How much of a difference the 7800 would have if the XEGS didn't exist?

[mcjakeqcool]

The CD32 managed to secure over 50% of the CD-ROM market in the UK in 1993 and 1994, outselling the Sega Mega-CD, the Philips CDi, and even PC CD-ROM sales wise so it was a sucsess, however the c64gs and amstrad gx4000 was not a sucsess, the Atari XEGS however was a sucsess, and that's why it is in the same league as the CD32 as a apose to the c64gs and amstrad gx4000. Granted however is the fact that the XEGS had poorer sales then the 7800 during the late 80s.

[etschuetz]

I passed over a few threads to throw in my input, so I may accidently repeat something someone already said.

 

The Atari 7800 would have seen better sales and such if one thing would have actually happened...It would have been released when it was ready back in 1984, instead of 1986. That two years makes a huge difference. This time would have given developers a chance to get familiar with the hardware, and possibly even make it look like REAL competition to the NES. The hardware between the two are similar, but there are some differences that actually put the 7800 at an advantage.

 

The other issue is that the Tramiel family didn't push the 7800. They crapped on the entire video game industry essentially. If Jack Tramiel's Atari would have danced with who brought them to the Prom, things would have definitely been different. In my opinion, and looking in retrospec to the Video Game industry, along side Atari, the Tramiel family have NO business sense. THey just didn't care.

 

With strong advertisements, encouraging good games, and allowing programmers the time to learn the hardware and develop games, it would have made a HUGE difference. Who knows, we could still be playing Atari today if the Tramiels would have actually invested the time to rebuild the console gaming legacy of the Atari brand.

[kool kitty89]

The CD32 managed to secure over 50% of the CD-ROM market in the UK in 1993 and 1994, outselling the Sega Mega-CD, the Philips CDi, and even PC CD-ROM sales wise so it was a sucsess, however the c64gs and amstrad gx4000 was not a sucsess, the Atari XEGS however was a sucsess, and that's why it is in the same league as the CD32 as a apose to the c64gs and amstrad gx4000. Granted however is the fact that the XEGS had poorer sales then the 7800 during the late 80s.

 

Wow, I had no idea the CD32 was so succfessful (based on that it sounds like ~1-2 million sold in this time), I guess the 3DO wasn't much of a factor in Europe. Makes me wonder a little more about an Atari counterpart (go with a gaming machine instead of the Falcon computer) that came up in a couple other recent discussions. Particularly the possibilities in Europe (where the ST had done fairly well), though it would be interesting to have seen how well the CD32 would have done in the US market. (as it was unreleased)

 

 

etschuetz,

 

Those are interesting oints, and thinking about the hardware, despite the limitations in its current for, it certainly would seem to have some advantages. Robotron is the obvious example, but thinking more, the 7800 should have been really good for SHMUPs, especially with simple black/starfield backgrounds. (though Xevious has a scrolling background, and is a good example to show the advantages compared to the NES version)

 

However, with some of those suggestions you made there's still the problem with distributors being burned by Atari and would be difficult to get them to stock it. I suppose you could try your best, and look for some additional retailers as well. (though all this plus advertizing is very limited with Atari+Tramiel's current budget)

Another possibility is make it available through mail order, if you distribution base is too limited.

Edited June 3, 2009 by kool kitty89

[atarian63]

The CD32 managed to secure over 50% of the CD-ROM market in the UK in 1993 and 1994, outselling the Sega Mega-CD, the Philips CDi, and even PC CD-ROM sales wise so it was a sucsess, however the c64gs and amstrad gx4000 was not a sucsess, the Atari XEGS however was a sucsess, and that's why it is in the same league as the CD32 as a apose to the c64gs and amstrad gx4000. Granted however is the fact that the XEGS had poorer sales then the 7800 during the late 80s.

That is interesting on the cd32 (I have one) I didn't know it did so well in the UK. It was a total flop here. I could not sell any. Kind of like the XEGS,it was still an amiga 1200 with warmed over re-releases. I thought it was neat myself.

[kool kitty89]

That is interesting on the cd32 (I have one) I didn't know it did so well in the UK. It was a total flop here. I could not sell any. Kind of like the XEGS,it was still an amiga 1200 with warmed over re-releases. I thought it was neat myself.

