Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Was Re: BattleMech Game ... MS-DOS Vs Amiga
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:00:14 -0700
Distribution: rec.games.frp.misc

In article <1992Sep1.111923.10488@waikato.ac.nz>, mperry@waikato.ac.nz writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.194529.6851@pimacc.pima.edu>, ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
>> In article <NIGEL.92Aug27190943@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov>, nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov writes:
>>> 
>>> In article    From: kabreuer@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Klaus Breuer)
>>> 
>>>>   Hi everyone!
>>> 
>>>>   I'm busy translating the BattleTech game for the PC, as our group doesn't
>>>>   meet very often. And yes, I know about Infocom's games, but I was looking
>>>>   for a Strategy version closely following the board game.
>>> 
>>>>   Not having found one, I'm writing my own.
>>>>   But surely, I'm not the only one with this problem? Except for 'MechForce'
>>>>   on the (ugh) Amiga, are there any other programs like that around?
>>> 
>>> It is simply amazing the number of PC owners that are so insecure with
>>> their "state of the art" 486 machines that they must bash the 1985
>>> vintage technology Amigas...to which most Amiga owners respond "I spent
>>> $699 for a multi-tasking, multi-media platform that plays some great
>>> games...how much did you spend on your 486/SVGA/SoundBlaster game machine?"
>>> 
>> 
>> You mean a $699 system that hardly any game companies support don't you?
>> (Still waiting for WC or Ultima 7? Don't hold your breath!)  
>> 
>> Heck, Lord British is a self-admitted Mac-fanatic & he won't port them
>> over to that because he knows there's not enough of a market. (He said
>> IBM is 80% of the game market. I wonder how much the Amiga is?)
> Get real!
> The Amiga had in '85:
> - good graphics
> - good sound
> - 32 bit processing
> - a good price
> 
> IBM at the same stage had:
> - crap graphics (when it was VGA it was so slow!)
> - sound? what sound?
> - the standard was '286 which was more expensive than the amiga or overpriced
>   '386s
> 
> At this stage who had the game market? amiga price and power walked all over
> the competition. If you wanted a halfway decent game for its price you went 
> for an amiga.

In the US Amiga never had nuthin! It took forever for any comapnies to sup-
portit. Even Electronic Arts, which loudly proclaimed the Amiga as their
macchine of the future, never really supported it & then went IBM. Face it,
the 1000 was lame. Not enough RAM.

> 
> Then Commodore bought out Amiga, and the Amiga has had little or no development
> snice. Sure IBM may have 80% of the games market, but of that 80%, how much is
> total crap? Just like somthing like 80% of business code running is COBOL, yet
> how much of this COBOL code was actually written in COBOL (and not
> electronically converted from another language). 

Commodore bought out Amiga long before it hit the market. You are right about
Commodore being the cause of alot of the problems with the Amiga. That comp.
could screw up *anything*. I imagine that the same % of stuff is crap for
both systems. With the IBM you get a helluva' lot more choice.

> 
> What is happening is people are comparing the amiga (as it was in 85 and still
> is) with the normal minimum of 25Mhz '386 SX with 80Meg HD and 2Meg RAM with
> the Amiga 500 with 1 Meg RAM, no HD and 7.1Mhz processing - or even worse, a 
> '486 50Mhz with 300+ Meg HD and 8+ Meg Ram. 
> 
>

Well the 500 is what costs $699US, right? You sure as hell aren't going to
get a 3000 for that price. Besides, if the 500 is what the companies are
writing games for it doesn't matter how much better a system you can get.
They won't write games for it. (Another disadvantage of owning Commodore
products) The game companies will write games for the latest IBM's but
will go for the lowest common denominator wrt Commodore products. It's
not fair but it's a fact of life.

 
> With an accelerator card the amiga 500 can out perform a 33Mhz 386 SX.
> Not bad considering its lack of development.
> How many new games get released for the amiga per month? about 50 in NZ.
> Not bad for having no market and NZ being such a tiny drop in the world market.

Well, in the US, (where most of the market is) the sales of IBM games swamp
everything else.

> 
> If I purchased a computer today I would purchase a IBM clone, not because it is
> better, has better games etc, but because it would be more useful for work.
> As standard, IBM clones still have shit sound, and graphics that is so slow
> that you may as well take a break, only now is IBM graphics starting to achieve
> Amiga quality as standard. Amiga, with no development is still
> reasonable as it give reasonable graphics, reasonable sound as standard
> (although it is so slow at 7.1Mhz (500) alongside others

You just answered the gaming companies main question. You would buy an IBM.
They don't care why. They care which machine is best. All they care about
is which platform will bring the highest return on investment. The platform
is IBM.