The reason the Amiga failed.

[atarilovesyou]

Amiga didn't fail...in Europe

 

Man, EVERYTHING is a success in Europe, isn't it? ...I mean, who could ever forget FASCISM?

[bojay1997]

Actually Amiga was an also ran until A500, in 89, until that point ST was the dominant of the two,at least here in the US. The change in 89 was mostly due to Atari shifting production capacity to germany and the rest of europe, it was maddening not being able to get product. Alsong came a cheap amiga and it sold well as it was the only real choice,unless you wanted a dull boring pc.

I suspect it was more of a regional thing in the US. In Southern California, we had a pretty even split of Amiga/Commodore and Atari dealers from 1985 to 1989, but Atari did have an actual retail chain outlet in Federated that carried the ST and aggressively pushed it along with software. I will say that the fact that the Atari 8 bits faded a lot faster than the Commodore 64 probably hurt ST sales, at least in Southern California as our Commodore dealers continued to support both the 64 and the Amiga up until the early 90s. By 1989, other than small indie Atari dealers, the ST was very difficult to find in Southern California. The Amiga 500 on the other hand could be found at EB and Software Etc. and you could buy not only software, but also hardware by special order. That's where I bought my first Amiga 500. I don't believe EB or Software Etc. ever sold ST hardware. The Amiga was also carried in the Navy Exchange system and was pretty popular with military families just as the 64 had been while the ST was never carried.

[Seob]

 

Man, EVERYTHING is a success in Europe, isn't it? ...I mean, who could ever forget FASCISM?

Not funny, even a smiley isn't helping. Has nothing to do with computers.

 

The reason high voltages stated that is because some people in the US forget that you cannot compare the US market with the European market.

while consoles took of in the US. People in Europe leaned more towards the computermarket. This is why there are so many different micro's in Europe.

[108 Stars]

Yeah, it is actually kind of bizarre for Europeans to read of the Amiga being a failure.

First of all: I never owned one. Never was a big computer guy. But seriously, at least where I come from the Amiga 500 is pretty much the most fondly remembered gaming system of the late 80ies/early 90ies. Like the C64 was before (and the Spectrum in the UK). Nobody used PCs here in those times, homecomputers were the dominant computers. And same as you may find it funny the Amiga succeeded here, it may seem funny to us that of all machines the NES was the most popular game system of the 80ies in NA. It never was huge here.

 

The truth is: Talk to gamers from back in the day in Europe, and they were most likely Amiga gamers. Look at magazines not focused on games, and they are also mostly Amiga related. A lot of nostalgia comes from there, books about the topic are written and the system is praised. Even the CD³² sold quite well for its short life, based on the good name of the Amiga alone.

 

The Amiga may have failed in the US, but it is a huge cult classic in Europe. For both games and non-gaming software. The PC, or IBM compatible as it was refered to, was limited to offices on the other hand, with home users barely ever using them. And Apple is not even worth mentioning.

Edited December 9, 2014 by 108 Stars

[jhd]

In the early-1990s, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, I knew exactly one person with an ST. He used it mainly as a programming platform, rather than for gaming. He did lament the absence of Turbo Pascal. There was one local independent retailer that briefly supported the ST series (until it went out of business). I just remember that the external floppy drive sold for as much as the computer itself at that shop.

 

I knew lots of people with a C-64, but none who had upgraded to an Amiga. There was probably some local retail support, but I had migrated to a PC by then, so I was not paying too much attention.

 

For what it's worth, I have never seen either system turn-up at a thrift shop or rummage sale.

[fujidude]

You must not be an engineer, nor read ANY boards that talk about hardware. I suggest you google "x86 risc core" and prepare to be blown away.

You're right, I'm not an engineer. I have read boards that talk about hardware, though the context was mostly about the relative performance of different hardware. I'll take your suggestion. All that I have rad about the Intel CPU architecture was more from an programmers view and not that of silicon design.

Edited December 9, 2014 by fujidude

[Nebulon]

x86 presents itself to the programmer as a box full of cisc instructions. Internally they are converted to risc and operated on from there. But it is the backward and forward compatibility, along with those expansion slots that provided for the longevity and rise of the PC platform.

 

I totally agree that anything proprietary can and will see limited adoption. It is also important to understand that things are considered proprietary as long they are in small numbers. When they gain market traction they become a standard.

The 8088, 8086, 80286, 80386, 80486 (and I would argue the Pentium 1 series) are not RISC chips.

 

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13071221/is-x86-risc-or-cisc

 

I sold, spec'd, and thoroughly researched those machines during their heyday. To this day, I still have stacks of magazine articles, spec sheets, and other documentaiton on them.