 

From what I've read the CD32 was never officially released in the US at all so there's no comparison to make... (though I doubt it would have done as well as in europe given Commodore's stronger presence there)

[atarian63]

That is interesting on the cd32 (I have one) I didn't know it did so well in the UK. It was a total flop here. I could not sell any. Kind of like the XEGS,it was still an amiga 1200 with warmed over re-releases. I thought it was neat myself.

 

From what I've read the CD32 was never officially released in the US at all so there's no comparison to make... (though I doubt it would have done as well as in europe given Commodore's stronger presence there)

Probably, I think we bought ours through distribution. There was so much going on at the time with crossover between the 2 markets. The employees bought them. I know you can still get them from SE asia on ebay. I assume those are leftovers from the ones Commodore didn't pay for when they closed.

I have one but it's a pain to get things to run. I need an ISO.

[kool kitty89]

OK it seems that quote on the CD32 is way off, accoriding to wiki's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_CD32 which sites this one: http://www.heartbone.com/comphist/AmigaHistory.htm and says that only around 100,000 were sold. (also mentioning that had at least 400,000 sold, it may have saved Commodore) This is less than 1/2 of what the Jaguar sold....

[mcjakeqcool]

The CD32's US releace was scheduled in March 1994, a month before Commodore went bust, however for reasons I am unaware of, the March 1994 releace was cancelled. Had the CD32 been releaced in the US, it could have kept Commodore afloat, however because of the financial situation Commodore found it's self in, citrea late '93, early '94, it still may have not been enough to completely restore Commodore financelly. As for the XEGS however, it probally would'ent of made very much impact on the 7800 if it was'ent releaced, the 7800 would probally have 5-9 extra games, but most would be ports rather then exclusives, though I don't know enough at this precise moment in time to go into detail.

[etschuetz]

etschuetz,

 

Those are interesting oints, and thinking about the hardware, despite the limitations in its current for, it certainly would seem to have some advantages. Robotron is the obvious example, but thinking more, the 7800 should have been really good for SHMUPs, especially with simple black/starfield backgrounds. (though Xevious has a scrolling background, and is a good example to show the advantages compared to the NES version)

 

However, with some of those suggestions you made there's still the problem with distributors being burned by Atari and would be difficult to get them to stock it. I suppose you could try your best, and look for some additional retailers as well. (though all this plus advertizing is very limited with Atari+Tramiel's current budget)

Another possibility is make it available through mail order, if you distribution base is too limited.

 

Not only with what I stated, with the advancements that Atari were always wanting to make during its early heyday, a newer, more advanced system would have inevitably been released by 1988/89. With that, knowing how Atari liked using existing processors, they would have probably utilized a M68000 series processor to release a decent 16bit console that would have given Sega a run for their money in the 16bit era. The Jaguar would have been an obvious given as to how its development started around 1989, anyway. On top of that, the Lynx would have probably been a stronger competitor to the Game Boy because Atari would have had the faith of developers on their side by that time.

 

As for marketing and such, with quality games, and displays using Kiosks, Atari would have easily been able to regain shelf space. Consumer demand usually dictates what distributors will carry. If Atari would have released the 7800 in 1984, Nintendo would not have been able to use their 2 year contractual agreement on new releases as Atari would have already ended up with most of them on their 3rd party roster. Nintendo would have been forced to compete naturally. Sega would have also been given a bigger chance, as well. The 8bit industry would have boomed with a three way competition for supremecy. With that, we would very well have seen a technological battle with faster, stronger, more capable systems on the market long before they did with the current market at that time.

 

I don't blame the programmers and developers for the failure of the 7800. I blame the business sense of the Tramiel family. There is a reason why they were drummed out of the very company they started. The death of Atari in the early 90's is a prime example of it.

[Jetboot Jack]

I doubt the presence of lack of the XEGS had anything to do with the 7800's performance at retail...

 

Personally I think in the face of Nintendo's monopoly of 3rd party development that Katz and the Tramiel boys did a pretty good job patching up Atari and making money after the idiocy of Warner.

 

Atari sold 100's of millions of dollars of stuff in the late 80's ($425,000,000 in 1988 alone I think).

 

The 7800, 2600 and XEGS contributed to pretty healthy balance book alongside the ST's great sales (worldwide).

