7800 vs.....

[DracIsBack]

First, and I'm surprised that nobody else here has mentioned this, is the theory that the 5200 was never supposed to have existed- it was the Atari 7800 that was the "real" 5200.

 

Atari had plans for a different system than the 5200 to succeed the 2600 and it was not the 7800. There was a different design that was abandoned and the 5200 was quickly created based on the Atari 400. Your theory of 5200 being a stopgap until the 7800 was ready is interesting but not true. Take a listen to GCC's "20th anniversary reunion" MP3 and it will tell you how the 7800 was conceived and it's response to some of the shortcomings in the 5200. There is no doubt that the 7800 was made in response to the flaws in the 5200.

 

Go here and listen to the full MP3: http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/cons...7800/7800-20th/

 

in 1986- the 7800, developed in 1983, would itself be behind the arcade technology. Too far behind.

 

So here's where I've always had trouble with this thread. I consider technology one of the least impacting reasons why the 7800 didn't succeed in the marketplace as expected (though it was profitable for Atari). You argue that the 7800 wouldn't have impressed because it wasn't enough of a technological leap over the Colecovision compared to the the leap that the Colecovision had over the 2600.

 

• Atari 2600 came out in 1977
  
• Colecovision came out in 1982
  
• Atari 7800, Nintendo Entertainment System and Sega Master System were all designed or in-market in 1983/4. The 7800 was designed in 1983/early 1984 and then held back until 1986. The NES was released in Japan (as the Famicom) in 1983, test marketed in the US in 1985 (after the Atari deal went south) and heavily available in 1986. The Sega Master System was in Japan (as the Sega Mark III) in 1983 and then released in North America in 1986 (with a better sound chip but otherwise same video hardware).
  
• All of the systems above are 8-bit processor driven with limited computing power. All had relatively limited memory (some more than others). All had to rely on bankswitching for larger games.
  

Where they differed was in how they handled their display and I agree with you that the Atari 7800 was not a substantial leap over the Colecovision compared to the Colecovision vs. the 2600. IMO, neither was the NES or SMS. But the Atari 7800, NES and SMS all had advantages over the Colecovision at playing the types of games that were popular in the second half of the 1980s. More colors, more moving objects, scrolling.

 

Now here is a point I've made before- no way did 5200 sales ever match CV sales, overall. If they had, and the CV did sell at least 3 million units (it could have been as high as 6 million), then the 5200 was a real moneymaker.

 

Unless you personally have access to global sales figures from both companies, that's pointless to argue.

 

Earlier in this thread, games like Scrapyard Dog and Alien Brigade were mentioned. But you have to remember that in 1983, these sorts of games did not really exist yet, or at least were not significant. In those days, the games to be considered were the games like Turbo, Vanguard, Zaxxon, Pac-Man, etc. Even Guantlet wasn't there yet.

 

No one disputes this.

 

Therefore, whether or not the CV (or the 5200, even) could handle such games was not an issue. The only thing that mattered was how much better could the 7800 handle the kinds of games that one would consider back in 1983 than a 5200 or the more popular CV.

 

No one disputes this either (except your harping on the sales of the CV without actual sales data to back it up). That's why the industry crashed. That's why Colecovision started off with a bang and yet died within two years. That's why the 5200 was killed in two years. That's why Mattel jumped ship after huge losses.

 

The only thing that resurected the industry was Nintendo doing a complete blue ocean strategy analysis and changing everything

 

1. The types of games played

2. How the games were marketed

3. Highly liberal (initially) channel strategies

4. the form factor of the NES etc.

 

and then ...

 

5. Some technological improvements

 

Read David Scheff's book, GAME OVER ... goes into this at length

 

http://www.amazon.com/Game-Over-Nintendo-C...d/dp/0679736220

 

It is especially important to consider this based on the kinds of games one would consider from a 1983 point of view. There was no reason at that point to think that Coleco would be gone by 1984. There was no reason to think the whole industry would collapse. Therefore, the CV, seen from 1983, was still going to be around by late 1984.

 

Did you even look at any of the New York times articles I listed above? In 1983, the Industry was experiencing a boat load of losses and it was reported throughout the year. There were lots of indications to think that the whole industry was collapsing and that none of the consoles would still be around by late 1984 ... INCLUDING the Colecovision! While GCC was still working on the MARIA chipset, articles like this were appearing in the New York Times:

 

 

Coleco Denies Soaring Debt

Published: November 18, 1983 Coleco Industries Inc., responding to published reports that its short- term debt had soared as the company gears up to produce its Adam computer system in volume, said it has stayed ''well within'' its credit lines. The company, based in West Hartford, Conn., also denied reports that retailers can return unsold machines for credit, even if they are not defective, and said that early indications show that customers are satisfied with the Adam system.

