Do you think the 5200 could have been saved?

[kool kitty89]

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.

I've got a lot to say on this topic, but not too much time right now. However, on the Xbox specifically, I really like the original controllers, I hate the controller S almost as much as the PSX controllers. (360 pads are even worse) The duke isn't perfect, but it's FAR more comfortable, at very least for someone like me with big hands (10" span), that and the overall button layout is better (black and white buttons are hard to reach but the ones on the s controllers aren't any better down under my palm, having start/select int he middle is much better). The trigers pinch my fingers on the controller-s, while the duke's are some of the best analog triggers on any gamepad I've used (Gravis's Xterminator might be better). The Gamecube's controller otoh, was small, but designed in such a way to conform well to large hands (much better than the N64) as well and had excellent triggers.

What really sucks is that the dukes seem to have gotten rather pricey online and are hard to find at any local stores. Weird that they've gotten somewhat expensive given how many people dislike them. (maybe the supply is low enough to drive th eprice up from those who do prefer it) We didn;t own an xbox durring its main lifetime, so the onyl reason I care is that my uncle gave us his old one and only an s-type controller, and I don't want to spend ~$15-20 buying a duke online. (I played my freind's xbox a lot and always used the duke which he hated and has since thrown away unfortunately)

 

The 5200 controller is a rathe rdifferent case though, it's got a variety of problems, many of which are totally unnecessary. I have no idea why they went with the chicklet fire buttons, but on top of that made them undersized with redundant pairs on either side. I don't see why using buttons like on the paddles (or later 2800 and 7800) wouldn;t have been a straightforeward idea, the 3200 prototype seems to have used that layout. (along with the combo paddle/joystick of the 2700)

Going analog was really unnecessary, though probably a response to the intellivision's disc, but it really didn't make much sense given the very few games which really benefitted from it. Paddle type games play better with actual paddles, 4 or 8 direction joystick games work best with proper digital inputs, and trackball games are hit an dmiss for analog joysticks. (a game like Star Wars would be a key example of what would be good with an analog joystick though)

It was mentioned that removing PIA was a cost saving measure, but doesn't the added cost of the potentiometer set-up compared to a simle 4-contact setup counter that somewhat? Plus making the joysticks cheaply in general would cost more in the long run with repairs uner warantee. (sound familiar to anything this current generation? )

 

With PIA and the standard 8-bit computer joyports, you could easily have a number of enhanced controllers over th ebasic 1-button joysticks. You could use the pot lines for 2 additional inputs, or one of the pot lines for such if you had the combo paddle controllers (1 line for the paddle pot and th eother for the added button). After that there are 7 unused input signals possible from the 4 digital directional lines, so that's 7 possible buttons right there, albeit they can't be used for acton buttons and only work one at a time (so coule be used as keys or function buttons), adding the fire button into the mix doubles those 7 possibilities to 14 (and again if you used the 2nd pot line). Just with those 14, you could have the 12 keys plus start and select (albeit you wouldn't be able to use the joystick or fire button while using those keys/buttons). Having the keypad onboad really isn't critical anyway though, you could always use a separate keypad. (and reprogram games to star using another button rather than a key command -for 8-bit computer ports, that is)

Looking at the 3200's controller, it's much simpler. It looks to be rather like the 2800's in layout, dual buttons with combo joystick/paddle. (using the second pot line should have added a 2nd funtional fire button) Short of an acual keypad, you could still add a few function buttons rather easily as well, again the joystick lines alone offer 7 unused combinations which should be fine for function/pause/option buttons. (non action/fire buttons) Actually, you could even have that 2nd fire button as a spring-loaded analog trigger instead of a digital button due to the pot line it's using. (that's an intersting thought)

 

Of course, such controller, using the same pinouts as the VCS and 8-bit computers, coud also be supported on either of those platforms with coresponding software to take advantage of them. (probably more likely to happen on the computers than the VCS.

 

 

The other hardware changes to the 5200, issue of lockout/copy protection and software regulation in general, the 1983 crash, A400/800 compatitiblity (like the XEGS, possibly replacing the 400/600XL in general) are all other, more complex issues and I've already spent a lot more time than I meant to with this reply, so good night.

