Atari v Commodore

[Rockford]

Then, after Tramiel left, Commodore didn't know clearly how to sell out C16, C116 and Commodore Plus/4 series, which followed by its collaps. C128 came to late.

HOLY COW !!! Haven't you heard about Amiga ?

Not exactly a huge success hee in the U.S. took till 1990 to overtake the atari ST,neither of which were even close to pc's or mac

But in the end Amiga outsold Atari ST, just like in the case of C64 vs A8. History repeats itself.

[Rockford]

I did. I mean, both companies were slowly dying anyway.

Yes, but I was talking about 1984. At that time Atari was on its knees, while Commodore ruled the 8bit world.

no, apple still had a larger base at the time.

 

Especially if we take into consideration that C64 outsold Apple II 3:1 LOL

 

A little reminder:

During the Commodore 64's lifetime, sales totalled 17 million units, making it the best-selling single personal computer model of all time. For a substantial period of time (1983-1986), the Commodore 64 dominated the market with between 30% and 40% share and 2 million units sold per year, outselling the IBM PC clones, Apple computers, and Atari computers. Sam Tramiel, a former Atari president said in a 1989 interview "When I was at Commodore we were building 400 000 C64s a month for a couple of years."

[Rockford]

How do you work out that Rockford is trolling from that exchange?!! He an Rybags were talking about who owned what and when and Gury butts in with "Atari 8-bit is still better overall machine than C64", that just looks like flame bait since it isn't even vaguely relevant and just appears to be there to antagonise!

Wrong. I just made it clear what he is here about.

 

Wrong. You butted in on what they were talking about with an irrelevant point to that particular part of the discussion; that's just you trying to antagonise, nothing else. Just because this is Atari Age that doesn't give one side the right to shout about trolling whilst doing exactly the same thing themselves.

TMR don't bother, it's waste of time. He just can't say anything more than that

[Rockford]

Personally I've been enjoying the screenshot comparisons.

 

Tempest

I'm glad you like it. There will be more.

[Rockford]

Not really... both were going OK until 1989 or so.

 

The failure of the Plus/4 and 16 probably barely made a dent.

 

The real failure in both cases was keeping the Amiga and ST up with what PC and clones were doing.

Nope check the sales rates. Besides, if Tramiel hadn't bought ATARI, it would habe been the deceased in 1984.

Probably not. Somebody else would have bought it. The Atari intellectual property has always been worth something and still is today. I doubt Infogrames would put it in a trash can. It's ***certainly*** worth more than Commodore intellectual property - which may be just a name, if it even exists today.

I don't think so. There was the video game crash of 1983 and nobody except Tramiel wanted to buy it (btw it's an irony that a slayer became a saviour). Still, it's symptomatic that C64 survived the crash with ease and even flourished. It only proved how strong Commodore had been.

[Rockford]

43 - KNIGHT ORC

 

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has nice and colourful graphics. On Atari there is only text...Yeap, that's all. C64 crushes Atari again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

Edited October 13, 2009 by Rockford

[atarian63]

43 - KNIGHT ORC

 

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has nice and colourful graphics. On Atari there is only text...Yeap, that's all. C64 crushes Atari again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

More selective pics. more trolling..

[atarian63]

Not really... both were going OK until 1989 or so.

 

The failure of the Plus/4 and 16 probably barely made a dent.

 

The real failure in both cases was keeping the Amiga and ST up with what PC and clones were doing.

Nope check the sales rates. Besides, if Tramiel hadn't bought ATARI, it would habe been the deceased in 1984.

Probably not. Somebody else would have bought it. The Atari intellectual property has always been worth something and still is today. I doubt Infogrames would put it in a trash can. It's ***certainly*** worth more than Commodore intellectual property - which may be just a name, if it even exists today.

I don't think so. There was the video game crash of 1983 and nobody except Tramiel wanted to buy it (btw it's an irony that a slayer became a saviour). Still, it's symptomatic that C64 survived the crash with ease and even flourished. It only proved how strong Commodore had been.

Though Commodore was lost without jack. Took them a long time in the 16bit days to try the same things Jack did. Which is.. Sell it cheaper..

Kind of funny seeing Jack use his old nemesis to whack his old company (and outlast them I might add)

Edited October 13, 2009 by atarian63

[atarian63]

How do you work out that Rockford is trolling from that exchange?!! He an Rybags were talking about who owned what and when and Gury butts in with "Atari 8-bit is still better overall machine than C64", that just looks like flame bait since it isn't even vaguely relevant and just appears to be there to antagonise!

