5200 Story

[DracIsBack]

didn't think people really started expecting a system to be backwards compatible until after the PS2 came out.

 

 

My theory on backwards compatibility is that it's a "checkbox" people look at when considering a purchase but not necessarily something they practice when they bring the new system home. My guess is that many people think they will play old games more than they actually do when they have the new system home. Or parents paying for the new system complain that the kids won't be able to play the old games they paid for in the past.

 

The 5200 and the SNES are two systems I can think of that were widely criticized for not being backwards compatible.

 

At the same time, there are reports that Sony has put out saying that very few PS2 customers actually play PS1 games on their system. Likewise, I wonder how many add-on units like the 5200 adapter for 2600 games or the Powerbase converter for the Genesis actually sold?

 

On the latter point, compatibility with that unit seemed to vanish when the Genesis 2 came out.

 

I definitely think there has always been griping about backwards compatibility (as history showed with the 5200 and the SNES) but not sure it amounts to much in the end.

 

That said, I do use my Wii as a GameCube more ... but that's because the library is still thin on the Wii.

[ymike673]

I wasn't even aware of the existence of the 5200 until well after its commercial lifespan ended so I don't have any personal "back in the day" experiences to go from. Was backwards compatibility REALLY an issue then? Sure there's the 7800, but I didn't think people really started expecting a system to be backwards compatible until after the PS2 came out.

 

No it wasn't really. The big draw with the 5200 was updated arcade games. I remember when the 7800 came out, I didn't give half a crap about backwards compatability, and that was one of the 7800's big advertising points. You're probablly right though, backwards compatability idn't seem to matter until recently. Although it's a MUCH bigger thing now, what with Sony and Mircroft promising it.

 

If backwards compatibility didn't matter back then, then why did Atari rush late in the game to bring out a 2600 "adaptor" for the 5200? The 5200's lack of compatibility with the 2600 is routinely cited as one of its failing points. And then why make the 7800 backwards compatible, not to the 5200, but all the way back to the 2600??? It must've mattered. Coleco cared enough to make a 2600-compatible expansion module for their own system.

 

And trying to say backwards compatibility didn't matter until the PS2 shows a remarkable lack of any sense of history. I'm sure it started long before that recently. If not the 7800, look at the Gameboy.

 

I think Coleco put out the "Expansion" module so they could get owners of the 2600 to buy their system. Much easier to plug your 2600 cartrides into the module than to constanly plug and unplug the Colecovision and 2600 if you owned both. Atari announced their 2600 adapter soon after the announcement of the 5200 but it was not ready when the 5200 was released. As for me I never was interested in the 2600. I thought the games were primitive compared to the Arcade games. But during the 1982 WS I saw the first commercial for the 5200 and I was "Hooked". The games really looked like the arcade versions. I bought my 5200 the first day it came out and have played it off and on ever since. Recently I bought a 2 Port on Ebay as a "Back up" system.

 

Well, my first video game system was the 2600, so I feel differently about it. And there must've still been a feeling in the 7800's time that the 2600 was still a force.

 

What did you pay for your backup system?

 

A better "backup" is just to get a new motherboard for $35 and drop it in the case - voila! Brand new 5200.

 

The min. bid was $9.99 + $12 postage. The seller stated that it had been up in a closet so I bid $10 and won the item. The system works and amazingly one of the two controllers included worked! The AC adapter was also included.

 

Hey, if it works, it's worth it. If it's in decent cosmetic shape, even better. And a controller that works? Amazing. Although I think it's hard to top my tale of finding two controllers in a car wash trash can - and BOTH work! The rubber boots are popped out at the base of the stick, and I can't get 'em back in, but all I need 'em for are their working function and keypad buttons.

Wow, 2 controllers in a trash can that work! I use a Wico controller hooked up to my trackball for the keyboard functions. Takes up some space but it works.

[Artlover]

I'm starting to see why some web forums have restrictions on quoting. Personaly, I like to edit my messages so that I'm only quoting the bit I'm replying to.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Artlover

[Brian R.]

I'm starting to see why some web forums have restrictions on quoting. Personaly, I like to edit my messages so that I'm only quoting the bit I'm replying to.

 

Some forums' quote function is also set up to eliminate all but the most recent quote.

 

Many forums also have restrictions against posting useless, irrelevant posts that do not contribute to the actual discussion at hand.

[Paranoid]

Cheese curd is good.

