Why is the ST never mentioned in documentaries?

[calimero]

Companies which survived have rewritten history quite a bit so "non-standard" platforms tend to be forgotten. I remember how Microsoft used to claim (maybe still does) that they invented graphic user interfaces. Once I saw red when estabilished technical magazine celebrated IBM PC release anniversary, claiming how it was "revolutionary" and "for the first time, brought computers to people's homes."

 

Yes, Bill Gates repeat all the time nonsense that he brought computers to peoples homes. And that it was his mission all the way... dickhead.

[Bill Loguidice]

Companies which survived have rewritten history quite a bit so "non-standard" platforms tend to be forgotten. I remember how Microsoft used to claim (maybe still does) that they invented graphic user interfaces. Once I saw red when estabilished technical magazine celebrated IBM PC release anniversary, claiming how it was "revolutionary" and "for the first time, brought computers to people's homes."

 

In Europe, particularly on continent, ST was the prime gaming platform for more 'serious' games up until ~1990 when PC w/VGA started to become affordable. Strategy games and flight simulators were usually better on ST than on Amiga. This is why I thought Atari missed a beat when they didn't upgrade CPU with STE (in 'STE under the hood' -thread). These games were popular and suffered less from piracy than arcade type games. A more powerful CPU would have enabled the platform to stay competive with PC for few more years.

 

I don't know if I agree with the idea of "rewriting" history per se, but certainly it's true that regardless of what history you're talking about (war, music, videogames, computers, etc.), the story of the "winners" can certainly dominate at the expense of everyone else, particularly if said history can only reasonably hit major points in the time/space allotted. It's also far easier for general journalists/authors/producers to focus on the "easy" targets that more people can easily understand versus the lesser known, but possibly still historically important targets, that would require more explanation than they're able to provide.

 

In other words, there's no agenda here, no manipulation, etc., it's just the way things in general are done. That will never change, although thanks to the reach of the Web and more niche "programming," those lesser historical whatevers can be given a voice for those who care to hear it.

 

As for your last statement about the ST doing well in mainland Europe, certainly individual platforms have done better in specific territories than others, but you still have to take things more as a whole and consider the bigger picture in most cases. For better or worse, the world markets have more or less been in lock-step since the mid-90s, so there's less of a chance/need/whatever to leave anything out as everyone's history when it comes to computers and videogames after that point has more or less been the same.

[chepe]

The 'scene' in Europe was radically different to that in USA (and indeed there were big differences nationally in Europe too) and often leads to misunderstandings. For starters, game consoles were not that popular in Europe before PlayStation era. I moved out from my hometown in 1994 and none of my friends had a 16-bit console. Few had Nintendo or some other 8-bit console, and GameBoys were popular. Almost everyone had a home computer and that's what was used on gaming. In my country, ST was maybe 4th or 5th most important gaming platform during the '80s (behind C-64, Amiga, PC and maybe SNES or MSX, in that order) so it is sorta hard for me to think that it wouldn't make it to top20. Although objectively, worldwide, it probably wouldn't because there were so many consoles and 8bit systems which sold more.

Edited February 16, 2016 by chepe

[Bill Loguidice]

The 'scene' in Europe was radically different to that in USA (and indeed there were big differences nationally in Europe too) and often leads to misunderstandings. For starters, game consoles were not that popular in Europe before PlayStation era. I moved out from my hometown in 1994 and none of my friends had a 16-bit console. Few had Nintendo or some other 8-bit console, and GameBoys were popular. Almost everyone had a home computer and that's what was used on gaming. In my country, ST was maybe 4th or 5th most important gaming platform during the '80s (behind C-64, Amiga, PC and maybe SNES or MSX, in that order) so it is sorta hard for me to think that it wouldn't make it to top20. Although objectively, worldwide, it probably wouldn't because there were so many consoles and 8bit systems which sold more.

 

Again, I welcome you or anyone else to indicate which platform(s) should have been replaced for a featured chapter in the 20 in "Vintage Game Consoles." When doing so, be sure to keep in mind that the book can't be any longer than it already is and that each of the platforms chosen was chosen for its overall impact and influence (and not necessarily sales) in their respective eras (and obviously as told from a US perspective). Naturally, you'll specifically want to figure out what platform the ST was more important than in Generation Two, which is the section of the book it would have fallen into.