Wrong. I just made it clear what he is here about.

 

Wrong. You butted in on what they were talking about with an irrelevant point to that particular part of the discussion; that's just you trying to antagonise, nothing else. Just because this is Atari Age that doesn't give one side the right to shout about trolling whilst doing exactly the same thing themselves.

TMR don't bother, it's waste of time. He just can't say anything more than that

more insults and trolling.

[atarian63]

Then, after Tramiel left, Commodore didn't know clearly how to sell out C16, C116 and Commodore Plus/4 series, which followed by its collaps. C128 came to late.

HOLY COW !!! Haven't you heard about Amiga ?

Not exactly a huge success hee in the U.S. took till 1990 to overtake the atari ST,neither of which were even close to pc's or mac

But in the end Amiga outsold Atari ST, just like in the case of C64 vs A8. History repeats itself.

Only as Atari moved on to other things. Amiga was late in release, rushed the A1000 before it was ready and then overpriced it.

It did not matter by then as most dealers like myself had moved on to pc's and game systems.

Yep,cd32 was a big success

[atarian63]

Not really... both were going OK until 1989 or so.

 

The failure of the Plus/4 and 16 probably barely made a dent.

 

The real failure in both cases was keeping the Amiga and ST up with what PC and clones were doing.

Nope check the sales rates. Besides, if Tramiel hadn't bought ATARI, it would habe been the deceased in 1984.

Probably not. Somebody else would have bought it. The Atari intellectual property has always been worth something and still is today. I doubt Infogrames would put it in a trash can. It's ***certainly*** worth more than Commodore intellectual property - which may be just a name, if it even exists today.

So very true! Someone else would have bought it. But hey.. Jack kept it going for many years, maybe not the way we would like but I am still playing stuff from his time there.

[atarian63]

 

XL machines in 84 were being liquidated at a loss by cheap ass Jack Tramiel from Commodore.

Actually the machines were not at a loss as he got the companie for a song and a dance,but there were better machines than the c64 so it was quite a bargain. I believe consumer reports in the us said in 84 or 85 the 800xl was a best buy!

This is all different than the 1982 to 84 interation of the poor quality and cheaply made c64.

 

so again for the hard of hearing apparently..

 

in late 1984 the "superior" 800xls were being liquidated at £130 and in the middle of '85 the "cheaply made crap old c64" were starting to sell like hot cakes at £175-200. what exactly does that do to your constantly repeated theory of the 64 outselling the a8 simply because it was cheaper. because it obviously wasn't the case.

 

A800 was contemporary of C64. 800XL came later. There were a bunch of ads in magazines and the prices clearly were higher for A8s.

 

So anyone thinking A8s were cheaper than C64s is doing something wrong in his analysis.

 

 

 

XL machines in 84 were being liquidated at a loss by cheap ass Jack Tramiel from Commodore.

Actually the machines were not at a loss as he got the companie for a song and a dance,but there were better machines than the c64 so it was quite a bargain. I believe consumer reports in the us said in 84 or 85 the 800xl was a best buy!

This is all different than the 1982 to 84 interation of the poor quality and cheaply made c64.

 

so again for the hard of hearing apparently..

 

in late 1984 the "superior" 800xls were being liquidated at £130 and in the middle of '85 the "cheaply made crap old c64" were starting to sell like hot cakes at £175-200. what exactly does that do to your constantly repeated theory of the 64 outselling the a8 simply because it was cheaper. because it obviously wasn't the case.

Facts are facts C64 started as the cheapo model, poorly made and sold cheap, that continued until Jack Tramiel sold liquidation 800xl's for a dump price, Quite a great deal for users considering the superior quality.

Also sold boatloads of 800xl's during 85 and 86, like a semi load every other week.C64 on the otherhand slowed down during this period.People are cheap.

So it actually was the case.

 

Atariksi is partially wrong, whereas atarian63 is completely wrong again. Let's facts talk for themselves.

 

ATARI 800 XL

"The 800XL has sold almost 500,000 units through 1984" --Atari's Sigmund Hartmann, Atari Explorer magazine, Summer 1985, p. 33.