[jetset]

Um...why is everyone saying the 5200 was not backwards compatibie? Are you meaning without the use of an adapter straight out of the box? Or are you forgetting that there was an adapter (much like the CV had which I'd wager wa the only reason Atari bothered)

[Brian R.]

Um...why is everyone saying the 5200 was not backwards compatibie? Are you meaning without the use of an adapter straight out of the box? Or are you forgetting that there was an adapter (much like the CV had which I'd wager wa the only reason Atari bothered)

 

Yes, because the 5200 was not truly backwards compatible. The "adaptor" is just a 2600 that passes through the 5200 system, AFAIK.

 

The 7800 is backwards compatible. As are the Gameboys, the PS2...

Edited July 25, 2007 by Brian R.

[Paranoid]

Kinda splitting hairs, though, wouldn't you agree? Backwards compatability is done a number of different ways. The 7800 has new hardware for the advanced 7800 native mode, that sits on top of a 2600, and bypasses that hardware to go into 2600 mode, right? Isn't that more or less what the 5200 does, only, you don't have to HAVE that extra hardware (literally) sitting on top of the new hardware if you don't WANT it, with the 5200?

 

The 7800 achieves backwards compatibility more or less in the same way as the 5200, AFIK, except that the extra hardware is INSIDE and comes with the base console, rather than being something you buy after the fact.

 

Other platforms bring you backwards compatibility via hardware translation/emulation of earlier codesets.

 

In *all* cases, backwards compatibility is always a compromise. The IA chipset is probably the most backwards compatible hardware in the world... and how often do MOST people use their core duo to run a DOS version of Wordstar or Printshop Pro for Windows 3.11... and assuming they get THAT much to work, how often does it work like it was originally intended to? Which is why gaming-geeks around here look for old 386/486 systems and build "Dos boxes" out of them to play Commander Keen on. The same reason (or one of them) so many of us *don't* prefer emulation on our modern machines to owning the "original hardware" for our retro gaming fix. I mean, really. All of our modern PCs are "backwards compatible" with literally DOZENS and dozens of retro consoles through emulation... yet we almost all go out and buy the real hardware. Isn't this exactly how the PS-3 and Xbox 360 achieve backwards compatibility with their previous generations?

Edited July 26, 2007 by Paranoid

[Brian R.]

Kinda splitting hairs, though, wouldn't you agree? Backwards compatability is done a number of different ways. The 7800 has new hardware for the advanced 7800 native mode, that sits on top of a 2600, and bypasses that hardware to go into 2600 mode, right? Isn't that more or less what the 5200 does, only, you don't have to HAVE that extra hardware (literally) sitting on top of the new hardware if you don't WANT it, with the 5200?

 

The 7800 achieves backwards compatibility more or less in the same way as the 5200, AFIK, except that the extra hardware is INSIDE and comes with the base console, rather than being something you buy after the fact.

 

Other platforms bring you backwards compatibility via hardware translation/emulation of earlier codesets.

 

In *all* cases, backwards compatibility is always a compromise. The IA chipset is probably the most backwards compatible hardware in the world... and how often do MOST people use their core duo to run a DOS version of Wordstar or Printshop Pro for Windows 3.11... and assuming they get THAT much to work, how often does it work like it was originally intended to? Which is why gaming-geeks around here look for old 386/486 systems and build "Dos boxes" out of them to play Commander Keen on. The same reason (or one of them) so many of us *don't* prefer emulation on our modern machines to owning the "original hardware" for our retro gaming fix. I mean, really. All of our modern PCs are "backwards compatible" with literally DOZENS and dozens of retro consoles through emulation... yet we almost all go out and buy the real hardware. Isn't this exactly how the PS-3 and Xbox 360 achieve backwards compatibility with their previous generations?

 

I don't think it's really splitting hairs. AFAIK, the 5200 was originally built with no thought given to "backwards compatibility." Just a guess, based on what I know, but Atari saw itself as moving on. It wasn't until later that they realized that it did matter, and that the lack of backwards compatibility was hurting the 5200. I wonder if the Coleco expansion module had anything to do with that realization.

 

People - ie, parents - probably didn't like the idea that if they bought this new whiz-bang machine, all the money they had invested in those 2600 games would end up going down the drain, and - from their perspective - they'd have to buy many of the same games all over again to keep the kids happy. To say nothing of investing hundreds more in another console.

