Do you think the 5200 could have been saved?

[Pyromaniac605]

It seems the main reason the 5200 wasnt as succesful as its predecesor was

 

1) faulty controllers

2) incompatible with 2600 games

 

do you think if these were not problems then the 5200 would have had more success and what else do your think could have helped it?

[Rybags]

Forget (2).

 

More like - 2) not compatible with 400/800 games and controllers.

 

They could have made some sort of "ECI" - Enhanced Controller Interface, that retained the existing 9-pin plug but had extra pins to one side, so you could plug in an enhanced controller with extra buttons.

 

So, essentially make the thing an "early XEGS" - sure the profit margin would have been less due to possibly lower game sales because there'd already be carts out there people could buy used from computer owners but in the long run if they'd designed it as a poor-man's Atari 400 it would have had easier growth potential.

[Curt Vendel]

It is possible that the 5100 (aka 5200jr, aka 5200L) might have helped a lot. It would've been packed with the new cx-52L self-centering controllers, that certainly would've helped, however the controller design needed to go one step further and replace the soft rubber fire buttons (1& 2 on the left, 1 & 2 on the right) with just 1 on the left and 2 on the right and done in a hard plastic for better feel and comfort overall.

 

The smaller size and lower cost certainly would've helped.

 

One thing I was always jealous over was Coleco's controllers for the Colecovision and Atari should've done a driving controller and perhaps something like the super action controller...

 

The biggest issue was the 5200 wasn't getting the hot titles - it was the same old regurgitated 400/800 titles and 5200 versions of 2600 games. Meanwhile games that would've helped - like Super Pac Man, Tempest, Cloak & Dagger and others were just slow in getting out the door, the 5200 needed hot titles and they just weren't there and really it all boils down to - it doesn't matter what fancy controllers, or add-on modules you have, the games have to be hot titles, to attract gamers to want to buy your system. Think about how many gamers bought a Colecovision specifically because of Donkey Kong and Zaxxon, which looked unbelievable on the CV. Meanwhile Atari is packing in Super (yawn) Breakout...

 

Curt

 

It seems the main reason the 5200 wasnt as succesful as its predecesor was

 

1) faulty controllers

2) incompatible with 2600 games

 

do you think if these were not problems then the 5200 would have had more success and what else do your think could have helped it?

[bohoki]

the controller gets a bad rap somewhat deservadly but its the buttons that are the culpret

 

if they would have come up with a new circuit that used the old tape on metal butons from the 2600 joysticks it would have been great and to make it use a400 carts would have been cool but maybe not if they had to have a stardard 9 pin joy port on the thing to confuse people cause really back then i was as dumb as a bag of hammers

 

if i knew then what i know now i probably could have singlehandidly sold many 5200s to friends using arcade parts to make joysticks (you have to think about what was physically available at the time and there were plenty of arcade components and 240k resistors

 

but the stage was set for a crash with the stagnation next gen consoles on the way

 

the 5200 almost parallels the story of the jaguar and coincidentally the controllers have the exact same amount of buttons

 

its kind of like owning a french fry factory but you cant get anybody to sell you ketchup

Edited February 21, 2010 by bohoki

[jetset]

It seems the main reason the 5200 wasnt as succesful as its predecesor was

 

1) faulty controllers

2) incompatible with 2600 games

 

do you think if these were not problems then the 5200 would have had more success and what else do your think could have helped it?

 

Neither.

The controller "problem" was not a problem until the internet when people who only played the system for 10 minutes started bitching about them. If you actually owned a system back then, the controllers were fine, they just took a little practice.

The compatibility issue was also not an issue because they were compatible with an adapter, same as the Colecovision. This one always made me laugh...the 5200 was more or less compatible than it's competitor the Colecovision. You either spent money buying an adapter, or you didn't.

 

The main fault with the 5200 was the pack-in game. Super Breakout? Are you kidding? Had they included one of their arcade hits like PacMan, Missile Command, Defender, or imagine if Atari were able to pack in the much better A8 version of Donkey Kong...its fate would have been much different. Everyone was impressed with the CV's port of Donkey Kong. Towards the end of its run the 5200 was catching up with sales. It's all about the games.

