(Playing devil's advocate) Did the ST damage the videogames industry?

[Megalomaniac]

The ST was the first affordable WIMP (windows, icons, mice, pointers) computer - by late 1986 you could get the STM and a disk drive for less than £500 here (and $750 for a complete system including monitor and disk drive in the US?), not vastly more than some 8-bit computers, and a fraction of what a PC or Mac or the original (pre-A500) Amiga cost. From word processing to DTP to (especially) music making, practical and productive tasks were now affordable and achievable for the masses in a way they weren't really on the 8-bits or more expensive rivals. New types of games were possible - Dungeon Master, Populous, F-16 Combat Pilot, Sundog, Captain Blood, all ST originals beyond what any 8-bit could do.

 

Still, for arcade-style games (which were probably what the majority of people primarily used 'home computers' for), it has its limitations, without more specialised games-targeted hardware features, and with sound hardware which arguably didn't match the C64, let alone the Amiga. Was it detrimental that the ST was pushed so heavily as a games system for a time, especially with the Super Pack and Summer Pack bundles? Were they too late to emphasise bundling serious software, such as with the Family Curriculum 1040STe bundle?

 

Was the Amiga later held back by the kinds of games derided as 'lame ST ports' which didn't exploit its features? Was the rise of consoles and PCs (especially in Europe, where it took longer) accelerated by this? Was that a bad thing for the public, given that the truly original and innovative games usually came out on home computers first? Or was it just lazy programmers and penny-pinching publishers to blame for those games? The Amstrad CPC arguably had much the same issue with its Spectrum ports in the UK, for instance.

 

Without the ST, would other systems have been more successful to fill the gap, maybe the Apple IIGS or the Archimedes or Sinclair QL? Would the Japanese computes have had Western versions made? Would Commodore have ignored the idea of an A500 and just pushed the C128 for the home and the Amiga for productivity and office use? Would we all have gone straight from 8-bits to PCs or consoles? Would we have played Dungeon Master and Sundog on something else? Or would games like that not have become mainstream until PCs became mass-market?

Edited September 10, 2023 by Megalomaniac

[TGB1718]

I think the ST filled that gap between 8 Bits and the arrival of a PC that actually worked

 

When the St arrived, most PC's were 8086 processors and were unbelievably slow, even when the x286

arrived, it wasn't a quantum leap forward and I remember all the configuration just to get it working

with extra memory or devices (for most people it was a black art).

 

My first PC that I found useful was a 386, still the config issues, but at least it was reasonably quick.

I think that was the point I stopped using my ST.

 

But lets not forget on the PC just getting a game to run was a continuous nightmare, having to install

different graphics drivers for different games, constant hangs/crashes etc. something that was beyond

most people to do.

[Flojomojo]

I was alive, sentient, and interested in computers around the time of the Atari ST and in my personal, individual experience, I can definitively say that the Atari ST had zero impact on my behavior and buying, and that I never considered it as something desirable or interesting in the market. 
 

People went where the software was, and having half a dozen different platform standards just resulted in fragmentation. 

[+DarkLord]

And on the flip side of that coin, I thought it was the greateST thing since sliced bread. 

 

[Zogging Hell]

In Germany (the biggest market), the ST was never pushed as a games machine - completely the opposite, and it was the mainly in the UK (and France) that it was seen as such, mainly due to the unique history of the UK having computers rather than consoles being dominant in gaming until the arrival of the Megadrive/ SNES era.

As for the Amiga, if the ST's initial success hadn't forced Commodore to drop the price massively and change the form factor to avoid being Commodore 64'd, only about two people would have been able to buy it anyway due to the (rip off.. cough!) initial price, and they would (having more money than sense) have probably brought Macs instead... So it probably would never have managed to get the gaming traction it did (sort of) get and would have stayed as a niche multimedia computer instead. That may or may not have helped it in the long run, as a smart Commodore could have played on the expensive desirable computer like Apple did... but er post Tramiel Commodore, so probably not.

