You really think PCs could've saved the game industry?

>>3667725
Don't you know that the computer game industry never collapsed? Jesus christ go out and learn something

>>3667725
C64 games are legit fun though

>>3667753
It didn't collapse in the two years between the 2600 and NES, but I think we all know it wouldn't have stayed that way for long.

>>3667762
What are you talking about? The computer industry was strong all through the 80's. Never once did it show any signs of faltering.

Also computers weren't just game machines, they were fully fledged office appliances - that you could play games on. THATS why they never died

>>3667762
You might want to do some research, pal. Computers have always been on the up-and-up since the late 70s

>>3667768
Again, gaming as a whole in the west was revitalized by Nintendo jumpstarting it. You can see this, because PC games took a massive jump in quality after the NES. The fact that PC gaming isn't a dead industry today is because consoles set the standard.

>>3667779
You have to think about this in a different way.
Technology progresses. You can't play a state-of-the-art Macintosh title on an Atari 800.
Similarly, game console popularity provided competition. Why worry about making your games fundamentally different if they still sell well?

File: aygtmb.jpg (37KB, 415x570px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 415x570px

>>3667725
Bait a shit

The real games were on the Apple II. Commodore 64 and Sinclair ZX were cheap toys for children.

Have you played Famicom games from the early 80s? They weren't any better. The real innovations were on Apple, NEC and arcade.

>>3668172
fuck off applefag

Fact: PCs as video game machines were prohibitively expensive to average consumers for the entirety of the /vr/ era. If console gaming had ceased to be a thing in the early 80s, video games would be very very different than we now know them.

Fact: Games crashed twice in a 10 year period. In 1977, and 1983. I know your e-celebs dont talk about the 1977 crash, but it happened. Computers couldn't have done shit.

>>3668191
The 1977 crash happened because the market was flooded with nothing but pong consoles.

Guess what saved it? That's right, the Atari 2600. Computers simply can't compete.

Did the industry actually crash, though?

>>3668217
The ones that crashed were bandwagonners.
Too many wanted a quick buck with games and when that didn't work they bailed out, which resulted in a massive drop in market value.

>>3667768
>The computer industry was strong all through the 80's. Never once did it show any signs of faltering

Huh? The computer industry went through a serious meltdown in 1983-84.

>>3668370
That was just Commodore and IBM killing off competition.

No, no one think that computers could've "saved" the game industry, because first of all, these crash alway happened in the US, not in Europe nor in Japan, second, the US also faced a computer crash (well, more like a price war) which killed off most of their market in 1983~84, and third because it didn't need to be "saved", like >>3668243 said it mostly gave a kick in the ass of half-assed companies that tired to cash-in on the console game market, but arcade game manufacturers would still field great titles in those same years.
>>3668382
>IBM
More like the tons of clone manufacturers that ate IBM's marketshares.

>>3668438
Companies like Tandy killed off their independent product lines and produced IBM clones because those had become the dominant force.

>>3667725
>Famicom
>Family Computer
>com-pu-ter

>>3667768
>Also computers weren't just game machines, they were fully fledged office appliances - that you could play games on. THATS why they never died
You have to be pretty naive to think people bought computers in fucking 1980s to play only video games.

>>3668915
Parents got them for their children so that they could use them for school but all they did was play games.

>>3668915
Except Parents DID buy computers as game machines. Hell some of them were sold in fucking toys'r'us.

>>3668923
Sure, in the late 90s. But we're talking about the early-mid 80s, when a computer with the functionality of a calculator cost thousands of dollars.

>>3668927
>Sure, in the late 90s
You don't seems to understand that they did in the early 80s more than in the 90s : the Commodore VIC-20 and 64 were considered to be a fucking toys by corporates and businesses because they were sold in toys'r'us, and Commodore released games on cartridges as well as joysticks for them. Atari being a game company, it's 8-bit computers were considered to be oversized game consoles, especially their 400 model. Even TI's microcomputer didn't escape that treatment when you consider that most of the softwares released were games and the main storage devices for the computer were cartridges. Hell the Coleco Adams was a fucking colecovision with an adapter to turn it into a computer.
Yes, they were microcomputers, you could do way more than play games on them, but games were one of the main reasons for their sales.

>>3668243
Kind of like the calculator crash of the late 80s when Ti shafted other (better) manufacturers out of popularity

>>3668915
I was saying that the reason computers never died was that they were primary office machines. Also, you look at gaming in the arbitrary way that normies these days do. The "gaming industry" was not in any way the way it is today.