 

I personally think Michael Katz's departure in 1989 had far more to do with the demise of the Atari name in videogame retail. He did a great job selling those 8bit systems. In his wake they didn't secure a strong replacement and so that business waned...

 

sTeVE

[Gemeni]

Don't want to get too technical like everybody else is but personally I think it would have been a great sucess if atari wasn't sold to jack tramiel who wanted to work on the computers second it should have came out in 1984 giving it a 2 year head start against the nes and sms and couldn't the 7800 run in 160 pixels and 320 pixels?Making the graphics better then that of the nes?I seriosly think if atari were never sold to tramiel warner released it in 1984 with a better sound chip and giving it a 2 year head start it would have succeded plus better advertising and less of those arcade ports that we saw on all the other consoles before it.

[mcjakeqcool]

The Truth is, by 1989, the 7800 was all but dead it needed a sucsessor which could compete with the likes of the TG16, MD/GEN, SNES etc, I'm not gonna blabber on and bore everyone by going into detail, but... YA KNOW.

[kool kitty89]

Not only with what I stated, with the advancements that Atari were always wanting to make during its early heyday, a newer, more advanced system would have inevitably been released by 1988/89. With that, knowing how Atari liked using existing processors, they would have probably utilized a M68000 series processor to release a decent 16bit console that would have given Sega a run for their money in the 16bit era. The Jaguar would have been an obvious given as to how its development started around 1989, anyway. On top of that, the Lynx would have probably been a stronger competitor to the Game Boy because Atari would have had the faith of developers on their side by that time.

 

As for marketing and such, with quality games, and displays using Kiosks, Atari would have easily been able to regain shelf space. Consumer demand usually dictates what distributors will carry. If Atari would have released the 7800 in 1984, Nintendo would not have been able to use their 2 year contractual agreement on new releases as Atari would have already ended up with most of them on their 3rd party roster. Nintendo would have been forced to compete naturally. Sega would have also been given a bigger chance, as well. The 8bit industry would have boomed with a three way competition for supremecy. With that, we would very well have seen a technological battle with faster, stronger, more capable systems on the market long before they did with the current market at that time.

 

I don't blame the programmers and developers for the failure of the 7800. I blame the business sense of the Tramiel family. There is a reason why they were drummed out of the very company they started. The death of Atari in the early 90's is a prime example of it.

 

This is interesting, and the points about bouncing back through consumer intrest are certainly valid, but this would have to occur quickly for Atari (under Warner) to alleviate its financial problems, and would still probably have to cut back expences and drop a bunch of employees. (of course Warner was big enough to absorb a bit of the losses, but with Atari's state, they still would need to make changes) Of course, they could still push their 8-bit computers in the midst of the crash, but that would only be a limited help given the feirce competition there as well.

 

On the 16-bit system idea, had Warner stayed, theyd have the rights to the Amiga as a game console (and after a waiting period, rights to manufacture their own version of the full computer), a stripped-down Amiga would have make an excellent competitor for the New gen consoles and had the potential for a good head start as well. Of course (before Tramiel had even acquired Atari) Amiga had joined up with Commodore and paid off the Atari loan so there would be a legal dispute surrounding this had Warner Atari stayed. (as it was, this was used by Tramiel as grounds to counter sue against Commodore's calims of stealingcompany property in developing the ST -which ended up being settled)

 

Under Tramiel there was the possibility for an ST derived console, though it was a bit weaker than the Amiga in many respects as a gaming machine (some things could be addressed reasonably well, like an FM synth chip for additional sound capabilities).

 

As for Atari itsself, Warner had been supporting a number of advanced computer designs, but had later abandoned them to foucus more on the video game market: http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/16bit...s/hf-sierra.htm

http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/computers.html

 

The most prominent one IMO would be 68000 powered Sierra (there was also the dual 68k "Gaza" workstation), which would seem quite advanced, designed for high-end audio-video capabilities (I beleive this was one of the planned applications for the AMY audio synthesis chip), in addition to (at least on the surface) apearing to be quite competitive (or possibly superior to) the Amiga design (not to mention the ST) and could have made a good console design too. (assuming it wasn't too expensive)

 

