Atari: Diminishing Efforts?

[CV Gus]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again- Atari NEVER should've dumped the 5200 the way they did.

 

It does not matter if the 7800 was to have been their next system- once they released the 5200, then they were committed. They should have stuck with it, even if it meant abandoning the entire 7800 project as it was at that point. Remember, the decision to drop the 5200 happened BEFORE the crash, so that had nothing to do with it.

 

The only logical explanation is that they were disappointed by the 5200's performance against the CV, so they decided to try the 7800 against it- because at that point, the NES was not here, so the CV was the only system they would have figured that they'd be up against. But this was ridiculous: they only angered the 5200 owners, and the first, and vital, batch of 7800 games weren't going to sway CV owners from the CV- it didn't work for the 5200, and on top of that, we'd have been as distrustful of Atari as the abandoned 5200 owners.

 

Add this into the mixture- Atarisoft Galaxian, Joust, Dig Dug, and Pac-Man for the CV were all SUPERIOR versions to the 5200 ones! Since Joust and Dig Dug for the CV would have been so great, and two of the better-known games for the 7800's release were to have been Joust and Dig Dug- and Galaxian (CV) was more like the arcade version than Galaga for the 7800, and Pac-Man could've countered the 7800 Ms. Pac-Man- those Atarisoft games could only have hurt the 7800's sales.

 

What was going on with that company back then?

 

Again, I like the 5200 and its games better than the 7800 and its games, although Dig Dug is better on the 7800.

[phuzaxeman]

...The only logical explanation is that they were disappointed by the 5200's performance against the CV, so they decided to try the 7800 against it- because at that point, the NES was not here, so the CV was the only system they would have figured that they'd be up against. But this was ridiculous: they only angered the 5200 owners, and the first, and vital, batch of 7800 games weren't going to sway CV owners from the CV- it didn't work for the 5200, and on top of that, we'd have been as distrustful of Atari as the abandoned 5200 owners.

what? so the 7800 came out because atari was disappointed by the performance against CV? lol....do you have sources to back up your so called theory?

[CV Gus]

Heyyyyy...just what could the 5200 have done with games like Pac-Man and Dig Dug? How much better could they have been?

 

Didn't get an answer before.

 

 

 

 

 

As for the 7800 sales- sorry, but the NES crushed it. The CV did NOT annihilate the 5200; the CV simply outsold it, but it was not by as insane a margin as the NES vs. the 7800.

 

Keep in mind that the 5200 was out when Atari was one big company, and had a decent reputation still- by the time the 7800 came out, Atari was split up and not-so-good joke. So no way did the 7800 outdo the 5200. 5200 figures, like for the CV were typically about the USA; for the 7800, Atari probably considered ALL sales, including European sales.

 

Maybe this is where the confusion about the CV 3-6 million sales comes from- Maybe some people were considering USA sales, while others were including overseas sales?

[atariksi]

Heyyyyy...just what could the 5200 have done with games like Pac-Man and Dig Dug? How much better could they have been?

 

Didn't get an answer before.

 

 

 

 

 

As for the 7800 sales- sorry, but the NES crushed it. The CV did NOT annihilate the 5200; the CV simply outsold it, but it was not by as insane a margin as the NES vs. the 7800.

 

Keep in mind that the 5200 was out when Atari was one big company, and had a decent reputation still- by the time the 7800 came out, Atari was split up and not-so-good joke. So no way did the 7800 outdo the 5200. 5200 figures, like for the CV were typically about the USA; for the 7800, Atari probably considered ALL sales, including European sales.

 

Maybe this is where the confusion about the CV 3-6 million sales comes from- Maybe some people were considering USA sales, while others were including overseas sales?

 

Even if your mental speculations were correct, how does that make Atari's efforts diminished??? It's unrelated. Your topic is wrong. You should have used a better topic. Atari's efforts were huge AFTER the 2600 and I bought the Atari 800 rather than 5200. I guess you don't count that since it would affect your biased views about Colecovision crap.

[atariksi]

Cool - it's like another "CV vs. 5200" thread destined to be locked! : ]

 

I suppose the point of the thread was asking for opinions regarding an Atari downward spiral since the release of the 2600. So....

...

Atari made a superb machine AFTER the 2600-- the Atari 400/800. That's a big effort and that hardware was used to make Atari 5200. So much for the bullcrap about diminished efforts.

 

>My opinion - the 5200 does not do much for me. Most of the titles released for the 5200 are better on the ColecoVision and even the 2600 (BerZerk, Space Invaders and Galaxian).

 

Your opinion is biased. I have some games on modern PC that are worse than Atari 2600. Games don't necessarily use all the capabilities of a machine-- depends on coder, the time he invests, how much he knows about the machine, what the game demands, whether he's porting it from another platform, etc.

 

Atari's efforts should be commended for the Atari 400/800/5200/800XL/etc. Perhaps, you want to talk about diminished efforts after the Tramiels took over. Some people are just utterly confused and keep repeating their mistakes in this thread. And looking at a few modern day garage sales doesn't prove anything about sales in the 1980s unless you have visited ALL the garage sales on the planet and can show some huge discrepancy.

[VectorGamer]

Atari made a superb machine AFTER the 2600-- the Atari 400/800. That's a big effort and that hardware was used to make Atari 5200. So much for the bullcrap about diminished efforts.

 

Yeah, but this is the 5200 forum. I naturally assumed that the original post was in regard to the home console market.

 

>My opinion - the 5200 does not do much for me. Most of the titles released for the 5200 are better on the ColecoVision and even the 2600 (BerZerk, Space Invaders and Galaxian).

 

Your opinion is biased.

 

Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense...

[kool kitty89]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again- Atari NEVER should've dumped the 5200 the way they did.

 

It does not matter if the 7800 was to have been their next system- once they released the 5200, then they were committed. They should have stuck with it, even if it meant abandoning the entire 7800 project as it was at that point. Remember, the decision to drop the 5200 happened BEFORE the crash, so that had nothing to do with it.

