Talk:Commodore 64 Games System

Untitled

For the copyvio obsessed: The tech-specs of the C64GS are copied (partially) from the Commodore 64 page and modified (by me) to fit the C64GS. Jamyskis 12:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With respect to the copying, I note near the top of the article "It was only ever released in Europe" yet the specs have a couple of lines saying things like "Video hardware: MOS Technology VIC-II MOS 6567/8567 (NTSC) MOS 6569/8569 (PAL)". There are no NTSC countries in Europe, so if the configuration was hard selected by the manufacturer then surely the NTSC information should be excised from this article? ThomasHarte 16:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Commodore logo.svg

The image Image:Commodore logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comapring to Amiga CD32

I think that comparison of Amiga CD32 must be deleted. First of all, Amiga CD32 was innovative as worlds first 32-bit CD based console and it offered several improvements over A1200 such as Aikiko chip, CD and Kickstart 3.1 and gamepad. Also, much more titles were availiable as well as full CD32-to-computer expansions and Amiga CD32 games remain the best Amiga games except PPC games, so CD media was well used. After all, it is unfair to judge the success of CD32 as commodore died quite soon after it was realised. Much better example would be Amiga CDTV worlds first CD based media player and computer. Only similarity is that CDTV and CD32 are also cut down to different designs from Amiga 500 and Amiga 1200 as C64GS is to C64. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.83.172 (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

DECEMBER 1990?!

Was this console really releaced December 1990? That is just 4 months before the sucsessor the CDTV was releaced, I know Commodore were'nt the best company for timeing when it came to there consoles but 4 months?! Surely that's not practical, or possible. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

CDTV wasn't really a "successor", they're two seperate product lines. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I dunno... they are both consoles. Please tell me if I am wrong, and I will apolgize sinseraly. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The CDTV was five times the price of the C64 GS. Kids these days might have £500 lying around somewhere, but when I got my GS (by trading in my NES: I know, worst decision ever) I certainly didn't really consider the CDTV to be an option financially. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well besides the point, the CDTV is the sucsessor to the c64gs, so it is more advanced and costs more money at debuit, but 4 months is very little time to devolep a sucsessor. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Well besides the point, the CDTV is the sucsessor to the c64gs"; asserting something twice doesn't make it any more true! I don't recall Commodore ever describing it in such terms.

It's quite common for computer manufacturers to continue and produce new variants of an older line after the "next generation" is established. You could possibly say that the Amiga was the "successor" to the C64, but even then, do you count the C128? And what about the abortive C16 and Plus/4?- they flopped, but they still came out after the C64.

The CDTV was marketed more as a multimedia machine than a games console anyway (unlike the later CD32). They weren't really part of the same line.

I agree that December 1990 was ridiculously late to be launching an 8-bit console though. It's not just that the market was already established (in Nintendo's favour- in the US and Japan anyway)... it's that even then it must have been obvious that the 8-bit market would be dead within a year or two. So why bother?! While the C64 was popular, there weren't many games available on cartridge, so it would have taken time to change that- time that the 8-bit market didn't have.

While Atari's XEGS (XE Games System) was an opportunistic and half-baked (and unsuccessful) attempt to grab some of Nintendo's pie, at least that was launched three years earlier when there was still some pie left, not in 1990 when Nintendo had eaten all the pie and everyone was leaving the party. :-) Ubcule (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

XEGS had nothing to do with competing against the Nintendo pie. It was simply a pet project to "do the 5200 right" as Leonard Tramiel told me, and was for a niche market. The 7800 was their main competitor to the Nintendo pie. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The 7800 was Atari's equal competitor to the NES (though it was slighty less powerful) and the XEGS was the superior competitor to the NES, however Atari never releaced a console that could truly compete with the SNES (or Mega Drive) which proved to be there downfall with the Jaguar. Altough it must be noted, December 1990 is ridiculously late to launch a 8 bit console and March 1991 ridiculously early to launch a CD based game console. By the way, howcome the CDTV does not count as a games console if it plays games and it was advertised to play games as in this[1][2] link? mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)