 

Everything changed with the Pentium Pro architecture (I have a suspicion of where that technology came from, but that's a different topic) and the introduction of the Pentium 4. So it's important to make a distinction between x86 as it relates to the original Pentium and earlier and x86 as it relates to Pentium Pro and after.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Nebulon

[am1933]

 

Man, EVERYTHING is a success in Europe, isn't it? ...I mean, who could ever forget FASCISM?

Nice history lesson, racial segregation still happening in the US forces 3 years after fascism was defeated.

[atarilovesyou]

...I should have thought a bit about my post, so my apologies to those who took offense.

 

My point was this: I've found that whenever anybody over here in NA talks about some part of generally accepted gaming history (the crash, the success of this system or that), there's usually someone in Europe (or elsewhere, but usually Europe) who says something to the effect that it never happened over there (or not to the same extent)...which, at the end of the day, is great for those people but doesn't change the fact that here, those events did happen. And then that leads to thoughts that things were somehow better (or better organized) over there, which again is great...for those people living over there.

 

Something like the Amiga (that I never really about other than the fancy graphics and the fact nobody I knew could afford one anyway) became a footnote in computer history anyway (like many other great computers that went extinct), regardless of the circumstances. But then there'd be nothing to really talk about, would there?

[atarilovesyou]

 

 

homecomputers were the dominant computers.

 

 

And Apple is not even worth mentioning.

 

 

These two statements together just make absolutely no sense in the North American context...home computers, dominant, nostalgia, but no Apple II? No kidding there were differences in the markets. But I would most likely chalk that up to the price and availability, if I had to guess. American made computers (especially from Apple) were expensive enough here, let alone what they were going for there.

[Bill Loguidice]

 

 

These two statements together just make absolutely no sense in the North American context...home computers, dominant, nostalgia, but no Apple II? No kidding there were differences in the markets. But I would most likely chalk that up to the price and availability, if I had to guess. American made computers (especially from Apple) were expensive enough here, let alone what they were going for there.

 

It's well known there were significant differences between the major markets, including between North America and Europe. For instance, in North America, we standardized on disks long before those in Europe transitioned away from cassettes. Those in Europe were far more price sensitive than those of us in North America at the time, which explains why there were so many low end and relatively technically inferior computers still kicking about into the mid- to late-80s there, some of which, like the ZX Spectrum, would have never stood a chance here (even without the botched Timex 2068 release).

 

Here, after the dust settled by roughly 1984, there really was only the Commodore 64 in the low end discussion, with really only the Atari 8-bit and CoCo providing distant relevant sales competition (and neither had much impact in Europe). More expensive computers, like the Apple II series, were barely a blip in Europe, and cost was also a reason why our reasonably popular lower market computers, like the Atari 8-bits, never gained much of a foothold until much further along in the 80s when their price points fell more in line with consumer tastes.

 

As was mentioned, these same differences between regions applied to the console market, with the NES/Famicom dominant in most of the rest of the world, save for Europe and South America, where Sega had a more dominant position, starting with the Master System. Prior to that, there wasn't even much of a console market to speak of, while in North America, at least prior to the Crash, videogame consoles were a major deal. Naturally, Japan (and the Asian market in general, which can arguably include Australia/New Zealand), had yet another completely different market makeup and growth trajectory.

 

I'd say it was the mid-90s when all of the various markets started to homogenize. Today, I don't think you can point to any significant differences between the computer and videogame markets in any of the major markets (though I think it's fair to say that Japan does favor videogame handhelds more than other markets, and Microsoft consoles don't have notable marketshare). Prior to that, each major market had its own unique and quite fascinating history. That's why when I wrote books like "Vintage Games" and "Vintage Game Consoles," I made a point to note that they were primarily (though not exclusively) focused on North American history to keep the scope to a reasonable book-sized length.

[108 Stars]

@atarilovesyou

You know, I think the behavior of Europeans jumping in and telling Americans something was different here comes to a degree from feeling ignored. When you put it like "the Amiga failed", in an international forum, it is kind of denying anything outside the US relevance. Europe is no tiny backwater village, and ignorance from any party to the rest of the world just leads to incorrect half-knowledge.

 

Indeed, the act of talking about NA like it was the only place stuff happened has lead to a bit of a history revision even here in Europe. People read that stuff, people that were not alive or active back in the day, and take it for granted.

 

Now we have younger people here thinking "Nintendo saved gaming". It did not. It may have done so in NA, but certainly they were only a minor player in Europe in the 80ies. Gaming was A-okay without it. "The video game crash almost killed the industry." Didn't happen here. It grew constantly, but it is now treated as some global truth. "Sega challenged Nintendo's monopoly with the Genesis". Nintendo had no monopoly here, they had failed to beat the SMS here, although not nearly by as huge a margin as the NES beat the SMS in NA. The Gameboy was their first real runaway success in Europe.