 

And here, I'll help you out, so you don't even have to risk reading any of the book to gain much needed context:

 

**Generation One (1971 – 1984)**

Arcade (1971)

Apple II (1977)

Atari 2600 VCS (1977)

Atari 8-bit (1979)

Mattel Intellivision (1979)

PC DOS Computers (1981)

Commodore 64 (1982)

Coleco ColecoVision (1982)

**Generation Two (1985 – 1994)**

Nintendo Entertainment System (1985)

Commodore Amiga (1985)

Sega Genesis (1989)

Nintendo GameBoy (1989)

Nintendo Super NES (1991)

**Generation Three (1995 – 2001)**

PC Windows Computers (1995)

Sony PlayStation (1995)

Nintendo 64 (1996)

Sega Dreamcast (1999)

Sony PlayStation 2 (2000)

Microsoft Xbox (2001)

Nintendo GameCube (2001)

On a side note, while the book was written in such a way that it doesn't have to be read in order (i.e., you can just read an individual chapter if you were so moved since it's reasonably self contained), it works much better when read in order, as each of the three sections and each of the chapters builds on the information established in the pages that preceded it.

[high voltage]

I wish these book writers get the release dates correct, NES (Famicom was released in 1983), Sega Genesis (Megadrive 1988), PlayStation 1994 . Just because it was 'later' released in other countries under a different name shouldn't give it a different release date.

It's like saying the Atari VCS was released in 1983 (Atari 2800 Japan release).

[high voltage]

Anyways, the ZX wasn't mentioned (UKs best (Number 1) selling gaming computer with over 8000 games available), as the writer probably didn't know anything about this computer.

In the USA most didn't know about gaming in countries like Germany or UK. Run, EG and Antic magazines written about the foreign scene (incl. Japan) once I believe. Whilst the ST ruled as a 16 bit computer in UK and Germany from 86 till 1989 (that's when the Amiga took off with the 'Batman pack'), little was known about this in USA, according to CGW magazine.

 

Sales figures are mostly 'doctored' to suit artist/company/whatever whoever. Not likely believable.

Saw a docu from UK the other day about hit singles, and how record shops made up inflated sales figures for Gallup to suit their 'favourite' music artist.

Even the book Game Over mentions Nintendos disputed sales figures.

Edited February 16, 2016 by high voltage

[Bill Loguidice]

I wish these book writers get the release dates correct, NES (Famicom was released in 1983), Sega Genesis (Megadrive 1988), PlayStation 1994 . Just because it was 'later' released in other countries under a different name shouldn't give it a different release date.

It's like saying the Atari VCS was released in 1983 (Atari 2800 Japan release).

 

Again, understanding the context is everything. Those dates were purposely chosen for organizational purposes and the fact this was written from a US perspective, but obviously the original release dates (and system names) were discussed in detail in the respective chapters.

 

Also, I'm well versed in the ZX Spectrum and just about every other computer and videogame system ever released. My personal collection numbers over 500 systems from all eras and territories.

 

Anyway, I made my point. This is not a discussion of my book and it's clear that discussing any further will just lead to more incorrect assumptions, so I'll leave it at that. Feel free to actually read the book and I'll be happy to discuss it out of this topic.

[+save2600]

Bill, if you want anyone here to read your book(s), gonna have to give them away and be sure they're signed for future ePay resell consideration!!

 

 

hope you know I'm just foolin'

 

 

[Bill Loguidice]

Definitely no worries about any of that. People can buy what they want.

[+DarkLord]

Bill, can you clarify something for me?

 

In the sample from you book below:

 

**Generation Two (1985 – 1994)**

Nintendo Entertainment System (1985)

Commodore Amiga (1985)

Sega Genesis (1989)

Nintendo GameBoy (1989)

Nintendo Super NES (1991)

I'm assuming the systems listed are for that *range*, of 1985 through 1994?

Because I'm fairly positive that in 1985 and for a few years afterwards, the Amiga did not outsell the Atari ST,

hardware or software wise.

Thanks.

[Bill Loguidice]

 

Bill, can you clarify something for me?

 

In the sample from you book below:

 

**Generation Two (1985 – 1994)**

Nintendo Entertainment System (1985)

Commodore Amiga (1985)

Sega Genesis (1989)

Nintendo GameBoy (1989)

Nintendo Super NES (1991)

I'm assuming the systems listed are for that *range*, of 1985 through 1994?