 

In a 10Q form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission last week, Coleco disclosed that it had $65.6 million in inventories of finished goods, which analysts believe is largely unsold Colecovision video game units and cartridges. Industry experts said the high inventories could be evidence that Colecovision sales have slowed tremendously. On the New York Stock Exchange yesterday, Coleco fell $1.50, to $17, in heavy trading.

 

Thus, at that point, it looked to be a matter of Atari 7800 vs. ColecoVision.

 

No, it was looked at as "video game consoles, including the Colecovision, are dead. Why release a new console like the 7800?". Read David Scheff's book, GAME OVER, and you'll hear stories about how Nintendo had the same exact problem when trying to launch the NES in North America. That's why the NES was packaged to look like it a VCR, bundled with a useless toy robot and the word "video game" was nowhere to be seen in any marketing (Entertainment System, Entertainment Paks etc).

 

So, this is why I'm trying to find out, in a more technical sense, how much better a 7800 was than a CV.

 

You're making something out of nothing.

 

1. The Colecovision was nearly dead when the 7800 was test marketed

2. The Colecovision was dead when the 7800 was released

3. How the 7800's games compared to the Colecovision is not relevant except that they would not have ressurected the dead industry or dead competitors like the Colecovision.

4. How the Colecovision compares technically to its successors is not as important as what actions they took after the crash to ressurect the industry that died and killed Colecovision with it.

5. The 7800 could play the types of games that were popular post crash, IMO, better than the Colecovision could.

 

I think the Colecovision would have had more trouble making the leap due to lack of hardware scrolling, fewer colors in palette, fewer onscreen colors and fewer moving objects. I think Colecovision games could have been more detailed with bankswitched carts. I think they could also have looked better with more emphasis on art direction in the later 1980s too. But I think the Colecovision would have had a lot of trouble with that side scrolling adventure game ... more than the 7800.

 

Could the Atari 7800 have done better, even without changing the existing hardware? I certainly think so. Not convinced they'd dominate but maybe have had a better position in the marketplace if:

 

1. had they acted quickly and started creating the types of games they were doing in 1989/90 the second they got a scent of Super Mario Brothers

2. Focused on one console instead of three

3. Spent a little bit of money and released games regularly

4. Advertised regularly.

5. Leapt in and signed exclusive deals right away

Edited October 4, 2008 by DracIsBack

[Crazyace]

The 5200 and the CV had different strenghs - the CV was higher res with more sprites, but lacks the scrolling and multicolour modes of the 5200.

It's interesting that the CV graphics chip comes from the TI99 computer ( released in 1979 for ~$1100 ) and the 5200 comes from the 400 ( released in 1979 for $550 )

The funny thing is by 1982 the Atari 400 was around $200

[DracIsBack]

It's interesting that the CV graphics chip comes from the TI99 computer ( released in 1979 for ~$1100 ) and the 5200 comes from the 400 ( released in 1979 for $550 )

The funny thing is by 1982 the Atari 400 was around $200

 

They actually had two graphics chips on the 8-bit Atari. When the 400/800 were originally released circa 1978, they used the CTIA chip, which only had 128 colors and, IIRC, didn't have some of the higher res modes. When the 1200XL came out (circa 1981), it used the successor, a GTIA chip. 400 and 800 models manufactured at that point also used GTIA ... as did all the subsequent XL/XE computers along with the 5200 and XE Game System.

[Lord Thag]

The thing I always find funny about these threads is that they always turn into these minute comparisons of hardware. 'The 7800 has more kiloflanges!' The NES had more spooling choober-doobies!' 'The sprites on the 7800 can do interlaced thingumawhatchits with five colors!' That kind of thing.

 

The problem is, superiority of hardware has never been the deciding factor in popularity. Ever. The 2600 outsold the Colecovision and the Intellivision. The NES outsold the Master System, the PS1 outsold N64, the PS2 outsold the Xbox, the Wii will probably outsell the 360.... you get the idea.

 

What sells a system is games, marketing, and price point. If the 7800 had launched in 1984 with heavy marketing and strong support, it would have done great. Instead, it launched in '86 with dismal support, poor funding, and almost no advertising. Not exactly a recipe for success. Sure, the NES and the Master System were superior in some respects, but with proper funding and support, programmers can do amazing things with any console. Look at what the people here are doing with homebrews for the 2600! Boulderdash? Ballblazer? Who would have ever thought it was possible?

