5200 Stay? Proceed, Atari, 7800!

[CV Gus]

One of my recent posts here dealt with why the 7800 may have been doomed from the first.

 

Essentially, it was like this: even if the Crash of 1984 had NOT happened, the 5200 was already finished. Atari had planned to abandon it and go with the 7800.

 

However, there were two problems with this: 5200 owners would feel betrayed and would not likely have trusted Atari with the 7800, esp. since most of its first-run games were simply 7800 versions of existing 5200 games. Atari alienated them before the crash, as many letters to game magazines of the times indicated.

 

Also, in 1983, when the 7800 was planned, the only conceivable rival to it would have been the CV. But CV owners had already made their choice between the CV and 5200; we were NOT going to abandon the established CV, with its vast library of games, for the 7800. It was a case of "what part of NO didn't you understand?" Esp. since the 7800 back then (and maybe now) did not seem much better than the CV...or 5200, for that matter. And we also were suspicious of a company that just dumped its customers like that.

 

It was all done too hastily. The 5200 was rushed out to meet the threat of the CV. The 7800 was to have been introduced too soon after the 5200, and if they had waited much longer, the 7800 technology would have risked becoming too antiquated. It was a lose-lose situation.

 

Atari would have been wise to have stuck with the 5200, and only after enough time had passed, introduced an enhanced 7800.

 

 

But here's a question I should have asked before- for you 5200 owners back in those days, would you have preferred Atari to have stuck with the 5200, or to have dumped it in early 1984 for a 1984 7800 release? If it had been up to YOU, what would you have said?

[Atarifever]

I will be terribly surprised if any 5200 owner back in the day preferred being "left behind" by Atari. Did Saturn owners like being dumped for Dreamcast? Three points though:

 

1) Wasn't there a module in the works to make upgrading (while keeping their existing 5200 library) to 7800 cheap for 5200 owners?

 

2) The 5200 was abandoned because it sold poorly compared to the CV (or the 2600 maybe), so Atari wasn't concerned with pleasing 5200 owners, or winning the minor fraction of the market held by Coleco. They wanted the market the 2600 owned. Those owners didn't like not having backwards compatibility. Those owners had not "upgraded" to the CV or 5200. That's who Atari wanted, not the crumbs of the market the CV and 5200 were currently representing.

 

3) The market was in it's infancy. No company had had to upgrade before (Inty, Coleco, 2600, O2, etc were all the first of the removable cart systems). Atari can be forgiven a couple awkward moves as the first company to ever transition between console generations.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Atarifever

[8th lutz]

1) Wasn't there a module in the works to make upgrading (while keeping their existing 5200 library) to 7800 cheap for 5200 owners?

 

Yes, there was. According to the DP Collector's guide I have, a prototype of it exits.

[Atariman]

1) Wasn't there a module in the works to make upgrading (while keeping their existing 5200 library) to 7800 cheap for 5200 owners?

 

Yes, there was. According to the DP Collector's guide I have, a prototype of it exits.

 

It was the Slam Pam module IIRC and was pretty much the same idea as the 2600 adapter (system crammed into a smaller case that only uses the 5200 for power, audio out and video out) I think there's more information at Curt's site.

[CV Gus]

In it's time, the CV was estimated to have sold no less than 3-4 million consoles. Pretty big crumb. If not for the Crash, those figures may have more than doubled.

The 2600 was not as big a factor by 1982 as you think. The reason the 2600 was so big was because it prevailed in the earliest days. But it was still a 2600, and by 1982 was no longer capable of bringing home too many arcade games- and computer-to-console games, same problem. People wanted something more, and when the CV was first advertised, we were in awe. I'll never forget the excitement around it back in that summer of `82. Ladybug. Smurf. Cosmic Avenger. Venture.

 

You must remember that it is rumored that it was the 7800 that was supposed to have been the "real 5200." That is why it was backward-compatible, because it was supposed to have come after the 2600. The 5200 was rushed out to match the CV.