Remember, computer games have existed for almost as long as computers themselves. Consoles just made it easier for normies to get into them

>>3668172
>Apple II
pffft
MSX masterrace

File: 1445494135127.jpg (173KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 800x800px

That must explain why Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake, and Ultima came out on consoles first.

Right OP?

get a clue or get off this board.

>>3669330
>Consoles just made it easier for normies to get into them
Was it really necessary? Children in Europe didn't have problems playing computer games.

>>3668915
>You have to be pretty naive to think people bought computers in fucking 1980s to play only video games.
Except they did though.

>>3668438
>the US also faced a computer crash (well, more like a price war) which killed off most of their market in 1983~84

It was also caused by market oversaturation (way too many competing, incompatible computer architectures), the video game crash (a lot of people bought computers to game on), and people finding out that computers couldn't do all of the miraculous things and change their lives the way marketing claimed.

Listening to Americans talk about microcomputers is just sad.

>>3669550

Unless you're talking about the original Wolfenstein from the early 80s, all of those games you mentioned are post-crash

>>3670218
Go jerk off to your Spectrum tape shovelware, Yuropoor.

>>3669550
>earliest game is from 1992
Literally how fucking dumb are you? Read the OP or fuck off.

>>3670371
Ultima is from 81.

>>3669632
because they had access to cheap, toy-like computers. In the states it was all out or nothing

>>3671447
>because they had access to cheap, toy-like computers. In the states it was...
...the same fucking thing with cheap, toy-like computers like the VIC-20, C=64 and Atari 400.

>>3670209
>way too many competing, incompatible computer architectures
Not really, the same kind of market was present in Europe and Japan, if not even more diverse, and none of them had such crash, they remained healthy until the mid-90s. In 1983~84 it was more of the sudden demultiplication of cheap IBM PC clones -- why buy any other computer for home when you can buy a Hyundai/Samsung/Zenith/Compaq/Philips(or Magnavox as we're talking abouthte US market)/Tulip/Tandy/LeadingEdge/Victor (I don't know how they got way from being sued by RCA or JVC with such a name)/Whatever that would do the exact same thing as the REAL COMPUTER at the office? Yeah, you could alway buy a C=64 for the kid seeing how cheap it is, or maybe an Apple II because "that's what they have at school". I totally agree with the other points though.

>>3671492
There was diversity in the Japanese computer market in the early 80s with companies like Sony, Casio, Toshiba, Hitachi or Mitsubishi fielding their own computer lines. By the mid of the decade however the big three (NEC, Sharp and Fujitsu) controlled the market while the others rallied around the MSX architecture which filled the role of a toy computer.
Commodore also had an initial foothold with the VIC-20 (1001) but mess up with its successors.

Markets in Europe were more fragmented so a model could rule one country while being irrelevant in the next.

>>3671531
>the MSX architecture which filled the role of a toy computer.
Some manufacturers did release special models for more serious tasks though, mostly National/Panasonic with their word-processor MSX models and Sony (and Philips in Europe) with their video-editing-oriented models (damn sexy models if you ask me), though that was more of a thing with the arrival of the MSX 2 standard and it's higher resolution modes.
Anyway, by 1986~87, Hitachi did try to field their own 16-bit architecture, but it flopped quite hard though (not enough advertising?).
>Commodore also had an initial foothold with the VIC-20 (1001) but mess up with its successors.
Yeah, that was some pretty big jewing. Releasing the MAX as they did was a mistake -- the market was waiting for a new computer, but they got a crappy console/computer hybrid with way less RAM and a worse keyboard than the VIC-20, as well as no BASIC in ROM.

>>3670454
The original Ultima doesn't hold up all that well, you kind of had to play it at the time to appreciate it fully

>>3671469
The C64 was the modern day equivalent of $1500 when it was released. it wasn't cheap.
The Atari 400 was nearly $2000, in the same way.

The Zx was the equivalent of $500

>>3671557
>Hitachi did try to field their own 16-bit architecture, but it flopped quite hard though (not enough advertising?).
Do you need to advertise a microprocessor architecture? It probably wasn't interesting enough to use instead of Motorola or intel and then RISC processors were the new hotness.

>>3671567
1 and 3 are alright. But the discussion was about the time when they were released.

>>3671606
Americans have more disposable income on average than Yuropoors.