 

"Amiga failed" is another example, though this is the firs time I even read that. Amiga was a huge hit here, it was the most popular 16-bit computer in an era where home computers generally were more popular than consoles in these parts. I kid you not, actually books are written to this day about the glorious success story of the Amiga, people regard it as a golden era of gaming.

 

A system is not a failure because it failed in one region or another. The Genesis failed in Japan, but still it is remembered as a huge hit in NA. The gaming industry evolved differently in various regions, to the point where we are now. Although you might still find similar situations even. Or wouldn't Japanese gamers refer to the Xbox 360 as a huge flop? And would you not be alienated if someone started a thread just asking "Why did thei 360 fail?" without specifying that was just a Japanese thing?

 

Or the example I brought; be it because of pricing or something else, but Apple computers were basically not happening here. Highly obscure stuff, although I am aware of the impact they had in NA. I am not sure if the computer magazines from back in the day I have even have reviews or anything for Apple II.

Edited December 10, 2014 by 108 Stars

[jhd]

I'd say it was the mid-90s when all of the various markets started to homogenize. Today, I don't think you can point to any significant differences between the computer and videogame markets in any of the major markets (though I think it's fair to say that Japan does favor videogame handhelds more than other markets, and Microsoft consoles don't have notable marketshare). Prior to that, each major market had its own unique and quite fascinating history.

 

While there are several books that discuss the history of the video game market in North America, is there anything published (in English) that provides equally comprehensive coverage for the other regions?

[Bill Loguidice]

 

While there are several books that discuss the history of the video game market in North America, is there anything published (in English) that provides equally comprehensive coverage for the other regions?

 

I'm not aware of any.

[Seob]

@atarilovesyou

You know, I think the behavior of Europeans jumping in and telling Americans something was different here comes to a degree from feeling ignored. When you put it like "the Amiga failed", in an international forum, it is kind of denying anything outside the US relevance. Europe is no tiny backwater village, and ignorance from any party to the rest of the world just leads to incorrect half-knowledge.

 

Indeed, the act of talking about NA like it was the only place stuff happened has lead to a bit of a history revision even here in Europe. People read that stuff, people that were not alive or active back in the day, and take it for granted.

 

Now we have younger people here thinking "Nintendo saved gaming". It did not. It may have done so in NA, but certainly they were only a minor player in Europe in the 80ies. Gaming was A-okay without it. "The video game crash almost killed the industry." Didn't happen here. It grew constantly, but it is now treated as some global truth. "Sega challenged Nintendo's monopoly with the Genesis". Nintendo had no monopoly here, they had failed to beat the SMS here, although not nearly by as huge a margin as the NES beat the SMS in NA. The Gameboy was their first real runaway success in Europe.

 

"Amiga failed" is another example, though this is the firs time I even read that. Amiga was a huge hit here, it was the most popular 16-bit computer in an era where home computers generally were more popular than consoles in these parts. I kid you not, actually books are written to this day about the glorious success story of the Amiga, people regard it as a golden era of gaming.

 

A system is not a failure because it failed in one region or another. The Genesis failed in Japan, but still it is remembered as a huge hit in NA. The gaming industry evolved differently in various regions, to the point where we are now. Although you might still find similar situations even. Or wouldn't Japanese gamers refer to the Xbox 360 as a huge flop? And would you not be alienated if someone started a thread just asking "Why did thei 360 fail?" without specifying that was just a Japanese thing?

 

Or the example I brought; be it because of pricing or something else, but Apple computers were basically not happening here. Highly obscure stuff, although I am aware of the impact they had in NA. I am not sure if the computer magazines from back in the day I have even have reviews or anything for Apple II.

Could not say it any better then you did. That exacly what i meant.

[Keatah]

It would appear that all the interesting developments in computing, ones that would eventually mature and go on to commercial success worldwide, originated in North America.

 

It is a misconception that Nintendo "saved" the video game industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. They were just the first ones to "come online" after the crash. Which wasn't even a crash. It was a restart. Any industry can go through a purging and restart. And a purging was badly needed. Get some standards in place..

[Bill Loguidice]

It is a misconception that Nintendo "saved" the video game industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. They were just the first ones to "come online" after the crash. Which wasn't even a crash. It was a restart. Any industry can go through a purging and restart. And a purging was badly needed. Get some standards in place..

 

At the same time we also need to acknowledge and applaud the NES's execution, from the way it got onto retailer shelves, to the way Nintendo controlled the hardware/software chain (there were negatives to this, of course, but it's what the industry needed at the time), to the high relative quality of much of the software. Another company could have done the same thing, but they didn't, it was Nintendo. So while it's correct to say that Nintendo didn't necessarily save the videogame industry, it was in fact rebuilt to a healthy state on their backs.