 

While you may be right from a certain point of view, human psychology was not considered. By dumping the 5200 owners, for whatever reason, Atari came across as not caring for its customers. The Crash and stupid marketing decisions are what doomed the CV; but crash or no crash, it was over for the 5200 owners in just 1 1/2 years. Even the 7800 and Sega CD and 32X did better than that.

 

What Atari had to consider back in 1983 was how well the 7800 would do against the CV, as that was the only real problem at that point. The CV had the 2600 module, so if you wanted to play 2600 games, you were covered there already. Keep that in mind- the 7800's 2600 compatibility was no real defense against the CV, because any CV owner- present or future- knew that he was covered there.

Hell, with all of the switches on the CV 2600 module, it could play 2600 games the 7800 couldn't (such as the few that needed the COLOR/BW switch). But how significant was this by 1984 in any case? And I think that the CV 2600 module plays more 2600 games than the 7800.

 

The point, really, was this: one can understand a system being retired when arcade technology has clearly outdated the system. This is why people were receptive to the 5200: arcade games had greatly advanced since the mid-1970s. But the 5200-7800 switch just, well, it just wasn't there.

 

I can't blame Atari in 1982- it was a tough call. If they had waited until the 7800 project was fully ready, then the CV would've dominated the market the way the NES did some years later. If they rushed out the 5200 to counter this, then they would have to wait until the 7800 technology was increasingly dated. But once they DID come out with the 5200, then they owed it to their customers to stick with it for at least a few years. Ironically, had they done this, then the 7800 would have been improved, and it would have been a better match for the NES.

 

Note- Coleco DID have an earlier system- the Telstar Arcade. The CV clearly demonstrated that Coleco had learned from that one, and made a much better system. They handled it right. Until that stupid ADAM computer.

[DracIsBack]

One of my recent posts here dealt with why the 7800 may have been doomed from the first.

 

Yes. It amazes me that you even bother to come in here because all you do is repeat the same things over and over.

 

However, there were two problems with this: 5200 owners would feel betrayed and would not likely have trusted Atari with the 7800

 

Here's another thought. They were less concerned about 5200 owners compared to migrating the (far greater number of) 2600 owners.

 

Also, in 1983, when the 7800 was planned, the only conceivable rival to it would have been the CV. But CV owners had already made their choice between the CV and 5200; we were NOT going to abandon the established CV, with its vast library of games, for the 7800.

 

Once again, Colecovision was dead when 7800 appeared. No more. Many have said it. We've produced evidence that this was the case. Yet you seem to be obsessed about a showdown that would never have occurred and is about as relevant as asking how the TI994A and the Amiga would have competed.

 

It was all done too hastily. The 5200 was rushed out to meet the threat of the CV.

 

No, it was a response to meet the Intellivision. This is also well documented.

[DracIsBack]

In it's time, the CV was estimated to have sold no less than 3-4 million consoles. Pretty big crumb. If not for the Crash, those figures may have more than doubled.

 

I didn't know you had an insight into parallel universes? It's ireelevant though because the crash did happen. It killed the Colecovision. End of story.

 

The 2600 was not as big a factor by 1982 as you think.

 

With 70+% of the market as documented by many sources? You are so full of it.

 

. But it was still a 2600, and by 1982 was no longer capable of bringing home too many arcade games- and computer-to-console games, same problem.

 

So why didn't sales fall to zero (instead of remaining the number one console) and why didn't publishers stop making arcade translations for it?

 

 

You must remember that it is rumored that it was the 7800 that was supposed to have been the "real 5200." That is why it was backward-compatible, because it was supposed to have come after the 2600. The 5200 was rushed out to match the CV.

 

No, but again, you've shown you like to rewrite documented historical fact.

 

While you may be right from a certain point of view, human psychology was not considered. By dumping the 5200 owners, for whatever reason, Atari came across as not caring for its customers.