 

That's just the problem, they weren't committed to the 5200, they were still pushing the 2600 hard, oversaturating it while the 5200 lay on the side.

 

The only logical explanation is that they were disappointed by the 5200's performance against the CV, so they decided to try the 7800 against it- because at that point, the NES was not here, so the CV was the only system they would have figured that they'd be up against. But this was ridiculous: they only angered the 5200 owners, and the first, and vital, batch of 7800 games weren't going to sway CV owners from the CV- it didn't work for the 5200, and on top of that, we'd have been as distrustful of Atari as the abandoned 5200 owners.

 

Also remember the 7800 was an independent porject started by GCC of their own accord as they saw numerous flaws for the 5200 design and set out to create a design that rectified these issues.

 

Cool - it's like another "CV vs. 5200" thread destined to be locked! : ]

 

....My opinion - the 5200 does not do much for me. Most of the titles released for the 5200 are better on the ColecoVision and even the 2600 (BerZerk, Space Invaders and Galaxian).

 

there are a lot of titles on the 5200 that the coleco doesnt have and vice versa.....that's why there's been a debate. in terms of the 2600, and just for the sake of debate, berzerk and galaxian on the 5200 completely owns the 2600. berzerk is almost, sound and graphics, a flawless translation of the arcade. i will say that 2600 space invaders was better gameplay wise. while the 2600 is king of all atari's, the 5200 shines in their games like space dungeon, star raiders, countermeasure, real sports baseball, etc. there's just a lot of great games on this system.

 

One other question though is how many of these games played better on the 5200 than on the 8-bit computers? (in other words was the controller change woth it, even if it had been completely reliable, and most games being direct ports)

 

Cool - it's like another "CV vs. 5200" thread destined to be locked! : ]

 

I suppose the point of the thread was asking for opinions regarding an Atari downward spiral since the release of the 2600. So....

...

Atari made a superb machine AFTER the 2600-- the Atari 400/800. That's a big effort and that hardware was used to make Atari 5200. So much for the bullcrap about diminished efforts.

 

>My opinion - the 5200 does not do much for me. Most of the titles released for the 5200 are better on the ColecoVision and even the 2600 (BerZerk, Space Invaders and Galaxian).

 

Your opinion is biased. I have some games on modern PC that are worse than Atari 2600. Games don't necessarily use all the capabilities of a machine-- depends on coder, the time he invests, how much he knows about the machine, what the game demands, whether he's porting it from another platform, etc.

 

Atari's efforts should be commended for the Atari 400/800/5200/800XL/etc. Perhaps, you want to talk about diminished efforts after the Tramiels took over. Some people are just utterly confused and keep repeating their mistakes in this thread. And looking at a few modern day garage sales doesn't prove anything about sales in the 1980s unless you have visited ALL the garage sales on the planet and can show some huge discrepancy.

 

Yeah it really wan't until '82 that Atari really had problems, and until '83 for these to clearly manifest. To avoid the problems they needed to make a shift in '82, but management was too engrossed in the success of the 2600 to notice the problems, or at least do anything about them.

 

The biggest one being compounded, oversaturation of the aging 2600, which had the key issue of no security/lockout mechanism, meaning Atari had no direct regualtion of 3rd party software on their console. The 8-bit line had the very same problem, so pushing them as the next gen of game systems wouldn't be a good option either. (and Atari screwed up with those as well, the snafu surrounding the 1200XL and transition to XL series in general, no competitive high-end successor -prior to Atari corp and then there were still issues and hanging on to the hardware even longer)

The 5200 didn't solve this problem either, the rearranged hardware (altered memory map and bios among other things) would not have deturred 3rd parties for long, and it made gmes a pain to port over from the 400/800, the controllers complicated things too.

They should have just made a repackaged 16kB 400 with different cartridge connector, cheaper, consolidated board and case, and a lockout mechanism, either have games reprogrammed to work without keys, use the atari keyboard controller plugged into the controller port, or add a minimal keypad for such function. (2600 compatibility is another issue and depending on some variables may have been paractical to inexpensively integrate into the design, otherwise release an adaptor module, preferably arranged like the CV's rather than monopolizing the cart slot as in the 5200)

 

This is all in this discussion that I mentioned earlier:

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...47811&st=25

[+thegoldenband]

Reading through all those old articles in search of sales figures for the CV and 5200, I really got the sense that from late 1983 on, the console industry was scared shitless. Plenty of people thought that video games were done, and I remember reading a story -- maybe in Computer Entertainment, from 1985? -- about how small companies were being told to call their games "simulations" to avoid the stigma. In retrospect that seems absurd, but to many, many people, the industry seemed to have collapsed until the advent of the NES.

 

So I think it's a mistake to think that it was the CV that sank the 5200. Sales of both consoles were taking a nosedive, and there were external factors hurting both companies as well, including the failure of the Adam which really tarnished Coleco's reputation. Meanwhile, the survival and viability of Atari were openly questioned in the mainstream press. Here's the opener of the article I quoted earlier about the 7800's debut in May 1984, from the Washington Post ("Atari Introduces Game In Attempt For Survival"):

 

Atari Inc., whose fortunes skyrocketed and collapsed along with the video games business, yesterday introduced a new video games console in an effort to breathe new life into what most observers believe is a dying industry. The new games machine underscores Atari management's belief that, despite the drastic decline in profitability, there is a significant market for both video games and video game hardware, Atari executives said.

 

So I think the Atari management basically panicked, and I doubt that the CV was a big factor in that decision: the company apparently didn't think that the 5200 was going to cut it, for whatever reason. Unfortunately, the decision to abandon the 5200 also left a fair number of people feeling betrayed, and -- together with the console's reliability problems -- certainly didn't make Atari seem like a terribly stable or trustworthy company.

