News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How early 8-bit arcade machines differed in design from 8... by okyougotmenow on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @08:36AM (#18175375)
Arcade cabinets are the wrong comparison. Better are home consoles, in particular the NES/Famicom. A fine-scrollable tilemapped background + hardware sprite multiplexing made it trivial to develop games for the Famicom that would be technological marvels on contemporary home computers, yet no western computer manufacturer came up with that design, despite being small additions on top of text-mode graphics and hardware sprites.
Re:How early 8-bit arcade machines differed in design from 8... by laumars on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @09:06AM (#18175569)
Some western micro computers did have some of that though. The C64 did have hardware scrolling, which is why you see a higher calibre of scrolling games on that machine than you would on the Amstrad CPC 464 (which did not have hardware scrolling).

It all comes down to expense though. You could throw the whole kitchen sink into the computer but then how much would it cost to manufacture and how much would you need to sell the thing for?

Costs need to be cut somewhere and micro computers had to additionally ship an interpreter ROM (typically some dialect of BASIC), more expansions ports (for printers, serial modems, memory expansions, additional storage devices, etc) a physical keyboard, and so on.

Plus lets also not forget that while many micros were sold as games machines - they were originally built as hybrid devices for doing work, finances, etc as well as recreation.

Re:How early 8-bit arcade machines differed in design from 8... by jandrese on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @09:48AM (#18175920)
That sprite hardware also gave the C64 a reputation as a "game machine" in an era where the big money was in business sales.

There was a lot of "serious business only" attitude in many of the computers those days.

Re:How early 8-bit arcade machines differed in design from 8... by tinus_hn on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @11:18AM (#18176614)
The hardware scrolling in the C64 is pretty trivial, it can only shift the screen up to 7 pixels horizontally and vertically and mask the borders a bit. If you want to do scrolling you have to move the memory contents around which costs a lot of cpu time.

On a console you typically have a circular buffer and the screen is a movable window on it, so you only have to paint one row every time.

Re:How early 8-bit arcade machines differed in design from 8... by cmrdporcupine on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @03:08PM (#18178916)
Atari 8-bit could fine scroll horizontal and vertical. In 1979.

https://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue67/338_1_Atari_F...

Re:How early 8-bit arcade machines differed in design from 8... by tinus_hn on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @02:00PM (#18187369)
Which is the same circular buffer. Great if you can spare the memory, it uses twice as much if you want to scroll in one direction or four times if you want both directions.

On the C64 that’s 8k which is a lot if 16k is all you get (the video chip only has enough address lines to address 16k).

Re:How early 8-bit arcade machines differed in design from 8... by jacobush on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @01:40PM (#18178082)
Still, it wasn't like you had to push all the pixels. You only moved 8x8 (or whatever it was) characters. So the C64 was pretty decent, actually. Also, of course you had to shift characters once every 8 pixels.

I was envious as hell on my MSX, which had no pixel shifting at all.

Re:How early 8-bit arcade machines differed in design from 8... by tinus_hn on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @04:13PM (#18179433)
It’s very helpful and the implementation is ingenious but not very complicated.

Vertical scrolling changes the timing of the bad lines and horizontal scrolling the timing of the bitmap data fetched and this causes the image to come out at a different position.

There are a lot of creative tricks you can do with this though, especially with vertical scrolling.