 

To 5200 owners, sure. To 2600 owners (of which there were a great many more than Colecovision or 5200 owners), what would the story have been? I can play my games out of the box and have a newer system.

 

What Atari had to consider back in 1983 was how well the 7800 would do against the CV, as that was the only real problem at that point.

 

No, because Colecovision was dead. Finished. Nada when the 7800 hit test markets.

 

The CV had the 2600 module, so if you wanted to play 2600 games, you were covered there already.

 

Assuming you could afford the module.

 

And I think that the CV 2600 module plays more 2600 games than the 7800.

 

How relevant is this exactly? There are a handful of 7800 games that MIGHT NOT work on some 7800s.

 

Honestly dude ... why do you post here? I mean really? It's not like you listen to facts even when they're put in your face. You simply abandon thread and then start new ones with the same arguments which attempt to rewrite history.

[Atarifever]

Note- Coleco DID have an earlier system- the Telstar Arcade. The CV clearly demonstrated that Coleco had learned from that one, and made a much better system. They handled it right. Until that stupid ADAM computer.

Fine then, I'll have fun with logic too. Atari's "stupid" decisions led to them having several computer models in the industry for well over a decade, a ton of computer perephrials, and a ton of support for their computers. Their "stupid" choices in consoles (like the 7800) enabled them to put out systems through from Pong games to 3D games in the same generation as the N64. How'd Coleco's computer division do? How many systems did they sell in total? How did the Coleco 2 do? Oh yeah. Their computer flopped and their gaming division disappeared. So, what did Atari do wrong compared to Coleco exactly? Not fail earlier and more throughly?

[ApolloBoy]

1) Wasn't there a module in the works to make upgrading (while keeping their existing 5200 library) to 7800 cheap for 5200 owners?

 

Yes, there was. According to the DP Collector's guide I have, a prototype of it exits.

 

It was the Slam Pam module IIRC and was pretty much the same idea as the 2600 adapter (system crammed into a smaller case that only uses the 5200 for power, audio out and video out) I think there's more information at Curt's site.

 

You know, in all his arguments I don't understand why CV Gus ignores the planned 7800 adapter. If I were a 5200 owner in 1984 I probably wouldn't feel left out had Atari released the adapter.

[atari_envy]

Interesting debate. I remember when the 5200 came out thinking that the graphics were AWESOME. I wanted one, but it seemed like only a few of the rich kids were getting them. A lot of people had 2600s but not many people were buying the 5200s. Instead, me and my friends were getting distracted with the computers that were coming out. I remember playing on the TRS-80s, TI-99s and Apple IIs and thinking they were pretty cool and fun, and I started losing interest in the game consoles.

 

I feel that Atari's first mistake was not making the 5200 backward compatible with the 2600 catridges like they did with the 7800. I think there was a market for the 7800 early on, and the same rich kids that bought the 5200 would get the 7800, and people like me (who didn't even have a 2600) might have bought one. But it was released too late for us to ever know for sure.

[RangerG]

I agree with Gus. I don't know what the point of the 7800 was? Coming out with a console two years after your SuperSystem release wasn't smart. I remember being awed by both the 5200 and Colecovision - they were high-end competitors. If Atari had come out with newer controllers that were self-centering and more durable and created a less awkward 2600 adaptor, the 5200 would have in my opinion gone head to head with the Colecovision and possible overtaken it. The crash really killed a potentially great era of gaming: 5200 vs. CV.

[RangerG]

Gus - you can also fault Coleco for not focusing on the CV and dumping money into the Adam. Both the 7800 and Adam hurt their companies and kept funds and marketing from the 5200 and CV console race.

[atari_envy]

I agree with Gus. I don't know what the point of the 7800 was? Coming out with a console two years after your SuperSystem release wasn't smart. I remember being awed by both the 5200 and Colecovision - they were high-end competitors. If Atari had come out with newer controllers that were self-centering and more durable and created a less awkward 2600 adaptor, the 5200 would have in my opinion gone head to head with the Colecovision and possible overtaken it. The crash really killed a potentially great era of gaming: 5200 vs. CV.

