Why did Atari ditch the 5200?

[supercat]

The 5200's official lifespan was less than 1 1/2 years. That's it. And now, they were just going to abandon the 5200 owners. And for what? The 7800, with games like Joust, Ms. Pac-Man, Robotron:2084, and Centipede. All of which had been done on the 2600 and 5200, the latter 3 good enough to stand up to the 7800 versions (Centipede on the 5200 is actually somewhat better!).

 

You raise an interesting point. With most types of products, either the consumer investment will be slight, or the expenditure required to support consumers will be slight (people may spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a TV set, for example, but not demand much from the manufacturer other than to repair units that fail within the warranty period). If a company introduces a product and it sells poorly, the manufacturer can simply drop it and nobody will object. The 5200, by comparison, was a big investment from which consumers expected Atari to supply continuing dividends (in the form of new games).

 

Certainly the 5200 was not the first game machine to be abandoned by the manufacturer. It was, however, probably the first to be abandoned by a manufacturer that wasn't getting out of gaming altogether.

 

I'm not sure what Atari should have done with the 5200, though its best bet might have been to encourage third-party development for the machine or, more precisely, to encourage third-party developers for the 400/800 to port their games to the 5200. Even if Atari couldn't have turned a profit developing new software for the 5200, I would think that both Atari and the third-party developers could have stood to benefit from cooperation. Consumers, furthermore, would perceive that they were still being served even if Atari itself was no longer spending much money on supporting them.

[phonedork]

Its the non centering analog controllers with those numberpads that bug out after just a few days on some cases. Atari never did anything to fix this problem. The analog controlls were ahead of there time but not perfected by Atari. Thank God there was WICO. They made a great controller, perhaps the best made joystick I have seen so far.

[A Sprite]

one of the biggest mistakes was not having the 5200 compatible with the 2600 from the getgo and not devoting more $ to development and advertising.

 

There would have been no practical way to make a machine compatible with both the Atari 400 and the 2600. The only components that would be shared between the two machines would be the RF modulator, power supply, and processor. Further, because of everything else that was different between the two machines, sharing the processor would have been impractical.

 

If Atari's goal had instead been to design a "2600 plus", that might have been interesting. Some features that could have been added reasonably easily:

• A 2Kx8 SRAM from $0800-$0FFF
  
• An extended cartridge connector to allow 64K of addressing space (I would have made the cartridges shape somewhat like a non-slanted Chevrolet logo), so new cartridges would be bigger but old cartridges would fit snugly.
  
• A selectable phi0 clock rate of clk/3 (old mode) or clk/2 (new mode)
  
• Two more pairs of player/missile sprites
  
• Allow each sprite to be triggered by either its own or its "partner's" position register (see below), with delay.
  
• A more versatile NUSIZx arrangement (writes to the old NUSIZx would get automatically translated to the new style)
  
• A more convenient sprite motion system.
  
• Some improvements to 'vertical delay'
  
• An 80-bit-wide playfield (10 bytes), with ganged and unganged write registers.
  

A machine like that may not have been quite as powerful as the 5200, but it could have done a lot. In situations where one would want to overlay two sprites to mimic a more colorful sprite, or position two sprites next to each other to mimic a wider one, being able to have the sprites triggered by one's choice of position registers would allow one register to be set up while the other was used for display.

 

Such a machine couldn't do some of the things the 5200 can do, but it could still do a lot, and at a much lower cost than the 5200.

 

Good idea, but doesn't it increase the temptation for third party publishers of the day to minimize their risk and develop for the 2600 first, then add a few bells and whistles for the new system, and sell the same game again?

[supercat]

Such a machine couldn't do some of the things the 5200 can do, but it could still do a lot, and at a much lower cost than the 5200.

Good idea, but doesn't it increase the temptation for third party publishers of the day to minimize their risk and develop for the 2600 first, then add a few bells and whistles for the new system, and sell the same game again?

 

A lot of popular arcade games really couldn't be done terribly well on the 2600. A version of Millipede for the system I described would likely have very little code in common with the 2600 version, for example. As to whether developers would have supported the new machine, who knows. Not sure Atari would have seen third-party development as a good thing, though.

[Math You]

I think the problem with the 5200 (apart from the lack of 2600 compatibility) was that it didn't really offer anything more than the Atari 800 did. Obviously, the 5200 was cheaper, but the low price of the console was offset by the higher cost of cartridges.