 

Having said that, I still think the CV really did outsell the 5200 overall. Now, it's possible that at the end of the 5200's life it was selling better, and since I read articles about how both Atari and Coleco were raising their prices at the end of 1983 -- a year during which there were, apparently, some insane pricing wars -- I don't get the impression that Atari hacked the 5200's price to make that happen. Maybe it was indeed outselling Colecovision in the last few months of its life. And it's true that the sales figures I turned up, though they almost certainly were reported by the respective companies themselves, aren't official or systematic, and don't account for foreign markets.

 

But the Coleco is just so much more visible in every way than the 5200. When I talk to people in their thirties about their childhood gaming experiences, the Atari 2600 is the overwhelming favorite, but the Colecovision gets mentioned with some regularity, whereas no one has ever spontaneously mentioned the 5200, nor the Intellivision, nor O2 or any of the other pre-NES systems. I haven't found a CV or a 5200 at a yard sale yet, but when I ask about older gaming systems, people who are old enough at least know what the CV is. Hell, the CV still gets namechecked in popular culture from time to time (most famously on Family Guy). The 5200 simply doesn't have that mindshare. When you combine that with the fact that the CV was on sale for a much longer period of time; that the CV was well-known for its ability to play 2600 games, which really was a big deal to consumers; and that CV sales towards the tail end of the 5200's life were, at worst, close to keeping pace with the 5200; it seems hard not to believe that, overall, the Coleco simply outperformed the 5200 in the marketplace.

 

I would also remind everyone that being civil and respectful, and attempting to see both sides of this discussion, are things that are not optional. In my experience, people who are quick to call people names -- "bashers", "fanboys", "biased" -- are often accusing others of the sins of which they themselves are most guilty. Tribalism should have no place here.

Edited August 5, 2009 by thegoldenband

[+thegoldenband]

A couple more interesting bits from various articles. Here's an excerpt from "How CEOs Make Decisions", from Industry Week, February 23, 1987:

 

It's possible to study a problem too long...Analysts cite two cases in point. Ford and General Motors, they say, may have been guilty in the early 1980s of taking too long to make their decisions to introduce minivans. While they were tarrying, Chrysler beat them to the punch with what turned out to be a hot-selling product. At about the same time, Atari Corp. was heeming and hawing over whether to put its Model 5200 video-game machine on the market. Although development of the machine was complete, Atari held it back, fearing it might divert sales from the firm's successful 2600 model. While the company dallied, competitors came out with their own versions -- hastening Atari's bankruptcy.

Here's a bit from "How Steve Ross's Hands-Off Approach Is Backfiring at Warner" from Business Week, August 8, 1983:

 

Although Atari is still selling its video game consoles -- the 2600 and the 5200 machines -- sales have slowed as consumers switch to more versatile computers. Atari's lateness with the higher-end 5200 has also ceded market share to Coleco Industries Inc.'s ColecoVision.

 

And here's another one from Industry Week ("Still looking for a niche; Gearing up for battle with Apple and IBM"), from June 25, 1984:

 

The company whose moves have triggered the most head-scratching is Atari -- particularly its wisdom in bringing out a third video-game system when everyone else has pulled out of that market except Coleco. "It seems like a giant step backward," says Epyx's Mr. Katz. "The Atari 7800 is like Colecovision revisited, only two years later." And while Atari talks of an add-on keyboard -- shades of Colecovision and Adam -- it made similar promises that went unfulfilled for its other two game systems.

 

Most think that Atari should have marketed a low-end computer -- maybe its 800 XL that sells for $209, to reach video-game players -- or simply stuck with its 5200 game system. "They have too many computers, creating too much confusion," states Tricia Parks, vice president, Future Computing.

[atariksi]

...

The only logical explanation is that they were disappointed by the 5200's performance against the CV, so they decided to try the 7800 against it- because at that point, the NES was not here, so the CV was the only system they would have figured that they'd be up against.

...

I don't see the logic. That seems highly illogical to me given the FACT that they downgraded the Atari 400/800 hardware to make the Atari 5200. Or are you confusing words again and referring to "sales" performance.

 

>Add this into the mixture- Atarisoft Galaxian, Joust, Dig Dug, and Pac-Man for the CV were all SUPERIOR versions to the 5200 ones! Since Joust and Dig Dug for the CV would have been so great, and two of the better-known games for the 7800's release were to have been Joust and Dig Dug- and Galaxian (CV) was more like the arcade version than Galaga for the 7800, and Pac-Man could've countered the 7800 Ms. Pac-Man- those Atarisoft games could only have hurt the 7800's sales.

 

I saw the Joust and it sucks on the Colecovision. Atari 8-bit version is better for smooth flowing graphics and hardware collision detection. Due to various graphics modes, the update time is faster on Atari 8-bit. I like the Atari 8-bit version of Joust over Atari 7800 and Atari ST versions and especially Colecovision version. What sucks even more due to lack of specialized hardware is Popeye, River-raid, racing games, etc.

 

>What was going on with that company back then?

 

Why you asking if you think you already know what happened. So you agree that you don't really know and are just speculating.

[atariksi]

Atari made a superb machine AFTER the 2600-- the Atari 400/800. That's a big effort and that hardware was used to make Atari 5200. So much for the bullcrap about diminished efforts.

 

Yeah, but this is the 5200 forum. I naturally assumed that the original post was in regard to the home console market.

...

Normally, the topic should be related to what the guy wants to say. But not in this case. The topic is as if HE DESPERATELY wants to say something negative about Atari in general whereas he's only is talking about his speculations that Atari 5200 sold less than his Colecovision. And the 5200 is related to the Atari 8-bit machines. The effort was made in making the computer chips which were also used in the 5200 although downgraded by removing some features (less RAM, no PIA, etc.) That does not mean less effort-- they made an effort to downgrade the specs. How does he know what effort was put in anyways??? He's just speculating. For all he knows, there may have been much less effort in coming out with the Colecovision console.

