Was PC ever a crap gaming machine?
You weren't playing most 80s and early 90s impressive games from other brands on a PC or Apple. There were a few developers that were trying to push some impressive graphics on PC but they were limited and only got better in the late 80s. This is why Kings Quest and Apogee were at the top of the gaming chain on PC, especially once shareware started to come into play. But by Ultima Underworld the PC was able to do a lot more and now you can improve the video capabilities of the machine without breaking the bank. That's when PC took over and everyone else had no hope of catching up.
I think the biggest fool in this regard was Commodore, who's follow up was the AGA chipset which started rapidly falling behind, and even if it didn't, they didn't make is a ecosystem wide standard for Amiga users so many developers just avoided it or implemented marginal improvements to their production software or games.
Atari was a close second because the Falcon could have actually worked with support, but Atariafter they put THEMSELVES in a position where they had to rely on one product to survive, they chose the Jaguar game console instead which I think was a big mistake.
The others basically made irrelevant by 1991 as the PC could even emulate some of them and they were all terrible machines regarding processing capability. They were only for simple apps, games, or audio and video projects which is why many businesses, small organizations, and enthusiasts never took them seriously which is why IBM dominated even before the PC could produce competing games under DOS. Once those advantages were gone it was time to hang the towel.
Cinematic games are modern versions of those old PC adventure games like Zork, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and original Fallout.
Actually many PC games that would become popular later came from those old computer games from other companies, including the Apple II, which started out strong but then fell behind the other brands for gaming.
The Amiga was going to be a console and actually had the hardware for it, and several other companies also excelled in entertainment applications in the areas I mentioned above. It, and the prices were what kept those alternatives alive. When it came time to adapt they all messed up within the same 3 year period. Strangely, Apple managed to survive longer than the rest but almost kicked the bucket too until their software, education market, and later ipods got them to where they are now. People can go after Steve jobs if they want but he did turn things around. He never got Apple to be competitive in desktops though, Mac ended up an enthusiast and video editing machine but was useful in education. These days, I'm not sure what the Mac is for with Chromebooks taking away the cheap crowd and biting into education, and Windows finally having good entry-level machines a higher business support.
edit - did you mean from a hardware perspective? I guess I'm confused by what you mean by "crap gaming machine." Could you clarify what you mean? I initially thought you mean crap for the customer, but did you mean from the developers' point of view?
Yes, where you cut the quote4 off I said that they ended up beating the competition because of processing power. I wanted to illustrate the other posters example of it being easier to brute force with poerful unified hardware, than trying to use 15 tools to squeeze juice out of a dry lemon.
AFAIK, personal computers have always been the home of cutting edge graphics and long, story-driven games. However, it is important to note that most of the early market was dominated by Commodore computers, and not by IBM PC compatibles. In fact, the latter wouldn't have decent sound and graphics until the 90s, when the old beeper speakers were finally replaced by Sound blaster/Ad-lib cards and the ugly CGA graphics finally gave way to newer standards like EGA/VGA. Until then, PC compatibles were almost exclusively business and productivity machines.
PC's had games too but they were usually far behind the best of what other brands could offer and the other brands were also cheaper. Maxwell, Radioshack, Commodore, Atari, Exidy, Timex, Texas Instruments, Coleco, Mattel, and others were all experiencing popularity in the 70's and 80s because they were cheap computers that could be sued with a monitor or TV that allowed you to use software, connected to networks, and play games. it was the age of the affordable computer.
But by the middle of the 80s the growing sentiment these computers were useless as tools for real processing or serious work reached new heights and IBM controlled most of the market outside of entry-level and entertainment. The Apple computers were at the time the only ones trying to compete with IBM on not having what was seen as devalued hardware for less, that was only good for games or programs that weren't complex. Radioshack later also tried, and Atari with the ST came close but failed. Commodore had ruined their chances to be seen as anything more than a cheap toy with the C64, the C128 was laughed at, and the Amiga wasn't even considered competition. Amiga was marketed as a very powerful machine and it was but it wasn't for complex applications that required hardcore processing.