 

And as someone who also lived through it, I agree with DracIsBack. The Atari 2600 was still popular in '82 and was much more enduring than Gus is giving it credit for. People were still playing the 2600; games and systems were still being released into the late 80s and early 90s.

 

In the 80s, the economy was starting to pick up and people were willing to spend their money on the latest technology. People were in love with arcade and video games. People would have been willing to purchase the 7800 if given the chance even with the recent release of the 5200.

 

As for the 5200 controllers -- I remember the controllers being different, but having a hefty, expensive feel. No one was complaining about them at the time. It wasn't till later when they started failing, that people started complaining. I use the original 5200 controllers exclusively today and love them (gold dot rebuild). Once you are used to them, the self-centering isn't noticable.

 

I do agree with you about the 2600 compatibility for the 5200. It was an afterthought that bit Atari in the butt, and they scrambled to create the adaptor. However, it was too much $ and too late. Peopl

[SoundGammon]

One of my recent posts here dealt with why the 7800 may have been doomed from the first.

 

Essentially, it was like this: even if the Crash of 1984 had NOT happened, the 5200 was already finished. Atari had planned to abandon it and go with the 7800.

 

However, there were two problems with this: 5200 owners would feel betrayed and would not likely have trusted Atari with the 7800, esp. since most of its first-run games were simply 7800 versions of existing 5200 games. Atari alienated them before the crash, as many letters to game magazines of the times indicated.

 

Also, in 1983, when the 7800 was planned, the only conceivable rival to it would have been the CV. But CV owners had already made their choice between the CV and 5200; we were NOT going to abandon the established CV, with its vast library of games, for the 7800. It was a case of "what part of NO didn't you understand?" Esp. since the 7800 back then (and maybe now) did not seem much better than the CV...or 5200, for that matter. And we also were suspicious of a company that just dumped its customers like that.

 

It was all done too hastily. The 5200 was rushed out to meet the threat of the CV. The 7800 was to have been introduced too soon after the 5200, and if they had waited much longer, the 7800 technology would have risked becoming too antiquated. It was a lose-lose situation.

 

Atari would have been wise to have stuck with the 5200, and only after enough time had passed, introduced an enhanced 7800.

 

 

But here's a question I should have asked before- for you 5200 owners back in those days, would you have preferred Atari to have stuck with the 5200, or to have dumped it in early 1984 for a 1984 7800 release? If it had been up to YOU, what would you have said?

Again: The 5200 was designed to go against the Intellivision. NOT the Colecovision! Atari didn't know about the CV until it showed up at a CES show. The 5200 was a 1979 design, a stripped down Atari 400 computer that was turned into a video game system! The 3600 had a cpu that the programmers hated and Atari couldn't afford to wait to start new r&d for a new system. So the 400 became the 5200. Interesting side note, the 5200, in a way, later came back as the XE game system! The 5200 wasn't the success they had hoped for, mainly due to the controllers and the fallout of the market, but it did have excellent games! I really don't believe that Atari was going to dump the 5200 as quick as some say because they still had some excellent games planned, TEMPEST, GREMLINS, and more. Plus the 7800 adaptor that would let you play 3 types of games on ONE SUPERSYSTEM!

[suaiden]

Oh no. You're back.

 

One of my recent posts here dealt with why the 7800 may have been doomed from the first....

 

snip!

 

Also, in 1983, when the 7800 was planned, the only conceivable rival to it would have been the CV.

 

Because of course they were designing something to compete with the CV as opposed to a more arcade quality system.

 

Well, that makes all the sense in the world.

 

I still wait for you to post one port that looks better on the CV. One cart that does side by side.

 

One.

 

You can't.

 

And out of those second-gen systems I STILL prefer my Intellivision.

[Crazyace]

The 7800 is weird, as it 'came from outside' atari - GCC designed ( and it sound's like it wouldn't have been possible if the chip company they used hadn't already designed the CV 2600 adaptor )

I'd love to know what the 'internal' 3600 design was - I guess someone must know?