 

>My opinion - the 5200 does not do much for me. Most of the titles released for the 5200 are better on the ColecoVision and even the 2600 (BerZerk, Space Invaders and Galaxian).

 

Your opinion is biased.

 

>Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense...

 

I have Colecovision and only the 5200 is used in my home by people's choice. I have games that are DEFINITELY inferior on Colecovision than Atari 5200 and I have played on both systems. Of course, the Atari 5200 is superior over-all but individual games vary due to various reasons as already mentioned.

[atariksi]

...

Also remember the 7800 was an independent porject started by GCC of their own accord as they saw numerous flaws for the 5200 design and set out to create a design that rectified these issues.

...

They purposely degraded the Atari 400/800 to make the Atari 5200 so when something is intentionally done that way from a big effort made on Atari 400/800 computers, the words "diminished effort" do not apply.

 

>One other question though is how many of these games played better on the 5200 than on the 8-bit computers? (in other words was the controller change woth it, even if it had been completely reliable, and most games being direct ports)

 

It saved them one chip to change controllers (No PIA needed).

 

>Yeah it really wan't until '82 that Atari really had problems, and until '83 for these to clearly manifest. To avoid the problems they needed to make a shift in '82, but management was too engrossed in the success of the 2600 to notice the problems, or at least do anything about them.

 

There were factors beyond Atari's control that contributed to loss of sales-- can't just blame Atari's efforts. Some people study hard and fail and some people study for a little while and get straight A's. Nothing to do with effort.

 

>...function. (2600 compatibility is another issue and depending on some variables may have been paractical to inexpensively integrate into the design, otherwise release an adaptor module, preferably arranged like the CV's rather than monopolizing the cart slot as in the 5200)

 

That's the only reason biased colecovision fans praise Atari 2600 since Colecovision made a compatibility module for it; otherwise, they probably would be speaking against the Atari 2600 as well. They fail to see that a chipset from late 1970s is superior to their console released in the 1980s. We should be blaming Colecovision and other companies for their lackluster effort.

[kool kitty89]

Oh, and a note on the "head start" thing with Nintendo I commented on previosuly, I was incorrect when I stated the 7800 and Master System launched soon after the NES made its full launch. However, I've now discovered that Atari Corp released the 7800 in January of 1986, at which time Nintendo hadn't expanded out of New York, in February N expanded to Los Angeles, followed by the top 12 US markets, with a nationwide release in September. http://tnca.myrmid.com/art9.htm That old article also mentiones the strong 1985 Atari 2600 Jr. sales I mentioned earlier. (wiht that unit being released prior to the NES in NY)

Edited August 6, 2009 by kool kitty89

[atariksi]

...5200 was going to cut it, for whatever reason. Unfortunately, the decision to abandon the 5200 also left a fair number of people feeling betrayed, and -- together with the console's reliability problems -- certainly didn't make Atari seem like a terribly stable or trustworthy company.

...

What were the console's reliability problems? The chips are all socketed and can easily be replaced although none of my consoles have gone bad yet.

 

>Having said that, I still think the CV really did outsell the 5200 overall.

 

It hasn't been established, but that still does not allow someone to conclude that the console has superior performance. Relating sales with which console is superior is just mental speculation.

 

>But the Coleco is just so much more visible in every way than the 5200. When I talk to people in their thirties about their childhood gaming experiences, the Atari 2600 is the overwhelming favorite, but the Colecovision gets mentioned with some regularity, whereas no one has ever spontaneously mentioned the 5200, nor the Intellivision, nor O2 or any of the other pre-NES systems.

 

That does not constitute any proof of sales. I see a bunch of people with blue eyes so I think most people have blue eyes.

 

>I haven't found a CV or a 5200 at a yard sale yet, ...

 

Out of the many yard sales I have visited, only Atari 800XLs and C64s were more prominent than game consoles. Atari 2600 was well known and seen in some places but neither Colecovision nor Atari 5200 were there.

 

>I would also remind everyone that being civil and respectful, and attempting to see both sides of this discussion, are things that are not optional. In my experience, people who are quick to call people names -- "bashers", "fanboys", "biased" -- are often accusing others of the sins of which they themselves are most guilty. Tribalism should have no place here.

 

Correct, so drawing general conclusions based on very small sampling is also good.

[atariksi]

A couple more interesting bits from various articles. Here's an excerpt from "How CEOs Make Decisions", from Industry Week, February 23, 1987:

 

It's possible to study a problem too long...Analysts cite two cases in point. Ford and General Motors, they say, may have been guilty in the early 1980s of taking too long to make their decisions to introduce minivans. While they were tarrying, Chrysler beat them to the punch with what turned out to be a hot-selling product. At about the same time, Atari Corp. was heeming and hawing over whether to put its Model 5200 video-game machine on the market. Although development of the machine was complete, Atari held it back, fearing it might divert sales from the firm's successful 2600 model. While the company dallied, competitors came out with their own versions -- hastening Atari's bankruptcy.

Here's a bit from "How Steve Ross's Hands-Off Approach Is Backfiring at Warner" from Business Week, August 8, 1983:

 

Although Atari is still selling its video game consoles -- the 2600 and the 5200 machines -- sales have slowed as consumers switch to more versatile computers. Atari's lateness with the higher-end 5200 has also ceded market share to Coleco Industries Inc.'s ColecoVision.

 

And here's another one from Industry Week ("Still looking for a niche; Gearing up for battle with Apple and IBM"), from June 25, 1984:

 

The company whose moves have triggered the most head-scratching is Atari -- particularly its wisdom in bringing out a third video-game system when everyone else has pulled out of that market except Coleco. "It seems like a giant step backward," says Epyx's Mr. Katz. "The Atari 7800 is like Colecovision revisited, only two years later." And while Atari talks of an add-on keyboard -- shades of Colecovision and Adam -- it made similar promises that went unfulfilled for its other two game systems.

