Was the C64 good or bad for the games industry?

[AestheticDebris]

Originally Posted by pandy71

Issue is C64 was never designed around FDD (similarly to other comparable machines) and CPC/Atari ST are designed for FDD.

The CPC wasn't really designed around a disk drive (indeed one of the annoyances is that it's DOS is designed to map onto the Tape API calls and this it lacks decent random access support). It was easier to add disk support to the Z80 based machines, however, because they use a separate (and thus mostly empty) address space for IO devices, so it's a lot easier to map in some unexpected hardware into system address space without causing conflicts.

[dreadnought]

So, 11 pages in and this is just the same like every other thread of its ilk, best summed up with a wiseman quote of "Hell hath no fury like the C64/CPC/Atari fan scorned". And if there's one thing which can unite these folks, it's dumping on ZX Spectrum.

I dunno, it always seemed to me that it'd be much easier (and nicer) to simply admit that every micro had its weak points (yes, even the mighty Commie & 6128) and that in the end they were all awesome nonetheless. But, eh, scrap these hippie notions and let's create yet another bitter-tinged megathread.

[CCCP alert]

The only thing these threads prove is people ignore the facts and carry on with no change.

No point in x is better than y threads BUT the answer to the question in the thread title is "no". Restrictive monopolistic tactics and impenetrable access to hardware of consoles was the problem. 99% of SNES gams etc are the same old ideas done to death. True innovation only came from open access home computer bedroom coding scene. There are easily more AAA quality games on computers with decent enough hardware design than any comparable console bit wise.

Don't really care what people like just don't spout idiotic bullshit like loading BBC/Speccy etc games from a Boots/W H Smiths tape deck £15 is more reliable than from dedicated hardwired fixed level tones tape decks etc. If you prefer the ST to A500 etc then great, enjoy, just don't confuse myths with facts or think any "8 bit" except PC Engine was relevant and not for budget demographic by Jan 1988. Arcade games from 1985 onward (Gradius) needed A1000 levels of oomph anyway.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by CCCP alert

FACTS!!!11!

So, yeah, as I was saying...

[CCCP alert]

Originally Posted by pandy71

Issue is C64 was never designed around FDD (similarly to other comparable machines) and CPC/Atari ST are designed for FDD. All computers not designed around FDD usually use FDD with dedicated uC/uP so separate computer. FDD nature is or you are using DMA controller to push bytes or you are using some FDC with some FIFO and you are able to do some software byte transfers (2/4/8uS per bit lead to interrupt rate 16/32/64uS)

Except the C64 has software turbo loaders for tape and disk that push the performance way above the mythical speed of C64 IEC hence an original release of Firebird's Elite loads in about 90 secs on C64. More than acceptable as this includes loading in a bitmap screen IIRC. BBC only had small games so sure it feels fast, try loading the colour version of Elite that was more than 32k compatible original

By the time the loading screen for CPC Ikari has loaded the C64 version is ready to play.

Even in 84 you had Turbotape 64 Kernal wedge to use yourself, which is twice as fast as ZX/CPC loaders.

[AestheticDebris]

Originally Posted by CCCP alert

just don't spout idiotic bullshit like loading BBC/Speccy etc games from a Boots/W H Smiths tape deck £15 is more reliable than from dedicated hardwired fixed level tones tape decks etc.

The C64 datasette is level triggered, so fixed level tones matter. The Speccy and Amstrad (not sure about the BBC) were edge triggered. Edge detection is a lot more reliable and a lot less sensitive to variations in volume. Just because you think it must be idiotic, doesn't make it so.

[Megalomaniac]

CPC Ikari Warriors is clearly an unusually slow loading special case, certainly not a typical experience for Amstrad owners, especially if they had disk drives too (and a CPC6128 with monitor cost about the same as a 1541 alone). I certainly know people who had more problems loading tapes on the C64 than the Spectrum, though I'm willing to assume that they simply got a relatively dud C2N.