The other computers.. The Apple GS was nice but was doomed as soon as the Mac was out the gates. The Archimedes was too pricey and a bit to reliant on educational money to ever really take off either. And the QL would have made a much worse gaming platform than the ST, although like the Speccy it is quite appealing to me

TBH the only thing that I can see might have gained from the ST not being a thing in the UK at least is the NES and the Master System. By the time the NES arrived in the UK, i.e. late, it looked horribly outdated graphically (game quality notwithstanding) compared to the ST. The NES really wasn't a thing in the UK, despite what revisionists might try and say nowadays, due to the 8bit computers and then ST and Amiga being big there. The Master System was more popular, but was definitely in the budget end of things along with the evergreen 2600.

[zzip]

The question seems focused on the European market.     In the US the NES came shortly after the ST and that dominated the arcade/action segment of the market and limited the ST/Amiga's appeal as game machines over here.

 

On 9/10/2023 at 6:41 AM, Megalomaniac said:

Without the ST, would other systems have been more successful to fill the gap, maybe the Apple IIGS or the Archimedes or Sinclair QL? Would the Japanese computes have had Western versions made? Would Commodore have ignored the idea of an A500 and just pushed the C128 for the home and the Amiga for productivity and office use? Would we all have gone straight from 8-bits to PCs or consoles? Would we have played Dungeon Master and Sundog on something else? Or would games like that not have become mainstream until PCs became mass-market?

I think the big change was when people started getting 8-bit systems with disk drives.   That's when you saw RPG and strategy games start to flourish.   ST and Amiga brought better graphics and deeper gameplay to such games.   Dungeon Master added the point and click inventory system which was unique for its time.    In the US, the PC was a couple years behind ST/Amiga, so I think you'd see those games on that.   In Europe they might have gone to a different computer.    I don't think such games would have gone to consoles during that time period they were too limited.

[Megalomaniac]

Yes, my thinking is quite European, maybe specifically British where we mostly stayed with cassettes rather than disks for 8-bit systems. I almost struggle to think of things like Bard's Tale or Maniac Mansion as 8-bit games for that reason, though the list I gave does illustrate the point. Also, as mentioned we were slower to go back to consoles after the success of the Spectrum and C64 and the Videogames crash of 1983 - the NES wasn't a huge hit (though it did make some impact - why else was Great Giana Sisters so hyped on the C64?) and the Master System came later (and stuck around later, with European-coded versions of stuff like Sensible Soccer, Robocod and Lemmings). Generally we weren't as quick to rush to the newest hardware as the USA, until the PC rush forced us to.

 

My honest feeling is that home computers were a better place for developers to start than consoles (massive development costs, big cartridge production runs needed, corporate pressure - you couldn't take the same risks with game styles, while as many great games originated on the consoles as the home computers, the really original stuff was usually computer first) or PCs (hideously complex, only a few genres really feasible, with so many different hardware levels to cater for), and that their demise was a sad thing.  

 

I guess my thinking is, in the UK and France games developers led with the ST version for a few years, so were slow to make use of Amiga hardware (and, Rare aside, developed little for 8-bit consoles - only the Megadrive / Genesis really got a lot of European developers on board pre-Playstation). Did that issue accelerate the demise of the last successful home computers - Clearly the Amiga's upper limit for that type of game was higher than the ST's (understandable, as it was so much later in becoming affordable)?

[zzip]

2 hours ago, Megalomaniac said:

Yes, my thinking is quite European, maybe specifically British where we mostly stayed with cassettes rather than disks for 8-bit systems. I almost struggle to think of things like Bard's Tale or Maniac Mansion as 8-bit games for that reason, though the list I gave does illustrate the point. Also, as mentioned we were slower to go back to consoles after the success of the Spectrum and C64 and the Videogames crash of 1983 - the NES wasn't a huge hit (though it did make some impact - why else was Great Giana Sisters so hyped on the C64?) and the Master System came later (and stuck around later, with European-coded versions of stuff like Sensible Soccer, Robocod and Lemmings). Generally we weren't as quick to rush to the newest hardware as the USA, until the PC rush forced us to.

