Amstrad GX4000 games console

[BeardFaceMan]

My mum bought one off someone she worked with dirt cheap because it was discontinuted, had about half a dozen games with it. I had a lot of frustrating fun with Klax, and Robocop 2 was fucking ace but thats about it. I may have had a tennis game and a driving game too but those other 2 are the ones that stick out.

Did anybody else own one of these? I sometimes think I dreamed the whole thing, I've never met anyone who has even heard of it, never mind owned one. I've only just remembered I use to own one myself.

[Twed]

'er ya go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph4AFT7iH8w

[biggytitbo]

I got one when they'd knocked them down to about £30 in Dixons, only had the bundled game which was shite. Even in 1990 it looked dated, with its extremely low res graphics, shitty sound and packaged £2.99 tape games been sold for £30.

It didn't even stack up very well against the nes or master system, but unfortunately the megadrive launched in the same month making it look particulary laughable in comparison.


If it had one thing going for it, its that it wasn't the C64GS.

[Mr_Simnock]

It didn't even stack up very well against the nes or master system

It had better graphical capabilities than both by a bit, the sound chip was on a level with the NES though. Yes it was poor for 1990, I always got the impression that whoever designed the machine had very little knowledge of how the market was going world wide and never even bothered looking. It's a shame a company like Amstrad didn't simply release a UK version of the PC engine, that would have been a winner.

[biggytitbo]

Wasn't it just the slightly upgraded model of CPC they'd been selling for a few years in a new case? Dunno what the specs where but by 1990 even nes and master system games looked better than the handful of titles on the GX4000. It's a shame, because Amstrad where a big enough name in the UK and europe that if they;d have released a good product it could still have gotten some traction.

[Sebastian Cobb]

The NES and Master System probably benefitted from developers knowing how to get the most out of their hardware.

Nintendo are especially good at this, their bright childish design looks less dated than some of the darker, moody stuff on the master system and megadrive.

[Blumf]

Amstrad seemed to be obsessed with the Z80 chip, pretty much everything computer related they put out (IBM PC compat stuff excepted) was based around it.

Think that was beginning to hamper them as the 90s started and everybody else was moving to 16, then 32-bit CPUs.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Amstrad seemed to be obsessed with the Z80 chip, pretty much everything computer related they put out (IBM PC compat stuff excepted) was based around it.

Think that was beginning to hamper them as the 90s started and everybody else was moving to 16, then 32-bit CPUs.

Nah, it's just the z80 was the goto cheap chip of the 80's (and amstrad never pushed the envelope, they always favoured doing things on the cheap). In terms of microcomputers of that era they mostly either used a z80 (spectrum, amstrad  or a MOS 6502 like the bbc micro).

The master system and Game Gear also used a z80 and whist it's primary chip was a motorola 6800, the megadrive had one as a secondary well.
The nes used a MOS 6502.


Knowing Alan though he probably secured a good deal on the z80's so didn't want to abandon them.

[Blumf]

In the early to mid-80s sure, but by the end of the decade, and certainly into the 90s, everybody else was moving to 16-bit and up whilst they doggedly stuck with the Z80.

For comparison, the Amiga 500 and MegaDrive were around 1988, whilst the thread titling GX4000 was 1990, 2 years was a long time in computer development at that point. Then you have 1993's Apple Newton (ARM610, 32-bit) compared to the Amstrad PenPad (Z80 based Z8S180, still 8-bit)

I know the last example the price spread was quiet large, but they could have moved onto a 68000 or similar CPU (Z8000?) by that point easily. Why stick with the Z80 into the middle of the 90s? I'm not convinced it's price, as the mentioned 68000 was already quiet an old design by that point.

[Bhazor]

My family almost got one of those at a car boot sale with a dozen games (the one I remember was a Snoopy game).  But we ended up not getting it because the guy selling it kept hitting on my 15 year old big sister. To be fair to the guy, she did have spectacular tits at that age.

[Sebastian Cobb]

In the early to mid-80s sure, but by the end of the decade, and certainly into the 90s, everybody else was moving to 16-bit and up whilst they doggedly stuck with the Z80.

For comparison, the Amiga 500 and MegaDrive were around 1988, whilst the thread titling GX4000 was 1990, 2 years was a long time in computer development at that point. Then you have 1993's Apple Newton (ARM610, 32-bit) compared to the Amstrad PenPad (Z80 based Z8S180, still 8-bit)

I know the last example the price spread was quiet large, but they could have moved onto a 68000 or similar CPU (Z8000?) by that point easily. Why stick with the Z80 into the middle of the 90s? I'm not convinced it's price, as the mentioned 68000 was already quiet an old design by that point.

I think you've mistaken Amstrad for some sort of innovator in some way. What happened is Alan decided to hop on the console bandwagon and said 'can we make a console out of all these bits of CPC we have lying around?'.

If you look at the history of Amstrad machines their micro arm died with the z80 (after they shelved the CPC's and built spectrums instead). After that they moved into selling PC compatibles.

Around the same time, as someone else mentioned Commodore released the C64GS built out of old bits of C64. I guess at that point the cost of using Amiga parts was too much, but three years later they came out with the CD32.

All of these machines have failure in common. I guess while you save on design costs when you shoehorn an existing computer design into a games console, but you pass on the cost of manufacture, which is generally a lot more than that of a games console and it's much less efficient at the job so you either end up with an affordable box with lacklustre performance or a games console for slightly less than a full-fledged computer that you could do much more on.

[biggytitbo]

My family almost got one of those at a car boot sale with a dozen games (the one I remember was a Snoopy game).  But we ended up not getting it because the guy selling it kept hitting on my 15 year old big sister. To be fair to the guy, she did have spectacular tits at that age.

Good anecdote.

I think you've mistaken Amstrad for some sort of innovator in some way. What happened is Alan decided to hop on the console bandwagon and said 'can we make a console out of all these bits of CPC we have lying around?'.

If you look at the history of Amstrad machines their micro arm died with the z80 (after they shelved the CPC's and built spectrums instead). After that they moved into selling PC compatibles.

Around the same time, as someone else mentioned Commodore released the C64GS built out of old bits of C64. I guess at that point the cost of using Amiga parts was too much, but three years later they came out with the CD32.

All of these machines have failure in common. I guess while you save on design costs when you shoehorn an existing computer design into a games console, but you pass on the cost of manufacture, which is generally a lot more than that of a games console and it's much less efficient at the job so you either end up with an affordable box with lacklustre performance or a games console for slightly less than a full-fledged computer that you could do much more on.

The classic mistake with consoles is releasing one without any good new, (or indeed hardly any games in this case) for it, especially ones that took advantage of the hardware. All the best GX4000 games were available on tape for a fraction of the price already. Amstrad did that mistake and also made the additional classic mistake of releasing a new piece of kit using old hardware that looked outdated even on launch day (the CD32 was the same, a machine with no 3D hardware right when 3D games were massively taking off).


The C64GS was all the same mistakes with the addition of utterly incompetent moves such as making some of the cartridge releases need a keyboard to get past the title screen, making the games unplayable on the machine.