Likewise the games in that 3D C64 v Spectrum / Amstrad video are a very cherry-picked unrepresentative comparison. Now compare the Freescape games, or Fairlight (which averages pretty well on Lemon64 but is laughable next to the Spectrum version, and monochrome - C64 Head Over Heels is a better attempt at the genre, but still slower than the Spectrum version and not as good looking as the Amstrad one), or even Mercenary (a 65x original, though Atari rather than C64) which is noticeably quicker on the Z80s. Some people are very selective as to their 'facts'.

I'm not sure you needed a 16-bit by as early as January 1988. Very few games made use of the potential of those systems, especially in terms of arcade style games, especially in terms of the Amiga's potential. That month's Zzap! had a brilliant Christmas rush of games, they reviewed Cosmic Causeway, Skate or Die, Combat School, Driller, Tetris, Octapolis, Yeager AFT, Alternative World Games, RISK, Spore, Airborne Ranger, Xor (criminally underrated by them at 61% IMHO).... (and mostly on tape as well as disk). Likewise Crash! or Amtix! - there certainly wasn't the same quality being released in a single month for ST by then, let alone Amiga - especially as 16-bit games cost twice as much as 8-bit ones. Plus, it wasn't really clear which 16-bit would be on top by then - the £500 Amiga was clearly more powerful than the £300 ST, but was it clear that enough developers would fully exploit it? I think my attitude at that time would have been, if you had one of what were the 'big three' 8-bits here, to stick with it for 6-12 months and wait and see what games come next for the 16-bits - there were still new games pushing the 8-bits further, with new potential being hit in almost any genre. Even £300 in 1988 was equivalent of nearly £1000 today, not being willing or able to spent all that so early in a machines life wasn't 'budget' thinking. Maybe you wanted to put that money towards a car, or a mortgage, or a holiday instead? For most people who didn't need a specific non-games task, the 16-bits were still in the "nice if you can spare the money" category, not the "sell your granny to have one" category. By Christmas 1988, and certainly Christmas 1989, that had changed, though an 8-bit was still a good starting point for a total newcomer, especially if young and drawn more to action games.

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by CCCP alert

Except the C64 has software turbo loaders for tape and disk that push the performance way above the mythical speed of C64 IEC hence an original release of Firebird's Elite loads in about 90 secs on C64. More than acceptable as this includes loading in a bitmap screen IIRC. BBC only had small games so sure it feels fast, try loading the colour version of Elite that was more than 32k compatible original

90 seconds is the basic loading time for a game like Elite on a CPC 6128.

The turbo loaders on the C64 are in fact the base loading speed on the CPC 6128, so there's nothing to run screaming about.

Elite tape version on CPC use the BBC turbo loader scheme adapted to it, allowing as well to play music during loading (thanks Melvyn Wright).

By the time the loading screen for CPC Ikari has loaded the C64 version is ready to play.

This comparison you do is a failure, for a very simple reason : the C64 version of Ikari Warriors use a Turbo loader, the CPC version does not. It uses the standard loading block with standard loading speed.

Fast turbo loaders are faster on the CPC, than they are on the C64. And the CPC programs are bigger than the C64 counterparts....

Even in 84 you had Turbotape 64 Kernal wedge to use yourself, which is twice as fast as ZX/CPC loaders.

You're mixing up the schemes. ZX/CPC turbo loaders are fasters than any turbo loaders used on the C64. And always keep in mind that the C64 games are always smaller than the CPC versions of those.

A game like Shadow Dancer is around 170-180kb on C64, the CPC version is 260kb !

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by Megalomaniac

CPC Ikari Warriors is clearly an unusually slow loading special case, certainly not a typical experience for Amstrad owners, especially if they had disk drives too (and a CPC6128 with monitor cost about the same as a 1541 alone). I certainly know people who had more problems loading tapes on the C64 than the Spectrum, though I'm willing to assume that they simply got a relatively dud C2N.