Getting a disk drive opened a whole new world of gaming.   Around 1985,  Atari 1050 disk drives started appearing in stores for half the price they had been previously.   I don't know if it was due to Tramiel's aggressive pricing or the price of components falling, but suddenly they were affordable.    I soon had a collection of RPGs and Adventure games.

 

2 hours ago, Megalomaniac said:

My honest feeling is that home computers were a better place for developers to start than consoles (massive development costs, big cartridge production runs needed, corporate pressure - you couldn't take the same risks with game styles, while as many great games originated on the consoles as the home computers, the really original stuff was usually computer first) or PCs (hideously complex, only a few genres really feasible, with so many different hardware levels to cater for), and that their demise was a sad thing.  

Yeah during the US crash, computers were the only sector of gaming where there was still life and there was a lot of innovation in computer games.   How many of the computer publishers started as mom and pop operations?   Selling disks in baggies and what not.  I agree that allowed for more risk-taking.

 

[Jetboot Jack]

On 9/11/2023 at 6:05 PM, Megalomaniac said:

Yes, my thinking is quite European, maybe specifically British where we mostly stayed with cassettes rather than disks for 8-bit systems. I almost struggle to think of things like Bard's Tale or Maniac Mansion as 8-bit games for that reason, though the list I gave does illustrate the point. Also, as mentioned we were slower to go back to consoles after the success of the Spectrum and C64 and the Videogames crash of 1983 - the NES wasn't a huge hit (though it did make some impact - why else was Great Giana Sisters so hyped on the C64?) and the Master System came later (and stuck around later, with European-coded versions of stuff like Sensible Soccer, Robocod and Lemmings). Generally we weren't as quick to rush to the newest hardware as the USA, until the PC rush forced us to.

 

My honest feeling is that home computers were a better place for developers to start than consoles (massive development costs, big cartridge production runs needed, corporate pressure - you couldn't take the same risks with game styles, while as many great games originated on the consoles as the home computers, the really original stuff was usually computer first) or PCs (hideously complex, only a few genres really feasible, with so many different hardware levels to cater for), and that their demise was a sad thing.  

 

I guess my thinking is, in the UK and France games developers led with the ST version for a few years, so were slow to make use of Amiga hardware (and, Rare aside, developed little for 8-bit consoles - only the Megadrive / Genesis really got a lot of European developers on board pre-Playstation). Did that issue accelerate the demise of the last successful home computers - Clearly the Amiga's upper limit for that type of game was higher than the ST's (understandable, as it was so much later in becoming affordable)?

As a developer and also working in retail in the 80's it was my observation that it was the ST that drove the transition to 16bit computing in the UK - the Amiga played catchup until the very late 80's at retail, but then it flourished for a few years as the ST wained (mistakes like the STe and the Falcon did the rest of the damage to Atari).

 

The ST was simple to code for (like the Spectrum before it, a staple of the UK scene) and despite its limited hardware it hosted many era defining games.

 

It was the ST that brought down the cost of entry to 16bit computers - the IIGS, Archie and QL were never going to be a factor, too niche, too expensive, too underpowered in that order.

 

The ST's issue was in my opinion a failure to offer an upgrade path soon enough (an ongoing Atari trait from the earliest days) - so people slid over to the now cheap and powerful Amiga in 1989/1990 as it's virtues outstripped the ST, even before the 1200 in 1992...

 

The Amiga had a brief period in the sun, but too late to really be a major game changer as the 16bit consoles rolled in and the PC became ubiquitous. The ST did not hold the Amiga back, Commodore managed that all by themselves!

 

As a user I had both a 520ST and an Amiga 1000 - liked them both, used the ST a little more (fell in love with OCP advanced art studio) - played games on both...

sTeVE

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Jetboot Jack

[Hwlngmad]

No, the ST did not damage the computer industry.  In fact, in some ways I think it (to a small degree) helped the industry as it (along with the Amiga) gave a lot of people the ability to work with 16-bit machines, which then in turn lead to some great and awesome games on the Genesis / Mega Drive, SNES, and other machines not mention on the ST (and Amiga).  Now, it wasn't all sunshine and roses as pirating was a major issue on ST (and to a notable degree on the Amiga).  But, yes, I would say the ST helped the games industry rather than hurting it.