 

"By the end of 1984, the Atari 800XL will have sold more than 600,000 units since its introduction more than a year ago, according to Kenneth Lim of Dataquest, a market research firm in San Jose." InfoWorld January 7/14, 1985”

 

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/atari-8-bit/faq/section-95.html

 

COMMODORE 64

During the Commodore 64's lifetime, sales totalled 17 million units, making it the best-selling single personal computer model of all time. For a substantial period of time (1983-1986), the Commodore 64 dominated the market with between 30% and 40% share and 2 million units sold per year, outselling the IBM PC clones, Apple computers, and Atari computers. Sam Tramiel, a former Atari president said in a 1989 interview "When I was at Commodore we were building 400 000 C64s a month for a couple of years."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64

 

So, in other words it means that in 2 months Commodore sold more C64s than Atari A800XLs in its whole market lifetime (it was replaced by 65XE in 1985), even though ATARI 800 XL was cheaper than C64 :!: Atari 65 XE (US$99.95) was even cheaper than ATARI 800 XL but the most striking fact was that ATARI 130 XE with 128kb RAM was also cheaper (it cost US$149.95.) than C64 :!: It didn't help at all and C64 dominated the market till the end of both computers. C64 was indeed cheaper than ATARI 800 (NOT 800 XL) and ATARI 1200 XL (which was a flop) only in the short period of time (1 year, from September 1982 till fall 1983). From that point of time (800XL launch), ATARI was always a cheaper choice. So, let’s compare – 1 year of C64 cheapness contra 8 years of A8 cheapness (ATARI stopped production in 1991, Commodore did it 2 years later). These are hard facts based on reality. Like them or not.

Wrong again as usual..or always

The price drop happened after Atari had been sold and Commode had had 2-3 years of software dev and cheapo sales to build a user base, by that time it did not matter if Tramiels dropped the price or remade the unit to be more cost effective (i.e. cheap like c64) the game was up by then. The damage from the crash to atari's reputation did them in. C64 up until the tramiel/atari price drop/dump was always the cheaper choice. Though quality was always sketchy at best.

These are the actual facts from someone who sold and serviced both throughout the entire period.

It’s pointless explaining anything to you, because you simply don’t read. I provided (many times) the link that shows the chronological history of ATARI 8bit. There are many data in the text and I know it’s hard to read, but at least try. After all, it’s the history of your beloved computer, not mine. Let's back to facts:

 

1981

 

May 5: At the National Computer Conference in Chicago, Atari announced that

the 8K Atari 400 was being discontinued and that the price on the 16K version

was being reduced to US$399 (was US$630); also, the 400 would no longer be

sold with the Atari BASIC cartridge and the Atari BASIC: A Self-Teaching Guide

book. Other price reductions: CX852 8K RAM module now US$49.95 (was

US$124.95), CX853 16K RAM module now US$99.95 (was US$199.95), 820 printer now

US$299.95 (was US$449.95). Also introduced: Personal Financial Management

System, Dow Jones Investment Evaluator, Atari Microsoft BASIC,

Macro Assembler and Program-Text Editor.

 

December 30: Atari said that it would cut the retail price for the 800 home

computer (with 16K RAM) to US$899 from US$1,080.

 

1982

 

June 6-9: At the Summer CES in Chicago Atari announced Atari Speed Reading

(US$74.95), Music Tutor I (would ship in 1983 as AtariMusic I), Juggles'

House, Juggles' Rainbow, TeleLink II (US$79.95), and the Communicator II kit

(new 835 modem + Telelink II) (US$279.95). Atari also announced the new

retail price for the 400 computer was US$349 (previously, US$399).

(CC Oct82 p180)

 

Fall: The suggested retail price for the Atari 800 was US$679 with 48K RAM

standard (previously: US$899/16K). The Atari 400 retail price was US$299

(previously, $349).

 

1983

 

January: The retail price for the Atari 800 (with 48K RAM, without Atari

BASIC) was reduced from US$679 to US$499. The retail price for the Atari 400

was reduced from US$299 to US$199.

 

May: The retail price for the Atari 400 was reduced from US$199 to US$100.

 

September: The Atari 800 (with 48K RAM, without Atari BASIC) would now retail

for US$165 while supplies lasted.

 

1984

 

July 1: Agreed on this date, effective June 30, the assets of the Atari home

computer and home video game businesses were sold by Warner Communications to

Tramel Technology Ltd., which had been formed on May 17, 1984 by its chairman

and CEO Jack Tramiel (pronounced truh-MELL), the founder and former president

of Commodore International. The transaction included exclusive use of the

"Atari" name and "Fuji" logo in the home computer and home video game markets,

along with the intellectual property rights (patents, trademarks, and

copyrights) owned by Atari in conjunction with its home computer and home

video game businesses. The home computer and home video game rights to Atari

coin-operated arcade games developed to date were included as well.