Had such a computer design been ready for market durring the crash, this could have been a possible boost for them to get through the slump in gaming and build up intrest again. (and later use this computer design as the basis for their next-gen console, succeding the 7800, say around 1987)

 

 

As I understand it, Tramiel hadn't been aware of these previous projects when he acquired Atari, and the design teams for several of these projects (including Sierra, Gaza, and AMY -the latter to develop seperately, but failed without the designers), neither had he initially known of the Amiga deal with Warner. Had he known of these designs, particularly Sierra, it's possible that the ST design could have been dropped in favor of them, or portions of the ST design and previous atari designs could have been combined. (prior to being shelved, both the Sierra and Gaza projects had been prototyped and were further along than the ST design when Tramiel took over; I'm not sure about AMY, though I beleive part of the difficulty Tramil had with it was converting it to be used with the 8-bit line rather the 68k system it had been intended for)

Edited June 18, 2009 by kool kitty89

[DracIsBack]

"What Does Opportunity Cost Mean?

1. The cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue a certain action. Put another way, the benefits you could have received by taking an alternative action."

 

To support XEGS, Atari directed resources away from the 7800 and 2600jr across all facets of the company.

[kool kitty89]

To support XEGS, Atari directed resources away from the 7800 and 2600jr across all facets of the company.

 

Supporting the XE 65/130 line as a replacement for the XL wasn't a bad Idea, but repacking it as the XEGS was, especially as it was a bit of a confusing move for both consumers and distrubutors. (besides the competition with the 7800, it was always in a gray area between being a gaming system and a computer) Besides that, it was a bit bulkier than the keyboard console 65/130 and I think the price point was similar to these. (which were around $100 at this point, at least for the 65)

 

If anything they should have offered a gaming pack option for the XE line, but marketed with "computer games" rather than "video games" to avoid direct competiton, and push more in that portion of the market.

 

If they wanted to introduce a new system it should have been a new, advansed system, under Tramiel (unknowing of the previous Atari projects) it would have been an ST derivative (stripped to minimum RAM -ie 128 kB- and minimal bios -possibly just for a lockout feature, with some audio enhancement over the limited YM2149, maybe an FM synth chip). This would be in a fairly seperate market compared to the 7800, being a more expensive and advanced "next gen" console. 1987/88 would be a perfect time to launch it as these were the most successful years for the 7800 and would allow time for a proper trasition as the 7800 declined in '89/90.

You could phase out the 2600 Jr as the budget system, the 7800 gradually taking its place while the new "STGS" would have time to build up steam.

 

The "STGS" really wouldn't have direct competition in the US until mis '89 with the TG-16, and that wasn't particularly successful, then there's the Genesis, but that didn't really pick up until 1991, though it was doing decently well in 1990; still there'd be 2 years for Atari's system to penetrate the market ahead of drect competition. There's the computer market that could compete of course, particularly the Amiga, but (at least in the US) this is treated rather seperately, and other than the C64 nothing from the period compared to the saturation of the game console market, pluss the biggest contemporary compeditor -the Amiga- wasn't particularly successful in the US along with the ST. (in Europe it was another story, as with Game systems as well, home computers blending a bit more; later this happened to a certain extent in the US with PC's becoming better gaming machines, but the most pronounced examples of this didn't occur until the mid-late '90s)

 

Another thought to note however, would be Commodore's response to such a move; would they have pushed a stripped-down Amiga game console in response? (technically the original ST lacked some ability as a gaming system, notably the lack of a blitter or other graphical hardware capabilities -meaning the CPU had to take up more time with this in software -along with more limited color capabilities; and sound, though the aformentioned FM synth chip could address this to some degree)

[etschuetz]

As I understand it, Tramiel hadn't been aware of these previous projects when he acquired Atari, and the design teams for several of these projects (including Sierra, Gaza, and AMY -the latter to develop seperately, but failed without the designers), neither had he initially known of the Amiga deal with Warner. Had he known of these designs, particularly Sierra, it's possible that the ST design could have been dropped in favor of them, or portions of the ST design and previous atari designs could have been combined. (prior to being shelved, both the Sierra and Gaza projects had been prototyped and were further along than the ST design when Tramiel took over; I'm not sure about AMY, though I beleive part of the difficulty Tramil had with it was converting it to be used with the 8-bit line rather the 68k system it had been intended for)

 

That last paragraph is something that really says a lot about the Tramiel family. He bought the company, put his nose in everything, pissed off everyone, and killed potential products that would have put Atari back at the number one position in the consumer eyes. Jack "@$$" Tramiel is one of the worst tech industry business men I have ever read about, in my opinion. I have very little, to no, respect for the man, regardless of anything he may be credited for doing for the industry.

