[zozbot234]

> Not on a strictly technical level

Yes, there were strictly technical limitations. Memory throughput to the video framebuffer did not allow for arbitrary full-screen updates at native frame rate, and there were no hardware sprites or other display hacks to cope with this limitation - the framebuffer was all you had. These limitations became gradually less important throughout the 1990s, depending on what resolution and color depth you were running.

[spankibalt]

> "Yes, there were strictly technical limitations."

Precision, friend. I never disputed that there were no (strictly) technical limitations for PCs. I only argued against the notion, emphasis mine, that "PCs were definitely at a disadvantage for anything involving a lot of motion, like arcade-style games, platformers, shoot em ups, fighting, and racing games. [...] That disadvantage was gone, at least on a technical level, by 1992-94."

Amigas never saw the light against IBM and compatibles in a lot of ways, and that already before 1992. Two famous titles I already mentioned; one had no Amiga port (Silpheed, 1989) AFAIK, the other (Wing Commander, 1990) came out later as a technically inferior, albeit atmospheric, hand-me-down. When people reminisce about the graphics capabilities of home computers, especially Amigas, they often forget whole, shall we say "inconvenient", genres. Et cetera.

[vidarh]

It's not that we forget "inconvenient" genres, but that at the peak of the Amiga popularity, while high end PC's could compete, the vast majority of people did not have those high-end PC's with the requisite graphics and sound cards. We continued to laugh at people with PC's pretty much until Doom, because most of the PC's our friends had were still low end, and lacked expensive graphics- and sound cards, while at the same time, certainly there was a mounting concern over what was trickling down for PC's from the high-end.

With respect to Silpheed, the original version is a graphically primitive 8-bit game and the 1989 version was ported to Apple II-GS - it was hardly performance that was the reason it didn't get an Amiga release. Even the 1993 Sega CD version doesn't contain much that'd be difficult to do on an Amiga (you'd "cheat" and pre-render more version of the ships and rely on the blitter to compensate for the expense of polygons, and possibly use dual playfields and copper lists to allow for the updating background).

Wing Commander, I agree with. The AGA version is nice, but too late.

[zozbot234]

High-end PC's were also extremely costly prior to the mid-1990s or so (the "Multimedia PC" era). You could've bought an Acorn Archimedes home computer that would have run rings around the Amiga on a pure CPU compute basis and given you the same emerging multimedia (graphics+sound) capabilities, for less than the cost of a high-end IBM-compatible PC.

[spankibalt]

> High-end PC's were also extremely costly prior to the mid-1990s or so (the "Multimedia PC" era).

I saw the first PCs starting to appear in East German households in 1990. Typically a VGA-capable 286 machine, 16 MHz, 1 MB RAM, two HD FDDs (one 1.44 MB 3.5", one 1.2 MB 5.25"), one 20 to 40 MB hard disk. No sound card. Without monitor, in early 1991, such a machine cost new about 1,500 DM.

At the same time, a new Amiga 500 with 512 kB memory extension cost about 900 bucks, the A590 external 20 MB hard disk an additional 700 DM, for a grand total of 1,600 DM. In other words, we roughly on equal footing here.

A barebones A2000 without hard disk and 1 MB of RAM cost also about 1,600 DM in the same time period. The costs racked-up even quicker to furnish out that bird.

Coincidentally, 1,500 DM is the same price I payed in early 1993 for a well-cared for second-hand 386DX-25 (387 FPU included) graphics workstation.

And the Acorn Archimedes? That machine was essentially a unicorn where I'm from; the Amigas had at least some visibility here.

[zozbot234]

A 286 machine with no sound card and needing a costly external monitor, while the Amiga could just be hooked up to a household TV (it's not like you could tell the difference in quality at VGA 320x200 resolution). That's hard to describe as a high-end or multimedia-capable PC. It seems that you're proving the point I made.

[spankibalt]

> A 286 machine with no sound card and needing a costly external monitor, while the Amiga could just be hooked up to a household TV [...].

