Re: Why doesn't the Apple II have a gaming community like C64, Atari,DOS, etc

[dog_cow@macgui.com (D Finnigan)]

Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> N.N. Thayer wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 4:32 pm, Sean Fahey <a2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>Many of the most iconic games of the era were released on the Apple II
>>>first
>>>before being ported to the C64 and Atari. I can think of only a few
>>>quality
>>>8-bit titles (M.U.L.E. for example) that came out for other platforms and
>>>which
>>>skipped the II that were missed.
>> 
>> 
>> How much does being first weigh against having orders of magnitude
>> more users as a potential install base, though?  Early on, when game
>> "companies" often consisted of a single person, which platform was
>> first to market with a particular game could and did depend on which
>> platform that one person happened to be the most comfortable with.
>> And after the early '80s, simultaneous cross-platform development
>> seemed to be the m.o. rather than championing a particular platform
>> and porting later, especially for titles that were less graphics-
>> intensive (I base this conclusion on the "Reader Input Device" section
>> of CGW, which shows games released by platform and what subscribers
>> reported using/playing).  With far more C64s in people's homes than
>> Apple IIs, even merely equal attention given to development and
>> release would still ultimately result in more people playing the C64
>> than the Apple II version of a given title.
>> 
>> 
>>>The Apple's gaming demise ended the same way as nearly all the other
>>>platforms did for
>>>2 major reasons - it was the end of an era:
>>>
>>>The IBM PC clone market exploded in popularity and ate their lunch. The
>>>C64 gaming market
>>>held on for a little while, just out of sheer mass but the PC became the
>>>defacto gaming
>>>platform for home computers late in the 80's and through the 90's.
>> 
>> 
>> That's the thing, though: while all platforms were consumed by the PC,
>> some were consumed more quickly than others.  The Apple II's standing
>> in computer gaming was already precarious by the late '80s - it was
>> sitting there awaiting ports, just like its competitors had earlier in
>> the decade.  It had its chance to penetrate the home market, and it
>> did, but never on the level of the C64.  I believe the Apple II had a
>> huge impact on computer gaming, but that it occurred before and/or on
>> the cusp of computer gaming's mainstream acceptance, which was
>> facilitated, through sheer sales volume, more by the C64 than by any
>> other computer.  Until the PC asserted itself.
>> 
>> 
>>>I don't feel there is a correlation with the lack of gaming sites for the
>>>Apple II and it's
>>>popularity as a gaming machine. We've had a few over the years;
>>>virtualapple.org comes to
>>>mind, and others have come and gone. I'm more inclined to believe it's
>>>for lack of interest
>>>in running a gaming themed site more than anything to do with the Apple
>>>II's popularity.
>> 
>> 
>> Isn't there a critical mass that must be reached in order for a
>> polished and comprehensive site like lemon64.com to be willed into
>> existence and to persist, and, since such a site subsists almost
>> entirely on nostalgia and a desire for preservation, wouldn't that
>> critical mass be directly connected to the number of people who used
>> the machine in its heyday?
> 
> I can certainly see your point regarding the rise of a "mass market" for
> personal computers.  That has to be a major driver for any game maker.
> 
> I evaluated the available machines in 1980 and decided on the Apple ][+
> because of its versatility (slots, for example) and the breadth of
> programming and interfacing software (and hardware) available for it.
> 
..
> 
> In fact, when I selected the Apple II, I fully expected that it would
> be an inexhaustible source of mental stimulation and joy, resulting
> from using it to explore concepts and to create things.  That has
> turned out to be the case.  ;-)
> 

Even 21 or more years ago, people were preaching the same thing.



In article <1988@crash.cts.com>, rhood@pro-gsplus.cts.com (Robert Hood)
writes:
> In-Reply-To: message from steffan@pro-angmar.UUCP
> 
> > And there is *NO*, I mean *NO* support in software or hardware for a
pre-GS
> > Apple II machine, with the possible exception of Applied Engineering,
God
> > bless 'em.
>  
> And people wonder why I develop software in 6502 assembly, instead of
65C02 or
> 65816.  The reason is that I KNOW people with 6502 processors...That's why
I
> like Andy Nicholas, Andy McFadden, and all the other Shareware, Freeware,
and
> commercial authors for the II family.  These guys know that the II has a
> great user base. They know that the II is capable of a lot more than some
> people give it credit for...just because the old 8-bits aren't as spiffy
and
> new as the GS or the Mac-of-the-month is no reason to abandon them! 
> 
> I just wish there were more people that thought so.

Well, you're not alone.  I've spent many years writing programs for my
Apple ][+, attempting to push this 'antique' to it's limit.  People would be
amazed at just how far it can bend!
It may consist of out-dated hardware, but at least I could _build_ one of
these babies if I wanted to!  And the simplicity of the hardware makes
programming the Apple a breeze.  Quite simply, I enjoy making my ][+ do
things
people would consider 'impossible' or 'not worth the effort'.  The truth is,
it _is_ worth the effort.  There are users out there that _want_ their Apple
to do the things that 'any other computer can do', rather than spend money
on
a fancy machine.
Why throw away a perfectly reasonable computer like an Apple ][+, //e or
//c, when it can do many of the things the average computer user is looking
for?  You can pick up one of these machines for a song nowdays; it's a great
investment.


http://macgui.com/usenet/?group=1&thread=3055&start=75520&id=25204#msg

-- 
]DF$
Mac GUI Vault - A source for retro Apple II and
Macintosh computing.
http://macgui.com/vault/