 

If the 5200 had been compatible with the 800 (and had an optional keyboard and data recorder) then it would have been a great way of expanding the growing Atari 800 user base.

 

In the long term, some 5200 owners might have upgraded to a 800 so they could add disk drives and printers, creating a second hand market for the 5200 and a new generation of 800/5200 owners

[ymike673]

I know its all speculation but why couldn't Atari have included the 2600 adapter as a pack in with the 5200 and at the same time stop making the 2600. This way 2600 owners could move up to the 5200 and still play their library of 2600 games. I know that the original 4 port consoles would not accept the adapter with out a modification but if the adapter was going to be a pack in I'm sure the 4 port consoles could have been modified before they were put on sale.

 

Also as I remember when Atari released the 2600 adapter it cost as much as a 2600 console. Had they sold it for a lower price it could have enticed more people to buy the 5200.

[DracIsBack]

Backwards compatibility is one of those things I always wonder about.

 

No doubt it has importance as a checkmark in the eyes of the buyer, but history has shown that it doesn't actually get used a whole lot. Adapters quietly get discontinued (ie. Master System adapter for Genesis) and older games actually get played very little on newer systems (ie. PS2 playing PS1).

 

While I think the PR stink was bad for the 5200, even if it was backwards compatible, I doubt it would have been used in that respect much.

 

It might have made more sense for Atari to have the 2600 adapter at launch and then phase it out later.

[+Allan]

All I'm going to say is there are a lot of in-accurate facts being thrown around in this thread. People need to do a little more research. Try www.atari-history.com for starters.

 

Allan

[ymike673]

All I'm going to say is there are a lot of in-accurate facts being thrown around in this thread. People need to do a little more research. Try www.atari-history.com for starters.

 

Allan

 

 

If you check the 5200 FAQ section it says that the 5200 was outselling Colecovision when Atari decided to stop production in 1984.

[carmel_andrews]

The thing i thought was weird about the 5200 is why atari borrowed from the A8 technology but didn't keep A8 compatibility.... I guess it was something to do with the fact that the A8 wasn't exactly setting the computer market alight in the US at the time

 

Perhaps Atari would have been better off going along with the '10bit' updated version of the 2600 they were developing

 

I also get the impression that the 5200 was released as a 'kneejerk' reaction to competition from Mattel and Coleco

 

 

Interesting that Atari didn't bother offering 2600 gamesters a 5200 adapter so that they could use 5200 games on a 5200 without the 5200 joysticks

[Atari2008]

All I'm going to say is there are a lot of in-accurate facts being thrown around in this thread. People need to do a little more research. Try www.atari-history.com for starters.

 

Allan

 

Thanks for the link, I found the Atari Museum to be very informative. Reading the documents, it makes sense why Atari chose the type of joystick they did, I think with a few revisions it would've been more widely accepted. Also, like how the engineers referred to them as "jokesticks." :-) Are there any other Atari historical sites?

[ymike673]

All I'm going to say is there are a lot of in-accurate facts being thrown around in this thread. People need to do a little more research. Try www.atari-history.com for starters.

 

Allan

 

Thanks for the link, I found the Atari Museum to be very informative. Reading the documents, it makes sense why Atari chose the type of joystick they did, I think with a few revisions it would've been more widely accepted. Also, like how the engineers referred to them as "jokesticks." :-) Are there any other Atari historical sites?

 

You are right. I purchased my 5200 when it came out and I really did not have a problem with the joystick untill "Pac Man" was released. There are a good many games that the joystick works well with. Of course the joysticks did wear out kind of fast and that became a major problem.

[CV Gus]

Well, it's a common statement from Atari websites to claim that "the 5200 outsold the CV at that point," but if THAT was really the case, why would Atari have dropped it when it was finally picking up some steam?

 

The proof against this is in garage sales. Second-hand stores. I have found at least 8 CVs that way, but only ONE 5200- and it was broken (controller plugs) at that. Even asking around, I cannot find another one.

 

Even Atari at its pre-Tramiel lowest would not have been stupid enough to have dumped a system that was finally getting somewhere and thus generating much needed consumer excitement. The only explanation was that 5200 sales never reached what they had hoped for.

 

Incidently, by the first half of 1984 the "initial wave" of CV purchases would have cooled. The 5200 never even approached the peak the CV did.

 

But for all of that, I'm glad I have my 5200. Even if only one of the four plugs works (player 1). I like it better than the 7800, except for Joust, and the CV version would've matched the 7800 version (well enough).