 

Instead of coming into the company and trying to puff up his chest, he should have come in, let things continue coarse to some extent. During a 6 month, to 2 year process, eliminate elements that were either not profitable, or made no sense to the success of the company. On top of that, instead of flooding the market with TO MUCH CRAP, focus on just a few things. In the computer field, having a low end and a high end product makes sense, but in the video gaming industry, you don't want to do that. You want just ONE system on the market. Let the competitor become the "low end" product.

 

Also, having a "hybrid" platform in the form of the XEGS was a silly move. It was "the best of both worlds" but ended up confusing consumers. Tramiel should have just made the 7800 out to be the XEGS all around. It would have been a better move. Let the computers be computers, and the game machines be game machines.

[kool kitty89]

Well, based on other things I read on those projects (the 68k computers), Warner management (presumably after Kassar left) had alread cancelled development of these despite already reaching the prototype stages, as they wanted to shift focus back toward the game market. (I beleive this was just before the crash really hit, otherewise these projects may have been a possible saving grace for Atari amidst the drowning video game market -granted Warner-Atari's own management issues were related to the problems leading up to the crash in the first place...)

 

On the lo-end/high-en issue, most companies tend to have one aging console (which would become the low-end one) and a new sysem (effectively a high-end one). With Atari at the time it was the 2600 and 7800 (though the 2600 was really aging by this point and should have had a proper successor years earlier, but this gets into the 5200 debacle and several other issues). In any case, as I mentioned, you'd be phasing out the 2600 in favor of the 7800, with a new console moving into place as the "main" system.

The XEGS of course makes no sense here as it's hardware is already old with advantages and disadvantages compared to the 7800, but technically more or less in direct parallel competition technologically.

 

I think one thing with Tramiel's changes was that rather drastic measures had to be taken quickly to address the massive losses Atari was taking, hence all the downsizing. In particular, a lot of this was done additionally as Tramiel had planned to simply use Atari as a brand for his new projects (mainly the ST design in the works), so Atari's projects wouldn't be primary. With hindsight it would seem tha he could have done this much more strategically and possibly taken advantage of these undicovered projects that fit very well with his line of interest. (the gaming stuff would still probably be about the same, but I'd immagine he'd have been a lot more careful with some of those development teams had he known about these projects)

Honestly, they may have been enough to persuade him to take those ideas over the ST project (wich was still a work in progress), assuming of course that these chipsets fit his low cost+high performace goals. (Sierra would seem closest to this, and judging by some writing on them, though vague, they would seem to be superior to the Amiga, or a very least, the ST design, especially if AMY was to be part of them)

Edited June 19, 2009 by kool kitty89

[Jetboot Jack]

Blimey it is Tramiel bashing season here isn't it?

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing!

 

However truth is Atari consumer division was dying a slow death before Jack and Son's arrived.

 

And whilst you might not like what he did as a fan of a certain product line - he made lots of money (the objective of a business) and recaptured lots of market place for Atari into the early 90's.

 

Eventually things did go wrong - but that is a different issue to this thread...

 

I wonder why Atari fans need to blame somone for this stuff.

 

I had personal dealings with the senior management at Atari (UK and US) including Sam and Leonard - they were nice guys much better than the asshats pre-Jack IMHO.

 

sTeVE

[Atarifever]

I wonder why Atari fans need to blame somone for this stuff.

 

 

sTeVE

Because Atari fans (outside of a handful of us) are unwilling to admit that the Atari they conceive of in their imagination pretty much never existed.

 

 

The company was started by a tonic water salesman selling stolen technology. This shyster sold his company to a bunch of suits at a big, faceless corporation that manged to squeeze out maybe 5 years of big success (the entire golden age of Atari people here seem to think lasted 50 years) mixed in with a thousand bonehead moves. The company then almost went under until it was sold to a good business man who made it into a fortune 500 company just a couple years after it lost $500 million in early 80s dollars. That business man oversaw the company for longer than its founder or the big, giant, faceless company did. Somehow though, he is to be blamed for the company going under more than either the guy who rode stolen technology until he couldn't raise any more money or the big company that (through lack of understanding the market) nearly drove the product line into the ground.

