Denial

Just an interesting note: Denial (as a newsletter) is now over 13 years in age, 5.5 years as a web forum. The web forum has now officially outlast the Vic's own lifespan.

Here's hoping it outlives my lifespan!

Jeff-20 wrote:The web forum has now officially outlast the Vic's own lifespan.

I suppose you refer to the commercial lifespan of the VIC.

My own oldest VIC-20 (serial no. 7829) was made in 1981 and is therefore now 28 years old and still operating like brand new.

eslapion wrote:

Jeff-20 wrote:The web forum has now officially outlast the Vic's own lifespan.

I suppose you refer to the commercial lifespan of the VIC.

My own oldest VIC-20 (serial no. 7829) was made in 1981 and is therefore now 28 years old and still operating like brand new.

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how long some of today's uber beasts last...I've a feeling that most of the components will have burnt out in a couple of years. Heck, the Xbox 360 sometimes fails within a week!

I always thought it was bizarre that out of the PS2, XBox and the Gamecube, the PS2 was the one that endured. In terms of overall quality, the PS2 is the worst of all three systems -- the one I owned lasted about a year before the drive packed up. I bought an XBox a couple of years ago and I've had no problems with it -- most of the time, I only use it to watch DVDs anyway.

... the PS2 was the one that endured. In terms of overall quality, the PS2 is the worst of all three systems

Really? Not certain what qualifier you are applying that measure, perhaps because I still have working PS, PS2 and now PS3 systems. I think the PS2 endures because PS3 has the option to continue playing those older titles (not unlike C128 allowed for C64). Backward compatibility enables endurance and future marketing success.

... most of the time, I only use it to watch DVDs

Primary reason I got PS3 -- it works like a dream as a BluRay player -- and doubles as a media player, Internet, and then the games for both PS2 and PS3.

But back to the point of this thread, I used VIC 20 primarily for 3-years until I upgraded (for programming, not game playing) to C16. I don't think there was 5.5 years of commercial "success" for VIC 20, closer to just 2 years, because C64 ate its lunch -- it still sold off the shelves at departments and outlets because they dropped its price, twice, and it served as a cheap alternative for the unsophisticated buyer (Tramiel's objective for the masses) by today's perspective. Back then, there was no precedent for home computing -- it evolved because the market shaped it into what it is today. If machines sold solely on sophisticated engineering and capabilities, Commodore Amiga would have dominated personal computing.

In terms of computing capabilities, the C16 and Plus/4 were more sophisticated and provided better value than VIC 20 and C64 -- but it flopped. The masses were not like me, looking for a machine to expand my computer programming skills. Why did it flop then? Backward software compatibility, period.

The TED chipset could not play any of the games from Atari, Electronic Arts, and the scores of others -- and those software houses were not going to develop for another 8-bit platform for negative to small returns -- it would only help C= (their worst competition) to sell more of those machines.

And the C128 was created only from Herd's stubbornness (a year too late) and it had marginal success, only because it offered the established base of consumers a real upgrade path without sacrificing the software base (like new PS2 titles today). Those same software houses could continue to pump out titles for C64 and reap the benefits. C128 appealed to the application users, computer programmers, and the emerging telecomm/bbs enthusiasts.

Makes me wonder if the C128 stalled the move to Amiga enough for that loss to make the difference in what in needed to not only survive, but to dominate the personal computing market of the time. I wanted Amiga at the time, but C128 was such an inexpensive alternative and it played all those 1000s of C64 games ...

The quality of the hardware has seldom any impact on the success of the console, unless it's totally unusable. The software is the biggest part of the success.

The Vic-20 is still alive!

rhurst wrote:In terms of computing capabilities, the C16 and Plus/4 were more sophisticated and provided better value than VIC 20 and C64 -- but it flopped. The masses were not like me, looking for a machine to expand my computer programming skills. Why did it flop then? Backward software compatibility, period.

The TED machines didn't have sprites (or the SID chip for that matter). And the Plus/4 cost more than the C64 in the stores. To the gameplaying computer buyer, which, let's face it, made up 90% of the potential market, these factors weighed just as heavily as the lack of backward compatibility. From a programmer's point of view the Pus/4 is great: BASIC 3.5, 60K RAM available for BASIC programs, a faster processor, more colors, a fast disk drive, and a very nice keyboard.