[+Allan]

The proof against this is in garage sales. Second-hand stores. I have found at least 8 CVs that way, but only ONE 5200- and it was broken (controller plugs) at that. Even asking around, I cannot find another one.

 

I'm sorry but that is not proof of anything. That is way to small of a sample to mean anything. I've found more 5200s in the wild than Colecovisions but that doesn't prove anything either.

 

Since your AA name is "CV Gus". I think you might be a little biased. Sorry, but I had to point that out.

 

As far as the 5200 outselling the Colecovision at the end of their cycles, those were numbers coming out of the companies, not somebodies opinion.

 

Again, I would call Curt V. an athority on the subject so check his website out (link above). That's why comanies contact him for professional advise and information about Atari.

 

Allan

[vdub_bobby]

Well, it's a common statement from Atari websites to claim that "the 5200 outsold the CV at that point," but if THAT was really the case, why would Atari have dropped it when it was finally picking up some steam?

Probably because it wasn't picking up steam, regardless of whether or not it was outselling the Colecovision.

 

Considering that the CV and the 5200 were both discontinued in 1984, it is entirely irrelevant which one was selling "better." They were probably both selling like crap. If you take any two market flops, one of them has to be "better" than the other, but does it really matter which?

[Retro Rogue]

Considering that the CV and the 5200 were both discontinued in 1984, it is entirely irrelevant which one was selling "better." They were probably both selling like crap.

 

 

Actually, that's not the case. The ColecoVision was discontinued because of management's push for the Adam ala their view of personal computers as the future market. The home console market was already showing signs of failing, and at the time you also had the beginning of a lot of the console based game manufacturers expanding more and more to home computers for publication. The Adam had the CV compatibility built in (both as the expansion model to the CV and the "built in" CV model), so in their view there was no need to keep both. I still have the stock prospectus' of the time (I owned stock at the time), and its still interesting to look back at them and wonder WTF they were thinking.

[else]

and its still interesting to look back at them and wonder WTF they were thinking

 

So true. I was thumbing through an old magazine the other day, and came across an interview with some executive at Mattel talking about how "video game systems" were dead and "computers" were the future. Seems like the management at Atari/Coleco/Mattel were all drinking the Kool-Aid back then. It's almost like all three companies committed suicide by buying in to this "video games are dead" mentality....

[tyranthraxus]

If you check the 5200 FAQ section it says that the 5200 was outselling Colecovision when Atari decided to stop production in 1984.

 

What is the source that the FAQ uses for that 'fact'? Are these comparisons from Atari & Coleco sales information? Or from reports from retailers? Using eBay as a guage, it seems there is more Coleco stuff on the market (144 vs 228 for CV). While that doesn't prove that Atari's 1984 sales were better than Coleco's it does suggest that they sold more volume over their brief life span.

 

But the real reason Atari scrapped the 5200 is much more simple. It was canned because they were losing hundreds of millions of dollars.

[ymike673]

Considering that the CV and the 5200 were both discontinued in 1984, it is entirely irrelevant which one was selling "better." They were probably both selling like crap.

 

 

Actually, that's not the case. The ColecoVision was discontinued because of management's push for the Adam ala their view of personal computers as the future market. The home console market was already showing signs of failing, and at the time you also had the beginning of a lot of the console based game manufacturers expanding more and more to home computers for publication. The Adam had the CV compatibility built in (both as the expansion model to the CV and the "built in" CV model), so in their view there was no need to keep both. I still have the stock prospectus' of the time (I owned stock at the time), and its still interesting to look back at them and wonder WTF they were thinking.

 

I seem to remember there were major quality control problems with the Adam. And if the printer broke you could not operate the rest of the system until it was fixed.

When I finally bought my first computer it was a commodore 64 which still works to this day.

[atarian63]

Considering that the CV and the 5200 were both discontinued in 1984, it is entirely irrelevant which one was selling "better." They were probably both selling like crap.

 

 

Actually, that's not the case. The ColecoVision was discontinued because of management's push for the Adam ala their view of personal computers as the future market. The home console market was already showing signs of failing, and at the time you also had the beginning of a lot of the console based game manufacturers expanding more and more to home computers for publication. The Adam had the CV compatibility built in (both as the expansion model to the CV and the "built in" CV model), so in their view there was no need to keep both. I still have the stock prospectus' of the time (I owned stock at the time), and its still interesting to look back at them and wonder WTF they were thinking.

