Atari v Commodore

[andym00]

But were people still targetting 48K Ataris in '87 ? Or were the 64K machines not the default platform by then ?

 

No idea just guessing really, I'm sure some A8 fan with all the sales figures tattooed onto their bodies could tell us I'd think though with it's advanced build quality there'd be a lot of 48k machines still going strong. Ok, huge amount of sarcasm aimed at the poor A8 there but I got to the point in the end

 

That logic works for me at this time of the day

[atariksi]

.. Maybe something to do with the itty-bitty capacity of the drives ?

Hmmm, I never realized, but indeed (it's another point of comparing the A8 v C64) the standard C64 floppys can carry more data. IIRC the c64 ones can contain 170 kB and the A8 ones are 90 kB (SD) or 130 kB (DD); only the later drives / floppys could handle 260 kB (HD) ones...or was this just because of newer diskdrives reading both sides at once (double head)?

 

IIRC the majority of the A8 games were distributed on SD floppys. This might clarify a number of 'mishappenings', like adventures without gfx, and another striking thing: Platform games always have smaller levels on A8 games vs. C64 games.

 

I guess they never heard of data compression. Perhaps, would have helped to speed up disk reads as well (especially on A8). Even w/o data compression, they could have had at least some images.

[+Stephen]

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..

Just because the truth may hurt doesn't make Rockford a troll. Someone asked to see comparisons of the SAME GAMES on both C64 and Atari, and that is EXACTLY what he is doing. It's 2009 and I make my living working on new PCs, so I could really care less which 30 year old machine is better than the other. I am an Atari user and an Atari fan, but come on - the C64 has some great stuff to offer.

 

The reason for the smart ass comments and smileys is exactly this reaction. Any time something good on the C64 gets shown, a few people here start crying and go ballistic saying the Atari could have done better but there is never any proof to be shown. Rockford is showing what WAS done, not what COULD have been done. Rather big difference.

 

Stephen Anderson

[Rockford]

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.

Well, we have made some progress, however you are still wrong.

Let’s take a closer look at the numbers:

A800 XL went down from US$299 to US$119 it roughly gives 60%

Just to remind again.

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%

 

Here comes another simple question: which number is bigger ? 85% (84%) or 60% ? So, it clearly proves that the main price drop WAS NOT under Tramiel. On the contrary, it was before Tramiel bought ATARI. You see, mathematics don't lie, or maybe you think differently....?

And one more thing, maybe Consumer Reports rated A800XL a best buy, but one thing is sure, it sold pretty bad, since people prefered buying more pricey C64. Check this out:

“1985 April: Atari shipped the 130XE, retail price US$149.95.

(The 65XE was held out of production due to ample supply of the 800XL.)”

[Rockford]

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

Okey boss, I'll do my best

[emkay]

Andy... rational points... maybe RAM constraints, 127kb discs vs 180kb etc etc etc...

 

If this was the point for not adding graphics to the game, they were even more ridiculous.

 

The game was released around 1987. Floppys were standard on the A8 and many people even had 2 drives , or more, at home.

The disks got as cheap as toilett paper, and it was no problem to have 4 drives working together. At least the player had to turn the disks more often.

 

There is no excuse about that. It's just like producers only make games on tape for the C64, because it was the first standard ...

[Heaven/TQA]

btw... Andy, Pete...

 

check the background esp. in fullscreen mode or real machine... that's not bad to use in productions...

 

 

http://atari.fandal.cz/detail.php?files_id=5300

[Rockford]

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 .....

At last something valuable I had a good read, but let's take a look at this:

“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.”

Thanks for this one, because it proves 2 things:

1 – ATARI was cheaper than C64. In 1986 A65XE cost US$99.95, while A130XE (in 1984 - 2 years earlier !!!) US$149.95. It didn’t help since C64 outsold Atari drastically.

2 – C64 was such a great computer that helped to keep the company afloat (even in 1986 !). We couldn't say the same about A800/A800XL in 1983, could we ?

 

BTW, let’s look what is written about ATARI history. The same site says:

“1983. Atari releases the new 8 Bit Home Series: the 600XL and 800XL.

Decline of video games and irresponsible spending by Atari Inc. results in record losses ($536 million, up to $2 million daily).”

WOW ! $2 million daily, what a beautiful collapse that was. Commodore didn't even come close to Atari.

[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

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

Wise words.

[Rockford]

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.

I meant selling figures not hardware designers.

[Rockford]

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.