[RangerG]

I have to agree with Jetset. When I first found AtariAge in 2000 I was excited to look up and explore again the 5200. I had memories of it as the best pre-NES console (my cousin owned one). As I read online I realized all the complaints -- too big and bulky, crappy controllers, just an Atari 400, etc. You have to be in 1982 and see the massive 5200 box to realize how cool this system was and how much better Pacman was on it when compared to the 2600 - it was the future of gaming. Now - the pack-in game (Super Breakout) was a bad choice.

[atariksi]

I have to agree with Jetset. When I first found AtariAge in 2000 I was excited to look up and explore again the 5200. I had memories of it as the best pre-NES console (my cousin owned one). As I read online I realized all the complaints -- too big and bulky, crappy controllers, just an Atari 400, etc. You have to be in 1982 and see the massive 5200 box to realize how cool this system was and how much better Pacman was on it when compared to the 2600 - it was the future of gaming. Now - the pack-in game (Super Breakout) was a bad choice.

 

Controllers are useable (assuming they are in working condition) but they aren't as good as A800/A400/A2600. Also, A800/A400/A2600 controllers last longer-- mine are still around and working fine whereas A5200 have stopped working although I hardly used them. POTs are also unstable in terms of giving exact values as compared to digital I/O.

[Curt Vendel]

Ahem...

 

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/121484-why-did-atari-ditch-the-5200/page__view__findpost__p__1871880

 

 

 

Curt

 

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).

[Sampiero]

The 5200 was never sold in Europe (at least officially).

Nevertheless, I've recently downloaded the the emulator & a few games.

And this is no wonder why it failed.

Most games were oldies from the venerable 2600 with slight improvements.

The 5200 is THE perfect example of the strategic mistakes made by ATARI.

 

I just wanted to add that.....I'm really glad to join this website dedicated to ATARI.

I got my 2600 when I was 11 (in 1981...) and later a 800XL.

[jetset]

You guys that complain about the controllers and the fact that the games are "2600 remakes"...

The 5200 controllers are no worse than the Intellivision, and certainly not the Colecovision controllers, yet those consoles were not failures nor were they "obscure" (I wouldn't call a system that, 25+ years later has a forum on a website dedicated to it, and new homebrew games being made obscure). The Intellivision controllers are often touted as the worst controllers of the era, and the Colecovision controllers with their stubby joystick, difficult to push keypad numbers and poorly designed fire buttons (being on opposite sides for button #1 and #2) still prospered. The Coleco however, had Donkey Kong, The INtelly had Astrosmash (a blatant ripoff of Space Invaders meets Asteroids)

And as to the games, back then the big thing was the "home arcade". If you owned a 5200, THAT was why you bought it. Coleco still did well with essentially the same exact thing, 2600 rehashes. With the exception of Donkey Kong and Zaxxon, most of their games were ripoff games. Slither, Carnival, Ladybug, Mouse Trap, Cosmic Avenger...All knock-offs.

 

Had Atari packed in any of their arcade ports, Missile Command, Centipede, Defender...even Space Invaders....it's fate would have been different (although I still wouldn't call it a failure considering it's continued following/popularity)

[+wood_jl]

You guys that complain about the controllers and the fact that the games are "2600 remakes"...

The 5200 controllers are no worse than the Intellivision, and certainly not the Colecovision controllers, yet those consoles were not failures nor were they "obscure" (I wouldn't call a system that, 25+ years later has a forum on a website dedicated to it, and new homebrew games being made obscure).

Point taken. Of course, "obscure" is a relative term. Relative to the 2600, it is obscure; nearly every kid I knew who *did* have a video game system in the early 1980s had a 2600. I knew one single person who had a 5200. Granted, anecdotal "evidence" is hardly that, but it was still obscure compared to the 2600, and the fact that it was the successor will always beg comparison. Similarly, in an absolute sense I wouldn't call the Sega Saturn obscure, but relative to the Playstation I'd say it was; I hardly knew anybody who had one. (I still have a boatload of Saturn stuff and love the system, btw)

 

The Intellivision controllers are often touted as the worst controllers of the era, and the Colecovision controllers with their stubby joystick, difficult to push keypad numbers and poorly designed fire buttons (being on opposite sides for button #1 and #2) still prospered.