>>3671897
That doesn't make the massive price difference moot.
Look how many more amstrads & BBC micros were sold versus Atari & Commodore systems per head

>>3667725
Nintendo introduced cutesy platform games meant for 5 years olds.

computers introduced adventure games, role playing games, strategy games, city builders and economy management games, first person shooters, then ultimately open world and sandbox games.

Your problem is that you expect the C64 and ZX to have Super Mario and Castlevania and Final Fantasy, and whatever indie-game-developed-in-a-week c64 title you tried does not measure up to that.

And the "game industry" never died. It just temporarily folded due to mismanagement and getting flooded with crap titles. And even that only happened in America. Rest of the world was not affected the slightest. Whichever company would've released the next heavily marketed console with the better graphics, would've become the next "savior" of the industry.

>>3671606
You shouldn't just say "ZX", you should specify whether you mean the ZX80 or the Spectrum.

>>3668915
When we got a C64 the only thing we played on it for months were games. The highest level command we learned was how to type in LOAD and press return.

File: Zilog_Z-80_Microprocessor_ad_May_1976.jpg (840KB, 2460x1632px) Image search: [Google]

840KB, 2460x1632px

>>3671615
Architecture in this sentence mean't computer line. 2 computers could use the same CPU architecture but still have 2 different architecture because of the bus, memory map, etc...
Also
>Do you need to advertise a microprocessor architecture?
Yes every CPU manufacturers advertised their stuff, to manufacturers and electronic engineers/hobbyists, but they did advertise.
>>3671606
But they WERE considered to be cheap, so cheap that the disk drives costed more than the actual computers. So cheap it wasn't considered to be out of place to sell them in toys'r'us and other toys stores. So cheap they sold several millions of computers in the US alone. It wasn't something only rich famillies could afford, it was something that even middle class famillies could get.
>the Zx
there are 3 different computers with the name Zx. Only one of them is so cheap it's ridiculous (the Zx80). The others have a price closer to other microcomputers. Of course the Zx80 could barely handle video games.
Also, don't forget that one of the most popular computer in Europe was the C=64 and that the Speccy only had a good foothold in the UK and nowhere else. 8-bit Atari computers also saw some popularity in Europe.
>>3672312
>Look how many more amstrads & BBC micros were sold versus Atari & Commodore systems per head
Except Atari and Commodore sold more 8bit computers than Amstrad and Acorn, the C64 is the computer model that sold the most unit in the world, and a third of these sales have been in the US between 1982 and 1985~1986. Amstrad only sold about 3 millions of CPC, that's less than Atari's 4 millions.

>>3669632
Computers were always more popular for Yupoors and Aussies because electronics were always more expensive in comparison to the US and japanese markets. Games cost an arm and a leg more than the yanks ever had to pay and computer games were cheap as chips in comparison.

>>3672572
I didn't see any Hitachi computers that fit.
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%91%E3%83%BC%E3%82%BD%E3%83%8A%E3%83%AB%E3%82%B3%E3%83%B3%E3%83%94%E3%83%A5%E3%83%BC%E3%82%BF%E8%A3%BD%E5%93%81%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7
>H68/TR - 1977年
>ベーシックマスター/LII,LII2,LIII,Jr,L3Mk5 - 1978年
>MB-S1 - 1984年
>ベーシックマスター16000,B-16/32- 1982年
>Prius - 1994年~2007年

>>3672725
Oh, well, I was pretty sure I saw some advertising for a 16bit Hitachi computer posted on /vr/ once.

>>3667725

That line from Monkey Island wasn't a joke; computer games almost never cost more than $20. The budget titles could have a list price of $3. And you got what you pay for.

>>3668172
>Commodore 64 game were pretty decent, even if they had support from shitty packagers like GameTek.

>>3671897
For example, by 1978 Americans could buy fully functional, preassembled computers with disk drives such as the Apple II and TRS-80. This was at a time when Clive Sinclair was still peddling calculator kits.

>>3672329
>Your problem is that you expect the C64 and ZX to have Super Mario and Castlevania and Final Fantasy, and whatever indie-game-developed-in-a-week c64 title you tried does not measure up to that

>Japanese console game
>made by professional programmers, musicians, and graphics artists with a year of time to work on it
>a review board had to certify the game as ready for release
>European computer game
>usually banged out by some teenager in his living room in three weeks

>>3672572
>But they WERE considered to be cheap, so cheap that the disk drives costed more than the actual computers
Exception: The Apple II which had the cheapest disk drives available (just $400).