 

All I'm saying is that the 7800 could have competed if Atari had released it on schedule, ponied up to include the sound chips on the carts, and thrown their whole weight behind the system before Nintendo got over here. *That* is why the 7800 failed. Hardware had nothing to do with it.

 

Just my two cents.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Lord Thag

[Crazyace]

But those threads are boring.... someone says 'If Atari had all the must have games, mass advertising etc etc they would have been a success' and everyone else agrees.

[Gorf]

The thing I always find funny about these threads is that they always turn into these minute comparisons of hardware. 'The 7800 has more kiloflanges!' The NES had more spooling choober-doobies!' 'The sprites on the 7800 can do interlaced thingumawhatchits with five colors!' That kind of thing.

 

The problem is, superiority of hardware has never been the deciding factor in popularity. Ever. The 2600 outsold the Colecovision and the Intellivision. The NES outsold the Master System, the PS1 outsold N64, the PS2 outsold the Xbox, the Wii will probably outsell the 360.... you get the idea.

 

What sells a system is games, marketing, and price point. If the 7800 had launched in 1984 with heavy marketing and strong support, it would have done great. Instead, it launched in '86 with dismal support, poor funding, and almost no advertising. Not exactly a recipe for success. Sure, the NES and the Master System were superior in some respects, but with proper funding and support, programmers can do amazing things with any console. Look at what the people here are doing with homebrews for the 2600! Boulderdash? Ballblazer? Who would have ever thought it was possible?

 

All I'm saying is that the 7800 could have competed if Atari had released it on schedule, ponied up to include the sound chips on the carts, and thrown their whole weight behind the system before Nintendo got over here. *That* is why the 7800 failed. Hardware had nothing to do with it.

 

Just my two cents.

 

 

Yes, but insight worth millions........the millions Atari lost as a result of their lackluster support of EVERY

system after the 2600.

[Gorf]

YIKES!

 

 

And I thought the Jaguar section was heated in debate!

 

Sheesh!

[DracIsBack]

The thing I always find funny about these threads is that they always turn into these minute comparisons of hardware. 'The 7800 has more kiloflanges!' The NES had more spooling choober-doobies!' 'The sprites on the 7800 can do interlaced thingumawhatchits with five colors!' That kind of thing.

 

Hahahahahaha!

[strangedogs]

...Yes, but insight worth millions........the millions Atari lost as a result of their lackluster support of EVERY

system after the 2600...

 

 

Sad but true. I feel Jack and Sam Tramiel was the cause too. My ST and STE were light years ahead of the competition (actually so was my Amiga 1000) but lack of support and ADVERTISING was sad. I remember going into a PC store in 1985 or 86 and arguing with a salesman who kept telling me that no-one needed all those pretty colors and sound... WOW.

[Lord Thag]

Sad but true. I feel Jack and Sam Tramiel was the cause too. My ST and STE were light years ahead of the competition (actually so was my Amiga 1000) but lack of support and ADVERTISING was sad. I remember going into a PC store in 1985 or 86 and arguing with a salesman who kept telling me that no-one needed all those pretty colors and sound... WOW.

 

Yep, that's it in a nutshell. Atari's arrogance contributed to the crash, and the Trameil's almost unbelievable stupidity was the final nail in the coffin. The ST series should have annhilated the competition (other than the amiga), and the 7800 was ready to go long before either the NES and the Master System, in the US anyway.

 

We'd probably be playing an Atari system now if amyone with half a brain would have been in charge. You're right. The Trameils seemed to be almost allergic to advertising their systems. A shame

[Gorf]

...Yes, but insight worth millions........the millions Atari lost as a result of their lackluster support of EVERY

system after the 2600...

 

 

Sad but true. I feel Jack and Sam Tramiel was the cause too. My ST and STE were light years ahead of the competition (actually so was my Amiga 1000) but lack of support and ADVERTISING was sad. I remember going into a PC store in 1985 or 86 and arguing with a salesman who kept telling me that no-one needed all those pretty colors and sound... WOW.

 

 

I used to laugh at some of the nonsense PC salesmen would try to hand me......Then one showed me DOOM...

and it was all over. DOH!

[Bryan]

They actually had two graphics chips on the 8-bit Atari. When the 400/800 were originally released circa 1978, they used the CTIA chip, which only had 128 colors and, IIRC, didn't have some of the higher res modes. When the 1200XL came out (circa 1981), it used the successor, a GTIA chip. 400 and 800 models manufactured at that point also used GTIA ... as did all the subsequent XL/XE computers along with the 5200 and XE Game System.