Absolutely that. There were some games like Ikari or Commando on the CPC which were using slow loading blocks (CPC rom speed!), but very quickly, the coders and duplicators used faster schemes.

We were used to games protected by Speedlock tape schemes, with variable speed (1600,2000 bauds) and other exotic scheme like the Gremlin Graphics loader 2 with its 2500-3000 bauds speed or the Hexagon tape loader which was also very fast considering the size of the programs to load....

Likewise the games in that 3D C64 v Spectrum / Amstrad video are a very cherry-picked unrepresentative comparison. Now compare the Freescape games, or Fairlight (which averages pretty well on Lemon64 but is laughable next to the Spectrum version, and monochrome - C64 Head Over Heels is a better attempt at the genre, but still slower than the Spectrum version and not as good looking as the Amstrad one), or even Mercenary (a 65x original, though Atari rather than C64) which is noticeably quicker on the Z80s. Some people are very selective as to their 'facts'.

Yes. I'm quite annoyed to see people comparing C64 fast loaders to the CPC or ZX slow standard loaders.

Imagine if i did the same comparing the C64 standard tape block loader with the gremlin loader 2 on ZX/CPC, some would scream "it's cheating! / comparing apples with oranges!"

I'm not sure you needed a 16-bit by as early as January 1988. Very few games made use of the potential of those systems, especially in terms of arcade style games, especially in terms of the Amiga's potential. That month's Zzap! had a brilliant Christmas rush of games, they reviewed Cosmic Causeway, Skate or Die, Combat School, Driller, Tetris, Octapolis, Yeager AFT, Alternative World Games, RISK, Spore, Airborne Ranger, Xor (criminally underrated by them at 61% IMHO).... (and mostly on tape as well as disk). Likewise Crash! or Amtix! - there certainly wasn't the same quality being released in a single month for ST by then, let alone Amiga - especially as 16-bit games cost twice as much as 8-bit ones. Plus, it wasn't really clear which 16-bit would be on top by then - the £500 Amiga was clearly more powerful than the £300 ST, but was it clear that enough developers would fully exploit it? I think my attitude at that time would have been, if you had one of what were the 'big three' 8-bits here, to stick with it for 6-12 months and wait and see what games come next for the 16-bits - there were still new games pushing the 8-bits further, with new potential being hit in almost any genre. Even £300 in 1988 was equivalent of nearly £1000 today, not being willing or able to spent all that so early in a machines life wasn't 'budget' thinking. Maybe you wanted to put that money towards a car, or a mortgage, or a holiday instead? For most people who didn't need a specific non-games task, the 16-bits were still in the "nice if you can spare the money" category, not the "sell your granny to have one" category. By Christmas 1988, and certainly Christmas 1989, that had changed, though an 8-bit was still a good starting point for a total newcomer, especially if young and drawn more to action games.

It's a fact. the 8 bits never really got out of the picture until late (1993). This has been a serious problem for the 16 bits to install themselves.

[carrion]

Originally Posted by chb

https://c64gfx.com/release/220164

Seeing my pic used as an argument in this discussion makes me kind of.... proud?
anyway...
I havent read through all thread but let me just add that C64 was great machine to learn creating games. many people mention sprites, color maps, etc, etc and that's true in my case. it helped me to start creating gfx and coding on c64 - doing my own gamaes (and demoscene dmeos too )
peace!

[kremiso]

this article is summarized but imo pretty good to describe those years :

https://gamesnostalgia.com/story/186...rt-2-1983-1986

ie the crude games released per year pic included :

https://t.gamesnostalgia.com/news/1/8/186/30104.jpg

[AestheticDebris]

Originally Posted by carrion

Seeing my pic used as an argument in this discussion makes me kind of.... proud?
anyway...
I havent read through all thread but let me just add that C64 was great machine to learn creating games. many people mention sprites, color maps, etc, etc and that's true in my case. it helped me to start creating gfx and coding on c64 - doing my own gamaes (and demoscene dmeos too )
peace!