Because I'm fairly positive that in 1985 and for a few years afterwards, the Amiga did not outsell the Atari ST,

hardware or software wise.

Thanks.

 

 

No, it's merely where the platform started in the US (and again, the actually history in the book is inclusive), not where they ended. It's taken as a whole and as a complete platform, so in the Amiga's case it's from the 1000 through to the CD32 and Amiga 4000, etc. Taken as a whole, I determined (along with my co-author) that the Amiga was the choice over the ST, regardless of who sold better early on (and if you look at the figures I referenced and the comment I made, it wasn't even all that clear cut early on either, i.e., neither platform sold particularly well at that time and it was really only after the introduction of the Amiga 500 that sales really took off for either of them).

[atarian63]

Maybe its just me, but over the years I have come to enjoy the obscurity of our platform. Heck even Bill Loguidice, a regular on this very forum, found the ST to be obscure enough to leave out of his book except in passing.

 

I don't think I'd still be 1/2 as interested in my STs if they were as ubiquitous as an Apple ][, a C-64, or a 286. There is something about flying under the radar that makes it more special.

Both should be in it or at least St only

[atarian63]

Bill, can you clarify something for me?

 

In the sample from you book below:

 

**Generation Two (1985 – 1994)**

Nintendo Entertainment System (1985)

Commodore Amiga (1985)

Sega Genesis (1989)

Nintendo GameBoy (1989)

Nintendo Super NES (1991)

 

I'm assuming the systems listed are for that *range*, of 1985 through 1994?

 

Because I'm fairly positive that in 1985 and for a few years afterwards, the Amiga did not outsell the Atari ST,

hardware or software wise.

 

Thanks.

It didn't and it took about a year after a500 came out AND a shortage od st comps for the US market was the main issue,seems thus gets ignoref

[Bill Loguidice]

Both should be in it or at least St only

 

So you're saying the ST should be in instead of the Amiga? Fascinating. Let's just ignore the parameters that were set then and the very good reason for it not to be included.

 

You also might want to check your sales figures and the reasons why things did or didn't sell. It's even been proven that Atari under Tramiel inflated the ST's sales numbers in the first few years, so I'm thinking you're thinking it sold more than it actually did.

 

Regardless, I've already said what I wanted to on this topic, so I'll respectfully bow out at this point. I think everyone has said what they wanted to and anything else is not going to be productive, especially coming from me.

[Fletch]

I'm going to agree will Bill here. I only briefly owned an Amiga (hated the GUI and it was mid-90's so the platform was dead), but he is right that it was the more important machine for gaming.

 

That being said, I'm not entirely sure that the topic was intended to be just about gaming. The ST was a better small business machine, and it was the better machine for MIDI, and it was a better machine for DTP than the AMIGA.

 

Sadly those topics don't resonate with the public. People like games and unlike small business software, music production software or DTP software, old games are still fun and in a sense useful. Not too many people firing up an ST to run the cash register these days.

 

Personally, I'll always be an ST guy. Got my first one in 1985 and have enjoyed them ever since. I'd take an ST over an AMIGA any day of the week. I like the more general purpose computing uses that the ST provided. But if I only cared about games..... Well, Bill is right.

[high voltage]

The ST was used all over the world by world famous musicians, that's a far better accolade than just being a games computer.

Andy Warhol tried to make the Amiga an 'artists' tool, I think he wasn't impressed.

Edited February 17, 2016 by high voltage

[high voltage]

OH btw, I'm an Amiga guy, straight from the 500 onwards, bought one new at the time (still got it), never liked the ST. Amiga was made by 'Atari guys', that counts for me.

[chepe]

Again, I welcome you or anyone else to indicate which platform(s) should have been replaced for a featured chapter in the 20 in "Vintage Game Consoles." When doing so, be sure to keep in mind that the book can't be any longer than it already is and that each of the platforms chosen was chosen for its overall impact and influence (and not necessarily sales) in their respective eras (and obviously as told from a US perspective). Naturally, you'll specifically want to figure out what platform the ST was more important than in Generation Two, which is the section of the book it would have fallen into.