 

It clearly proves that the price drop also happened before Atari was sold to Tramiel. Reading is knowing, so next time, read and check before posting please, because I’m not going to lead you by the hand anymore and I don't get paid to endlessly correct your mistakes. This will also save everyone a lot of time. Thank you.

Again, since you dont listen..

Wrong again as usual..or always

The price drop happened after Atari had been sold and Commode had had 2-3 years of software dev and cheapo sales to build a user base, by that time it did not matter if Tramiels dropped the price or remade the unit to be more cost effective (i.e. cheap like c64) the game was up by then. The damage from the crash to atari's reputation did them in. C64 up until the tramiel/atari price drop/dump was always the cheaper choice. Though quality was always sketchy at best.

These are the actual facts from someone who sold and serviced both throughout the entire period.

Were you even alive during the time, did you particpate in the industry (no would be the answer here)

Well, I see you still don't like reading, so I'll make it as short and simple as possible.

Pay attention, please.

A800 went down from US$1080 to US$165 it roughly gives 85%

A400 went down from US$630 to US$100 it roughly gives 84%

It didn't help at all and Atari went on the brink of bankruptcy. All that happened before Tramiel bought Atari.

So, here comes the simple question: can we say it was a price drop ? or not.... Please don't cut and paste the same answer. If you like, just say "yes" or "not".

The main price drop was under Tramiel when he was liquidating the 8bit series for cash, the 800xl period and yes then the 800xl was less. That and it's great software library was why Consumer Reports rated it a best buy! 1985 I believe.

All the time prior c64 had been less, due to it's cheap materials and poor construction.

You obviously were not there and not in the industry dealing with the companies directly and with distribution.

[atarian63]

And one more thing, the substantial price drop (before Tramiel bought ATARI) didn't help at all and ATARI went into bankruptcy anyway.

Atari never went bankrupt, wow your info is always wrong. Here is another kicker for you. Commodore did, Also Atari outlasted Commodore.

Only because Tramiel (father of C64) bought it at the last moment. So, you should thank him nicely

Funny that you like to dismiss things that don't fit your non real world view. Atari had so many things in IP commodore could not dream of. Thousands of patents for instance. Many companies including Sega had to pay Atari under Jack. I think it was $50mil from Sega alone. Noo that's not worth a thing..

I do thank Jack for many years of fun! :D

[Albert]

Guys, please stop multi-quoting previous posts, especially when they are 5+ pages tall. Don't make me disable the ability to nest quotes..

 

..Al

[atarian63]

Here is an interesting Article on Commodore, things were not as Rosy as some here have said.It shows that by 1987 the US market for c64 had dropped a Whopping 54%!! It was over here in the us by that time.

Also not very profitable either. Just shows you can give something away or loose money and people will gladly take it!

They were loosing hundreds of millions in 85 and barely escaped backruptcy

 

Commodore 64 Era:

 

By early 1982, Commodore had five new products in development, one of them being the infamous Commodore 64. Believing he had a winner, Tramiel took a gamble. He sidelined the other products and built up massive inventories of the C64. Then, he flew in the face of the computer industry by enlisting the same mass merchandisers (K-Mart,Toys "R" Us, Target, and others) that sold the Vic-20 to market the C64. By doing so, he proved that computer buyers didn't need to rely on the hand-holding of an elite class of computer-literate salespeople and their specialty store prices.

 

The C64 was rushed to market with haste bordering on recklessness, and about 1/4 of the machines shipped didn't work. Commodore's solution was a no-questions-asked policy on the exchange of defective machines.

 

By 1984, about 4 million Commodore computers were in use around the world, and 300,000 more were being sold per month. However,Commodore's leadership believed that market saturation was still a long way off, since only about 6% of U.S. households owned computers. This was far less than the 20-25% that owned video game players during the peak of the home video game craze.

 

Tramiel Leaves:

 

Tramiel had been known for his iron-fisted style of management. He was involved with every aspect of the company and anything or anyone he didn't like was changed or removed. This led to a class action suit in November of 1983, which charged that Commodore failed to disclose information about its operations and did not build a strong management team.

