[jandrese]

The C=64 had a built-in sprite generator. It had first class graphics (for the era) baked right in. It had a complex and powerful sound chip (for the era) for making games sound good, but not really good enough for professional musicians.

It straddled the fence between game console and personal computer, much the same way the Apples of the era did.

IMHO, this is a big reason why Steve Jobs was so hostile to gaming on the Macintosh. He wanted people to take the machine seriously and he was living through Commodore's failure on the Amiga.

I mean Amigas were powerful machines, with specs comparable to Unix workstations of the era; yet the only thing most people remember them for is the video toaster and the demoscene. It was perceived as a rich man's toy machine unless you were part of the tiny niche of TV production companies.

[scholia]

> The C=64 had a built-in sprite generator. It had first class graphics (for the era) baked right in.

The C=64 had much less powerful graphics than the Atari 800, which was out well before the C=64. The C=64 got big by reducing build quality and slashing prices.

The Amiga was much more similar to the Atari 800. Commodore didn't develop it, they just bought it from Amiga Corporation.

Jay Miner, "father of the Amiga", worked for Atari and developed the custom chips for the Atari 800 before repeating the process for Amiga Corp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Miner

[agsamek]

I was Atari user.

C64 was better for games. It had text mode where each individual character could have different colors. This was huge. Sprites were better for games. Eigth of them with x and y position. Atari had 4 sprites that were entire columns. All games were created in text mode since you were not able to repaint entire screen otherwise.

Plus much better sound chip.

C64 was better for games.

[scholia]

Yep, games certainly looked and sounded better on the C=64....

Might be fairer to compare the Atari 800 with the Vic-20, since the Vic-20 came out well after the Atari ;-)