I don't think it was the case. In our country, ZX Spectrum and Amstrad CPC were as popular as C64 was. Atari was considered special and of the best quality, in computer clubs and magazines.

Just imagine that your country (wherever you live) isn’t the hub of the universe. The single most important thing in any business (like computer production) is to sell globally. And globally C64 outsold A8 ruthlessly. These are hard facts.

[roland p]

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

 

The question was about games were the Atari version is better :

 

Does anybody have any views on where any titles were launched on both Atari and Commodore - and the Atari version is the better of the two?

 

Steve

[Gury]

Just imagine that your country (wherever you live) isn’t the hub of the universe. The single most important thing in any business (like computer production) is to sell globally. And globally C64 outsold A8 ruthlessly. These are hard facts.

So?

[Rockford]

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?

 

Don't get so defensive young lad.. There's a reason why Level 9 decided not to go with graphics on Knight Orc (and many others).. Quite why I don't know personally, but I'm sure a perfectly rational business decision was made at the time.. Probably, given it was 1987 (in Knight Orcs case anyway) there was feck all left of an Atari market for it, and possibly they'd just received a letter from Atarian63 telling them Golden Era was over, in case they hadn't already noticed..

Anyway.. It's fair.. The same game, the same publisher, the same developer.. It's interesting to see some of these attrocities.. Though I'd love to know the rationale behind it, though of course everyone here would know far better than any rational and plausible explanation there might be..

LOL Thanks andym00. I love reading your posts and you've just made my day.

[Rockford]

.. Maybe something to do with the itty-bitty capacity of the drives ?

Platform games always have smaller levels on A8 games vs. C64 games.

Yeap, I am going to prove it later.

[Rockford]

 

Just because the truth may hurt doesn't make Rockford a troll. Someone asked to see comparisons of the SAME GAMES on both C64 and Atari, and that is EXACTLY what he is doing. It's 2009 and I make my living working on new PCs, so I could really care less which 30 year old machine is better than the other. I am an Atari user and an Atari fan, but come on - the C64 has some great stuff to offer.

 

The reason for the smart ass comments and smileys is exactly this reaction. Any time something good on the C64 gets shown, a few people here start crying and go ballistic saying the Atari could have done better but there is never any proof to be shown. Rockford is showing what WAS done, not what COULD have been done. Rather big difference.

 

Stephen Anderson

Even wiser words.

[atariksi]

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..

Just because the truth may hurt doesn't make Rockford a troll.

...

You don't know the truth-- that's the problem. You are ASSUMING he's being truthful while the C64 bias obviously oozes out of him.

 

Someone asked to see comparisons of the SAME GAMES on both C64 and Atari, and that is EXACTLY what he is doing.

Bullcrap. I suggest you read the first message of this thread. So much for truth.

 

It's 2009 and I make my living working on new PCs, so I could really care less which 30 year old machine is better than the other. I am an Atari user and an Atari fan, but come on - the C64 has some great stuff to offer.

Nobody is denying C64 has some great stuff but that's neither the topic nor what's being presented. He's not being objective. You may not care which machine is better but you can't speak for others.

 

The reason for the smart ass comments and smileys is exactly this reaction. Any time something good on the C64 gets shown, a few people here start crying and go ballistic saying the Atari could have done better but there is never any proof to be shown. Rockford is showing what WAS done, not what COULD have been done. Rather big difference.

Bullcrap. You don't even understand the topic. Many good games of C64 were also presented earlier in the thread but not the way he's going about it. As I said, a sane man would analyze on his own rather than take his views. He's already been proven wrong a few times. The thread is ABOUT what CAN be done on the machine AND where A8 has better games not what your speculating. Rather a big difference. Atarian has already pointed out some games that are crap on C64 and he's trying to do the same. That's called bias not truthfulness. Get your definitions straight-- or perhaps you just can't see what he's doing.

[atarian63]

take the 6502 parser, press compile, save it on master disc and go into duplication. oh, don't forget to set the "graphics_off = 1" flag.

 

they do not have even taken the Pawn route in taking the c64 gfx and turn them into 4 col gfx by simple leaving out the $d800ff. I am sure it was the fastest way of putting the games on market. 10% afford...

 

Andy... rational points... maybe RAM constraints, 127kb discs vs 180kb etc etc etc...

 

 

Maybe the person who created the master was a rabid c64 frothing at the mouth fanboy with Jack Tramiel pants on and deliberately sabotaged the final master disk/tape

 

Judging by the screenshot Rockford posted and it mentioning only saving to RAM, was it possible there was only a tape version for the A8, which might explain it..

