though.  It meant that third party software didn't fully utilize the capabilities of the system and a lot of games from 82 and earlier just look bland.   Up through 1983 just about every significant computer game came to Atari and that's one reason I chose the platform.   Then suddenly it all dried up and we got crumbs, while all these great-looking games started appearing on C64/Apple II.    Soon even the PC and Atari's own ST became higher priority for developers than the 8-bit in the US market.

 

Piracy didn't help,  but I don't think it was a unique to Atari either.  But there were so many more C64s out there, that piracy didn't hurt sales there as much.

 

I don't agree that Atari8 games were indistinguishable from 2600 titles though.    Yes that was a criticism of Activision's ports, but most companies had noticeably better graphics and sound on the 8-bit ports.

 

I wonder if sales for CPC, C64 and ZX were significantly higher to have the Atari 8 bit completely ignored for some game titles. 

I would suppose that having the core code for the game ready, even without utilising the system 100% would mean that one would take the risk of manhour costs in order to appeal to that segment of the market as well. Unless the market share was abysmal. 

[zzip]

6 minutes ago, Atari130XE said:

I wonder if sales for CPC, C64 and ZX were significantly higher to have the Atari 8 bit completely ignored for some game titles. 

I would suppose that having the core code for the game ready, even without utilising the system 100% would mean that one would take the risk of manhour costs in order to appeal to that segment of the market as well. Unless the market share was abysmal. 

I don't know about CPC or ZX Spectrum,  but C64 outsold Atari8 several times over.    I also think Atari8 had less presence in the UK market than the US.

 

In the 8-bit days, it was common for ports to be written from scratch rather than share a codebase.   Some games do show evidence of being created from the same code base, while others are so wildly different that it's unlikely they did.    

 

There was also a trend to do "flippys"   One side of a disk had Commodore and the other side had Atari.   So a sale to both platforms counted as a single sale, and I have no idea how they knew how many people were playing each version,  they must have just estimated from market data.

[Nickolasgaspar]

3 hours ago, zzip said:

3 hours ago, zzip said:

That didn't stop the software from being ported, though.  It meant that third party software didn't fully utilize the capabilities of the system and a lot of games from 82 and earlier just look bland.   Up through 1983 just about every significant computer game came to Atari and that's one reason I chose the platform.   Then suddenly it all dried up and we got crumbs, while all these great-looking games started appearing on C64/Apple II.    Soon even the PC and Atari's own ST became higher priority for developers than the 8-bit in the US market.

 

Piracy didn't help,  but I don't think it was a unique to Atari either.  But there were so many more C64s out there, that piracy didn't hurt sales there as much.

 

I don't agree that Atari8 games were indistinguishable from 2600 titles though.    Yes that was a criticism of Activision's ports, but most companies had noticeably better graphics and sound on the 8-bit ports.

 

Why are you addressing arguments I never made?
 I never said that it stopped software from being ported.
-"Atari tried to keep the market for themselves by suing those who attempted to write games for their systems and  by not sharing any info on how to program their custom chips."

I never said that Atari 8 games were indistinguishable from 2600 titles. I said that  many low quality titles created that impression.
-"Atari low quality of games also confused the customers  who most of them, even today,  are unable to tell the difference between 2600 and computer 8bit games."
To this day many  retro users(check big retro youtube channels)  have this impression and they are amazed by the great titles of the past and the amazing homebrew games.

And I never claimed that Piracy was unique to  Atari.  Atari  had huge sales  in Central and Easter Europe where  piracy was huge...I mean hugeeee ! You couldn't buy an original boxed game from a store even if you wanted.
 

 

 

[zzip]

17 minutes ago, Nickolasgaspar said:

Why are you addressing arguments I never made?
 I never said that it stopped software from being ported.
-"Atari tried to keep the market for themselves by suing those who attempted to write games for their systems and  by not sharing any info on how to program their custom chips."

I agree with your point that developer info was held back until De Re Atari, but I didn't think it contradicted my point that Atari computers were well-supported by third parties until 84.

 

18 minutes ago, Nickolasgaspar said:

I never said that Atari 8 games were indistinguishable from 2600 titles. I said that  many low quality titles created that impression.
-"Atari low quality of games also confused the customers  who most of them, even today,  are unable to tell the difference between 2600 and computer 8bit games."
To this day many  retro users(check big retro youtube channels)  have this impression and they are amazed by the great titles of the past and the amazing homebrew games.

ok I misunderstood.   But I'd have to wonder what created that impression in people?  Because I always saw improved graphics in the 8-bit line vs the 2600.  Even the older titles with weaker graphics were usually noticeably better.   I do suspect many people just weren't paying close attention, and it didn't help that to many people "Atari" meant 2600 in the same way "Kleenix" means tissue.   The brand is so strongly associated with a product that people don't realize they had other products.

 

 

29 minutes ago, Nickolasgaspar said:

And I never claimed that Piracy was unique to  Atari.  Atari  had huge sales  in Central and Easter Europe where  piracy was huge...I mean hugeeee ! You couldn't buy an original boxed game from a store even if you wanted.

Yeah piracy is everywhere,  But I've seen it alleged all the way back to the 80s that Atari users were somehow more into piracy than users of other systems.   And I don't know if there's any evidence of that or why it might be if it was true.

[Atari130XE]

So Atari 8 bit, didn't sell well, definitely not like the C64 and the ZX, but it sold comparatively to the CPC models and yet, CPC (464 and 6128) enjoyed most of the big hit games after 1984-5. Atari did not.  Did Atari just try to milk the poor customers (who were fooled into the XE line late 80s) while it shifted its attention to the ST line?  

[Atari130XE]

Holy c$%p 

 

I ran across a port released in 2021 for Prince of Persia!  Oh my god. If we had games like that in the late 80s a LOT more Ataris would have been sold! 

[Bill Loguidice]

21 minutes ago, Atari130XE said:

Holy c$%p 

 

I ran across a port released in 2021 for Prince of Persia!  Oh my god. If we had games like that in the late 80s a LOT more Ataris would have been sold! 

It is impressive. Of course, that's true for all classic platforms. Modern developers can really push the limits in ways that weren't practical back in the day.

[Atari130XE]

19 minutes ago, Bill Loguidice said:

It is impressive. Of course, that's true for all classic platforms. Modern developers can really push the limits in ways that weren't practical back in the day.

Hello, thanks for this. 

Could you elaborate a little bit? Why was it not practical back in the day?