 

It might have been the 5200 that brought about the idea that backwards compatibility did matter. So that's why the 7800 was built the way it was - but not backwards to the 5200, but skipping it to the 2600 - which tells you which system was a success, and which failed. (It could be like the PS3 being compatible with the PS1 but not the PS2.)

[Paranoid]

but not backwards to the 5200, but skipping it to the 2600 - which tells you which system was a success, and which failed.

 

<Pulling off my dueling glove and returning the favor> - Ouch. Perhaps the problem was that making a 7800 compatible with the 5200 would be something more like FORWARD compatibility rather than BACKWARDS. Like an "upgrade module".

 

Hmnnn. Well, the Colecovision "backwards" compatibility was REALLY the same thing as the 5200 module... more or less a whole 2600 you plugged into the cartridge slot which then just passed through to the video. So if you're going to knock it on the 5200, it really stands that NO console of that generation actually had what you are calling "true" "on board" backwards compatibility. I think the only thing the late arrival of the 2600 adapter for the 5200 (or built in compatibility for the 7800) illustrates is how totally neurotic Atari management became in their decision making process. I'd say the closest example, from a business management perspective, would be how badly the FAILURE to adopt digital music distribution has hurt the recording industry. That is, Atari wanted to CONTROL the market and their choices, and wanted to see the 2600 die, but consumers were not ready for that (and wouldn't be for a LOT longer than Atari ever imagined, I think). Coleco was unhampered by concern for the 2600 and if it continued to exist or not, and saw it as a way to LEVERAGE an installed userbase to make their console more desirable (and to tack on an extra $100 to the base price). Atari sat around with their collective thumb up their collective arse, worrying that continued 2600 sales eroded their new sales, made the company too diverse, and countless other issues.

 

Heh. And, really, that isn't splitting hairs, at the end, but instead making a giant stretch, to infer that the 7800 was a SUCCESS and the 5200 a failure. If it had been released WHEN the 5200 was, perhaps things would have been different. As it is, the 7800 is probably the least successful Atari console of all time. I don't recall them ever "giving away" Jaguars or XEGS systems at KayBee. Especially if you want to compare the 7800 to the contemporaries it competed with, the SMS and the NES. The 5200 was approaching and exceeding Colecovision sales, after a slow start, when the market crashed. The 7800 went straight to deep discount.

 

Gah... ok... we're off track/topic. Sorry. Not a 7800 versus 5200 debate. But, I do think you have a good point, the 5200 was the first console where NOT having backwards compatibility available probably hurt their market share. But, it still seems to be an issue that console makers struggle with, and honestly, it seems like the tide of public opinion has turned. They're usually willing to move on and leave their old titles behind, these days, after realizing, "I'm not going to want to play last years games on this years console, no matter how much I thought I liked them at the time".

 

How often have any of us busted out Tony Hawk PS for the PS-1 to play on our PS-2? I could certianly DO it, but I never have.

[Brian R.]

but not backwards to the 5200, but skipping it to the 2600 - which tells you which system was a success, and which failed.

 

<Pulling off my dueling glove and returning the favor> - Ouch. Perhaps the problem was that making a 7800 compatible with the 5200 would be something more like FORWARD compatibility rather than BACKWARDS. Like an "upgrade module".

 

Hmnnn. Well, the Colecovision "backwards" compatibility was REALLY the same thing as the 5200 module... more or less a whole 2600 you plugged into the cartridge slot which then just passed through to the video. So if you're going to knock it on the 5200, it really stands that NO console of that generation actually had what you are calling "true" "on board" backwards compatibility. I think the only thing the late arrival of the 2600 adapter for the 5200 (or built in compatibility for the 7800) illustrates is how totally neurotic Atari management became in their decision making process. I'd say the closest example, from a business management perspective, would be how badly the FAILURE to adopt digital music distribution has hurt the recording industry. That is, Atari wanted to CONTROL the market and their choices, and wanted to see the 2600 die, but consumers were not ready for that (and wouldn't be for a LOT longer than Atari ever imagined, I think). Coleco was unhampered by concern for the 2600 and if it continued to exist or not, and saw it as a way to LEVERAGE an installed userbase to make their console more desirable (and to tack on an extra $100 to the base price). Atari sat around with their collective thumb up their collective arse, worrying that continued 2600 sales eroded their new sales, made the company too diverse, and countless other issues.

