🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <820@looking.UUCP> Brad Templeton writes:
>
>While Atari couldn't realisticly require developers buying the machine to
>sign licences stating they will not develop games, it would probably be
>a good idea.
Ugh. If the ST didn't have good game-playing ability, I wouldn't own one
right now.  The ST was supposed to be a 'home' computer when it was brought
out, i.e. be able to play 'Time Bandit' as well as run Publishing Partner or
whatever.
>
>The Atari has better hardware than the Mac or Mac Plus.  Yet it is still
>perceived by many to be a games machine, while nobody perceives the Mac
>as one.  If there are lots of games, and any customers are buying the
>machines "to play games" then a games machine perception develops.

Oh no! A GAMES MACHINE!  Actually, from the coverage the ST has gotten
in magazines that aren't specific to one brand of computer, the things that
seem to be mentioned the least are the games... 

>The better the games are, the worse it is.  Who ever heard of somebody
>buying an IBM or Mac to play games.  Yes, there are many games available

A very good example of a system that flies right in the face of this is
the Apple II series.  The Apple II machines had some of the *best* games
available for any micro, but they weren't perceived as merely game machines.
...
>the machine line.
>-- 
>Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
If this came out sounding like some sort of flame-thrower, sorry, it wasn't
intended to sound nasty...
-- 
Kevin Burnett
Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre / Santa Clara Class of '88
Arpa: kevin@Lindy.Stanford.EDU		Bitnet: KJBSF@SLACVM.BITNET
Old-style UUCP: ...!decwrl!labrea!Lindy!kevin