 

From what has come out in various interviews with Atari insiders, the GTIA was supposed to be the chip that went to production from the start, but CTIA was shipped with early machines because there were problems with the GTIA modes. Therefore, CTIA probably has disabled (and buggy) circuitry for the GTIA modes.

 

There aren't really many differences except that the 80x192 GTIA modes aren't supported, and the Player pixels don't line up exactly right with the playfield. Only the very early machines had CTIAs.

[Bryan]

I used to laugh at some of the nonsense PC salesmen would try to hand me......Then one showed me DOOM...

and it was all over. DOH!

 

Yeah, when I saw Wolfenstein 3D on the PC, I knew it was over. Atari had not kept up and suddenly a 386 could do fast 1st person gaming.

[DracIsBack]

There aren't really many differences except that the 80x192 GTIA modes aren't supported, and the Player pixels don't line up exactly right with the playfield. Only the very early machines had CTIAs.

 

That's what I remember as well. 128 colors vs. 256 colors; no 80x192 modes and everything after 1981 (including 400 and 800 machines) had GTIA.

 

Didn't know about the Playfield issue.

[CV Gus]

Well, while it's true that hardware alone does not a winner decide, it certainly DOES matter when it comes to abandoning one system for another. DracIsBack, you have to remember that with the 2600 it was just a new thing, but by 1983 we'd be asking more sophisticated questions. Things had changed.

 

The CV was NOT dead in 1983 and 1984 when the 7800 was planned and then supposed to have been released. True, Coleco was gone, but someone else took over. Atari had planned to match the CV and the 7800, since they themselves had dumped the 5200. Of course, by 1987, the CV was pretty much out of the race, and even in 1986 it was rapidly running out of steam. But it was still around; all about where I used to live, it was everywhere, with cartridges going for normal prices.

 

I just cannot believe that if the 5200 was doing as well as the CV in sales, Atari would have been insanely stupid enough to have abandoned it. Hell, even I'm not THAT cynical! What did the CV in was that stupid ADAM computer- that move bankrupted Coleco. Had they simply concentrated those resources on the CV, they would have made it. Trust me on that- I live near Amsterdam, NY. Did you know that they hired just anyone to assemble those computers on crude plywood tables, without any precautions against static electricity an in dirty dusty conditions?

 

The 2600 and most future systems came out in different eras. The 2600 was the true trailblazer, so it garnered huge support and games. It was simply the most established game system ever, esp. considering the fact that it came out in a time when programmables were new.

 

In the case of the 7800, we DID have something to compare it to. The CV. The 5200. Unlike the 2600, with the 7800 we could ask "what does this thing do that previous programmables didn't?"

 

I've sort of blended together 5200 and CV owners, but that was clumsy, since they would ask the question from different point of views.

 

5200 owners had gone with Atari (obviously!). They wanted to know just for what they were being abandoned. Plus the fact that they were being abandoned after just 1 1/2 years, for crying out loud!!!

 

CV owners, on the other hand, would look at it from a different perspective. Clearly, when it came time to make a choice, they went with the CV and its selection of games. The 7800 only offered, for the most part, what the 5200 had offered, and again, we had already made our choice. If Ms. Pac-Man and Centipede didn't do it the first time, why would it work with the 7800?

 

So when it came to the games, it was sort of hard to impress people with 7800 versions of games that had already been done on the 2600 and 5200, plus the CV and other formats in some cases (Ms. Pac-Man on the C-64, and Centipede on the CV, for example). Been there, got that.

 

 

Therefore, the only chance the 7800 would have had in 1984 was to be SO MUCH FRIGGIN' BETTER than the 5200 or CV that 5200 owners would be willing to forgive and forget, and CV owners willing to abandon the whole CV line. This is what I meant by the above- in 1977, there wasn't anything from the past, really, to use as a yardstick. It was still new. But not by the time the 7800 was to be released.

 

And quite frankly, judging from what I've seen, it wasn't. Esp. with the sort of games one would have considered back in 1983 or 1984.

 

 

Compare this to how Nintendo did things. They stuck with the NES, and handled it well, right into the 16-Bit era. When it was finally time to leave the NES behind for the next system, nobody could say that Nintendo rushed anything. Sega started making the same mistake Atari did with the Sega CD and 32X.

Edited October 8, 2008 by CV Gus

[Crazyace]

A few if's there...

 

If Atari had launched the 7800 when, and the 'crash' hadn't happened - I expect that software would have turned up from other VCS publishers.