 

According to a statement released in January of 1984, Tramiel said,"personal reasons prevent my continuing on a full-time basis with Commodore." Gould then recruited Marshall F. Smith from Thyssen-BornemiszaNV, a conglomerate based in the Netherlands Antilles, to replace Tramiel.

 

At the time of Tramiel's departure, the home computer market was failing, causing Mattel and Coleco to leave the business. Another company that decided to leave the industry was Warner Communications, which sold Atari to the newly unemployed Tramiel for a pittance. Shortly thereafter, a stream of Commodore executives followed him.

 

Smith:

 

In an effort to make Commodore profitable, Smith took to downsizing, cutting the payroll by more than 45%. Though the company had an impressive $339 million in 1985 holiday revenues, it made only $1 million for the quarter after paying off about 1/4 of its bank debt.

 

Commodore suffered through Fiscal Year 1985, losing $237 million, and getting into trouble with its creditors. The banks granted a much-needed one-month extension on Commodore's loans, and, with the success of the company's second-best Christmas sales ever behind them, Commodore escaped bankruptcy again.

 

The Rattigan Years:

 

In March 1986, Thomas J. Rattigan replaced Smith as Commodore's CEO. Rattigan was hired in April of 1985 with the understanding that he would replace Smith, who remained on as a director. Rattigan's objective during the first few months of his leadership was clear - cut costs in order to stabilize Commodore's position, allowing it to rebuild. Once again, the payroll was trimmed from top to bottom, and three plants were closed in five months. New controls were added in the finance department to prevent the sloppy reporting that had undermined Smith's leadership.

 

Commodore continued to sell respectable numbers of its $150 C64 throughout 1986. The Commodore 128, a successor to and more powerful machine than the C64, was selling for $300 at the time, also helping to keep the company afloat.

 

Rattigan's policies worked. By March of 1987, Commodore had caught up on its loans and posted a $22 million earning in the quarter ending December 1986. It also had $46 million in the bank, the most cash since 1983, its most profitable year.

 

Amiga:

 

Commodore's next move was to release the Amiga line of home computers. Code-named 'Lorraine' during development, Amiga was quickly dubbed the"save-the-company machine." The Amiga was packed with computing power. At its center was a Motorola 68000, the same chip that powered Apple's original Macintosh. The Amiga had an additional set of three custom-designed chips, one to handle stereo sound, one for graphics and one for animation. The Amiga was also one of the first computers to multi-task, performing several different computing jobs at once - such as word processing and game playing.

 

The Post-Rattigan Years:

 

On April 22, 1987, Rattigan was replaced by Chairman Irving Gould, the venture capitalist who had been involved with Commodore for over 20 years. It is unclear as to why Rattigan was replaced after turning the company around and posting $28 million in profits over the four quarters ending in March 1987. Rattigan himself claimed that he was forced out by Chairman Gould due to personality conflicts and that Gould was upset about Rattigan getting credit for the company's turnaround. Gould argued that the comeback in the U.S. was insufficient compared to its rebound in overseas markets, which accounted for 70% of its sales. In fact, despite its profitability, Commodore's U.S. revenues had declined by 54% in the same four quarters.

 

According to Gould's ideology, the North American operation was to be a sales and marketing extension of the company, rather than the unwieldy, semi-independent entity it had become. For the third time in Commodore history, a new leader began his term at the helm by drastically downsizing. Under Gould's reign, the payroll was cut from 4,700 to 3,100, including half the North American headquarters' corporate staff, and five plants were closed.

 

Current:

 

On April 29, 1994, Commodore International announced that it had been unable to renegotiate terms of its outstanding loans and was closing down the business. The liquidation process lasted for months, owing largely to the far-reaching size of the corporation. In addition, the fact that the company was incorporated in the Bahamas while a large share of the creditors were from the United States made legal proceedings tense and drawn out. On April 20, 1995, almost a full year later, Commodore was sold to the German company ESCOM for approximately 10 to 12.5 million dollars.

[+Stephen]

43 - KNIGHT ORC

 

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has nice and colourful graphics. On Atari there is only text...Yeap, that's all. C64 crushes Atari again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

More selective pics. more trolling..

Do tell how this is trolling - it's rather valid. The Atari version is an embarrassment next to those 2 pics. The truth may hurt, but this isn't trolling.

 

Stephen Anderson

[atarian63]

More selective pics. more trolling..

Do tell how this is trolling - it's rather valid. The Atari version is an embarrassment next to those 2 pics. The truth may hurt, but this isn't trolling.