Th C16 had better capabilities than the VIC 20, but when it was released in 1984 the C64 didn't cost that much more so most people probably looked at its larger memory, huge user base, and vast software catalog an went that route instead.

The TED machines didn't have sprites ...

Yes, you make all the same points, masses were not looking for a machine to LEARN (BASIC 3.5 and ML monitor) or a machine more capable of running home applications (60671 free bytes). Different objectives. The C64 was a video gaming machine with its sprites and SID, but with an ancient BASIC 2.0 and an ugly 16-color palette. So it depends upon your objective whether the machine provides personal value -- thus market/choice is the barometer for success, not technical engineering.

And the Plus/4 cost more than the C64 in the stores.

And you're right, the Plus/4 was overpriced from the start; given the poor market, its cool form factor / keyboard was not nearly enough to win me over, and not with a $99 cousin sitting next to it. C16 was a cool machine and was a worthy successor to VIC 20 -- if they dropped VIC 20 production, kept the joystick and tape ports compatible -- who knows?

To this thread's opening remark, IMHO, VIC 20 did not have 5.5 years lifespan, in spite of its protracted production run. Let's face it, Commodore (and others) didn't know any better. At that time, the video gaming market crashed, Tramiel was forced out, while a young Bil Herd had an enormous opportunity which he maximized on because of his skill, stubbornness, and defiance to management to produce TED and C128. What a story!

Personally for me, VIC 20 was my first love, so it's timeless and could never get old. But as an engineer, what a piece of shit.

The crown jewel of 8-bit computers for me remains with C128, despite Atari's graphics and Apple's applications.

Why did they need a "vic-20 successor"? Wasn't that what the c64 was?

Commodore was looking for an entry model for those who didn't want to spend as much money as the C64 cost at that time. The story goes the TED project at first was planned to become a no-frills, cheap computer mainly for the European/UK market to beat the ZX Spectrum which was signficantly cheaper than a C64. To some point I suppose the rubber key C116 is what became of this ambition, but at least eight or ten months too late and at a too high price.

By the way, I have the fullest understanding why Commodore didn't want to make an enhanced C64 right away. They were already about to get a big share of the market and introducing a new, superior home computer would surely have confused both customers and publishers. It was already bad enough the VIC-20 had once been replaced by the C64 after about 1.5 - 2 years. If the C64 had been superceded again after two years on the market, it would have been much more sensitive to competition. Technically I'm sure they could have developed a VIC-III with more colours, more sprites, perhaps higher resolution if desired. Slightly improved SID, certainly a memory mapper that allowed even more RAM to be banked.

I think the most remarkable one is the Atari 2600 -- 14 years.

My family had an Atari 2600 at the arse end of its commercial life -- came with a special 32 in 1 cartridge (this was just as well -- games were pretty much impossible to find on the High Street). Three months later, we upgraded to a Mega Drive and never looked back.

What was the appeal of this machine? My guess is that it was a lot cheaper than the VIC so a lot more people bought it. So much for "Why buy just a video game?"

The Neo Geo console had a really long life time time. It may have tied the 2600 or exceeded it by a month or two. I think SNK may still be making commercial (not homebrew) games for it in Japan, but I'm too lazy to google it now and be sure.

Edit: Neo Geo game out in 1990, and one of it's top selling games was King of Fighters 2003. Samurai Shodown V Special has a late 2004 release date.

I think the "new" Atari once they had re-evaluated the potential in the fan base (i.e. cooperate instead of throwing around threats of sueing everyone), would include a few of the top homebrews in their Flashback 2 and upcoming products. Whether that actually took place I don't know, but depending how you see it, you could claim the 2600 had a commercial life from 1977 to 2003 or even longer. It is a bit artificial though since both the brand owners and the hardware are different from the original, just that both emulate (*) the old stuff.

(*) Hmm.. can you say you emulate a company if you acquire the rights to the brand and trade marks, but have no previous links to the company?