( The rumours say 10 bit - the GI chip is the only 10 bit chip I know - and that ended up in the intellivision )

[RangerG]

In the 80s, the economy was starting to pick up and people were willing to spend their money on the latest technology. People were in love with arcade and video games. People would have been willing to purchase the 7800 if given the chance even with the recent release of the 5200.

 

 

I still don't think having three consoles at one time was smart (with the 5200 less than 2 years old). Also, 1982 was an economic recession in the US.

 

I totally agree that the 5200 sticks were thought of as looking good and high-end, but as durability problems arose - a new stick (like Coleco did with the SA ones) would have helped and really corrected the controller issue.

[Allpaul]

In it's time, the CV was estimated to have sold no less than 3-4 million consoles. Pretty big crumb. If not for the Crash, those figures may have more than doubled.

 

I didn't know you had an insight into parallel universes? It's ireelevant though because the crash did happen. It killed the Colecovision. End of story.

 

The 2600 was not as big a factor by 1982 as you think.

 

With 70+% of the market as documented by many sources? You are so full of it.

 

. But it was still a 2600, and by 1982 was no longer capable of bringing home too many arcade games- and computer-to-console games, same problem.

 

So why didn't sales fall to zero (instead of remaining the number one console) and why didn't publishers stop making arcade translations for it?

 

 

You must remember that it is rumored that it was the 7800 that was supposed to have been the "real 5200." That is why it was backward-compatible, because it was supposed to have come after the 2600. The 5200 was rushed out to match the CV.

 

No, but again, you've shown you like to rewrite documented historical fact.

 

While you may be right from a certain point of view, human psychology was not considered. By dumping the 5200 owners, for whatever reason, Atari came across as not caring for its customers.

 

To 5200 owners, sure. To 2600 owners (of which there were a great many more than Colecovision or 5200 owners), what would the story have been? I can play my games out of the box and have a newer system.

 

What Atari had to consider back in 1983 was how well the 7800 would do against the CV, as that was the only real problem at that point.

 

No, because Colecovision was dead. Finished. Nada when the 7800 hit test markets.

 

The CV had the 2600 module, so if you wanted to play 2600 games, you were covered there already.

 

Assuming you could afford the module.

 

And I think that the CV 2600 module plays more 2600 games than the 7800.

 

How relevant is this exactly? There are a handful of 7800 games that MIGHT NOT work on some 7800s.

 

Honestly dude ... why do you post here? I mean really? It's not like you listen to facts even when they're put in your face. You simply abandon thread and then start new ones with the same arguments which attempt to rewrite history.

 

Gus, I have to agree with everything Drac is saying. People have answered and debated! You ignore it and repeat yourself! We get it! You don't think the 7800 is better (or THAT much better) than the CV (or 5200)! You're pissed off about it! Jeez!

Edited November 5, 2008 by Allpaul

[Underball]

Can't we just enjoy the games as they are, and enjoy the new and upcoming homebrews for these systems, and stop trying to compare everything to death?

 

I come here to read about and download atari games I enjoy, not argue about how right or wrong somebody's fanatical opinion is.

[CV Gus]

Gus - you can also fault Coleco for not focusing on the CV and dumping money into the Adam. Both the 7800 and Adam hurt their companies and kept funds and marketing from the 5200 and CV console race.

 

But I have- for years now!

 

As for the 7800 module- I'm not so sure that it would've worked. The 32X, the Sega CD, the Supercharger, the ADAM- it does not seem as though any upgrade has ever really done all that well.

 

DracIsBack- Rewrite what? I said it was a RUMOUR. And the at least 3 million sales is common knowledge. What did in Coleco were decisions that could not do anything but doom them, even if the CV had sold 10 million.