 

But it's impossible to decide - the only thing that can be commented on now is what could the hardware do, and in that sense the 7800 had way more potential than the CV.

 

Nintendo definitely learned from Atari's mistakes - dont allowed 3rd parties without collecting royalties... manage the release schedule etc.

[Gorf]

I used to laugh at some of the nonsense PC salesmen would try to hand me......Then one showed me DOOM...

and it was all over. DOH!

 

Yeah, when I saw Wolfenstein 3D on the PC, I knew it was over. Atari had not kept up and suddenly a 386 could do fast 1st person gaming.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I still used my STE for music and coding. I just HAD to be able to play DOOM.

 

[Crazyace]

Yeah - the writing was on the wall when VGA came out..

[Bryan]

Yeah - the writing was on the wall when VGA came out..

VESA local bus was the real killer. It more than doubled the frame rate of many games.

[DracIsBack]

Again, it's clear to me what Vigo was getting at ...

[Bryan]

Again, it's clear to me what Vigo was getting at ...

Yeah, I don't understand this apparent need to rewrite history when what really happened has been pretty well documented.

 

It was a lot like the current housing crisis. Too many people piling on to what was seen as a endless opportunity, and the big boys went bankrupt.

[Artlover]

Again, it's clear to me what Vigo was getting at ...

Yeah, I don't understand this apparent need to rewrite history when what really happened has been pretty well documented.

But don't you know, documented historical fact doesn't mean anything and is irrelvant.

[Gorf]

Again, it's clear to me what Vigo was getting at ...

Yeah, I don't understand this apparent need to rewrite history when what really happened has been pretty well documented.

But don't you know, documented historical fact doesn't mean anything and is irrelvant.

 

Seems that way sometimes does'nt it.

[Artlover]

What the hell, I'll waste my time...

 

In reverse order, to make it easier to make the point.

Of course, by 1987, the CV was pretty much out of the race, and even in 1986 it was rapidly running out of steam. But it was still around; all about where I used to live, it was everywhere, with cartridges going for normal prices.

And? Do you know what "Existing Inventory" means? Just because a product is discontinued doesn't mean all traces of it suddenly vanish of the face of the earth. Systems were/are commonly avaiable in the retail market, NIB, for years after their official demise. I bought my Atari 5200 and a dozen games, brand new from Lionel Playworld back in 1986. The fact that Colecos were still being sold that late means absolutly nothing.

 

The CV was NOT dead in 1983 and 1984 when the 7800 was planned and then supposed to have been released. True, Coleco was gone, but someone else took over. Atari had planned to match the CV and the 7800, since they themselves had dumped the 5200.

Coleco discontinued the Colecovision in 1984. Then do you know what happened. Nothing. For quite a while. Telegames didn't buy the rights to Colecovision till 1985/86'ish, and then had no interest in the original hardware. Through 1985/86 - 2003 they only ever did two things.

 

1. Released that god awful horrible piece of shit clone; the Dina 2-in-1 (later in 1988 renamed the Telegames Personal Arcade). Didn't work with expansions, didn't support two player controll propperly, had electronic defects that caused it's internal ram to fry, and was only compatable with 90% of the cartridges.

 

2. Released a few games.

 

There was no new production of actual Colecovisions or support.

 

In 1987, another company called eColeco bought a huge stockpile of original Colecovision hardware (Consoles, games, parts) and made a business reselling them.

 

In 2004, Telegames dropped all support for classic/retro gaming. As of 2003 however, they were still pushing that crappy ass piece of shit Dina for $150, and carts for $25-30 each.

 

As of 2008, eColeco is still actively in business liquidating whatever Coleco hardware they can dig up. Both NIB and refurbished.

 

That's it.

 

The fact is, the Colecovision as a viable business product was dying by 1983, dead & gone by 1984. Then, after a long period of nothing, became a niche market of selling shitty clones and liquidating existing inventories. It had no value and certainly no driving force that anyone cared to compete against in the VG market anymore at that time.

[Godzilla]

well, the cv had a jstick that would protect yer knuckles from damage whilst fencing, so I have to give the nod to the CV.

 

yea... right... Why is this thread 11 pages... The cv could never manage anything close to 7800 robotron or food fight (etc) and those are first gen games. the cv is a gameboy/msx. There is just no comparison imho. Of course, it was a much older system, so it's not like it's a knock against the system. But for my money, I'll take the 2600s higher color pallete and tons of 60fps games over just about anything comparable on the low-color coleco. So, if I think the 2600 is better than the cv...