 

Stephen Anderson

Do tell how it's not trolling.. Always the same selective examples designed to illicit a negative response complete with smart ass comment and smileys..

Amazing..

Edited October 14, 2009 by atarian63

[+wood_jl]

43 - KNIGHT ORC

 

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has nice and colourful graphics. On Atari there is only text...Yeap, that's all. C64 crushes Atari again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

More selective pics. more trolling..

Do tell how this is trolling - it's rather valid. The Atari version is an embarrassment next to those 2 pics. The truth may hurt, but this isn't trolling.

 

Stephen Anderson

 

It's neither embarrassment nor a valid comparison. Comparing a text game to a graphics game is apples and oranges. Most of the other screenshots are valid, however.

[Heaven/TQA]

re: level9 adventures...

 

but it is true... no gfx on the a8 versions.... but this is not because of the weaker machine...

[emkay]

Do tell how it's not trolling.. Always the same selective examples designed to illicit a negative response complete with smart ass comment and smileys..

Amazing..

 

 

Mainly Trolling is just some silly(untrue) argue put into a thread to have a contrary point for making people angry...

 

Well, Rockford is almost according to this, but the really angry point is the truth spot in it.

 

Knight Orc for example. For me it was better NOT to have this game on the A8 than to be angry about this crap version.

It's the peak of odd'nes, to have a computer with up to 256 colours and there is not even one graphical pixel in the game.

 

Really, I'm not angry about, what Rockford is doing. The gaming industry should be ashamed by this...

Edited October 14, 2009 by emkay

[emkay]

But in the end Amiga outsold Atari ST, just like in the case of C64 vs A8. History repeats itself.

 

 

I'm thankful, Commodore got the rights on the Amiga. So History didn't repeat itself. The better design got shipped well, even if more expensive.

 

To compete against the PC domain, Commodore and Atari better should fused together in the early 90s, putting their knowledge together. So, today we still could use "interesting" computers. Probably better than INTEL/Windows PCs.

[emkay]

It's neither embarrassment nor a valid comparison. Comparing a text game to a graphics game is apples and oranges.

 

Sorry, but it IS the same game. It's a graphics Adventure where the graphics has been removed for the A8 version.

It's the essential spot of that game.

Analogy:

 

You know a screw is somehow a nail (graphics) and the thread (game mechanics)....

Remove the nail off the screw and you get a useless thread

 

Knight Orc uses 132 lines high graphics. This makes everything possible on the A8. And, even if a full CPU using kernal was used at this range, the parser would have been faster than the C64's .

[+wood_jl]

It's neither embarrassment nor a valid comparison. Comparing a text game to a graphics game is apples and oranges.

 

Sorry, but it IS the same game. It's a graphics Adventure where the graphics has been removed for the A8 version.

It's the essential spot of that game.

Analogy:

 

You know a screw is somehow a nail (graphics) and the thread (game mechanics)....

Remove the nail off the screw and you get a useless thread

 

Knight Orc uses 132 lines high graphics. This makes everything possible on the A8. And, even if a full CPU using kernal was used at this range, the parser would have been faster than the C64's .

 

Ok, I stand corrected. What a fantastic way to compare two computers. Run the game with graphics on one, and run text on the other, then conclude the graphics "suck" on the one with text-only. Ok, you win. My hat is off to you. Point taken. The Atari sucks. Everybody feel better?

[emkay]

Sorry, but it IS the same game. It's a graphics Adventure where the graphics has been removed for the A8 version.

It's the essential spot of that game.

Analogy:

 

You know a screw is somehow a nail (graphics) and the thread (game mechanics)....

Remove the nail off the screw and you get a useless thread

 

Knight Orc uses 132 lines high graphics. This makes everything possible on the A8. And, even if a full CPU using kernal was used at this range, the parser would have been faster than the C64's .

 

Ok, I stand corrected. What a fantastic way to compare two computers. Run the game with graphics on one, and run text on the other, then conclude the graphics "suck" on the one with text-only. Ok, you win. My hat is off to you. Point taken. The Atari sucks. Everybody feel better?

 

I don't go into this "exclusive ored" arguing. The point of the main thread is the games comparision, not what machine could probably be better.

Knight Orc is a clear "Pro Atari" candidate, but the gaming industry did a outermost worse job there.

[Gury]

TMR don't bother, it's waste of time. He just can't say anything more than that

more insults and trolling.

Leave him, atarian63, it is not worth it. I can't say anything more than that, Rockford? Dream on.