Common amiga knowledge that's wrong

[runequester]

As with everything else, there's a lot of "common knowledge" about the amiga, that I don't think holds up to proper scrutiny. Feel free to correct me though!


Common knowledge: The amiga wasn't powerful enough as a gaming machine anymore

Why it's wrong: Sure, the 68000 with 1 meg of RAM wasn't cutting it in 94 anymore. But then, we had 68060 processor cards, RTG video cards, loads of RAM etc available.
It's a travesty that virtual no games ever took advantage of this equipment but that's a shortfall of the developers, not the machine itself.

Common knowledge: Doom killed the amiga

Why it's wrong: Doom was released in December of 93. Commodore declared bankruptcy in April 94. There's plain not enough time for an entire platform to go from doing well to dying off, based on one game in about 4 months. (Doom was massively important in fuelling the PC as a valid games platform, but that's an entirely different story)

Common knowledge: You had to swap disks constantly

Why it's wrong: Yeah, psygnosis had a unreasoning fear of the external disk drive, but most games supported multiple drives (could DOS even do this without installing to a hard drive?) and virtually every large game had a hard drive installer. WHDload of course changed that game as well



Corrections or disagreements?
"common knowledge" of your own?

[JC]

Amiga games usually had better sound, gfx, and gameplay than other versions and it just seemed to me that they were programmed more elegantly. Who knows what could have been but even if Commodore had handled things better it would've been tough for them to go up against the Bill Gates Wintel machine.

[koaftder]

Common Knowledge: You can turn an Amiga off at any time

Why it's wrong: Only God knows if file handles are actually closed. While writes to disk are immediate, programs may not actually make the library call after you clikc on interface buttons.

[desiv]

Why it's wrong: Sure, the 68000 with 1 meg of RAM wasn't cutting it in 94 anymore. But then, we had 68060 processor cards, RTG video cards, loads of RAM etc available.
It's a travesty that virtual no games ever took advantage of this equipment but that's a shortfall of the developers, not the machine itself.

True, but most Amiga owners were people with an Amiga 500.  There were no graphics upgrades for the Amiga 500 (OK, I had a HAM-E at the time and I know people who had a DCTV, but not for games really).

My option to upgrade (given financial options) was to get an Amiga 1200.
I spent more on the move from 500 to 1200 (including selling my 500 at the time), than my friends were spending on their Diamond video cards for their PCs.  

Now, that being said, I preferred the games on the Amiga to the games on the PCs at the time.  I played DOOM, but actually Jazz Jackrabbit was my favorite PC action game.  But I wouldn't have traded my Amiga for anything gamewise.  I thought it was enough power for me for games.  I remember being amazed by the power of Fighter Duel Pro; a hi-res flight sim on my Amiga..

Personally, I don't know anyone (not that I've asked them all :-) who sold their Amiga to play Doom.

I moved from Amiga to PC because I started working on PCs (Foxbase mostly, and general PC support at the time).  There weren't a lot of people asking for custom databases for their Amigas.

 I still personally think the Amiga died because Commodore were greedy, and didn't market properly.  

However, its possible that the market at the time was only going to accept 2 paths.  MS and "the other" and Apple had the school market.  Video (Amiga) and Music (ST) were too much of a niche to hold a market of their own.  And as for games, PCs got good enough (not better yet, but good enough) to take some of that, and the consoles were cheap/good enough to take the low end.

Just some thoughts..

desiv

[cv643d]

Common knowledge: Doom killed the amiga

Why it's wrong: Doom was released in December of 93. Commodore declared bankruptcy in April 94. There's plain not enough time for an entire platform to go from doing well to dying off, based on one game in about 4 months. (Doom was massively important in fuelling the PC as a valid games platform, but that's an entirely different story)

Before Doom Amiga was well known as the no 1 gaming computer over here in Europe.

Then suddenly Doom came out and acted as someone knocking over the first domino brick, when Amiga users realized they could never have such games quite a lot of Amiga users left! I saw it myself back in the day. To be honest with you even I left the Amiga for a 486 to play Doom :-)

[Kronos]

Why it's wrong: Sure, the 68000 with 1 meg of RAM wasn't cutting it in 94 anymore. But then, we had 68060 processor cards, RTG video cards, loads of RAM etc available.
It's a travesty that virtual no games ever took advantage of this equipment but that's a shortfall of the developers, not the machine itself.

Actually even more wrong ....

The CS-MK1-manual (1st print) is from April 95, even if some units gone on sale in 94 they certainly weren't "available" in the common. If your in for a shocker, someone might even pull out an invoice from that time. I remember paying 1800DM for my Blizz2060 (must have been 96) shortly after they came out. Inflation corrected that would have been well over 1000Euro.

Sure GFX-Cards did exist, in the form of a Picasso2 at 800DM hardly a gamers-card today, and back than there was no CGX or P96, all you had was costom WB-emu and/or EGS. Pretty much useless for anything but specialized productivity SW.