[high voltage]

 

At the same time we also need to acknowledge and applaud the NES's execution, from the way it got onto retailer shelves, to the way Nintendo controlled the hardware/software chain (there were negatives to this, of course, but it's what the industry needed at the time).

FASCISM

[Lost Dragon]

You can put the whole 'NES saved UK gaming industry' aspect down to 1 thing:

Nintendo UK have a very 'switched on' marketing department and every time a NES related promotional campain was run in UK press (magazines like Gamestm or Retro Gamer) you'd find references to how well NES games were rated (yet if you actually looked at reviews from likes of Mean Machines, C+VG, ACE, TGM etc, UK press during the NES era, you'd get a very different picture) and how well it sold over here in UK, which is again, totally different to what actually happened.

In fact Multi-format magazine, The Games Machine even ran an article asking 'Whatever happened to the Nintendo?' as Nintendo had expected to walk in and dominate the UK games market, but found itself arriving far too late and offering far too little.

But if your reading an article from a 'respected' UK publication saying how MASSIVE NES was in UK, are you really going to question that, if you did'nt live through the actual era here in UK?.I doubt many would....

[Lost Dragon]

What Nintendo Uk and it's advertising partners would trather readers were'nt made aware of, in terms of remembering the NES and it's UK history are things like:

 

 

The aclaimed £300,000 TV ad campain produced by toy giant Mattel, which apparently failed to produce even 100,000 sales' and that the NES console was passed on from 1 firm to another in search of sucsess-1st to Mattel, then to US Gold's offshoot GO! and then to NESI, who expected 'Millions of units' to be sold in the UK.

 

The Turtles game gave the NES a shot in the arm in UK, but saved gaming? hell no, it fought tooth and claw just to make any real inroads here.

 

 

The GB and SNES however are very different stories for Nintendo and the UK.....

[high voltage]

Game Over states that by 1992, 2 million NES hardware sales in EU.

NES games also were expensive with carts priced at (up to) GBP 49.99 (SMS games were 29.99).

I was in London in the early 90s, checking out games at Virgin, the NES hardware just reduced to GBP 39,99, and games still at 49,99 (Star Wars).

NES cart prices were just expensive, after all it was just an 8-bit game, and Amiga games were just half of that (and 16 bit). So what do you buy, an expensive 8-bit game or a superior 16 bit game for much less? Exactly.

Edited December 10, 2014 by high voltage

[atarilovesyou]

FASCISM

 

FASCISM (it's what you spelled)

[atarian63]

Really?

Edited December 11, 2014 by atarian63

[atarian63]

Yeah, it is actually kind of bizarre for Europeans to read of the Amiga being a failure.

First of all: I never owned one. Never was a big computer guy. But seriously, at least where I come from the Amiga 500 is pretty much the most fondly remembered gaming system of the late 80ies/early 90ies. Like the C64 was before (and the Spectrum in the UK). Nobody used PCs here in those times, homecomputers were the dominant computers. And same as you may find it funny the Amiga succeeded here, it may seem funny to us that of all machines the NES was the most popular game system of the 80ies in NA. It never was huge here.

 

The truth is: Talk to gamers from back in the day in Europe, and they were most likely Amiga gamers. Look at magazines not focused on games, and they are also mostly Amiga related. A lot of nostalgia comes from there, books about the topic are written and the system is praised. Even the CD³² sold quite well for its short life, based on the good name of the Amiga alone.

 

The Amiga may have failed in the US, but it is a huge cult classic in Europe. For both games and non-gaming software. The PC, or IBM compatible as it was refered to, was limited to offices on the other hand, with home users barely ever using them. And Apple is not even worth mentioning.

Only uk the rest of Europe was mainly Atari ST especially Germany

[atarian63]

I suspect it was more of a regional thing in the US. In Southern California, we had a pretty even split of Amiga/Commodore and Atari dealers from 1985 to 1989, but Atari did have an actual retail chain outlet in Federated that carried the ST and aggressively pushed it along with software. I will say that the fact that the Atari 8 bits faded a lot faster than the Commodore 64 probably hurt ST sales, at least in Southern California as our Commodore dealers continued to support both the 64 and the Amiga up until the early 90s. By 1989, other than small indie Atari dealers, the ST was very difficult to find in Southern California. The Amiga 500 on the other hand could be found at EB and Software Etc. and you could buy not only software, but also hardware by special order. That's where I bought my first Amiga 500. I don't believe EB or Software Etc. ever sold ST hardware. The Amiga was also carried in the Navy Exchange system and was pretty popular with military families just as the 64 had been while the ST was never carried.

 

amiga 500 came out in 89 and st s were being diverted to Europe. Sales prior to that were not a region but national 2-1 st sales vs amiga