 

The reasoning? He didn't understand that, once a new type of game became popular on a Japanese system with development from the people making Donkey Kong, the money losing market that almost sank the company and that no investor or retailer was interested in, would come back. No. He was too busy making piles of money on the booming computer market to look into the crystal ball everyone here apparently has their hands on. Why there aren't more millionaires on here is confusing to me. Surely you all invested in Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Research in Motion, and Apple before they boomed using your amazing powers of fortune telling. I mean, you can read market trends years before they happen apparently. You no doubt saw the rise of things like social media and search advertising years in advance. Because apparently the Tramiels were expected to do just that sort of thing.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Atarifever

[Jetboot Jack]

Phew, I thought I was the only one who saw it that way, glad someone else has a better perspective too...

 

sTeVE

[kool kitty89]

I had personal dealings with the senior management at Atari (UK and US) including Sam and Leonard - they were nice guys much better than the asshats pre-Jack IMHO.

 

sTeVE

 

Yeah, my dad met the Tramiel familay years ago and got a similar impression.

 

I wasn't trying to antagonize Tramiel in my statements I was just expressing my thoughts on possibilities (who knows what would have happened at Atari if Warner hadn't split it up, depending on how things wen it could have ended up recovering or bankrupt, Warner management seemed to fainally be recognizing some of its mistakes so who knows how things could have gone)

Anyway, my only point about Tramiel in my previous statements was that it was unfortunate tha he didn't find out about Atari's 68000 computer projects. It's my understanding he didn't know about them and hence the personell involved were among those let go. Then again, had he know those projects may have turned out to be impractical for his goal (from what I've read at least the Sierra project should have fit fairly well though), if they were too expensive it would make sense to drop them in favor of the progressing ST design.

 

Still, regardless of this, I think introducing the XEGS was a bad move, the XE was a fine way to finish off the 8-bit line, maybe some alternate choices in some areas, but good machines as I understand. Lunching one as a gaming system on top of the 7800 wasn't a good move though. Paking gaming accesories in with 65XE as a budget gaming computer may have been a good idea, but not a directly competing product with the 7800. (otoh had they repackaged a cut-down ST as a gaming system around the same time that could have been a good idea, as it could conceivably be the next-gen successor to the 7800 and not in direct competition)

 

The reasoning? He didn't understand that, once a new type of game became popular on a Japanese system with development from the people making Donkey Kong, the money losing market that almost sank the company and that no investor or retailer was interested in, would come back. No. He was too busy making piles of money on the booming computer market to look into the crystal ball everyone here apparently has their hands on. Why there aren't more millionaires on here is confusing to me. Surely you all invested in Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Research in Motion, and Apple before they boomed using your amazing powers of fortune telling. I mean, you can read market trends years before they happen apparently. You no doubt saw the rise of things like social media and search advertising years in advance. Because apparently the Tramiels were expected to do just that sort of thing.

 

Um, I don't think the whole Nintendo thesis on revitalizing the market is necessarily true, particularly in the sense that N's success prompted the re-release of the 7800. I'd been back and forth on this topic but this recent bit of info seemed to convince me rather definitively:

No. Tramiel released the 2600 Jr. in fall of '85 before the NES was test marketed (and in fact had started work on resurrecting it long before that), and was already starting to promote the 7800 in early January of '86 at the Winter CES. It's pure conjecture to state it was because of the NES, and I don't know where that rumor started (though I know its been repeated a lot). The NES was tested in an extremely limited market in New York, then in LA/San Diego in Feb. of '86, and then on to a national market that summer. The NES didn't become the success it was (and that everyone remembers it for) until later.

 

As Mike Katz put it in an interview that summer - "last fall, with no advertising or promotional effort on our part, we sold plenty of 2600s. We could have sold hundreds of thousands more if we had the production capacity. It proved to us that the industry is alive and well."

 

In fact it was because of all three companies (including Sega's debut of the Master System at the June show) that the buzz started up again that summer.