 

Heh. And, really, that isn't splitting hairs, at the end, but instead making a giant stretch, to infer that the 7800 was a SUCCESS and the 5200 a failure. If it had been released WHEN the 5200 was, perhaps things would have been different. As it is, the 7800 is probably the least successful Atari console of all time. I don't recall them ever "giving away" Jaguars or XEGS systems at KayBee. Especially if you want to compare the 7800 to the contemporaries it competed with, the SMS and the NES. The 5200 was approaching and exceeding Colecovision sales, after a slow start, when the market crashed. The 7800 went straight to deep discount.

 

Gah... ok... we're off track/topic. Sorry. Not a 7800 versus 5200 debate. But, I do think you have a good point, the 5200 was the first console where NOT having backwards compatibility available probably hurt their market share. But, it still seems to be an issue that console makers struggle with, and honestly, it seems like the tide of public opinion has turned. They're usually willing to move on and leave their old titles behind, these days, after realizing, "I'm not going to want to play last years games on this years console, no matter how much I thought I liked them at the time".

 

How often have any of us busted out Tony Hawk PS for the PS-1 to play on our PS-2? I could certianly DO it, but I never have.

 

I don't think I mentioned Coleco, nor would I give their expansion module any more credit than I would the 5200's adaptor. Coleco was smart enough to know that they could make people more inclined to buy their console if customers would be able to keep playing the 2600 games they already had with it.

 

And I think you misread the success/failure comment. I wasn't saying the 7800 was the success. I was saying the 2600 was the success, and the 5200 (as much as I enjoy it now myself) was the failure.

[ymike673]

The 2600 was a major success but wasn't the 5200 out selling Colecovision at the time of the "Video Game Crash?". I think given more time the 5200 would have been considered a success.

[DracIsBack]

Heh. And, really, that isn't splitting hairs, at the end, but instead making a giant stretch, to infer that the 7800 was a SUCCESS and the 5200 a failure. If it had been released WHEN the 5200 was, perhaps things would have been different. As it is, the 7800 is probably the least successful Atari console of all time.

 

The 7800 sold over 2 million units, including Atari financial reports, magazine reports etc. The Jaguar (which I like and own) didn't crack 250,000. Atari's own research indicated that the 7800 significantly outsold the XE as well, despite Jack T wishing otherwise. Even Lynx sales are suspect, with 1 million games (not units) sold by early 1992.

 

Not trying to do a "5200 vs. 7800 war" either, but calling it "the least successful Atari console of all time" is ridiculous. Sure, you might remember that at Kaybee. I remember the XEGS being almost impossible to find and the one store that had it in my area got rid of it after three months. The Lynx was in fewer stores in my area and the Jaguar was liquidated for $30.

[Artlover]

People - ie, parents - probably didn't like the idea that if they bought this new whiz-bang machine, all the money they had invested in those 2600 games would end up going down the drain, and - from their perspective - they'd have to buy many of the same games all over again to keep the kids happy. To say nothing of investing hundreds more in another console.

Again, why? If you don't throw away the old 2600 when getting this new whiz-bang machine, then the kids can just play on which ever machine the cart they want to play that day works with.

 

Sorry, I honestly still for the life me just do not understand the need for backwards compatablity. Stop getting rid of your old gear when you get new gear, problem solved 100%. That applies just as much then as it does now.

[+davidcalgary29]

People - ie, parents - probably didn't like the idea that if they bought this new whiz-bang machine, all the money they had invested in those 2600 games would end up going down the drain, and - from their perspective - they'd have to buy many of the same games all over again to keep the kids happy. To say nothing of investing hundreds more in another console.

Again, why? If you don't throw away the old 2600 when getting this new whiz-bang machine, then the kids can just play on which ever machine the cart they want to play that day works with.

 

Sorry, I honestly still for the life me just do not understand the need for backwards compatablity. Stop getting rid of your old gear when you get new gear, problem solved 100%. That applies just as much then as it does now.

 

This was a really valid concern for many parents in the '80s, when video gaming was considered an odd niche hobby for geeks (and completely wasteful) and comparatively much more expensive than it is today. People today tend to view video games as a legitimate entertainment expense (and not just something for the kids), and will justify purchases in a way that they could not in the late '70s and early '80s. $1000 for an Atari 800 in 1979? Outrageous! $1000 for a PS3 and a few games in 2007? Absolutely!

[Brian R.]