Well, obviously the book is written from US perspective. Coleco was completely unknown here and I've not even heard of the Mattel console. However, if there is one machine which should not have been in the book it's Dreamcast. I flat out state that VIC-20, ZX81/Spectrum, maybe even ST were more important in developing of computer games than Dreamcast.

 

And yes ST was pretty popular as small time publishing machine too. It had one of the first really accessible laser printers.

Edited February 17, 2016 by chepe

[Bill Loguidice]

The ST was used all over the world by world famous musicians, that's a far better accolade than just being a games computer.

Andy Warhol tried to make the Amiga an 'artists' tool, I think he wasn't impressed.

 

 

Warhol was actually a big Amiga fan. In any case, the Macintosh was the big desktop publishing machine, the ST was big in music, and the Amiga was big in video production. I'd say they all carved out important respective niches, but obviously the Macintosh's niche had ultimately the longest lasting appeal.

[Bill Loguidice]

Well, obviously the book is written from US perspective. Coleco was completely unknown here and I've not even heard of the Mattel console. However, if there is one machine which should not have been in the book it's Dreamcast. I flat out state that VIC-20, ZX81/Spectrum, maybe even ST were more important in developing of computer games than Dreamcast.

 

And yes ST was pretty popular as small time publishing machine too. It had one of the first really accessible laser printers.

 

Not knowing much about the ColecoVision or Intellivision and marginalizing the Dreamcast says it all. Naturally, if I were writing a book from a European or Japanese perspective, things would be quite different, with the former having systems like the ZX Spectrum and Amstrad CPC and the latter having systems like MSX and PC Engine, as just two pairs of examples, taking more prominent roles.

 

I'm also not a fan of separating computer, console, and handheld gaming. To me, there's no need to make unessesary distinctions when discussing gaming history. I do acknowledge though that some people never cross the streams. That's not me, though and certainly it works well within the scope of the book. To my mind you can't really seperate the histories when it comes to gaming because it's so intertwined, with each impacting the other. The history would be incomplete otherwise. That's also why "Arcade" counts as a platform for the book's purposes.

[Fletch]

Hey, here is a new book about the ST Demo Scene. Maybe the machine isn't being ignored after all : https://www.facebook.com/ataristdemoscenebook/?fref=nf

[+DarkLord]

Hope it comes to fruition. The demo scene has always been one of

my favorite things about the ST.

[+DarkLord]

Bill, if you don't mind, I've got another question. I don't want you to feel like

I'm singling you out, but this subject (Atari) is near and dear to my heart.

 

If you don't care, can you tell us what other platforms besides the Atari ST

were cut from the 1985-1994 era/segment of your book?

 

(and if you mentioned this previously, I apologize)

 

Thanks.

[Bill Loguidice]

Bill, if you don't mind, I've got another question. I don't want you to feel like

I'm singling you out, but this subject (Atari) is near and dear to my heart.

 

If you don't care, can you tell us what other platforms besides the Atari ST

were cut from the 1985-1994 era/segment of your book?

 

(and if you mentioned this previously, I apologize)

 

Thanks.

 

It wasn't "cut" in that sense, it just didn't make the top 20, mostly because I determined that it was substantially similar to what was being covered by the Amiga, which was the "better" platform as it related to the parameters of the book. A better question is to ask what would have been added if 25 would have fit. In that extra 5 you would have almost certainly seen the ST platform get its own chapter. However, I think it stands as-is with the 20, as in even if we had more pages to work with, I wouldn't have necessarily wanted to include anything else without a significant change in scope, which would have resulted in a slightly different book from what was originally pitched (on a side note, my first book project, circa 2005, which was never finished for O'Reilly, was intended as the first truly all-inclusive platform book. It proved impractical to cover 40+ years of systems in one book. The remnants of that disaster became "Vintage Games," Gamasutra articles, "Gameplay," and "Vintage Game Consoles," and I think better for it. I still have chapters from that unfinished book that have never been repurposed, including on the TRS-80, TI-99/4a, APF M/MP1000/IM, etc.)

 

It's also important to keep in mind that the Atari story itself is told in three different chapters (Arcade, Atari 2600, and Atari 8-bit) in Vintage Game Consoles, as well as throughout several other areas of the book.

[high voltage]

Anyway, less of the negativity, well done for doing a book in the first place, Bill, and have some good sales.

Edited February 17, 2016 by high voltage