[pjedavison]

The ST was many things. For me, it was an intermediary step between the Atari 8-bit and VGA/SoundBlaster-equipped MS-DOS PC. Parallel to this, I became involved with console gaming on a fairly casual basis with the Super NES, and considerably more actively when the PlayStation and N64 came along. But even up until that point, "computer" and "console" gaming felt (and were) very distinct from one another, and one didn't affect the other to a noticeable degree. You'd get occasional ST games that clearly wished they were console games, but as time went on, developers -- good ones, anyway -- learned to play to the platform's strengths.

 

For quite some time, the ST versions of games were superior to EGA MS-DOS PC games due to the larger colour palette available on the former. (We're leaving the Amiga aside for now!) As such, there's a definite period of crossover where, for me anyway, it's preferable to play an ST version of something to a DOS version of something. Once PCs got faster than 8MHz, VGA became the graphics standard and it was expected to have at the very least a music synthesis card if not a SoundBlaster-compatible, that was where DOS PCs finally took over. And even then, there were non-gaming things the ST still did better -- in our household, we still used it for desktop publishing, MIDI and music printouts with Notator.

 

So no, I don't think the ST damaged the gaming sector in any way. It was just one of numerous platforms available, and it did some things well; other things less well. That's part of what made this period of computing history so interesting -- while the fragmentation could be (and often was) frustrating as an end user, looking back on it from a historical perspective it's fascinating to see all the "specialisms" the various platforms brought to the table. Comparatively speaking, today's scene, where the consoles are pretty much either just a PC (PS5/Xbox) or a phone/tablet (Switch) and home computers are generic as heck is kinda boring!

[zzip]

On 9/10/2023 at 6:41 AM, Megalomaniac said:

Still, for arcade-style games (which were probably what the majority of people primarily used 'home computers' for), it has its limitations, without more specialised games-targeted hardware features, and with sound hardware which arguably didn't match the C64, let alone the Amiga. Was it detrimental that the ST was pushed so heavily as a games system for a time, especially with the Super Pack and Summer Pack bundles? Were they too late to emphasise bundling serious software, such as with the Family Curriculum 1040STe bundle?

 

Was the Amiga later held back by the kinds of games derided as 'lame ST ports' which didn't exploit its features? Was the rise of consoles and PCs (especially in Europe, where it took longer) accelerated by this? Was that a bad thing for the public, given that the truly original and innovative games usually came out on home computers first? Or was it just lazy programmers and penny-pinching publishers to blame for those games? The Amstrad CPC arguably had much the same issue with its Spectrum ports in the UK, for instance.

 

Without the ST, would other systems have been more successful to fill the gap, maybe the Apple IIGS or the Archimedes or Sinclair QL? Would the Japanese computes have had Western versions made? Would Commodore have ignored the idea of an A500 and just pushed the C128 for the home and the Amiga for productivity and office use? Would we all have gone straight from 8-bits to PCs or consoles? Would we have played Dungeon Master and Sundog on something else? Or would games like that not have become mainstream until PCs became mass-market?

It's common that the ST gets faulted for not being an Amiga,  but that ignores that the fact that the ST was better for gaming than most other computer platforms of the era.

C64 - better sound arguably, but games overall usually better on ST

PC Clones-   80's PC's were poor gaming platforms especially for arcade games.   It wasn't until very late in the 80s that it got updates it needed to beat ST/Amiga

Apple IIgs - similar graphics capabilities to ST,  very slow by comparison

Mac - monochrome doesn't usually appeal to gamers.

 

I know Europe had some other options and I'm not sure where those stack up.

 

ST did a fair job at arcade ports.   Sure it would have benefited from hardware sprites, PCM sound or blitter in all models.   but when I look at some of the arcade ports the PC got in the same era, the ST ports look pretty good.

[Hwlngmad]

On 10/27/2023 at 12:37 PM, zzip said:

It's common that the ST gets faulted for not being an Amiga,  but that ignores that the fact that the ST was better for gaming than most other computer platforms of the era.