 

Still, the 5200 suffered the same fate as every other game console, the "crash" of 83-84.

[Mirage]

I agree with Jetset's comments, with the addition of Curt's thoughts about most 5200 games being rehashes of tired games and 2600 titles. I remember this first-hand, as the main point my dad had against getting me a 5200 was "those are the same games you already have on your Atari [VCS]". They needed new, exciting titles. Most of the 5200 titles were very old news by the time the 5200 was released. Just like today, people wanted to move on to the newest, latest thing, not the same old thing.

[Ransom]

Yup, the #1 thing that would have saved the 5200 would be compelling new games. They had Star Raiders, but they needed something more compelling and original (many who lusted after Star Raiders had already bought a 400 or 800 in the previous two years).

 

Better controllers and built-in 2600 compatibility would have helped, but the real nail in the coffin was that they had nothing to answer Coleco's Donkey Kong with. People will put up with problematic controllers and a lack of backward compatibility for compelling exclusive content. At the time, that would have meant something that was popular at the arcades. Unfortunately, everything Atari licensed came out for both the 2600 and 5200 (and the A8). They should have reserved the most popular titles for exclusive release on the 5200. (And forget about Atarisoft -- imagine Nintendo making New SMB for the X-box!)

[atariksi]

It seems the main reason the 5200 wasnt as succesful as its predecesor was

 

1) faulty controllers

2) incompatible with 2600 games

 

do you think if these were not problems then the 5200 would have had more success and what else do your think could have helped it?

 

Compatibility and controllers are two factors, but expandability always saved the PC. So if you had a CGA system a 4.77Mhz CPU and 64K, you can easily get a plug-in board to expand the RAM, accelerate the CPU, and/or improve the audio-visuals with EGA/VGA or Adlib. They did make 8-bit ISA VGA cards. I still have my Oak Tech. 256K 8-bit ISA VGA card; I used it's 64k*4 RAM socketed chips to fix my Atari XEGS. One thing good about A5200 was the socketed chips, but it seems nobody made anything that plugs into those sockets and expands its capabilities. Of course, one or two expansion slots would be ideal like they have on the Nintendo 64. I would say A5200 was saved; it's just the non-technical factors mostly that caused decline of video game market as someone else pointed out.

 

the controller gets a bad rap somewhat deservadly but its the buttons that are the culpret

...

if i knew then what i know now i probably could have singlehandidly sold many 5200s to friends using arcade parts to make joysticks (you have to think about what was physically available at the time and there were plenty of arcade components and 240k resistors

...

 

Buttons go bad but analog sticks aren't that good for games that use only discrete 8-direction motion (9-states). 240K resistor is an issue also as I've seen range of 210Kohm to 270Kohm resistors that work best depending on various factors.

[atariksi]

Yup, the #1 thing that would have saved the 5200 would be compelling new games. They had Star Raiders, but they needed something more compelling and original (many who lusted after Star Raiders had already bought a 400 or 800 in the previous two years).

 

Better controllers and built-in 2600 compatibility would have helped, but the real nail in the coffin was that they had nothing to answer Coleco's Donkey Kong with. People will put up with problematic controllers and a lack of backward compatibility for compelling exclusive content. At the time, that would have meant something that was popular at the arcades. Unfortunately, everything Atari licensed came out for both the 2600 and 5200 (and the A8). They should have reserved the most popular titles for exclusive release on the 5200. (And forget about Atarisoft -- imagine Nintendo making New SMB for the X-box!)

 

Donkey Kong was a non-technical issue. It had nothing to do with the capabilities of the system. The thing with games making systems sell is like a dog chasing its tail. If you have a big audience, you will get more games being developed by various 3rd parties. If you have good games, you can get a bid audience. Given this scenario, compatibility with A2600 and/or A800 was paramount importance as the audience was already set. They should have provided newer games. And the A2600 adapter isn't much use for A5200 if games are similar (even if better graphically-- the title name is the same). Atari would have sold more A5200 adapter for A2600 if they existed as people tend to want to stick to their current systems and upgrade rather than start from scratch.