All these advantages that the other computers had had, which were leading in technology before were wiped clean off the map once IBM compatibles had strong enough hardware to produce quality graphics without all the difficult and frustratingly restrictive hardware the other computers had. You could add better sound hardware, video hardware, and the costs were lowered. You could now run modern games with a computer you got two years before without having to buy a new model and knowing that the industry would support you with different types of cards, accessories, and and expansions to make your hardware better. It was no longer economically feasible to buy anything else without adapting an the only way any other company could do that was to unify their architecture, open up support to 3rd parties, and create hardware that allowed for expansion.
So when that didn't happen in the grave they went. Yes some people also blame Microsoft strong-arming DOS but that was a consequence of IBM compatibles dominating, not why the other brands ended up dead.
I think this distinction is important because, though devices like the C64 / Amiga 500 were personal computers, they behaved like dedicated home consoles in certain ways. Those computers came with joysticks, cartridge ports, were compact and worked with any TV/Digital monitor. They were also competitively priced, closer to video game consoles than IBM PCs. For example, around 1985 it wasn't hard to get a C64 for $299, which is a price closer to the NES ($100) than a $1500-$2000 IBM PC, while having vastly better capabilities than the latter. Most of the people buying them would be gamers, looking to get the best versions of the games of the era. The Amiga in particular (launched in 1985) had graphics and sound years ahead of other devices of the era, to the point that home consoles wouldn't reach said quality until the end of the SNES-SFC generation, 10 years later.
Actually I think you could get a C64 for less than that, they raised the prices but I think $299 was 128 rage. Just a bit over a year before you could have gotten a C64 for $99 due to Commodores declared price war which was admitted as an attempt to cause every other competitor to keel over. The ACTUAL caused of the video game crash since video game consoles ended up costing more, so they had to cut the price of their hardware and software and this was apparent in the articles of the time talking about how companies were selling but not making money, not all this new stuff about E.T. and such.
When you can have the best games out there a computer that matched or cost less than a video game console would kill the video game console.
Imagine if a PC with specs better than the XBS or PS5 was sold for $299 in a compact casing and promoted as a game console alternative? You know how many people would pick that up? lol you know Microsoft and Sony would be having board meetings about whether they should cut the price the gam consoles only reason for existing is because it offers and easier and cheaper way to have video games on a TV. Now, consoles as was said by another user are very close to just being PC's, but they still have enough advantages and restrictions that make them consoles, for now.
All of this was to point out that the moment in time when PC was the most competitive with consoles was when PCs (including commodore machines) were the closest in price and design to consoles. In the current era, I feel like the opposite has happened. PS/Xbox have brought the design philosophy of console hardware and games closer than ever to PCs, while middle range PCs have dropped in price, closer to their cutting edge counterparts. Of course, this is not enough to ensure a total PC domination again, but it does ensure that Nintendo will keep the lower cost/mainstream market to itself, just like in the NES era. Because no matter how well the C64/Amiga sold, it never managed to make a dent on the NES/SNES domination during that era.
Actually if you were cheaper than a PC back then you generally weren't referred to as a PC, that's how the market was split up, you either got a PC, or you were a game machine or struggling to fit in between and game machine was not what you wanted your computer to be called.
I think you're giving the C64 too much credit here as well, outselling a console wasn't even possible with the Atari which sold by 1985 24M units. The C64 was still selling because it was a cheap gaming computer that could also be a cool visual tool for the demoscene but that had been true for years. By the time the NES cemented its domination in 1988 in the US Commodore had been trying to kill the C64 and replace it for some time. C64 selling 17 million worldwide was an abnormally large number for the affordable computer market to sell, and that still wasn't enough to catch up to the sales of ONE console. it did make a dent in NES marketshare early on in 1986 in the US and a few years in Europe due to the preference for computers, but that affordable computer boom couldn't last without prices going up and the console would always benefit when computer prices rise.
It's one of the reasons why the consoles we have today are still consoles instead of just branded PC's, although they are getting closer and closer.
If someone found a way to make a compact PC with a Titan in it and 20 GBS of RAM for $399 it would be over, but that's not going to happen.
).