 

Most think that Atari should have marketed a low-end computer -- maybe its 800 XL that sells for $209, to reach video-game players -- or simply stuck with its 5200 game system. "They have too many computers, creating too much confusion," states Tricia Parks, vice president, Future Computing.

 

Some of your quotes actually support my claim that other factors contributed to decline of Atari sales. There's no solid figures in your quotes to declare Colecovision outsold Atari 5200. And your articles are also written by some biased, misinformed people speculating like some have done in this thread; I am talking about "They have too many computers." They only had one 8-bit machine which was backward compatible from 400 -> 800 -> 800XL -> etc. Other companies made incompatible machines like Apple and Commodore. Sounds like some misinformed guy or biased against Atari.

[atariksi]

...

Correct, so drawing general conclusions based on very small sampling is also good.

 

That should read:

 

"Correct, so drawing general conclusions based on very small sampling is also NO good."

[kool kitty89]

...

Also remember the 7800 was an independent porject started by GCC of their own accord as they saw numerous flaws for the 5200 design and set out to create a design that rectified these issues.

...

They purposely degraded the Atari 400/800 to make the Atari 5200 so when something is intentionally done that way from a big effort made on Atari 400/800 computers, the words "diminished effort" do not apply.

 

I agree that "deminishing efforts" was a poor choice of words, and didn't even really fit well with the topic's starting post. (as someone mentioned "deminishing returns" would be more accurate, though not completely, as the relative success of many of the later Atari systems isn't really in any progressive order, particularly comparing just sales figures -in which the 7800 seems to rank fairly well, or library size, where the ST and 8-bit lines are strong, granted when referring to atari after '84 it's not even the same company)

 

>One other question though is how many of these games played better on the 5200 than on the 8-bit computers? (in other words was the controller change woth it, even if it had been completely reliable, and most games being direct ports)

 

It saved them one chip to change controllers (No PIA needed).

 

Hmm, POKEY is handling all the controller imputs then? (treating button imputs as keys, in addition to reading the pots) I'd thought the main reason for the analog control was to one-up Mattel's 16-direction disc. And couldn't a digital joystick be set-up to be read by POKEY? In any case, 4-point/"8-way" imput would be possible via the pot lines, set up 2 axes like with the current configuration, but instead of potentiometers, just have resistors on the circuits to output fixed voltages when closed, 2 circuits on each axis, arranged like the 4 switches of a digital joystick. (up+dn sharing one pot line with one high the other low voltage output, and likewise for Left/Right on the other pot line) This is the exact mechanism you'd need to use to build a digital joystick for the existing 5200 controller ports. (on another note, in that 8-bit what-if thread I mentioned previously, using a RIOT for I/O on a 5200 alternative was another suggestion, also facilitating 2600 compatibility -at very least simplifying the adaptor)

 

>Yeah it really wan't until '82 that Atari really had problems, and until '83 for these to clearly manifest. To avoid the problems they needed to make a shift in '82, but management was too engrossed in the success of the 2600 to notice the problems, or at least do anything about them.

 

There were factors beyond Atari's control that contributed to loss of sales-- can't just blame Atari's efforts. Some people study hard and fail and some people study for a little while and get straight A's. Nothing to do with effort.

 

Well it's true that management kind of lost it, being way too engrossed in the success of the 2600 to see the big problems of the inflating market and wealth of poor 3rd party games being tossed out there, along with them not making money off 3rd party games -which could in turn allow dropping the price of the base hardware. This was a problem that wasn't addressed until the 7800 (with its lockout mechanism), the 8-bitters and 5200 still had it as I mentioned, hence why an XEGS equivelent, in 1982/83 in place of the 5200 would still have been problematic, plus they'd be pushing right up against the C64's market without Commodore's advantages)

 

>...function. (2600 compatibility is another issue and depending on some variables may have been paractical to inexpensively integrate into the design, otherwise release an adaptor module, preferably arranged like the CV's rather than monopolizing the cart slot as in the 5200)

 

That's the only reason biased colecovision fans praise Atari 2600 since Colecovision made a compatibility module for it; otherwise, they probably would be speaking against the Atari 2600 as well. They fail to see that a chipset from late 1970s is superior to their console released in the 1980s. We should be blaming Colecovision and other companies for their lackluster effort.

 

Oh, I don't know, I think there are other important reasons, and Atari themselves had obviously already been considdering it (was to be a feature of the cancelled Atari 3200), but more importantly, it would have allowed the 2600 to be phased out more easily, making the new system look more attractive for those without a 2600 already. ALso note that this was a new thing, a video game company had never released the successor to a previous system before, so it was normal for many poeple to expect the "upgrade" to work with the old games. (there are few cases where backwards compatibility hasn't been praised, though in the console market it's not consistantly present, there's the Sega Master System/Mk.III that was compatible with the old SG-1000 in Japan, the Genesis/MegaDrive compatible with the Master System -with an adaptor- the Atari 7800, the GameBoy line -except micro, DS -though only with GBA, the PS2, Wii, and to some extent PS3 and 360, not to mention various computer platforms)

 

I agree that the CV hardware is limited in some respects, though it has advantages and disadvantages, and it used a lot of off the shelf hardware compared to the 8-bit/5200, sound is something the POKEY clearly has an advantage in. (the hardware used in the CV was popular though, the SG-1000 was nearly identical save for another kB of RAM, the Master System was an eveolution of this design, and even the Genesis shares some commonalities, the popular Japanese MSX computer standard was also fairly similar except it used a different sound chip, or rather sound+I/O chip in its case, relative;t similar audio capabilities though)

 

Also, while the 5200 removed such things as the 8-bit's PIA chip and BIOS, it did not have less ram than the standerd A400. (which started at 8 kB and later expanded to 16 kB, and didn't go past that afik, and RAM wasn't expandablethrough slots like the 800, requiring soldering chips onto the board)

[atariksi]

>One other question though is how many of these games played better on the 5200 than on the 8-bit computers? (in other words was the controller change woth it, even if it had been completely reliable, and most games being direct ports)

 

It saved them one chip to change controllers (No PIA needed).