 

The 2600 was big only because it was there from the 1970s. By your logic, neither the Genesis nor the Super Nintendo should have been considered at all successful, since the NES was everywhere. Companies made games for the 2600 because it was there, established. But how long could that have gone on? The CV and 5200 were the next step up, and so those of us who bought one were stepping into the next generation. Those two were about the future.

 

You also seem to miss your own point- by continuing on with the 2600, Atari had to spread itself very thin. Arcade, computers, 2600, 5200- very thin. Therefore, the 5200's biggest threat may not have been the CV, but Atari's own 2600! And if what you say is true, then wouldn't the 7800 have had the same problem in 1984? Every bit of effort anywhere for the 2600 was that much less for anything else.

 

Part of the problem was eras. The 2600 won out in the earliest days of the programmable. It was, therefore, the cornerstone of it all, and so was the system. ANY new system- even if the NES had appeared in 1982- was going to have a serious problem with what defined home video gaming at that point. But sooner or later, it would have to be tried. That's what the CV and 5200 were about. Of course, neither one at that point was going to match the 2600 for "reputation" or numbers. But unless you would like us to still be with the 2600 instead of the Playstation, wouldn't someone somewhere have had to have tried it?

 

The point I'm trying to make is that the whole post-2600 era was handled all wrong by everyone. When Atari itself decided to put out the 5200- for whatever reason- they themselves decided to challenge their own 2600. At that point, they should have known that they'd be committed to the 5200 for at least a few years, unless sales were so horrible that nobody in the universe would have blamed them for dropping it. But they had decided to dump the 5200 as early as 1983 in favor of the 7800, so the crash had nothing to do with that. This could only alienate Atari fans.

 

Coleco, for its part, fouled up with the ADAM computer. I live near Amsterdam, NY, and so have met quite a few Coleco employees. Did you know that, for the 1983 holiday season, they not only halted CV production, but would just hire people off the street, teach them some basic soldering, and then have the ADAMs assembled on crude plywood tables- no sanitation or protection against static electricity was considered? This is one reason why so many were defective. What's more, it was a clumsy oddball up against established computers of that time. It just couldn't have been expected to work.

 

And Coleco foolishly believed in that "video games are dead; the future is with computers" bit. I'll give Atari credit for not believing that, since they were going to release the 7800 in late 1984.

 

But either way, both companies went down, but for different reasons. It's a bit sad, really- what would both the CV and 5200 have done by 1986, if only given a chance? Homebrewers have given us a good idea.

Edited November 5, 2008 by CV Gus

[ApolloBoy]

As for the 7800 module- I'm not so sure that it would've worked. The 32X, the Sega CD, the Supercharger, the ADAM- it does not seem as though any upgrade has ever really done all that well.

 

Except that all the add-ons you mentioned also used additional hardware (ADAM, Supercharger) or an additional power supply (32X, Sega CD). The 7800 adapter would've been a plug-and-play adapter, nothing extra required, except for a 7800 controller or two.

Edited November 6, 2008 by ApolloBoy

[suaiden]

Part of the problem was eras. The 2600 won out in the earliest days of the programmable. It was, therefore, the cornerstone of it all, and so was the system. ANY new system- even if the NES had appeared in 1982- was going to have a serious problem with what defined home video gaming at that point. But sooner or later, it would have to be tried. That's what the CV and 5200 were about. Of course, neither one at that point was going to match the 2600 for "reputation" or numbers. But unless you would like us to still be with the 2600 instead of the Playstation, wouldn't someone somewhere have had to have tried it?

 

I notice you are still afraid of addressing anything I say because I defeat your argument in one word: Intellivision. The Intellivision, as old as the 2600 and considered the "real" competition at the time of the Colecovision, was arguably it's strongest competition at the time. The Atari 5200 was, to everyone whom I knew owned it, a niche machine. It had a really weird joystick. Amazing graphics. It was not a popular system, however.