Absolutely. All the 8-bit machines were great for starting out, just the right amount of complexity that one person could fully understand them and produce something reasonable. Each had different challenges, but all birthed a generation of coders.

And that's pretty awesome artwork too.

[Megalomaniac]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

It's a fact. the 8 bits never really got out of the picture until late (1993). This has been a serious problem for the 16 bits to install themselves.

The Spectrum was obsolete by then, certainly - aside from a few ultra-niche text adventures that (if we're honest) probably didn't match the Infocom stuff. Others lingered on to an extent though - the Amstrad was under-supported by then, but stuff like Zap't'Balls and Super Cauldron was still pushing at its limits. while the C64 had Mayhem in Monsterland and the CP Verlag stuff. What was really still strong then, at least in Europe, was the 8-bit consoles. The Master System's PAL catalogue was hugely impressive, even quite late, though unlike the 8-bit computer games they cost much the same as Amiga games which (all other things equal) would be better. One way or another, probably half the great Amiga games (and maybe 60% of the great ST games) have 8-bit versions which at least play much the same. Still, if you didn't have a 16-bit by then, you were missing out, whatever types of games you preferred.

Originally Posted by AestheticDebris

Absolutely. All the 8-bit machines were great for starting out, just the right amount of complexity that one person could fully understand them and produce something reasonable. Each had different challenges, but all birthed a generation of coders.

So true. None of the 8-bits could do everything to a good standard, but programmers often found ways around them, which probably ultimately made them better programmer longer-term. Players also learned to accept limitations in particular areas in particular genres, and find the clever ideas and structure the games had behind any audiovisual imperfections or 'string' showing around where the game was pushing a system's limits. And this applies to different extents to C64, Spectrum, Amstrad, Atari 8-bit, BBC, Vic-20, Dragon and everything else.

[AestheticDebris]

Originally Posted by Megalomaniac

The Spectrum was obsolete by then, certainly - aside from a few ultra-niche text adventures that (if we're honest) probably didn't match the Infocom stuff.

As crazy as it seems, there were still commercial releases for the Spectrum until pretty late in 1993. Street Fighter 2 and Doctor Who Dalek Attack being notable ones.

Your Sinclair's final issue, which probably marks the end of life, was September 1993. It's honestly insane that any of the 8-bit platforms were still considered commercially viable at that point and even more staggering that Amstrad Action and Commodore Format made it until as late as 1995 (marking the commercial ends of the CPC and C64 respectively)

[Minuous]

Yes, the C64 could have been much better but it inherited it's FDD from the VIC-20 (being able to use your old peripherals was a net positive)

This has to be one of the most stupid Commodore decisions ever, crippling the C64 for the sake of compatibility with the 1540, which hardly anyone had, and in the end it turned out that a stock 1540 couldn't be used with a C64 anyway. What a travesty.

[lmimmfn]

Originally Posted by Minuous

This has to be one of the most stupid Commodore decisions ever, crippling the C64 for the sake of compatibility with the 1540, which hardly anyone had, and in the end it turned out that a stock 1540 couldn't be used with a C64 anyway. What a travesty.

most likely they had warehouses full of 1540's and decided that was the best way to get rid of them.
Im not sure if reviews of the C64 mentioned how slow the drive was?

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by AestheticDebris

The CPC wasn't really designed around a disk drive (indeed one of the annoyances is that it's DOS is designed to map onto the Tape API calls and this it lacks decent random access support). It was easier to add disk support to the Z80 based machines, however, because they use a separate (and thus mostly empty) address space for IO devices, so it's a lot easier to map in some unexpected hardware into system address space without causing conflicts.

