Why did the CD32 fail? - Page 3

AmigaHope · 13 November 2006, 07:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zetr0

cannot name one game that used the akiko chip (chunky to planner / vice versa).

Wing Commander CD32 used it, and is to my knowledge the only game that did. Unfortunately the only way to get WC CD32 was in certain software bundles sold with the console. It was never sold separately. There's now a great patch for it available that lets it run properly on all AGA Amigas and it's quite nice. =)

Fred the Fop · 13 November 2006, 10:26

Hey you forgot the 3DO, AmigaHope.

AmigaHope · 13 November 2006, 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred the Duck

Hey you forgot the 3DO, AmigaHope.

The 3DO Interactive Multiplayer cost USD$700 in 1993 (roughly UKP420 at late 1993 exchange rates, although if I recall correctly the price in England was closer to UKP500 but I can't find documentation on this), which basically disqualified it out of the gate.

killergorilla · 13 November 2006, 13:13

The CD32 had zero appeal.

Photon · 13 November 2006, 13:29

All these people had bought Amigas. Then comes Commodore with an expensive product that doesn't do anything new. Apart from the odd small article and ad in CU Amiga, I never heard of it.

Galahad/FLT · 13 November 2006, 14:47

It failed for a number of reasons.

1). Looks
2). Timing
3). Hardware
4). Software support
5). Price

Looks
-----
Frankly, it looked like a pile of crap, which was a shame, because it wasn't in comparison to what was around at the time. The CDTV looked pretty cool, the CD32 just looked cheap and terrible. Take a look at all the competition at the time, CD32 certainly was no catwalk model.

Timing
------
Coincided with the Sega Mega-CD, and frankly, if thats the machine you want to compete against, then you're not setting your sights too high! The Mega CD died a death, wasn't a standalone machine and next to the CD32 was rubbish. But, that didn't stop the Amiga press or Commodore bleating on about how much better it was than the Mega CD! Only just around the corner was Sonys first hardware effort, the CD32 was dead before it got going.

Hardware
---------
Had the CD32 been two years earlier, then it would have stood a bloody good chance of succeeding. It would have been significantly better specced than anything else on the market at the time, lots of developers were still very pro-Amiga and would have jumped at the chance to develop better looking and sounding software for the machine, and it would have been in a position to have such good sales and software that the launch of the Playstation would have harmed it but still have been financially viable to continue with
CD32 stuff. However, we know that the CD32 was too late, and other than the Akkiko chip (which I'm still to see produce anything, and if it was ever used, then 'wow', what a waste of time, because I've never seen the benefits). It seriously needed some fast ram as standard to help make it better, 2meg of chip ram was a serious space issue. At least 1meg of fast ram would have done wonders for the machine. Basically it was a less useful cutdown version of the A12oo. Had Commodore made it significantly more powerful than the A12oo, Amiga owners would more likely have owned both, but once you added a CD drive to your A12oo, there really was no logical reason to own a CD32.

Other than that, sticking with the same 8bit sound was a mistake, but the biggest mistake was upping the amount of displayable bitplanes, but not seriously increasing the power of the blitter to cope with the extra graphics.

Software Support
-----------------
During the late 80's and early 90's, Commodore got it so completly and utterly right. Screen Gems, Batman, Flights of Fantasy packs, all helped propel the Amiga to the top of most kids Xmas lists. Psygnosis were virtually built on the back of the Amiga. Pre-Playstation, 99% of their money was generated by Amiga software, and that money put them in great stead that Sony ended up buying them and they were one of the lead developers for Playstation.

Why the FUCK didn't Commodore have the sense to involve the likes of Psygnosis, Bitmap Brothers, right from the off? They didn't really need to worry about development tools like Sony did, because Psygnosis and the likes of them already had all the necessary tools to develop on Amiga, so the CD32 was already catered for. A machine in part lives and dies on the quality of its software. Simply rehashing existing titles with the added 'bonus' of an extra scrolling backdrop (wow!) isn't developing a killer title.

Price
-----

As mentioned, lots of manufacturers sell at a loss to promote the console. Commodore couldn't afford to do that, but the CD32 could have been significantly cheaper than it was. It should have been in every Amiga A5oo/A12oo owners homes as well as their Amigas because of it being so cheap.

In conclusion: Commodore only have themselves to blame. Ever since they didn't have a replacement for the Commodore 64 they were struggling. Amiga Inc came along at the right time, they were lucky, because they didn't have anything before they came along.