Btw. RAM was really expensive back in those days, I only bought 8MB for that 2060 card and I do remember it being even worse before.

So to get a "high-end" Amiga in lets say 1996 (since 94 is to unrealistic for such specs) consisting of:
68060 with 32MB or more
A4000(T) (no point in playing games over Z2)
CV-64 (guess that should be the best non-3D card of that time)

You would easily need over 6000DM (3000Euro), to get what ?

A CPU/mobo comparable to a P90 ?
A GFX-card featuring a chip otherwise fond in bargain-bin VLB-cards ?

Or in short a 2000DM (1000Euro) PC ....

[mfletcher]

As with everything else, there's a lot of "common knowledge" about the amiga, that I don't think holds up to proper scrutiny. Feel free to correct me though!

Common knowledge: The amiga wasn't powerful enough as a gaming machine anymore

Why it's wrong: Sure, the 68000 with 1 meg of RAM wasn't cutting it in 94 anymore. But then, we had 68060 processor cards, RTG video cards, loads of RAM etc available.
It's a travesty that virtual no games ever took advantage of this equipment but that's a shortfall of the developers, not the machine itself.

I think this is wrong. Publishers publish games to make money. To maximize profit, code to the lowest common denominator. Even when the A1200 was at its peak, a lot of software was still produced to be compatible with the A500.

Another example is the Sega CD, an add-on for the Megadrive. Sure it sold, but there werent many games produced for it, because the installed base of Megadrive consoles was greater than the installed base of Megadrive with Sega CD added on.

So even with RTG video cards, RAM, faster processors etc, publishers were still targeting the A500. I seem to remember the endless discussions on Amiga Newsgroups of why Lucasarts couldnt bring X-Wing out on the Amiga...

[amigagr]

we had 68060 processor cards, RTG video cards, loads of RAM etc available.

blizard 1260 was available in 1996. i bought mine in may of 96' when it was (near) just released.

[darule]

Common misconceptions about the Amiga will never change my overall opinion about the Amiga. It was, and stil is, the only home computer with a heart (so to speak), a heart which was kickstarted () by it's creators (Jay and his excellent team). To this day, as a System Admin on Linux and Windows and as a common user of Windows, I have always hated it (Win32) and will remain to hate it as long as I can turn on one of my trusty Amigas.

Comparing an Amiga to any other computer is comparing apples with oranges,...no actually it's comparing a nice fruity kiwi with a rotten smelly overrated common garden bean.

[desiv]

I think this is wrong. Publishers publish games to make money. To maximize profit, code to the lowest common denominator. Even when the A1200 was at its peak, a lot of software was still produced to be compatible with the A500.

While there's something to this, it doesn't always hold out.

You didn't (and don't) see PC developers develop games for the lowest common denominator.  You see them develop games for the smallest minority that has high end machines.

However, in that case, they are looking at selling their games at a premium to the high end gamers.  Knowing that over time, the other users will upgrade and eventually buy their games for $20 or so..

I do that with PC games.  My PC is terribly outdated.  At the time when Neverwinter Nights came out, I probably could have run it, but really really badly.  And I doubt I would have paid new retail price.  A bit later, I finally get a new (inexpensive, but decent) video card.  Now(er.. the "Now" that was when I bought it :-), Neverwinter Nights is $20 and runs pretty good.  (The native Linux version is still running fine on that same machine).

That couldn't have happened on the Amiga the same way.  Yes, a game could have been written (some were) that ran, but just barely on an unexpanded Amiga, but much better on an expanded one.  However, I paid about $40 for my PC video card.  Let's say $100 even for comparison.(I am cheap even..)  Now, for the Amiga to run the game better, it would either need an RTG card (not really an option for most, but) at MUCH more than $100 (no idea how much those cost at the time??) or an accelerator with RAM, and those were $300 up.

The LCD (lowest common denominator) is only in play because the upgrade options were too expensive for the Amiga.

Fact is, non-LCD did work for the 1M ram upgrade.  Developers did start making games that required more than 512K on the Amiga.  When games started coming out requiring 1M, people did buy upgrades to their Amigas to play them.  However, an upgrade to 1M was relatively cheap (cost of a new video card today).  Upgrade beyond that was the problem.

desiv

[runequester]

Actually even more wrong ....

The CS-MK1-manual (1st print) is from April 95, even if some units gone on sale in 94 they certainly weren't "available" in the common. If your in for a shocker, someone might even pull out an invoice from that time. I remember paying 1800DM for my Blizz2060 (must have been 96) shortly after they came out. Inflation corrected that would have been well over 1000Euro.

Sure GFX-Cards did exist, in the form of a Picasso2 at 800DM hardly a gamers-card today, and back than there was no CGX or P96, all you had was costom WB-emu and/or EGS. Pretty much useless for anything but specialized productivity SW.