>>3667725
>i blog about using shitty emulators because some kid on the internet who made up a story is "people". Anyone over the age of 12 is out of their mind.
PC gaming has been a major thing since the 64 and ][. Sounds like this may be more than just another case of a kid parroting bullshit. You might literally be retarded.

>>3676118
>>usually banged out by some teenager in his living room in three weeks
don't forget they usually ripped off an existing console game.

Yuropoors were pretty good at music composition and graphics effects, but terrible at designing a game.

>>3672572
>the Speccy only had a good foothold in the UK and nowhere else
Nowhere else in Europe, maybe. But it was popular in the Commonwealth, along with the ZX80.

>>3676565
>>3672572
What could the ZX80 even do? It doesn't even seem suited as a calculator.

>>3676576
You could do quite a lot in its BASIC, actually. Well, a lot for such a cheap computer.

>>3667725
No

File: Blade_Warrior-6[1].png (18KB, 576x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 576x400px

I don't know if it would have save it or not, but damn I love these games.
I didn't get to play them back in the day but through emulation I've played a lot of C64/Amiga games.
They tend to be way more experimental and niche. The controls were a bit more wonky, but damn do they have character and I wish other Americans would check them out.
I just finished playing pic related recently. There is like 0 info on the net about it. So I tracked down its manual and beat it in about 2-3 days. It was a really fun experience.

>>3667725
no

>>3676996
Stop bumping that thread only 2 hours after the last post, /vr/ is slow and such threads don't need contant bumping (well it doesn't need bumping at all seeing how stupid OP's question is).

>>3678547
There's nothing to add in this thread anymore, stop bumping it and let it die.

>>3676634
>There is like 0 info on the net about it
The Cinematic Platformer Compendium mentions it.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=989633

>tfw you will never dial into a BBS to download pirated games

>>3668172
What games did the Apple have that were actually decent, or not completely overshadowed by better ports on better computers?

I didn't dislike the Apple or anything, but I sure as shit didn't buy one over the Commodore 64 in my youth, especially not at the price they were charging.

>>3680237
I remember early Ultimas were shit on the 64. No sound in 2 I think and slow as fuck in 3. But yeah, on games and price the 64 beat Apple hands down across the board.

File: 2600_JumpVCS_Set.jpg (101KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 500x376px

>>3668243
>>3668217

There were more 2600 games physically released in 2015 than in 1985.

>>3681334
Uh, yeah. 1985 was during the middle of the video game crash.

>>3681334
Because the market was over-saturated with games from the previous years.
All the companies that quit had sold their stocks and thereby made it harder for others to sell new games. This was part of an avalanche that led to the crash of the market.

>>3681334
There were also more shitposts on /vr/ in 2015 than in 1985.

>>3668217
Only the American home console market.

>>3680719
Of all the C64 Ultimas, only 4 is a really good conversion worth playing. 2 and 3 are sloppy and missing stuff, and the later ones have brutal load time/disk swapping.

The Apple II Ultimas don't have any music, but disk access is light years and miles faster than the C64.

>>3682568
What about Ultima 3 gold? It's a fan release that fixed various issues.
>the Apple II Ultimas don't have any music
Only if you don't have a Mockingboard. 5 even supported two of them.

>>3682568
>my apples don't have any mockingboards
FTFY

The C64 was slow as fuck without rolling your own loader. However it was nice to be able to run code on the drive and let two drives copy shit without going though the console.

>>3676581
With only 1 kB of RAM? That's not a lot of BASIC you can write.
With ten characters per line you get just 100 lines of code.

>>3682568
U4 and 5 on the Apple II have custom routines that allows lightning-fast disk access. One of the single most painful things about C64 Ultima (and for that matter any larger RPG such as the SSI Gold Box series) is the load times, although 5 and 6 do support the C128 which allows you to have music and also much improved load time (only if you have a 1571 drive of course). U4 also doesn't have any fast loader routines built in.

I think that U4 and up also support two disk drives in which case you leave the Overworld disk in drive 1 and flip the dungeon/town disk(s) in drive 2.

>>3682742
>not getting a ram expansion
pleb
>not modding for more ram
fucking pleb

>>3683060
Ultima 5 does have a fastloader in C64 mode, although it's tied to the NTSC timing which means...sorry, Yuropoors.