 

>Hmm, POKEY is handling all the controller imputs then? (treating button imputs as keys, in addition to reading the pots) I'd thought the main reason for the analog control was to one-up Mattel's 16-direction disc. And couldn't a digital joystick be set-up to be read by POKEY? ...

 

POKEY does the POTs (8 of them) and they are slower to read than digital lines as in PIA. GTIA reads the trigger lines. LDA 54016 reads the exact state of joystick on Atari 400 at any time whereas LDA $E800/$E801 reads the POTs (on A5200) that are only valid during VBI.

 

>...XEGS equivelent, in 1982/83 in place of the 5200 would still have been problematic, plus they'd be pushing right up against the C64's market without Commodore's advantages)

 

A400 was essentially a console -- they just had to stop painting the letters on the membrane keyboard.

 

>...function. (2600 compatibility is another issue and depending on some variables may have been paractical to inexpensively integrate into the design, otherwise release an adaptor module, preferably arranged like the CV's rather than monopolizing the cart slot as in the 5200)

 

That's the only reason biased colecovision fans praise Atari 2600 since Colecovision made a compatibility module for it; otherwise, they probably would be speaking against the Atari 2600 as well. They fail to see that a chipset from late 1970s is superior to their console released in the 1980s. We should be blaming Colecovision and other companies for their lackluster effort.

 

>Oh, I don't know, I think there are other important reasons, and Atari themselves had obviously already been considdering it (was to be a feature of the cancelled Atari 3200), but more importantly, it would have allowed the 2600 to be phased out more easily,...

 

Given that they did make their computers backward compatible but purposely made A5200 incompatible (in some respects) with both A400 and A2600 shows they had some other purpose in mind. Perhaps to make money given their "big" status and/or to make it as cheap as possible for chip cost and development. Like they did currently by making 64-bit OSes incompatible with many older applications. They could have easily made older applications run on 64-bit machines.

 

>...the old SG-1000 in Japan, the Genesis/MegaDrive compatible with the Master System -with an adaptor- the Atari 7800, the GameBoy line -except micro, DS -though only with GBA, the PS2, Wii, and to some extent PS3 and 360, not to mention various computer platforms)

 

I think they should rename PS3 or XBOX 360 to some other name if they are not going to be backward compatible. Just confusing things for the normal users.

 

>I agree that the CV hardware is limited in some respects, though it has advantages and disadvantages, and it used a lot of off the shelf hardware compared to the 8-bit/5200, sound is something the POKEY clearly has an advantage in...

 

In most respects CV hardware is limited compared to A400/A800/A5200. But better hardware doesn't necessarily sell better as even modern computer/console sales show as well.

 

>Also, while the 5200 removed such things as the 8-bit's PIA chip and BIOS, it did not have less ram than the standerd A400. (which started at 8 kB and later expanded to 16 kB, and didn't go past that afik, and RAM wasn't expandablethrough slots like the 800, requiring soldering chips onto the board)

 

Both A400 and A800 were before A5200. A800 came with 48K (at least mine did) and you can easily plug in RAM cards if it didn't without unscrewing the machine. I know some A400s also came with 48K (already soldered I guess). But there were 3rd pary boards like RAMCRAM or something like that to upgrade the memory: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=290330343293. There's a RAM card inside the machine (not soldered) and chips are socketed like most chips in the A400. There was also a keyboard that was removed (shrunk to 4-bits rather than 8-bits). Then you have disk drives made incompatible because they mapped the SIO to the expansion connector.

[+thegoldenband]

atariksl, you've repeatedly called people "biased" whenever they make an assertion with which you don't agree. What I'm not seeing, however, is an admission of your own biases, and what exactly they are. Will you acknowledge that, perhaps, you're as biased in favor of the 5200 as others are allegedly biased against it?

 

(For example: if the sales figures I'd posted had claimed that Atari 5200 had massively outsold the CV, would you have questioned them in the same way, or would you have happily accepted them?)

 

I guess I just don't understand your basic attitude. I love the Tandy CoCo, but I'll be the first to admit its shortcomings, and the bad decisions that Radio Shack made along the way. I don't need to think that the CoCo was "the best" to appreciate it.

 

Your basic stance in this thread, though, seems to be one of "If people say negative things about the 5200, they're haters and biased and need to be smacked down." That's tribalism, and it's not compatible with a dispassionate search for the facts. On top of that, your tone has often been insulting, and not appropriate for a discussion between equals. You don't need to defend your turf, or your honor, or anything like that. Relax.

 

I'll be the first to admit that the facts are sometimes few and far between, but I'm surprised by how glibly you dismissed the sales figures I found. They may not be definitive, but information doesn't need to be definitive to be useful. Coleco quite clearly said that they sold 2m units by a certain point in time, and those numbers come straight from the CEO. The sales figures given in the article for the 5200 aren't as clear-cut, but they almost certainly come from Atari, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why they should be disregarded. "I don't like it" isn't a good enough reason. I've searched for hours through databases of old newspapers to find concrete information. What concrete, published information have you provided?

 

The article excerpts I posted above weren't meant to "prove" anything except to give some indication of some of the things people were saying at the time, and in the wake of the 5200's demise. Of course other factors contributed to the 5200's fate; I don't think that's in dispute. But "WTF is Atari doing?" was a recurring theme in press sources. Remember, I owned a 5200 at the time, and followed the whole thing in some of the mags of the time (Electronic Games/Computer Entertainment, mainly). People were really blindsided by the discontinuation.