 

Anyway, since the entire thread was about comparing games I do think it has some validity here, beyond arousing the heckles of the native population

no, that is his point entirely, to tick of the members here at atariage. He does a poor ,selective job so it's more entertaining to watch his silliness as he is really contributing nothing.

[atariksi]

Just imagine that your country (wherever you live) isn’t the hub of the universe. The single most important thing in any business (like computer production) is to sell globally. And globally C64 outsold A8 ruthlessly. These are hard facts.

So?

 

He's pulling off his mental speculations again. For people interested in reality rather than profit, the single most important thing is to get the better product and NOT fall for false propaganda, marketing scams, etc. These are the hard facts. I can also pull off a bunch of quotes and show screenshots to show Apple is superior but what's the reality-- you have to analyze technically not from some biased mental speculator.

[atarian63]

 

Just because the truth may hurt doesn't make Rockford a troll. Someone asked to see comparisons of the SAME GAMES on both C64 and Atari, and that is EXACTLY what he is doing. It's 2009 and I make my living working on new PCs, so I could really care less which 30 year old machine is better than the other. I am an Atari user and an Atari fan, but come on - the C64 has some great stuff to offer.

 

The reason for the smart ass comments and smileys is exactly this reaction. Any time something good on the C64 gets shown, a few people here start crying and go ballistic saying the Atari could have done better but there is never any proof to be shown. Rockford is showing what WAS done, not what COULD have been done. Rather big difference.

 

Stephen Anderson

Even wiser words.

no, just bullcrap.

[atariksi]

Andy... rational points... maybe RAM constraints, 127kb discs vs 180kb etc etc etc...

 

If this was the point for not adding graphics to the game, they were even more ridiculous.

 

The game was released around 1987. Floppys were standard on the A8 and many people even had 2 drives , or more, at home.

The disks got as cheap as toilett paper, and it was no problem to have 4 drives working together. At least the player had to turn the disks more often.

 

There is no excuse about that. It's just like producers only make games on tape for the C64, because it was the first standard ...

 

It's the part of the marketing scum that takes place in the world. Once the product is popular, it gets more funding, more softwares, more sales, etc. It snowballs regardless of whether it's better or not.

[atarian63]

Just imagine that your country (wherever you live) isn’t the hub of the universe. The single most important thing in any business (like computer production) is to sell globally. And globally C64 outsold A8 ruthlessly. These are hard facts.

So?

and at a loss or near loss continually...it eventually killed them.

[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 .....

At last something valuable I had a good read, but let's take a look at this:

“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.”

Thanks for this one, because it proves 2 things:

1 – ATARI was cheaper than C64. In 1986 A65XE cost US$99.95, while A130XE (in 1984 - 2 years earlier !!!) US$149.95. It didn’t help since C64 outsold Atari drastically.

2 – C64 was such a great computer that helped to keep the company afloat (even in 1986 !). We couldn't say the same about A800/A800XL in 1983, could we ?

 

BTW, let’s look what is written about ATARI history. The same site says:

“1983. Atari releases the new 8 Bit Home Series: the 600XL and 800XL.

Decline of video games and irresponsible spending by Atari Inc. results in record losses ($536 million, up to $2 million daily).”

WOW ! $2 million daily, what a beautiful collapse that was. Commodore didn't even come close to Atari.

And it all stopped with Tramiel, then is was commodoes time for pain and problems. :D

[atariksi]

Nothing to stop them doing a double-sided 88K disk.

 

Probably more a case of catering to a 32K or 48K RAM config, combined with a CBF'd attitude to doing the graphics.

 

Good point. They did make those flippy disks that used both sides either for different platforms, but no reason they couldn't use both sides for the same platform.

[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..

Just because the truth may hurt doesn't make Rockford a troll. Someone asked to see comparisons of the SAME GAMES on both C64 and Atari, and that is EXACTLY what he is doing. It's 2009 and I make my living working on new PCs, so I could really care less which 30 year old machine is better than the other. I am an Atari user and an Atari fan, but come on - the C64 has some great stuff to offer.

 

The reason for the smart ass comments and smileys is exactly this reaction. Any time something good on the C64 gets shown, a few people here start crying and go ballistic saying the Atari could have done better but there is never any proof to be shown. Rockford is showing what WAS done, not what COULD have been done. Rather big difference.

 

Stephen Anderson

only in a selective bias fashion in order to get some reaction. Lame examples. Just trolling.