[Ransom]

Donkey Kong was a non-technical issue. It had nothing to do with the capabilities of the system. The thing with games making systems sell is like a dog chasing its tail. If you have a big audience, you will get more games being developed by various 3rd parties. If you have good games, you can get a bid audience. Given this scenario, compatibility with A2600 and/or A800 was paramount importance as the audience was already set. They should have provided newer games. And the A2600 adapter isn't much use for A5200 if games are similar (even if better graphically-- the title name is the same). Atari would have sold more A5200 adapter for A2600 if they existed as people tend to want to stick to their current systems and upgrade rather than start from scratch.

 

It's true what you say about third parties, but the way you get them to come in getting that initial audience through first-party games. Imagine the NES without SMB, for instance. Or the Colecovision without DK. The 5200 had nothing like those. Just rehashes of stuff that were already on the 2600 and/or A8.

 

I'm not sure where you're going with the comment about DK. I was talking about DK being a star first-party game for CV, whereas the 5200 had no star first-party game of its own.

[Curt Vendel]

I disagree...

 

I owned one of the very first released 5200's, and the boot around the still was very thin, after 2 hours of playing I looked down at the stick and the boot was shredded. Also playing a lot of games was frustrating as the controller was sensitive and had more free movement then I or any gamer were used to. The controller was in fact, too advanced for its time and the public wasn't really ready for it. Games like Space Dungeon were perfect for the controller, but Pac Man and any 4way game were overly difficult. Even Missile Command was difficult with the stick, but was a dream with the trakball.

 

Yes, I agree - 2600 compatibility wasn't the issue at all, and you point that out with how CV and Intelly eventually had adapters just like the 5200, it was the software line up, the pack-in and the expensive cost of the system, those are what hurt it.

 

 

Curt

 

It seems the main reason the 5200 wasnt as succesful as its predecesor was

 

1) faulty controllers

2) incompatible with 2600 games

 

do you think if these were not problems then the 5200 would have had more success and what else do your think could have helped it?

 

Neither.

The controller "problem" was not a problem until the internet when people who only played the system for 10 minutes started bitching about them. If you actually owned a system back then, the controllers were fine, they just took a little practice.

The compatibility issue was also not an issue because they were compatible with an adapter, same as the Colecovision. This one always made me laugh...the 5200 was more or less compatible than it's competitor the Colecovision. You either spent money buying an adapter, or you didn't.

 

The main fault with the 5200 was the pack-in game. Super Breakout? Are you kidding? Had they included one of their arcade hits like PacMan, Missile Command, Defender, or imagine if Atari were able to pack in the much better A8 version of Donkey Kong...its fate would have been much different. Everyone was impressed with the CV's port of Donkey Kong. Towards the end of its run the 5200 was catching up with sales. It's all about the games.

 

Still, the 5200 suffered the same fate as every other game console, the "crash" of 83-84.

[+thegoldenband]

I too owned a 5200 back in the day -- got it for Christmas -- and the controllers were practically DOA out of the box, because the fire buttons were so stiff and unresponsive as to be basically unusable. This was the case on both controllers, so it hardly seemed like a fluke! For Pac-Man it wasn't a problem, but Zaxxon (the other game we had) was essentially unplayable. We ended up buying some sort of adapter to let us use 2600 sticks.

 

The stick wasn't a problem IIRC, and I don't remember them wearing out. I think by then we had a Tandy CoCo with non-centering analog sticks, so maybe I was just used to that way of doing things.

 

Also, 2600 compatibility definitely mattered to some consumers (though I agree that it wasn't "the" issue). I could swear I remember calling Atari, or otherwise putting in an inquiry, about 2600 compatibility. Not sure why -- maybe at that point our 2600 had broken down? -- but in any event, we were told it wasn't going to happen. That seems particularly strange, since we must have gotten our 5200 for Christmas 1983 (since Pac-Man was the pack-in) and the 2600 adapter was already out by then, so whoever we asked must have been clueless.

[Pyromaniac605]

Still, the 5200 suffered the same fate as every other game console, the "crash" of 83-84.

 

Well actually if you look it up it is actually the North American crash of '83-'84 most other countries were still going strong but that didnt help the 5200.

[+Cafeman]

Nothing could have saved 5200, nor 2600/CV/Intellivision. The industry needed a purging at the time.

 

I think the reason I was always fond of my 5200 was that I must have gotten one of the 2nd-gen 5200's, because I remember not having much problem with the controllers. Mine had a nice rubber boot which practically self-centered the sticks anyway. Pac-Man came packed in with my 5200, and that was the game I wanted the most anyway. Then I bought Qix, Defender, Joust, Q*bert, and Mario Bros next and I remember a lot of fun times. Only my mom had probs with the analog nature of the stick, none of us kids did. Also too, I never enjoyed the 2600 stick - only 1 button, plus the way you had to hold it by its corner while also pressing the fire button, that made my hand cramp up all the time. The 5200's stick felt way better to me, plus it had pause and the other buttons.

 

I never knew the 5200 was so criticized until the early 2000's , from this and other retro sites. This wasn't the case in the early 80's in our local scene.

[jetset]

I disagree...

 

I owned one of the very first released 5200's, and the boot around the still was very thin, after 2 hours of playing I looked down at the stick and the boot was shredded. Also playing a lot of games was frustrating as the controller was sensitive and had more free movement then I or any gamer were used to. The controller was in fact, too advanced for its time and the public wasn't really ready for it. Games like Space Dungeon were perfect for the controller, but Pac Man and any 4way game were overly difficult. Even Missile Command was difficult with the stick, but was a dream with the trakball.

 

Yes, I agree - 2600 compatibility wasn't the issue at all, and you point that out with how CV and Intelly eventually had adapters just like the 5200, it was the software line up, the pack-in and the expensive cost of the system, those are what hurt it.

 

 

Curt

 

It seems the main reason the 5200 wasnt as succesful as its predecesor was

 

1) faulty controllers

2) incompatible with 2600 games

 

do you think if these were not problems then the 5200 would have had more success and what else do your think could have helped it?

 

Neither.

The controller "problem" was not a problem until the internet when people who only played the system for 10 minutes started bitching about them. If you actually owned a system back then, the controllers were fine, they just took a little practice.

The compatibility issue was also not an issue because they were compatible with an adapter, same as the Colecovision. This one always made me laugh...the 5200 was more or less compatible than it's competitor the Colecovision. You either spent money buying an adapter, or you didn't.

 

The main fault with the 5200 was the pack-in game. Super Breakout? Are you kidding? Had they included one of their arcade hits like PacMan, Missile Command, Defender, or imagine if Atari were able to pack in the much better A8 version of Donkey Kong...its fate would have been much different. Everyone was impressed with the CV's port of Donkey Kong. Towards the end of its run the 5200 was catching up with sales. It's all about the games.

 

Still, the 5200 suffered the same fate as every other game console, the "crash" of 83-84.

 

And I will disagree right back. As far as reliability issues, yes there were apparently problems, but mine were pretty reliable though I will admit to the fire buttons wearing out. However Atari had a warranty on them, and we always took them to a local tv shop and got them fixed. After the warranty period IIRC it was like $5-$10 to get them fixed. Not sure why the boot shredding would be a problem, other than dirt getting inside? Just pull the boot off if it's shredded would have been my solution.

As to playability...I said it before I'll say it again. It boils down to practice and how good a gamer you are. I NEVER had problems playing PacMan, neither did any of my friends who had a 5200. The controllers don't self center, but regardless up is still up, down is still down, left and right are...well,...left and right. Even games like Frogger, if you weren't good enough to handle the controls out of the box, you practiced and got used to them. I bet people who owned a Colecovision had the same problems with games like Mousetrap, one of the more popular titles. If you owned it back then the stubby controllers absolutely sucked. You practiced, you got better, the controllers were no longer an issue. If you look at the gaming mags of the time there was no mention about how "terrible" the 5200 controllers were, and considering they all touted the CV over the 5200 if it were such a huge issue there should have been plenty of mention of it. Again it was the internet and Ebay that gave the 5200 controllers a bad rap. People were able to buy the system for cheap, the games for cheaper, and when they realized they sucked at playing they gave up and blamed the controllers. Back in '82, when your parents dropped $250 on the system, $40 on the games you had no choice. You were either a good gamer or became one.

 

Still, the 5200 suffered the same fate as every other game console, the "crash" of 83-84.

 

Well actually if you look it up it is actually the North American crash of '83-'84 most other countries were still going strong but that didnt help the 5200.

 

Can't argue there, but that had to do with Atari's very poor management and marketing. The 5200 was only available in North America.

[Divya16]

Do you think the 5200 could have been saved?

 

Your topic title: I think some emulators let you save state of machine which in this case is A5200. So yeah, 5200 has been saved by some.

 

You can then load it back (I think from file menu.)

[kamakazi]

I remember waking up Christmas morning in 1982 (around 3am), walking in the dark to use the bathroom and tripping over the controller cable to my 5200. The system was supposed to be the gift from Santa...needless to say next Christmas I asked him to please not leave the controllers out this time (haha).

 

Mine was the first issue 5200s with the 4-ports. I don't understand why people dogged it soo much...it was and continues to be my favorite. I didn't have any problems with my controllers and I thought the automatic switch was better than having to get up, get behind the TV, and flip a switch. I really liked the sleek look too!

 

If you are having issues with the joystick feeling stiff, back off all three screws a quarter turn at a time. This does help and overtightening these can put the joystick in a bind. If you find the buttons are not working...do what I learned with extra controllers I would find a yard sales. Remove the plastic holder for the START, PAUSE & RESET buttons & remove the pads. Take the thing apart, remove the buttons from the top shell and with a pencil eraser, gently rub the contacts on all the buttons (keypad, fire buttons and function buttons). These get carbon build-up easily and 9 times out of 10 I've learned this is what keeps them from working. You might also consider cleaning the flex-circuit contacts with a small amount of rubbing alcohol on a cleaning rag. If you do take this route, be careful not to rip the flex-circuit under the Start, Pause & Reset buttons.

 

I do believe that the 5200 could of really been Atari's shining point if it wasn't for the game crash in 1983. One of the reasons for this is the fact that games were flooding the market that started to turn people away from video games...with the 2600 being the main console involved. The system didn't have a lockout to keep unauthorized software from working on it. While it wasn't a bad thing, it did allow tons of 2600 games of poor quality compared to other 2600 games to be released. I feel the 5200 really didn't get the chance to make its mark. Yes, most describe the controllers as some of the worse ever made. But you also have to realize, that technology of this caliber was new at that time. Plus, you have to figure that Atari's R&D people were doing what they could to keep the selling price at a fair price.

 

 

If you consider the system first shipped with 4 player support (which really wasn't supported very well), used analog instead of digital controls, could have Atari's 8-bit computer software converted to it with little effort...I would say that Atari made a remarkable console. My ex took off with mine when we split and I'm still looking for one outside of ebay...but it was the same one I had since that Christmas day in 1982, and it still was ready to enjoy some quality time with me. I never had issues with the controllers, and found that the game carts would fit inside nice 8-track tape cases.

[kamakazi]

 

And I will disagree right back. As far as reliability issues, yes there were apparently problems, but mine were pretty reliable though I will admit to the fire buttons wearing out. However Atari had a warranty on them, and we always took them to a local tv shop and got them fixed. After the warranty period IIRC it was like $5-$10 to get them fixed. Not sure why the boot shredding would be a problem, other than dirt getting inside? Just pull the boot off if it's shredded would have been my solution.

As to playability...I said it before I'll say it again. It boils down to practice and how good a gamer you are. I NEVER had problems playing PacMan, neither did any of my friends who had a 5200. The controllers don't self center, but regardless up is still up, down is still down, left and right are...well,...left and right. Even games like Frogger, if you weren't good enough to handle the controls out of the box, you practiced and got used to them. I bet people who owned a Colecovision had the same problems with games like Mousetrap, one of the more popular titles. If you owned it back then the stubby controllers absolutely sucked. You practiced, you got better, the controllers were no longer an issue. If you look at the gaming mags of the time there was no mention about how "terrible" the 5200 controllers were, and considering they all touted the CV over the 5200 if it were such a huge issue there should have been plenty of mention of it. Again it was the internet and Ebay that gave the 5200 controllers a bad rap. People were able to buy the system for cheap, the games for cheaper, and when they realized they sucked at playing they gave up and blamed the controllers. Back in '82, when your parents dropped $250 on the system, $40 on the games you had no choice. You were either a good gamer or became one.

 

I agree with "good gamer or became one" logic here. With the 5200 being my first console, I loved the controllers. The sensitivity of them did take a little while to get used to...and mine came with Super Breakout, but Mom picked up Galaxian, Space Invaders and Missile Command as extras to put under the tree. I was the only one in my class to get the 5200 over the 2600, and felt very proud...I had braggin' rights! When Mom got me the NES (Deluxe Set with ROB) for my 13th birthday, I hated the controllers at first...but determination allowed me to get used to them. Granted, I never used ROB much as I found him a useless accessory. If I had known then what I know now, I would of held on to him. I still say the 5200 is a remarkable system whether it got an exclusive title or not. It was the way for those of us without any computers to feel equal to those with computers.

[shadow460]

Given the learning curve involved, I think there's plenty of reason to dislike the controllers. The only controller I've used with a steeper learning curve was the negCon.

Also, if I'm playing a game with a brand new controller and I see after two hours parts of it are breaking, I'm going to wonder how well the thing is built. Will it self destruct during normal game play? If this were a modern system like a DS or a PSP, and you notice the stylus is bent or the square is sticking after two hours, you're probably going to want it exchanged.

 

Still, that's not what killed the 5200. I think the death of the 5200 began with the 2600 and its lack of a software lockout. Who could have foreseen in 1977 that third party companies would flood the market with crapware? Could the 5200 have been saved? Most certainly. How would it have been saved? I don't know, but it would have involved clamping down on software releases for all systems, something that you can't go back six years in time and do.

[cryinglion]

What they should've done was re-design the Atari 400 computer shell to me more attractive looking, and promote it as the new home console. Upgrade the existing Atari 2600 controller to have another button on the right for a seperate function. And repackage the software (carts) with new style boxes/labels (like they did with XEGS). This way there would be no need to modify existing programming for the software, consumers would have that familiar feel in a joystick, and Atari could expand it with EXISTING components like disk/tape drives and printers to grow. No need to start from scratch...and already beat Coleco right from the start (although Coleco killed themselves with the ADAM anyway).

[atariksi]

What they should've done was re-design the Atari 400 computer shell to me more attractive looking, and promote it as the new home console. Upgrade the existing Atari 2600 controller to have another button on the right for a seperate function. And repackage the software (carts) with new style boxes/labels (like they did with XEGS). This way there would be no need to modify existing programming for the software, consumers would have that familiar feel in a joystick, and Atari could expand it with EXISTING components like disk/tape drives and printers to grow. No need to start from scratch...and already beat Coleco right from the start (although Coleco killed themselves with the ADAM anyway).

 

They did redesign the Atari 400 and use existing controller circuitry (trigger line on GTIA and POT lines on POKEY); they just tried to make it cheaper by dropping out the PIA chip (the digital directions for joysticks). They didn't start from scratch as the custom chips are the same as Atari 400 and so is the RAM but with the missing PIA chip. They do beat Coleco with the existing A5200. It's just the controllers became less flexible once they dropped out the PIA's digital lines. It also prevented some RAM upgrades which make use of the PIA lines for bank selection and ROM selection (in XL/XE).

[segasaturn]

People have been asking the same question for years, and personaly, no. Because of the video game crash, 3rd party support, and controllers, even though I like the controllers......

[Pyromaniac605]

Do you think the 5200 could have been saved?

 

Your topic title: I think some emulators let you save state of machine which in this case is A5200. So yeah, 5200 has been saved by some.

 

You can then load it back (I think from file menu.)

