I stand by the Commodore 64 Ultimate being the better remake, but its mini predecessor is still a cheaper gateway to ’80s microcomputing


Messing around with old retro gaming setups is absolutely my bag, but trying to use microcomputers like the C64 can be a drag. Unlike consoles, PC precursors largely have to put a bit more effort into running games than simply blowing on a cartridge and jamming it in, and while the shiny new Commodore 64 Ultimate helps arm the iconic system with brand new tricks, I totally get why some of you might still go for its plug-and-play mini predecessor.

For what it’s worth, I think comparing the Commodore 64 Ultimate to the C64 Mini (THEC64) is silly. Yes, both machines are offering up access to the same game library and the microcomputer’s BASIC coding environment, but the new FPGA system is pretty much an exact hardware replica of the original, whereas Retro Games Ltd’s small doohickey feels more like a best retro console contender.

Commodore 64 Ultimate

(Image credit: Phil Hayton)

Yet, keeping your bank account happy isn’t the only reason to grab a C64 Mini over the new Ultimate machine. It’s actually a more logical jumping-on point for newbies than the more expensive and inherently complicated-to-use FPGA machine. That’s not to say any of those latter traits are actually a bad thing, as you pretty much get what you pay for and will have access to more advanced, authentic features. However, if you just want a taste of some microcomputing classics with little effort, the plug-and-play console is a better fit.

Sega Genesis (Mega Drive) Mini, and they are undoubtedly one of the quickest ways to play a curated library on something physical.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *