TD> Double backlash... the software was typically written badly to
TD> make Atari's own hardware look good, thus the titles never
TD> sold that well.

RR> That is not true.

I merely have to point out the PC version of just about every Atarisoft
game, which only used the PC's built-in speaker for sound.

Or the bad impression "Vic-20" conversions made on people.

TD> A _hardware_ company can not be free to make "really nice"
TD> translations w/o the fear of making their own hardware look bad.

RR> So, are you saying that IBM's OS/2 running on a generic
RR> 486 makes IBM's Aptiva look bad?

Huh?
  IBM doesn't write different versions of OS/2 for different platforms.

Think about what will happen. People tell each other that "Such-n-such a
game demonstrates the power of the Jaguar over the other systems", then
some talanted programer makes a superior version for the PSX.

And don't think they can't.

RR> I have late 1980s Nintendo stuff like Joust that says licensed
RR> from Atari right on the screen.

The NES version of Joust was not released while Atari had a competing
"game system". The 2600/5200/7800 were all discontinued long before.

RR> You have no evidence or proof of any kind that these cross
RR> licensed titles have ever impacted upon hardware sales.  Not a
RR> shred of evidence - you're just guessing.

I know my PC, C64 and Vic-20 using friends weren't impressed enough by
the Atarisoft conversions they saw to actually purchase them. And if you
think I didn't have to endure "Atari sucks" as a result, you are sadly
mistaken.

"Atarisoft" was _not_ a financial success. If so, why did they stop?

 -*- Tom -*-



___ Mountain Reader II - #00000079

--- M_READER v2.8

[+/100 of 500/116 Mins] = * FIDO: ATARI_ST =: Next...