 

Most of those sources, by the way, tended to portray the 5200 as a state-of-the-art machine that was more capable than the CV. Outside of the controller issue, I don't know anyone who thinks that the CV's hardware is superior per se. I've seen the argument before that the 5200 was a more powerful machine, but was also harder to push to its maximum potential; the CV may have been less powerful, but was easier to work with and required fewer "tricks" to get the best out of it. I think that idea makes a lot of sense and would like to know what programmers think of it, especially people who don't have an axe to grind about one system or the other.

[phuzaxeman]

i'm not sure what's been going on lately but it seems that this 5200 forum is turning into the jaguar forum...the jag forum is one of the worst forums i've ever been on and we're starting to see that vibe come in here. i've lived thru the CV vs 5200 debate in the 80's....do we really need to keep beating a dead horse? both are great systems and we should leave it as that. there was a time when this forum was a lot more informative. i hope most of the talk in here doesnt come down to personal attacks and bad vibes.

[atariksi]

atariksl, you've repeatedly called people "biased" whenever they make an assertion with which you don't agree. ..

 

That's your speculation. I have called them biased if THEY ARE biased. To say Atari's efforts are diminishing after 2600 is just a biased view given the fact that it was already refuted and he repeated the same again and some sidekick tagged along with him.

 

>What I'm not seeing, however, is an admission of your own biases, and what exactly they are. Will you acknowledge that, perhaps, you're as biased in favor of the 5200 as others are allegedly biased against it?

 

I am not biased-- I never said 5200 outsold CV. All I stated is you nor him have established that CV outsold 5200. And as far as someone claiming 5200 has no use given Atari 2600 and Colecovision system-- that can easily be shown to be a biased view.

 

>(For example: if the sales figures I'd posted had claimed that Atari 5200 had massively outsold the CV, would you have questioned them in the same way, or would you have happily accepted them?)

 

Sorry, you don't understand the difference between being truthful and taking sides. I don't accept either for lack of evidence-- neither CV outselling 5200 nor the other way. And my point is that it won't make a difference for me in deciding which is the superior system which is based on hard facts.

 

>Your basic stance in this thread, though, seems to be one of "If people say negative things about the 5200, they're haters and biased and need to be smacked down." That's tribalism, and it's not compatible with a dispassionate search for the facts. ..

 

Oh stop the speculations. Answer the points and stop labeling people unless you have some proof. I have solid proof that Atari's efforts were not diminished after the 2600 nor are games like Joust and others inferior to Colecovision.

 

> On top of that, your tone has often been insulting, and not appropriate for a discussion between equals. You don't need to defend your turf, or your honor, or anything like that. Relax.

 

I am not defending my turf but trying to be straightforward and truthful. You relax since you are the one who are making it seem like I am being biased toward the 5200.

 

>...CEO. The sales figures given in the article for the 5200 aren't as clear-cut, but they almost certainly come from Atari, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why they should be disregarded. "I don't like it" isn't a good enough reason. I've searched for hours through databases of old newspapers to find concrete information. What concrete, published information have you provided?

 

When did I say "I don't like it." You certainly like making straw-man arguments. There's no evidence that one outsold the other. What publication have you provided proving that CV outsold 5200? I just proved one of your quotes as being biased in my previous reply to you. Atari didn't have so many computers to choose from. There are biases even in the industry-- I know even Amiga was treated as non-serious machine although it had better sound and graphics than PCs at the time.

 

>Most of those sources, by the way, tended to portray the 5200 as a state-of-the-art machine that was more capable than the CV. Outside of the controller issue, I don't know anyone who thinks that the CV's hardware is superior per se. I've seen the argument before that the 5200 was a more powerful machine, but was also harder to push to its maximum potential; the CV may have been less powerful, but was easier to work with and required fewer "tricks" to get the best out of it. I think that idea makes a lot of sense and would like to know what programmers think of it, especially people who don't have an axe to grind about one system or the other.

 

I'm glad we agree on something. It's not always a trick to get it show it's superiority over CV. Simple display lists, palette size, etc. don't require any tricks to use.

[atariksi]

i'm not sure what's been going on lately but it seems that this 5200 forum is turning into the jaguar forum...the jag forum is one of the worst forums i've ever been on and we're starting to see that vibe come in here. i've lived thru the CV vs 5200 debate in the 80's....do we really need to keep beating a dead horse? both are great systems and we should leave it as that. there was a time when this forum was a lot more informative. i hope most of the talk in here doesnt come down to personal attacks and bad vibes.

 

Me too. I hope it doesn't boil down to name calling or speculating on what the other person is like. I also don't compromise the truth and make blind vague statements that "both are good systems".

[+thegoldenband]

Atariksl, in my post here, I have an excerpt from an article in the Washington Post, in which it says that "more than 1 million" Atari 5200 consoles were sold. Since the Washington Post isn't normally in the business of making things up (since it doesn't want to get sued), one can reasonably assume that these numbers come directly from Atari. One can also reasonably assume that if the 5200 had sold 2 million units, they would have said "2 million". Companies usually want to make themselves look more, not less successful. So the implied number, as I posted earlier, is between 1 and 2 million.

 

Meanwhile, in my post here, I quote three news reports (two from the AP, one from the NYT) which give sales figures from the CEO of Coleco. In the last of these, dating from around the same time as the discontinuation of the 5200, Greenberg says that "2 million" CV consoles were sold.

 

Now, keep in mind that he could be sued for some sort of fraud (don't know the exact legal term) if he knowingly made a false statement about sales. Also keep in mind that the ColecoVision was available for an additional year after that story was posted.

 

Does this prove, 100% definitively, that the CV outsold the 5200? No, it's not specific enough to be a "smoking gun". Of course it would be better to have exact, year-by-year sales figures, itemized and detailed, for every quarter of the CV's history and the 5200's history. Right now, it looks like that's impossible, though it might be possible to figure it out for Coleco, since they had SEC filings and quarterly reports from which the numbers could be reconstructed.