 

But your fantasy continues:

 

Coleco, for its part, fouled up with the ADAM computer. I live near Amsterdam, NY, and so have met quite a few Coleco employees. Did you know that, for the 1983 holiday season, they not only halted CV production, but would just hire people off the street, teach them some basic soldering, and then have the ADAMs assembled on crude plywood tables- no sanitation or protection against static electricity was considered? This is one reason why so many were defective. What's more, it was a clumsy oddball up against established computers of that time. It just couldn't have been expected to work.

 

Yes. Of course. It was poor workmanship. How about FLAWED DESIGN? Let's have some fun facts from the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleco_Adam -- let's see if this will distract CV Gus for a while as he fixes it to match his propaganda) from back in the 80's (the first is my personal fave):

 

* Adam generated a surge of electromagnetic energy on startup, which would erase the contents of any removable media left in or near the drive.[1] Making this problem worse, some of the Coleco manuals instructed the user to put the tape in the drive before turning the computer on; presumably these were printed before the issue was known.

* Initial shipments to customers included a high rate of defective tape drives, some say up to 50%.[citation needed] Ejecting a tape while it was moving would usually destroy the drive as there was no eject lock-out mechanism and the tape (based on a standard Compact Cassette) moved at an extremely high rate of speed.

* Since Coleco made the unusual decision of using the printer to supply power to the entire Adam system, if the printer malfunctioned, none of the system worked.

* Unlike other home computers at the time, the Adam did not have its BASIC interpreter permanently stored in ROM. Instead, it featured a built-in electronic typewriter and word processor, SmartWriter, as well as the Elementary Operating System (EOS) OS kernel and the 8K OS-7 ColecoVision operating system. The SmartBASIC interpreter was delivered on a proprietary format Digital Data Pack tape cassette.

* Once put into Word Processor mode, SmartWriter could not get back into the typewriter mode without rebooting the system.

 

--------------- And those, chum, are DA FAX.

 

Funny thing, reading the source citation, an article about the Adam, it ended with this: "It's also too early to tell which competitor, if any, will be hurt most by the Adam. The Adam still costs less than a Commodore or Atari equipped with a disk drive and dot-matrix printer, and costs much less than a fully configured IBM PCjr or Apple IIe."

 

Well, we know how that all ended, don't we.

Edited November 6, 2008 by suaiden

[CV Gus]

Look, I'll always say that Atari dumping the 5200 after just 1 1/2 years was a rotten thing to do. The situation at that time just did not justify it in any realistic way.

 

DracIsBack, you couldn't expect the 5200 to sell as well as the 2600. The 2600 was the very foundation of the programmable video game scene; even the Playstation 3 and X-Box 360 owe it all to the 2600. So the contention that the 2600 was a factor for the third generation (CV and 5200) just isn't logical. Sooner or later a more advanced system was going to be needed, so even if there were more 2600s out there than CVs or 5200s, that didn't matter. Those systems were from two different eras and situations, and so cannot be compared in sales or "established."

 

But it did put Atari in a bind. On the one hand- as you point out- the 2600 was still a moneymaker. So Atari understandably did not want to abandon it. Yet, they did need something to compete with the CV.

So it was that the 5200 really was caught between the hammer and the anvil. The (outside) CV, AND the (inside!) 2600. For every ounce of effort put into the 2600, was an ounce less that could be put into the 5200. When Coleco put its efforts into the CV, it was a strong result; but when they diverted some of that effort into the (&^%@#$!) ADAM, the CV suffered- which probably explains why games like Mr. Do!, Time Pilot, Space Fury, and the (defective) Victory were overall inferior to the 1982 batch, or had a rushed-out look.

 

But so it was, and so it had to be. Atari came out with the 5200. Although its sales did not match those of the CV, it was itself no wimp. With games like Tempest, Super Pac-Man, and Millipede, it's not unreasonable, with lower prices, that at least some CV and other system owners would have gotten it as a second system, not unlike me now. But that didn't matter.

 

Once Atari came out with it, Atari was committed. They chose to do it. Therefore, they owed it to their customers, and to their reputation, NOT to dump the thing. Sales were not nearly bad enough to justify it, and the 7800- esp. with its first batch of games- was not that much better.

