Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Why C= never made a 65816 based machine?  (Read 5830 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline slaapliedje

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 843
  • Country: 00
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • Show all replies
Re: Why C= never made a 65816 based machine?
« on: August 07, 2012, 06:01:20 AM »
I often wonder what would have happened had Atari and Commodore merged instead of both dying off around the same time.  Atari lasted a little longer than Commodore, but not a whole lot.  Atari had basically announced the Falcon, then shortly after said "well screw computers, we're going back to Consoles, here's the Jaguar, behold it's awesomeness!" then afterward faded away into obscurity.

Commodore tried the same thing with the CD32, but much like the Jaguar, there weren't a whole lot of software titles that you couldn't already get for whatever 16/32 bit computer you had.  

Remember what Sega did with the Genesis?  They released a converter for Sega Master System games.  That's exactly what Atari and Commodore should have done for their 16/32 bit machines.  Just supply some 5.25" floppy drive that had some hardware in it for emulation.  Would have been a killer product and allowed established software categories to be utilized on newer systems.

Of course the problem with this is that it's too 'nice' to the consumers, and management figures most people wouldn't part with the cash to get the newer versions of conversions.  But honestly, would you stay with the crappy version of Double Dragon for the C64, when you could get the far better version for the Amiga?

slaapliedje
A4000D: Mediator 4000Di; Voodoo 3, ZorRAM 128MB, 10/100mb Ethernet, Spider 2. Cyberstorm PPC 060/50 604e/420.