C64 - better sound arguably, but games overall usually better on ST

PC Clones-   80's PC's were poor gaming platforms especially for arcade games.   It wasn't until very late in the 80s that it got updates it needed to beat ST/Amiga

Apple IIgs - similar graphics capabilities to ST,  very slow by comparison

Mac - monochrome doesn't usually appeal to gamers.

 

I know Europe had some other options and I'm not sure where those stack up.

 

ST did a fair job at arcade ports.   Sure it would have benefited from hardware sprites, PCM sound or blitter in all models.   but when I look at some of the arcade ports the PC got in the same era, the ST ports look pretty good.

Definitely the ST is a bit undervalued, or underrated, as a games machine, that's for sure.

[Xebec]

Interesting Question.    I don’t think it damaged the computer industry.   It came at a time when there were so much competition, and a lot of companies didn’t realize how strong the software moat was that was starting to form around certain computers (Apple //,  PC,  C64, etc).  

 

I remember actually being initially disappointed with the ST after coming from an Atari 8bit.  At the time, the 8bit was *very* mature, and had a lot of software.  It was also quite colorful for an 8bit machine.   The Atari 8bit had a ton more personality tbh;  the POKEY noises while loading software was fun.. 

 

But then as I spent more time with the ST (and progressed into my early teenager years), I learned to really like it.  Yes, seeing Sundog and then Dungeon Master made me realize it was ‘next gen’.   But then 80 columns for BBSes, having the extra resolution and GUI tools for coding, file compression, and other functions — it was a great machine.  I ran it along side PCs for some years before finally using it less and less (circa 1991).  It feels like the ST had a really short lifespan but in 1987-1988 the future was extremely bright for the platform.  

 

In the USA the machine wasn’t sufficiently advertised (and partially the dealers didn’t pick it up very much),  but from what I remember it was emphasized (at least locally near me) as a business machine with a modern graphical interface that could also run games. 

[zzip]

I could easily argue that it was DOS clones that held back the computer games industry (for a time)

 

In the early 80s, PC's were all about business.   Their graphics cards were great for displaying high-res pie-charts, but terrible for playing games (slow!  CGA color palettes just look bad in most cases), they had no sound other than the awful PC speaker.  Early DOS clones were infamously not 100% compatible so it wasn't uncommon to buy games that failed to work on your machine.

 

During the latter half of the 80s, the PC became the dominant 16-bit platform,  so every publisher needed to port their games to it, even though it was still kind of lacking in game features.   Soundblaster didn't appear until 1989,  VGA in 1987, SVGA cards came later)

 

DOS was kind of a hostile environment for both users and developers.   It had a couple of different memory management schemes, you had to worry about how much space of the first 640K was being used.  Then there was IRQ management.   Memory was segmented, coders had to worry about the dreaded "near" and "far" memory, also developers had to support several different graphics standards in their code (CGA/EGA/Tandy/VGA), several different sound card standards.    

 

Eventually 32-bit DOS extenders showed up (for 386 and higher) that made memory management a lot easier for developers,  Local Bus architecture showed up like VLB & PCI, which allowed faster graphics.  and Windows 95 later abstracted the hardware through drivers and DirectX,  By the early 90s, PCs had finally gotten everything it needed to be the dominant computer gaming platform.   But until that happened,  Amiga and ST were better as gaming platforms.

[Hwlngmad]

I have already stated my opinion before, but I will reiterate that the ST did not damage the games industry.  It was (arguably and) briefly a notable player in the games industry.  However, its star quickly faded when it was surpassed by the Amiga who was then surpassed by PC clones, as it did to every other computer platform.  Still, as @pjedavison has demonstrated in his excellent looks into the ST library, it was a very capable machine and I cannot imagine what it must have been like to have owned the machine back when it was relevant and on the market.

[+DarkLord]

6 hours ago, Hwlngmad said:

it was a very capable machine and I cannot imagine what it must have been like to have owned the machine back when it was relevant and on the market.

 

It was (and is) freakin' awesome...!