Btw. RAM was really expensive back in those days, I only bought 8MB for that 2060 card and I do remember it being even worse before.

So to get a "high-end" Amiga in lets say 1996 (since 94 is to unrealistic for such specs) consisting of:
68060 with 32MB or more
A4000(T) (no point in playing games over Z2)
CV-64 (guess that should be the best non-3D card of that time)

You would easily need over 6000DM (3000Euro), to get what ?

A CPU/mobo comparable to a P90 ?
A GFX-card featuring a chip otherwise fond in bargain-bin VLB-cards ?

Or in short a 2000DM (1000Euro) PC ....

ah, I was wrong by 1994.
Yeah, amiga hardware was absurdly expensive (though you could get by with less than an 060 I guess. Even an 030 adds some oomph that most developers ignored), but let's say you bought a 500 and a PC in 88 or 89. By 96, how many times would you have replaced your PC by then?

Odds are at least once, propably twice. If you were a hardcore gamer, maybe three times or more. Heck, nowadays, people buy new machines just because there's a new version of windows, but nobody bats an eye at spending 800 dollars every 2 years.

You never had PC gamers declare that "PC gaming was dead" because a 286 couldn't run Doom, or because you had to buy a new machine to play Quake. We just cough up the money and go with it.

[desiv]

but let's say you bought a 500 and a PC in 88 or 89. By 96, how many times would you have replaced your PC by then?
Odds are at least once, propably twice. If you were a hardcore gamer, maybe three times or more.

OK, let's see..  I got a new PC around 2000..  AMD Athlon 2000/ATI All-in-Wonder 128 Pro.  512M RAM.

Around 2002, the MB died, got a new one.  Same other stuff..
Around 2003/4, got a $40 NVidia card.  
Around 2005, went to 1G RAM, dual boot Linux.  :-)
Around 2007, friend gave me his NVidia card since he upgraded.
Around 2009, got a 19" Widescreen LCD.

Still my main machine..  :-)

OK, I'm not a hardcore gamer, obviously..  :roflmao:
I'm probably not the target audience here...

desiv

p.s.  I would upgrade the RAM to 2G, but the motherboard will only take 1G.  ;-)

[Kronos]

but let's say you bought a 500 and a PC in 88 or 89. By 96, how many times would you have replaced your PC by then?

Hmmm lets see:

Bought an A500 in 90, replaced with an A1200 in late 92, replaced that with an A2000+A2630 in 94, upgraded that to 060 in 96, bought a GFX-card later in 96. Sums up to about 6000DM including 2 monitor (1084 and 2024).

Bought an 10Mhz-AT 91, replaced it with an 40MHz-386DX sometime in 94 bought an Pentium100 which was sold after a few weeks to pay for the Picasso2.

Money spend ? I'd say 3000DM max

[ElPolloDiabl]

Yes, but once people saw the Amiga market was shrinking they weren't going to invest any more money into there, hastening it's downfall.
People usually want to invest their money in the most powerful system they can get. The the Wintel box could provide and the speed race was fueled by AMD and Cyrix providing competing CPU's.

The sheeple who constantly upgrade to run the latest Windows are likely MS fanatics. Now that we've hit a performance ceiling you'll see a lot of 'cleaning house'.

While Escom was still kicking we got the developers to release a couple of titles aimed at a minimum 030 A1200. Had we not been starved after Escom went bankrupt there may still be a small commercial software industry for us (Productivity and games).

[BlackMonk]

You didn't (and don't) see PC developers develop games for the lowest common denominator.  You see them develop games for the smallest minority that has high end machines.

I think over the last 5 years, as developing for both PC and console platforms has become more common to help offset some of the huge development costs, you DO see PC developers develop games for the lowest common denominator.  In this case, it is considered to be game consoles.

If you look around at PC gaming forums you will probably find people lamenting that "PC gaming is dead" and "consoles ruined PC gaming" because many developers seem to concentrate on their console versions and do a half-ass port to the PC platform that performs poorly or has bugs and intrusive DRM.  You'll see games that aren't really tailored to PC-specific control schemes--mouse support just slapped on but the UI is still geared towards a TV and gamepad control.  The graphics will be the same just that sometimes you can run at higher resolutions and maybe enable antialiasing and anisotropic filtering.  The textures won't be any higher detail to account for more video memory available with PCs.  The geometry of the levels or models won't be any higher, either, for the more powerful PC video hardware.  

And really, if you want to maximize your investment nowadays, you'd be stupid not to make sure your game can run on as weak of PC hardware as you possibly can.  Games like Crysis are the exception, not the rule.  The $3 000 000 000 USD game franchise Call of Duty doesn't require much hardware to run and has probably had most of its sales from its console versions (I'm too lazy to try and find NPD breakdowns to confirm).  If your games now cost a few million to create you gotta make that money up somewhere.