 

I seem to remember there were major quality control problems with the Adam. And if the printer broke you could not operate the rest of the system until it was fixed.

When I finally bought my first computer it was a commodore 64 which still works to this day.

I worked at a computer store here in columbus at the time the ADAM was announced. There was much anticipation about it. They were delayed and delayed and when we were finally able to get 2 of them they sold instantly.. However.. both came back and had major problems. Data drive. That really seemed to be the end of Coleco. The changing market and a failed new system that they sank tons O cash into. People still collect them, I sold one not long ago from my collection to someone in europe. They mainly wanted of course .. the printer..

[atarian63]

Considering that the CV and the 5200 were both discontinued in 1984, it is entirely irrelevant which one was selling "better." They were probably both selling like crap.

 

 

Actually, that's not the case. The ColecoVision was discontinued because of management's push for the Adam ala their view of personal computers as the future market. The home console market was already showing signs of failing, and at the time you also had the beginning of a lot of the console based game manufacturers expanding more and more to home computers for publication. The Adam had the CV compatibility built in (both as the expansion model to the CV and the "built in" CV model), so in their view there was no need to keep both. I still have the stock prospectus' of the time (I owned stock at the time), and its still interesting to look back at them and wonder WTF they were thinking.

 

I seem to remember there were major quality control problems with the Adam. And if the printer broke you could not operate the rest of the system until it was fixed.

When I finally bought my first computer it was a commodore 64 which still works to this day.

You are lucky with your C64, at our store they had a very high defective rate. However, if you did happen to get a working one they did not seem to die, except for the power brick. I have a 64C( the later White one) in box, I hooked it up to see if it worked in order to sell it and all was well.

[tyranthraxus]

The C=64 power supply was utter shite, the thing just overheats and dies.

 

The Adam was rushed to the market very buggy. Apparently the later editions of the computer had solved many of the issues but the damage was done... The strange thing with the Adam design is that the printer is required because it contains the power supply. There is a power supply hack that can bypass the useless printer so you can just play the games. For all its faults there is still an annual Adamcon for enthusists. Not bad for a computer discontinued in 1985.

[Feralstorm]

Atari seems to have a common thread of 'fighting the wrong battle' in its history, at least on the videogame side of things.

 

The 5200 was said to be intended as an Intellivision-killer, but ended up fighting the Colecovision.

 

The 7800 appeared to be designed largely as a Colecovison-beater, but ended up against Nintendo NES (and Sega, and all the other stuff Atari threw into the market)

 

The Jaguar's design suggests it's meant to stomp all over the SNES and Genesis, but was largely smacked down by the Playstation (or even just the idea of its approach - but then almost nothing from that wave of consoles - CDI, 3DO, CD-32 - was all that successful.)

[ymike673]

Atari seemed to get a lot of things wrong.

 

What if Atari:

 

1-Had listened to their own engineers and built a better joystick for the 5200.

 

2-Had released the system with Star Raiders as the "pack in" game.

 

3-Turned all their promotion engergies to the 5200 instead of still producing the 2600. After all when the X Box 360 came out you did not see alot of advertising for the original X Box.

 

4-Had the 2600 adapter ready at the launch of the 5200.

 

Maybe then the 5200 would have sold a lot better from the start.

 

One advantage Coleco had was since Colecovision was their only system they could throw all their energies into it.

[TwiliteZoner]

Well, it's a common statement from Atari websites to claim that "the 5200 outsold the CV at that point," but if THAT was really the case, why would Atari have dropped it when it was finally picking up some steam?

 

The proof against this is in garage sales. Second-hand stores. I have found at least 8 CVs that way, but only ONE 5200- and it was broken (controller plugs) at that. Even asking around, I cannot find another one.

 

Even Atari at its pre-Tramiel lowest would not have been stupid enough to have dumped a system that was finally getting somewhere and thus generating much needed consumer excitement. The only explanation was that 5200 sales never reached what they had hoped for.

 

Incidently, by the first half of 1984 the "initial wave" of CV purchases would have cooled. The 5200 never even approached the peak the CV did.

 

But for all of that, I'm glad I have my 5200. Even if only one of the four plugs works (player 1). I like it better than the 7800, except for Joust, and the CV version would've matched the 7800 version (well enough).

 

 

I would imagine by 1984 with all the bad press Coleco was receiving from the debacle that was the Adam computer, it may have hurt sales of the Colecovision.