Then when its obvioust that the Amiga needs a serious kick up the arse to keep it fresh, they wait 2 years too long, and its successor isn't sufficiently improved to really make people go WOW like the original Amiga did. To be honest, the new Amiga should have at LEAST been the equal or less of the first Playstation. Seeing the first Playstation games at ECTS all those years ago, gave me the same feelings when I saw the Amiga for the first time.

The CD32 wasn't a terrible machine, it was actually ok, but unfortunately, its not good enough in the hardware wars to be simply 'ok', and it seems that Commodore never strived to be any better than that.

TikTok · 13 November 2006, 15:16

I think the CD32 failed because it was not innovative. Sure, it had a CD-ROM. But what was on those disks? Floppy ports with some longer intro animations and some CD-quality music. I think many people at the time genuinely thought that would be enough, but of course 3D was emerging on the PC and I think that is what finished off the Amigas.

Pyromania · 13 November 2006, 15:47

Well, in the USA CD32 failed because no one knew about it outside of Amiga circles a few glowing articles in Playboy magazine.

wanderer · 13 November 2006, 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyromania

Well, in the USA CD32 failed because no one knew about it outside of Amiga circles a few glowing articles in Playboy magazine.

Playboy???

shillard · 14 November 2006, 00:32

Not familiar with that publication.

Is it anything like "Nuns and Nazis"?

Slayer · 14 November 2006, 06:46

huh?

It didn't fail... I own 9 of them...

Fred the Fop · 14 November 2006, 08:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

It failed for a number of reasons.

1). Looks
2). Timing
3). Hardware
4). Software support
5). Price

Looks
-----
Frankly, it looked like a pile of crap, which was a shame, because it wasn't in comparison to what was around at the time. The CDTV looked pretty cool, the CD32 just looked cheap and terrible. Take a look at all the competition at the time, CD32 certainly was no catwalk model.

Come on!! The CDTV looked like a goddamn VCR! No personality whatsoever. I do agree that the CD32 was nothing to gawk at. It was a truly bland and forgettable design.

EmuChicken · 14 November 2006, 11:04

CDTV... VCR? Erm, anyone seen the PS3? Its pretty much the same size as a VCR put on its side! :P

... CD32 - why get one of these when you can play the same games on an A500? ... bleh... I thought the newer "CD32" speedball 2 looked like tosh... nothing beats the good old metal colours with blue and red helmets (bright red, wtf was up with the bitmap bros?... ah.,. same goes for chaos engine aga... bleh)

Mark Thompson · 14 November 2006, 11:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by shillard

Not familiar with that publication.

Is it anything like "Nuns and Nazis"?

It's a bit like a o mag only soft for men or a men's magazine like Heat if you've heard of that just revealing pictures of women in it really.

Galahad/FLT · 14 November 2006, 12:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred the Duck

Come on!! The CDTV looked like a goddamn VCR! No personality whatsoever. I do agree that the CD32 was nothing to gawk at. It was a truly bland and forgettable design.

Looked more like a CD player for a hifi separates unit, but I'd prefer that sitting under my TV than a CD32. CDTV was well engineered and looked quite nice, I just can't fathom the complete and utter design failure that is the CD32 coming from the same company!

musashi5150 · 14 November 2006, 17:15

I have a CDTV sitting under the TV in my lounge and it doesn't look out of place. The vast majority of visitors assume it's a DVD player... and it's less hassle not to correct them

AmigaHope · 14 November 2006, 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

Looked more like a CD player for a hifi separates unit, but I'd prefer that sitting under my TV than a CD32. CDTV was well engineered and looked quite nice, I just can't fathom the complete and utter design failure that is the CD32 coming from the same company!

IMHO the CD32 looked a LOT like a somewhat boxier version of the original Genesis/Megadrive.

It wasn't that bad, just not very sleek and a bit cheap-looking.

Tony Landais · 14 November 2006, 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

Looked more like a CD player for a hifi separates unit, but I'd prefer that sitting under my TV than a CD32. CDTV was well engineered and looked quite nice, I just can't fathom the complete and utter design failure that is the CD32 coming from the same company!

The look of the CDTV was the main strategic reason of it's failure. During it's development a survey revealed a machine that would look like a computer would never find it's place in a TV room, or living room.... So they decided to design the CDTV like a hifi machine and to sell it with video tape recorders basically without ever mentioning the word computer. Phillips had the very same strategy... probably sounded like a good idea at that time

... So in opposition the CD32 was designed like a real game machine. And the CD32 did much better than the CDTV.

But blaming design is a bit to simple if you look at the NES or the C64 and their success or compare a PS2 and game cube design and see wich one killed the other without even mentioning the Xtra large-BOX.

