> Every history about video games mention how low-quality games killed Atari, but is that true or just something that walled-garden console makers made up? I h

> Every history about video games mention how low-quality games killed Atari, but is that true or just something that walled-garden console makers made up? I had both and it's true that games on the 2600 were of low-quality. I mean: it was a very limited machine. The very best games were probably River Raid and Pitfall and maybe Combat. Stuff like that. There really weren't a lot of playable games on the 2600. https://youtu.be/gombHp5wMrk https://youtu.be/gombHp5wMrk The Commodore 64 came five years later. Five years back then was like decades today. On the C64 you could draw (it was limited but doable), create music, program... And games were on another level. The C64 had bad games for sure but also many incredible gems. And there were some games on the C64 you could play for months or even years, like the Ultima series. The 2600 came out in 1977. I think it did well for its time but when progress moved that fast, there wasn't much they could do to save a platform that was that limited.