 

 

LOL :lol: :lol:

[+wood_jl]

And I will disagree right back. As far as reliability issues, yes there were apparently problems, but mine were pretty reliable though I will admit to the fire buttons wearing out. However Atari had a warranty on them, and we always took them to a local tv shop and got them fixed. After the warranty period IIRC it was like $5-$10 to get them fixed. Not sure why the boot shredding would be a problem, other than dirt getting inside? Just pull the boot off if it's shredded would have been my solution.

As to playability...I said it before I'll say it again. It boils down to practice and how good a gamer you are. I NEVER had problems playing PacMan, neither did any of my friends who had a 5200. The controllers don't self center, but regardless up is still up, down is still down, left and right are...well,...left and right. Even games like Frogger, if you weren't good enough to handle the controls out of the box, you practiced and got used to them. I bet people who owned a Colecovision had the same problems with games like Mousetrap, one of the more popular titles. If you owned it back then the stubby controllers absolutely sucked. You practiced, you got better, the controllers were no longer an issue. If you look at the gaming mags of the time there was no mention about how "terrible" the 5200 controllers were, and considering they all touted the CV over the 5200 if it were such a huge issue there should have been plenty of mention of it. Again it was the internet and Ebay that gave the 5200 controllers a bad rap. People were able to buy the system for cheap, the games for cheaper, and when they realized they sucked at playing they gave up and blamed the controllers. Back in '82, when your parents dropped $250 on the system, $40 on the games you had no choice. You were either a good gamer or became one.

 

If Atari did any marketing research prior to producing those controllers, they must have found people who share your opinion. (Likewise, when the original Xbox came out with those freakin' huge controllers that most people didn't like, they were quick to defend them with their marketing research....before eventually "fixing" them by changing to controller-S). To each his own, but you're definitely in the minority of people who love those controllers, internet-or-not. In my opinion, it's the internet that actually enables people to find forums like this to discuss 5200 controller issues/repair - and locate replacement parts like those from Best Electronics - which could possibly *MAKE* a 5200 controller usable today. If being a "good gamer" means tolerating terrible controllers, "no thanks." Thankfully (for not-so-good-gamers, anyway) there were other choices, hence the 5200's relative obscurity.

[Kjmann]

Well, I thought I would post My two Cents here.

 

• Problem 1: Controllers
   
  Put Simply, They Sucked. They would have been great if they had been digital with the plastic buttons like curt said.
   
  
• Problem 2: Games
   
  It just stands to reason that they would have done better if they had just made the system capable of using the Same Cart Design as the 400/800/XL series (see Rybags Post Earlier)
   
  Think about it. An already existing, Huge, Library of games for the new system. That's a no Brainer. Basicly, Set up the Space Bar as Button 2. a lot of 8-bit games already used that for the same purpose. Also Set up the Keypad as the Actual Number Buttons on the 8-Bit Keyboard and Use the Escape {ESC} Key as Pause. A lot of Games already used That for pause on the 8-bit anyway.
   
  Some Games Wouldn't be compatible but most would have worked Fine.
   
  On Top of that, Programmers/companies that were already familiar with the 8-bit would have been able to make games easily for the system, re-work and make Special versions of their already existing games that were not compatible (due to keyboard differences) and use an XL or 800 to develop games without any special hardware needed. Also, Above all It would be Cheap for them to Do it.
   
  
• Problem 3: The Switch Box
   
  This was just a bad Idea to all together. This should have never been done.
   
  
• Problem 4: Size of the console
   
  What were they Thinking. This just sucked. The Controller Holding bay didn't even hold the controllers properly. The Thing was just Huge. Honestly the System should have been no bigger than a 600XL and They could have used the 600XL molds with the Keyboard, SIO, and Expansion port Spots Filled in.
   
  In fact they could have simply used the 600XL mainboard and just Left off the SIO Jack and Keyboard Slot.
   
   
  

 

This Is just my opinion. I owned a 5200 back in '83 and I still didn't like the controllers. My friend down the street had a Colecovision and I went to play his games more than I played my 5200. as a kid it sucks to have that happen. =)

Edited February 24, 2010 by kjmann