I am afraid it's mostly based on titles without reducing all other factors to zero of course. CD32 was released several years after the SNES and still couldn't propose titles of such quality...

Charlie · 14 November 2006, 19:13

All of the above to some extent...

C= as usual tried hard to bugger it up.
As I understand it the CD32 was a sucess until rumors of the upcoming PlayStation killed it off.
Better support.
Better games.
Far better hardware.
Game Over.

Mark Thompson · 15 November 2006, 11:36

I'm looking at a December 1993 catalogue of Silica which says The Amiga Guide on the front and when I look at the 1994 one as well as the 1995 one I see that they started to stock other systems such as Sega. I guess they must've died with the Amiga takeover in 1995 even though they stocked their new systems that year, but anyway if you wanted to buy the FMV module in there it is priced at 199 pounds and the console pack itself was 289 pounds.

View Poll Results: Why did the CD32 fail?
It was too late for Commodore and/or the Amiga	68	35.23%
No cd-rom promptly available for A1200	7	3.63%
No SX-1/SX-32 type expansion promptly available	1	0.52%
Low quality "exclusive" software	41	21.24%
Low quantity software	12	6.22%
Poor Commodore marketing	37	19.17%
It was a success. Stupid poll.	6	3.11%
Microsoft conspiracy	6	3.11%
Low quality bundled joypad	0	0%
No room in existing console market	6	3.11%
Bad press reviews	0	0%
No Full Motion Video support/availability	0	0%
Because people thought it was "another CDTV"	6	3.11%
Bad looks	3	1.55%
Voters: 193. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
D3D9: Initialization Fail	MrGimper	support.WinUAE	10	11 September 2010 21:41
A600HD fail at boot	jolly11	support.Hardware	7	06 June 2010 04:03
Cracks that FAIL!	TCD	Amiga scene	59	29 September 2009 20:00
Some games fail to run	Aminut33	New to Emulation or Amiga scene	0	03 August 2006 20:53
C:Version fail?	DDNI	project.ClassicWB	5	13 July 2006 11:30

13 November 2006, 10:26	#42
Fred the Fop flaming faggot Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Versailles Age: 55 Posts: 2,808	Hey you forgot the 3DO, AmigaHope.

13 November 2006, 13:13	#44
killergorilla Lesser Talent Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: UK Age: 42 Posts: 7,957	The CD32 had zero appeal.

13 November 2006, 13:29	#45
Photon Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Eksjö / Sweden Posts: 5,602	All these people had bought Amigas. Then comes Commodore with an expensive product that doesn't do anything new. Apart from the odd small article and ad in CU Amiga, I never heard of it.