1. Yes, my example pits a typical PC against a typical A500 as the purchasing choice to make early 1991. In my area, both machines cost roughly the same, but PCs and corresponding architectures were much more widespread and familiar (the GDR worked on its own IBM-compatible clones after all). The point was to illustrate what people here who had the money could choose from shortly after the watershed that is the German reunification. And prices and capability only skewed more in favor of the PC as time went on...

2. A small (14" or 15") monitor was not that expensive (600+ DM; the venerable 1024 x 768-capable, MPR-II-certified Highscreen "LE 1024" cost about 1,000 DM in early 1991); A500 users of the time could go for a new 1084S, at a cost of just about 600 DM. And AdLib and SoundBlaster clones of good value were also not expensive (think around 150 DM, sometimes with one or two games thrown-in). Something one would buy "the month after" if money was a bit tight.

3. If I can't tell the difference between 320 x 200 on a typical CRT or a typical TV in a 1991 kidlet's room I'd be off to an ophthalmologist. The TV-capability was definitely an advantage, though; lotsa cheap CRTs of the era sucked because they made one's fuckin' eyes burn. I remember most small TVs being easier on the eyeballs. I exchanged the 14" monitor my PC came with (was a gift) for a much better 15" CRT about four months later.

4. You talked about "Multimedia-PCs"... which in the mid-90s delivered even better bang-for-bucks. By then, the Amigas were already buried anyways. Unless you were a fan, financially much less mobile, had a need for the luggability (and other pros) only a keyboard-case computer could deliver at competitive prices, or got scammed or somesuch.

5. People here who were too cash-strapped and just wanted to play games usually went for game consoles (Atari 2600 jr. as well as the NES being the most popular choices... 'till the SEGA Mega Drive and especially the SNES took over).

The early ('89 to '91) home computer for the value-oriented customer? The Commodore 64 of course. Saw many. A lot of them second-hand machines bought from Westerners who cleaned house to make room for whatever came next.

[badc0ffee]

Did you get colour out of a TV on the A500? I know the original A1000 had amazing colour composite output, but I don't think the other models did.

[spankibalt]

> "It's not that we forget "inconvenient" genres, [...]"

I beg to differ; in my experience, the Amiga who doesn't forget is an outlier. ;)

> "[...] the vast majority of people did not have those high-end PC's with the requisite graphics and sound cards."

Once again: The context was the strictly technical, which was brought up by another poster. I am also well aware of the economical, and for specific usecases corresponding technical, realities. But that is best served by (comparative) market analysis and not just anecdotes. Which brings me to...

> "We continued to laugh at people with PC's pretty much until Doom, because most of the PC's our friends had were still low end, and lacked expensive graphics- and sound cards, while at the same time, certainly there was a mounting concern over what was trickling down for PC's from the high-end."

In my little corner of East Germany, I didn't feel the same about Amiga users. For you simply were not relevant; I didn't know anyone with an Amiga until much, much later (2007!).

> "With respect to Silpheed, the original version is a graphically primitive 8-bit game and the 1989 version was ported to Apple II-GS - it was hardly performance that was the reason it didn't get an Amiga release."

It serves as an example of an arcade game with good production values, and many supported graphics and sound modes ("expandability"), for a PC of the era, i. e. the outgoing 80s.

[vidarh]

> The context was the strictly technical, which was brought up by another poster.

That's fine, but it was not what I took issue with in your response.

> It serves as an example of an arcade game with good production values, and many supported graphics and sound modes ("expandability"), for a PC of the era, i. e. the outgoing 80s.

It serves, to me, as an example of a pretty primitive game given the year the port was released, basic enough to replicate on an 8-bit machine, that likely didn't get a port because it wasn't well known enough in the markets where the Amiga was popular to bother licensing it and too basic to be competitive.

[spankibalt]

> "That's fine, but it was not what I took issue with in your response."

It's what was I was replying to; it's what the argument was about.

> "It serves, to me, as an example of a pretty primitive game given the year the port was released, [...]"

Okay.