 

It was never likely that the 7800 would ever have toppled the CV from its position, and quite frankly, the 5200 was a more effective rival. But by doing what they did, they betrayed the trust their customers put into them, and that hurts any business worse than a system not quite meeting sales expectations. It was that loss of trust that helped the NES against Atari.

 

And who knows what the 5200 would have been capable of? Just compare the earliest 2600 games to the later ones (e.g. Robot Tank). Learning curve and all.

 

Hell, now that it has a light gun, we'll see what "Alien Brigade" and Crossbow-type games are possible. So 7800, NES, and SMS-

 

 

As for the Telstar Arcade- my point was that both Atari and Coleco had first generation systems. But Coleco clearly did not want to repeat that fiasco, and got it right. Of course, I'll grant you this: it's always easier to make a better showing after a crummy first try than after a good one.

[Crazyace]

I think that it's obvious what the 5200 could do - it was an 8 bit machine - look at the games for the XEGS, or even the 130XE - pretty much all of this could be done on the 5200 - eventually RAM as well as ROM could appear on cartridges if needed.

 

The 7800 was the new machine with more potential, and more importantly it could be cheaper to produce, and the security would ensure no unlicensed games - so if things had gone differently it would have taken the market.

 

Either way Atari had a competitor for the CV

[DracIsBack]

Look, I'll always say that Atari dumping the 5200 after just 1 1/2 years was a rotten thing to do.

 

No one disagrees with you. It was a really crappy thing to do to the people who invested in the 5200. But when you're losing $2 million a day, you do desperate things. And Atari did.

 

DracIsBack, you couldn't expect the 5200 to sell as well as the 2600. The 2600 was the very foundation of the programmable video game scene; even the Playstation 3 and X-Box 360 owe it all to the 2600.

 

So what? The 2600 was later outsold by the NES, which was later outsold by the PS1, which was later outsold by the PS2.

 

The point was that Atari expected people to move up from the 2600 and they didn't en-masse with the 5200. Market research (at that time) and press opinion (at that time) was that they screwed up by not having the 5200 compatable outright with Atari 2600 games. They tried another shot with the 7800.

 

So the contention that the 2600 was a factor for the third generation (CV and 5200) just isn't logical. Sooner or later a more advanced system was going to be needed, so even if there were more 2600s out there than CVs or 5200s, that didn't matter.

 

Sooner or later is irrelevant because it was the NES that made the difference. Why do you wander over into this abstract dreamland?

 

Although its sales did not match those of the CV, it was itself no wimp.

 

Despite the fact that I've probably asked you a half-dozen times to provide valid statistics (NPD data if you have it), you have yet to do so. Yet, despite the lack of actual, verifiable evidence, you cling to this notion.

 

It was never likely that the 7800 would ever have toppled the CV from its position

 

Irrelevant because the only position that the Colecovision was in when the 7800 was test marketed was SIX FEET UNDER THE GROUND.

 

Altogether now, one last time, so hopefully it sinks in:

 

WHEN THE 7800 hit the market in 1984, the Colecovision was DEAD. DECEASED. NO MORE. DISCONTINUED.

 

The 7800 didn't need to topple any competitor because they were all DEAD from the crash. The real question has nothing to do with Colecovision. It's whether or not it would have ressurected the market that had killed the Colecovision and the others. I believe it wouldn't have - and not because of technological strengths or weaknesses

 

• Atari was hated by the channel
  
• The games weren't different enough
  
• The publishing industry was dead
  
• "Video game" was a dirty word
  

If Atari had taken a Nintendo approach, released it under a sub-brand with a bunch of games like what came later, things might have been different.

 

And who knows what the 5200 would have been capable of?

 

It's been tested a lot more than the 7800 because the XL/XE has BEEN pushed. If anything, it is the 7800 is the one that has not been pushed to its limits.