 

So Tramiel's Atari had already gotten back on the market (albeit with the 2600) before Nintendo had made an official launch, and well before their big success. (even the 7800 and Sega's MS launched before N really made an imprint on the market)

The only really limiting thaing was that Tramiel's company didn't have anywhere near the resourses to invest on marketing that Warner had (or Nintendo, and later Sega were doing), so going was much slower. (assuming Warner Atari had somehow managed to pull through and get things together, they could conceivably have had much more rapid market penetration and had fairer competion in the market -actually if they could force Nintendo to forgo their preditory licencing deals it would have given Sega more of a chance too)

 

 

The company was started by a tonic water salesman selling stolen technology. This shyster sold his company to a bunch of suits at a big, faceless corporation that manged to squeeze out maybe 5 years of big success (the entire golden age of Atari people here seem to think lasted 50 years) mixed in with a thousand bonehead moves. The company then almost went under until it was sold to a good business man who made it into a fortune 500 company just a couple years after it lost $500 million in early 80s dollars. That business man oversaw the company for longer than its founder or the big, giant, faceless company did. Somehow though, he is to be blamed for the company going under more than either the guy who rode stolen technology until he couldn't raise any more money or the big company that (through lack of understanding the market) nearly drove the product line into the ground.

 

By stolen technology are you referring to Pong? (ie the Ralph Baer/Magnavox dispute) Or are you referring to Computer Space (which had someresemblance to Space War, then again so did numerous others like Asteroids, and computer space was raster based -I beleive the first comercially successful "video game" in that sense)

 

In either case (though I suppose the Pong one is more significant), it woud only be a stollen idea not the tech itsself as they still had to develop their own hardware. (and besides, there are significant diferences in Pong from the Magnavox tennis game, largely including refinements that make it far more playable)

 

On a similar note Tramiel (or rather in collaberation with Shiraz Shivji) could be accused of stealing the ST design from Commodore (which he was actually accused of sued by Commodore), but I don't feel that's really a correct or fair statement either. From several refrences I've read the ST chipset wasn't designed until after Tramiel and Shiji left Commodore anyway. (though I suppose it could have been derived from doccuments they'ed taken from Commodore when they left)

 

This is kind of a roundabout discussion I'm making, but it seems a bit of a shame that Tramiel didn't stay at Commodore, their biggest success had beeen with him and it seems pretty much what they did afterward was run with the Amiga design and eventually langish -attempting to switch to video game hardware toward the end, rather like Atari with the Jaguar, though they were less successful than Atari even was with that and ended rather sadly. (given that this would mean no competing ST vs Commodore Amiga they could have had a bigger chunck of the market as well, giving a better chance to stay in there particularly with a good niche, hmm)

Edited June 21, 2009 by kool kitty89

[guyjin]

Call me crazy, but knowing how chintzy jack tramiel was, I suspect that if there had been no XEGS, I think there may have been FEWER 7800 games. Would Ballblazer and Commando have ever been made on the atari 8 bits if there were no XEGS? and if it wasn't made on the 8-bits, would they have bothered with the 7800?

[kool kitty89]

Call me crazy, but knowing how chintzy jack tramiel was, I suspect that if there had been no XEGS, I think there may have been FEWER 7800 games. Would Ballblazer and Commando have ever been made on the atari 8 bits if there were no XEGS? and if it wasn't made on the 8-bits, would they have bothered with the 7800?

 

Umm... Ballblazer was initially released for the Atari 8-bit computers as well as the 5200 in 1984 uder Warner, years before the XE line (let alone the XEGS) even existed.

 

Given the timeline, I really think an "STGS" (ST Gaming System) would have been a much better idea, advanced enough to be seperate from the 7800 and act as a possible successor.

[guyjin]

Umm... Ballblazer was initially released for the Atari 8-bit computers as well as the 5200 in 1984 uder Warner, years before the XE line (let alone the XEGS) even existed.

 

Oops. Guess my timeline was off.

[DracIsBack]

Umm... Ballblazer was initially released for the Atari 8-bit computers as well as the 5200 in 1984 uder Warner, years before the XE line (let alone the XEGS) even existed.

 

Not only that, but I think the 7800 version was almost done. It was supposed to be one of the launch titles for the "full" roll-out.