Hi
> It sounds to me that what's happening here is the same that happened
>a long time ago: companies not willing to write MSX2 software because
it
>doesn't work on MSX1 (so it doesn't sell well).
I guess the Turbo R is a better example. MSX2, too, has been very
popular and as far as I know there has never been such a problem
concerning the MSX2. But yes, GFX9000 software isn't developed because
it almost doesn't sell. Do you think that's strange ? I don't. Making a
superb game that will eventually be seen by 3 people only (to quote
Robert) doesn't give the developers the (mental) credit they need.
> I think MSX would have been more popular if the basic qualities were
>just a little better. I think a better sound-chip than the PSG would
have
>made the MSX more popular. I also think the main reason for MSX1 to
catch on
>anyway is that it is so easy to use and program. Because if you only
want to
>play games, a commodore 64 would do a better job (at that MSX1 time
>ofcourse, not after that)
MSX has been very popular, don't forget about that ! The only thing this
is about is the GFX9000, which isn't popular because it came far too
late ! And about the commodore 64-games; I totally disagree.
> My point is: Make a program that just pulls about everything out of
>the best hardware, make options to enable/disable things (like today's
PC
>games' resolution choice, for example).
MSX is at best as it is. If you want more advanced hardware, buy a PC
for business/school purposes or a gameconsole for games. If you want to
make something for MSX, please KEEP it MSX.
Bye
Rieks
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the
quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
****