 

But it's reasonable to assume both articles are truthful and basically correct. A person writing a research paper on 1980s video game history would happily cite those articles. They would, as far as I know, potentially be admissible as evidence in court. But if I understand you correctly, you're not just saying that the numbers don't "prove" that the CV outsold the 5200, but you're saying that they're meaningless. What evidence do you have to show that the numbers given in the article are incorrect or misleading?

[kool kitty89]

POKEY does the POTs (8 of them) and they are slower to read than digital lines as in PIA. GTIA reads the trigger lines. LDA 54016 reads the exact state of joystick on Atari 400 at any time whereas LDA $E800/$E801 reads the POTs (on A5200) that are only valid during VBI.

 

Does POKEY also read the keypads?

 

 

A400 was essentially a console -- they just had to stop painting the letters on the membrane keyboard.

 

Except it still had the problem with lacing security/lockout (again not fully addressed until the 7800).

Otherwise the 400 (and 800) have the issues of bulky, expensive cases (especially the excessive RF sheilding) and unconsolidated boards. It should be repackaged with a well consoliated, single circuit board and cheaper, smaller case. (with minimal sheilding now necessary) The same would be true for the standard 400/800, granted they screwed things up with the 1200XL, and the 600/800XL improved this, but were late and still not ideal. They could have simply redesigned the boards and cases to be cheaper, keeping the existing functionality -including the controller ports and 800's 2nd cart slot, but in a more efficient form factor -maybe still adding the parallel port to allow cheaper peripherals as well. (this is off topic, but see the 8-bit what if thread in that forum- which I mentioned a couple times already)

 

 

Given that they did make their computers backward compatible but purposely made A5200 incompatible (in some respects) with both A400 and A2600 shows they had some other purpose in mind. Perhaps to make money given their "big" status and/or to make it as cheap as possible for chip cost and development. Like they did currently by making 64-bit OSes incompatible with many older applications. They could have easily made older applications run on 64-bit machines.

 

As I mentioned, due to the lockout/security issue, the new console shouldn't have been compatible with A400/800 cartridges, but being fully (or nearly, closer than the 5200) software compatibile with the 8-bitters, while adding a security check/lockout mechanism would have been great. 2600 compatibility is another issue, and not expressly necessary, but handeling it like with the 7800 would have been nice. (or a separate module/adaptor) If they made the cartridge slot compatible with 2600 games a-la 7800, I think they should have used a distinct cartridge design for the new system's games, preferably slightly wider so as to not fit in a 2600, and certainly recognizable as not a 2600 cartridge. (using a completely different cartridge slot like the 5200 did would solve this too, and if using 7800 type carts wouldn't work with anyway, you might as well do that)

 

 

In most respects CV hardware is limited compared to A400/A800/A5200. But better hardware doesn't necessarily sell better as even modern computer/console sales show as well.

 

The important thing was being superior to the 2600 and Intelivision, which it pretty much was, compared to the 5200/A8 it had higher resolution and the dedicated video RAM, but the A8 had a lot of other advantages. (like sound, color and other video features)

 

 

 

Both A400 and A800 were before A5200. A800 came with 48K (at least mine did) and you can easily plug in RAM cards if it didn't without unscrewing the machine. I know some A400s also came with 48K (already soldered I guess). But there were 3rd pary boards like RAMCRAM or something like that to upgrade the memory: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=290330343293. There's a RAM card inside the machine (not soldered) and chips are socketed like most chips in the A400. There was also a keyboard that was removed (shrunk to 4-bits rather than 8-bits). Then you have disk drives made incompatible because they mapped the SIO to the expansion connector.

 

I was speaking specifically about the 400, I know the later 800s were produced fully expanded to 48 kB, I'd gotten the impression that the 400 didn't go past 16 kB as shipped, but I could be wrong. And socketed or not, from what I've heard/read the RAM expansion boards for the 400 had to be soldered in. (on a semi-related anedote, my dad was recently talking about how you piggybacked the RAM chips onto the ST 520 board to expand it to 1 MB)

[atariksi]

Atariksl, in my post here, I have an excerpt from an article in the Washington Post, in which it says that "more than 1 million" Atari 5200 consoles were sold. Since the Washington Post isn't normally in the business of making things up (since it doesn't want to get sued), one can reasonably assume that these numbers come directly from Atari. One can also reasonably assume that if the 5200 had sold 2 million units, they would have said "2 million". Companies usually want to make themselves look more, not less successful. So the implied number, as I posted earlier, is between 1 and 2 million.

 

Meanwhile, in my post here, I quote three news reports (two from the AP, one from the NYT) which give sales figures from the CEO of Coleco. In the last of these, dating from around the same time as the discontinuation of the 5200, Greenberg says that "2 million" CV consoles were sold.

 

Now, keep in mind that he could be sued for some sort of fraud (don't know the exact legal term) if he knowingly made a false statement about sales. Also keep in mind that the ColecoVision was available for an additional year after that story was posted.

 

Does this prove, 100% definitively, that the CV outsold the 5200? No, it's not specific enough to be a "smoking gun". Of course it would be better to have exact, year-by-year sales figures, itemized and detailed, for every quarter of the CV's history and the 5200's history. Right now, it looks like that's impossible, though it might be possible to figure it out for Coleco, since they had SEC filings and quarterly reports from which the numbers could be reconstructed.

 

But it's reasonable to assume both articles are truthful and basically correct. A person writing a research paper on 1980s video game history would happily cite those articles. They would, as far as I know, potentially be admissible as evidence in court. But if I understand you correctly, you're not just saying that the numbers don't "prove" that the CV outsold the 5200, but you're saying that they're meaningless. What evidence do you have to show that the numbers given in the article are incorrect or misleading?

 

I never said those articles were biased or wrong, but they also don't prove anything for sure. Looks at the figures-- over 1 milliion vs. someone saying 2 million and they are not even final figures. They are not from technical sources either so I doubt they will get sued even if they are wrong by 50%. And look at the significant figures -- at most one. Seems the article is implying uncertainty by stating "over 1 million".