13 November 2006, 14:47	#46
Galahad/FLT Going nowhere Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: United Kingdom Age: 50 Posts: 8,986	It failed for a number of reasons. 1). Looks 2). Timing 3). Hardware 4). Software support 5). Price Looks ----- Frankly, it looked like a pile of crap, which was a shame, because it wasn't in comparison to what was around at the time. The CDTV looked pretty cool, the CD32 just looked cheap and terrible. Take a look at all the competition at the time, CD32 certainly was no catwalk model. Timing ------ Coincided with the Sega Mega-CD, and frankly, if thats the machine you want to compete against, then you're not setting your sights too high! The Mega CD died a death, wasn't a standalone machine and next to the CD32 was rubbish. But, that didn't stop the Amiga press or Commodore bleating on about how much better it was than the Mega CD! Only just around the corner was Sonys first hardware effort, the CD32 was dead before it got going. Hardware --------- Had the CD32 been two years earlier, then it would have stood a bloody good chance of succeeding. It would have been significantly better specced than anything else on the market at the time, lots of developers were still very pro-Amiga and would have jumped at the chance to develop better looking and sounding software for the machine, and it would have been in a position to have such good sales and software that the launch of the Playstation would have harmed it but still have been financially viable to continue with CD32 stuff. However, we know that the CD32 was too late, and other than the Akkiko chip (which I'm still to see produce anything, and if it was ever used, then 'wow', what a waste of time, because I've never seen the benefits). It seriously needed some fast ram as standard to help make it better, 2meg of chip ram was a serious space issue. At least 1meg of fast ram would have done wonders for the machine. Basically it was a less useful cutdown version of the A12oo. Had Commodore made it significantly more powerful than the A12oo, Amiga owners would more likely have owned both, but once you added a CD drive to your A12oo, there really was no logical reason to own a CD32. Other than that, sticking with the same 8bit sound was a mistake, but the biggest mistake was upping the amount of displayable bitplanes, but not seriously increasing the power of the blitter to cope with the extra graphics. Software Support ----------------- During the late 80's and early 90's, Commodore got it so completly and utterly right. Screen Gems, Batman, Flights of Fantasy packs, all helped propel the Amiga to the top of most kids Xmas lists. Psygnosis were virtually built on the back of the Amiga. Pre-Playstation, 99% of their money was generated by Amiga software, and that money put them in great stead that Sony ended up buying them and they were one of the lead developers for Playstation. Why the FUCK didn't Commodore have the sense to involve the likes of Psygnosis, Bitmap Brothers, right from the off? They didn't really need to worry about development tools like Sony did, because Psygnosis and the likes of them already had all the necessary tools to develop on Amiga, so the CD32 was already catered for. A machine in part lives and dies on the quality of its software. Simply rehashing existing titles with the added 'bonus' of an extra scrolling backdrop (wow!) isn't developing a killer title. Price ----- As mentioned, lots of manufacturers sell at a loss to promote the console. Commodore couldn't afford to do that, but the CD32 could have been significantly cheaper than it was. It should have been in every Amiga A5oo/A12oo owners homes as well as their Amigas because of it being so cheap. In conclusion: Commodore only have themselves to blame. Ever since they didn't have a replacement for the Commodore 64 they were struggling. Amiga Inc came along at the right time, they were lucky, because they didn't have anything before they came along. Then when its obvioust that the Amiga needs a serious kick up the arse to keep it fresh, they wait 2 years too long, and its successor isn't sufficiently improved to really make people go WOW like the original Amiga did. To be honest, the new Amiga should have at LEAST been the equal or less of the first Playstation. Seeing the first Playstation games at ECTS all those years ago, gave me the same feelings when I saw the Amiga for the first time. The CD32 wasn't a terrible machine, it was actually ok, but unfortunately, its not good enough in the hardware wars to be simply 'ok', and it seems that Commodore never strived to be any better than that.

13 November 2006, 15:16	#47
TikTok Registered User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Malayasia Age: 43 Posts: 657	I think the CD32 failed because it was not innovative. Sure, it had a CD-ROM. But what was on those disks? Floppy ports with some longer intro animations and some CD-quality music. I think many people at the time genuinely thought that would be enough, but of course 3D was emerging on the PC and I think that is what finished off the Amigas.

13 November 2006, 15:47	#48
Pyromania Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 3,375	Well, in the USA CD32 failed because no one knew about it outside of Amiga circles a few glowing articles in Playboy magazine.

14 November 2006, 00:32	#50
shillard Registered User Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Newcastle / Australia Posts: 143	Not familiar with that publication. Is it anything like "Nuns and Nazis"?

14 November 2006, 06:46	#51
Slayer Amiga Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: New Zealand Age: 56 Posts: 695	huh? It didn't fail... I own 9 of them...

14 November 2006, 11:04	#53
EmuChicken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nagoya, Japan (moved!) Age: 41 Posts: 746	CDTV... VCR? Erm, anyone seen the PS3? Its pretty much the same size as a VCR put on its side! :P ... CD32 - why get one of these when you can play the same games on an A500? ... bleh... I thought the newer "CD32" speedball 2 looked like tosh... nothing beats the good old metal colours with blue and red helmets (bright red, wtf was up with the bitmap bros?... ah.,. same goes for chaos engine aga... bleh)

14 November 2006, 17:15	#56
musashi5150 move.w #$4489,$dff07e Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Norfolk, UK Age: 42 Posts: 2,351	I have a CDTV sitting under the TV in my lounge and it doesn't look out of place. The vast majority of visitors assume it's a DVD player... and it's less hassle not to correct them

14 November 2006, 19:13	#59
Charlie . . Mouse . . Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Nowhere Age: 55 Posts: 1,792	All of the above to some extent... C= as usual tried hard to bugger it up. As I understand it the CD32 was a sucess until rumors of the upcoming PlayStation killed it off. Better support. Better games. Far better hardware. Game Over.

15 November 2006, 11:36	#60
Mark Thompson Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Runcorn, Cheshire (UK). Age: 45 Posts: 78	I'm looking at a December 1993 catalogue of Silica which says The Amiga Guide on the front and when I look at the 1994 one as well as the 1995 one I see that they started to stock other systems such as Sega. I guess they must've died with the Amiga takeover in 1995 even though they stocked their new systems that year, but anyway if you wanted to buy the FMV module in there it is priced at 199 pounds and the console pack itself was 289 pounds.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)