People - ie, parents - probably didn't like the idea that if they bought this new whiz-bang machine, all the money they had invested in those 2600 games would end up going down the drain, and - from their perspective - they'd have to buy many of the same games all over again to keep the kids happy. To say nothing of investing hundreds more in another console.

Again, why? If you don't throw away the old 2600 when getting this new whiz-bang machine, then the kids can just play on which ever machine the cart they want to play that day works with.

 

Sorry, I honestly still for the life me just do not understand the need for backwards compatablity. Stop getting rid of your old gear when you get new gear, problem solved 100%. That applies just as much then as it does now.

 

This was a really valid concern for many parents in the '80s, when video gaming was considered an odd niche hobby for geeks (and completely wasteful) and comparatively much more expensive than it is today. People today tend to view video games as a legitimate entertainment expense (and not just something for the kids), and will justify purchases in a way that they could not in the late '70s and early '80s. $1000 for an Atari 800 in 1979? Outrageous! $1000 for a PS3 and a few games in 2007? Absolutely!

 

From what I can remember, video game systems were considered toys.

 

I think most of your typical people - then and now - are going to have one game machine hooked up to the TV. They're going to buy one system and then buy games for it. It's only the "gamers," or die-hards, who are going to have more than one machine at a time hooked up to a TV.

 

I mean, if people were comfortable using more than one system at a time, then why would Coleco have put any money into their expansion module for 2600 games? Lots of people had 2600s, and they could just keep using them. Likewise, why would the 5200 need a 2600 adaptor if people were going to use it side-by-side with their 2600?

 

I don't know if there's many people out there with a PS3 sitting next to a PS2 and a PS1. But there are probably those who play their fav PS1 and PS2 games on their PS3. Same for the Gameboys.

[Artlover]

It's only the "gamers," or die-hards, who are going to have more than one machine at a time hooked up to a TV.

This I also fail to understand. Why does one assume all these consoles need to be hooked up at the same time?

 

My parents bought me a 2600 back in 1981. The only thing connected to the tv was the rf switch box. The 2600 sat inside a cabinet. When I wanted to play, I took it out and connected it. When I was done, I disconnected it and put back in it's home.

 

My cousin had both a 2600 and Intelivision back in those days. He did the same thing. He had a 2600 box and a Inteli box, each containing the console, carts, cables, etc.. Whichever one he/we wanted to play, that was the box that got pulled out of the closet and hooked up that day.

 

I dunno, I guess everyone except me and my cousin left their consoles hooked up 24/7, and idea of simply unplugging/plugging a single rca plug was beyond everyone's abaility?

[Brian R.]

It's only the "gamers," or die-hards, who are going to have more than one machine at a time hooked up to a TV.

This I also fail to understand. Why does one assume all these consoles need to be hooked up at the same time?

 

My parents bought me a 2600 back in 1981. The only thing connected to the tv was the rf switch box. The 2600 sat inside a cabinet. When I wanted to play, I took it out and connected it. When I was done, I disconnected it and put back in it's home.

 

My cousin had both a 2600 and Intelivision back in those days. He did the same thing. He had a 2600 box and a Inteli box, each containing the console, carts, cables, etc.. Whichever one he/we wanted to play, that was the box that got pulled out of the closet and hooked up that day.

 

I dunno, I guess everyone except me and my cousin left their consoles hooked up 24/7, and idea of simply unplugging/plugging a single rca plug was beyond everyone's abaility?

 

When my family had a 2600 back in the early 80s, it was left hooked up to the TV in the living room all the time. When not in use, it sat on a table next to a lamp. When we got a Colecovision, for which we gave up the 2600, it too was left out and hooked up all the time.

[SRGilbert]

I dunno, I guess everyone except me and my cousin left their consoles hooked up 24/7, and idea of simply unplugging/plugging a single rca plug was beyond everyone's abaility?

Well, I don't know about everyone else, but our main TV was in a corner and was a major pain in the ass just to switch the video box, much less plugging it in everytime we wanted to play.

[Paranoid]

Yeah.... I think people have become more accoustomed the idea of having multiple additional devices hooked up to a TV... at that time, the TV stood alone, and you would only concievably hook up a video game unit. Shortly after the VCR came out, then surround sound DVD systems and cable boxes, and... now, you've got a modular component system with all kinds of cables in a rats nest behind the TV, which has MULTIPLE inputs.

 

Point taken about mistaking your point, Brian.

 

The 5200 was, commercially, probably a failure for all intents and purposes.