Perhaps i was not correct in terms used to express my perspective - i mean CPC664/CPC6128/Atari ST are tightly coupled with FDD - FDC (uPD765 in case of CPC) is integral part of mainboard. In case of C64 and similar machines there is no FDC on board i.e. FDD is attached as external storage and rarely parallel interface is used (at least in case of C64/ 8 bit Atari) so some uC/uP based system is used to create together with FDC (smarter or really dumb) floppy storage.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by CCCP alert

Except the C64 has software turbo loaders for tape and disk that push the performance way above the mythical speed of C64 IEC hence an original release of Firebird's Elite loads in about 90 secs on C64. More than acceptable as this includes loading in a bitmap screen IIRC. BBC only had small games so sure it feels fast, try loading the colour version of Elite that was more than 32k compatible original

By the time the loading screen for CPC Ikari has loaded the C64 version is ready to play.

Even in 84 you had Turbotape 64 Kernal wedge to use yourself, which is twice as fast as ZX/CPC loaders.

All true but turboloaders are workarounds for obvious design limitations - also magnetic medium determine real life speeds - at some point physics play main role (to overcome such limitations you need to complicate system, start using fancy DSP algorithms etc - for example you can start using many parallel tracks - for example stereo to almost double capacity and as such speed).

[AestheticDebris]

Originally Posted by pandy71

Perhaps i was not correct in terms used to express my perspective - i mean CPC664/CPC6128/Atari ST are tightly coupled with FDD - FDC (uPD765 in case of CPC) is integral part of mainboard. In case of C64 and similar machines there is no FDC on board i.e. FDD is attached as external storage and rarely parallel interface is used (at least in case of C64/ 8 bit Atari) so some uC/uP based system is used to create together with FDC (smarter or really dumb) floppy storage.

Sure. But it was easier to add an FDC to machines like the CPC because of its architecture. A 6502 based machine was harder to expand in that fashion unless there was address space reserved for it (didn't really matter on 68000 based machines as address space was vastly larger than RAM already).

It also meant it was easier to provide disk functionality on the 464, since the entire Z80 pinout is available on the expansion bus

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by AestheticDebris

it was easier to provide disk functionality on the 464, since the entire Z80 pinout is available on the expansion bus

That was the key. The C64 has a CPU expansion bus too, but it's called the 'cartridge' port. A floppy disk controller and ROM could be attached there just like was done on many other home computers (eg. Tandy Color Computer, Acorn Electron), and in fact a 3rd party disk drive interface using the 'cartridge' port was made for the C64:-

[ Show youtube player ]

So using a serial bus instead was just a design philosophy. Atari did the same. The advantage of a communications bus as apposed to a CPU expansion bus is that it doesn't tie you down to a particular architecture. The downsides are that it makes the interface more expensive, and performance may suffer.

Commodore originally used the IEEE-488 8 bit parallel bus (GPIB) to connect disk drives (and other things) to the PET. This had a real-world data transfer rate of ~1.2 kB/s. They developed the IEC bus as a cheaper alternative to IEEE-488 for the their low cost VIC-20 computer. It used the same core protocols but with data sent serially instead of in parallel. This made the cable and connectors much cheaper, and they could use the clocked serial port built into the 6522 VIA chip rather than needing a dedicated GPIB chip.

IEC should have easily matched the real-world transfer rate of GPIB. Only problem was the 6522 had a serious bug in the serial circuit that made it unreliable, so they had to bit-bang it instead - which was much slower. That decision then cascaded to an even lower transfer rate in the C64 because the CPU didn't always run at full speed - which wouldn't have been a problem using the VIA's hardware serial port.

It's quite sad the way that one bad decision (to bit-bang rather than fix the 6522) led to a very sub-optimal implementation down the track. OTOH the VIC-20 was a roaring success for Commodore in 1981. If they had waited until the 6522 was fixed it might not have been. It also shows that a product only needs to work to be successful. History is littered with designs that were technically superior but failed in the marketplace for other reasons (Beta vs VHS is the most famous example).

The C64's slow IEC bus does have one other advantage - it can easily be implimented on just about any other computer with a few free I/O pins. So you can connect a 1541 to your Amiga via the printer port and read/write files or entire disks without having to worry about the (very non-standard) disk format.