Those controllers are quite flawed indeed; the Intellivision is well-deserving of "worst controller ever" status. However, even the stubby Colecovision stick is better suited to 1980s arcade games because they nearly all used digital sticks too. I'd guess most of them still work. I'm still friends with the kid (not a kid anymore, mind you) who had the 5200 and he still has the unit! And both of the controllers are still broken, of course.

[Curt Vendel]

I've repeatedly pointed out that the Colecovision controllers are abysmal torture on ones hands. I have a CV and 5200 and I'll take the 5200 controllers anyday for long gameplay over the CV, that stubby little knob-stick and the overly stiff fire buttons are painful!!!

 

 

Curt

 

You guys that complain about the controllers and the fact that the games are "2600 remakes"...

The 5200 controllers are no worse than the Intellivision, and certainly not the Colecovision controllers, yet those consoles were not failures nor were they "obscure" (I wouldn't call a system that, 25+ years later has a forum on a website dedicated to it, and new homebrew games being made obscure).

Point taken. Of course, "obscure" is a relative term. Relative to the 2600, it is obscure; nearly every kid I knew who *did* have a video game system in the early 1980s had a 2600. I knew one single person who had a 5200. Granted, anecdotal "evidence" is hardly that, but it was still obscure compared to the 2600, and the fact that it was the successor will always beg comparison. Similarly, in an absolute sense I wouldn't call the Sega Saturn obscure, but relative to the Playstation I'd say it was; I hardly knew anybody who had one. (I still have a boatload of Saturn stuff and love the system, btw)

 

The Intellivision controllers are often touted as the worst controllers of the era, and the Colecovision controllers with their stubby joystick, difficult to push keypad numbers and poorly designed fire buttons (being on opposite sides for button #1 and #2) still prospered.

Those controllers are quite flawed indeed; the Intellivision is well-deserving of "worst controller ever" status. However, even the stubby Colecovision stick is better suited to 1980s arcade games because they nearly all used digital sticks too. I'd guess most of them still work. I'm still friends with the kid (not a kid anymore, mind you) who had the 5200 and he still has the unit! And both of the controllers are still broken, of course.

[kool kitty89]

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)

A large number of problems with this though, for one, you wouldn't have a dedicated games console, just another compuer in a different form factor, liek the XEGS (many games need key commands to work, so you'd need the keyboard, or at least a minimal keypad) Granted, they could haev limited expandability and such to prevent direct competition with the 8-bit market if they wanted such. (like omitting the SIO port)

One big thing would have been the rivalry between the console and computer portions at Atari Inc, unless those have been exaggerated. It seems like the 5200's convoluted design may have stemmed from that too, at least partially.

 

The final problem is one the 5200 doesn't properly address either: lockout and software regulation. Liek the 2600, te 8-bit computers have no lockout system, so no control over software, and no wat to profit from 3rd party sales (and thus facilitate dropping hardware prices compared to home computers). The 5200 did a half asses attempt at this with the new cartridges and modified memory map, but that didn't help much and it wasn't until the 7800 that they finally solved that problem. (the 7800's checksum solution being a more elegant -and reliable- one than the NES's finicky lockout chip)

 

Still, going the XEGS route, which is pretty much what the 400 already was, though it hadn't really been advertized as such, would definitely have been better than the 5200 if they could have done that instead, probably replacing the 400 with that model entirely. (and no 600) They screwed things up with the computer line as well in '82 though with the 1200XL and such. OTOH they could have simply put more emphesis ont he computers in general and on the 400 and 600XL as gaming machines (especially if they had gone straight to the 800/600XL and not the 1200 mess) and be rather safe if the crash couldn't be avoided. In that way they could even go with the 7800 as a proper successor to the 2600 in 1984 without really committed to another product in the intrim. (as the computers were a bit separate from the consoles in spite of takeing their place durreing the mid 80s prior to the NES emerging in '86) Some of this is obvious only with hindsight, but some shoud have been uite reasonable to see back in '81 or '82.

 

[*]Problem 3: The Switch Box

 

This was just a bad Idea to all together. This should have never been done.

I think the RCA Studio II might have been the only other major product to use such a switchbox and it really is a bit of an odd design, an external RF modulator/switchbox combo makes more sense with a standard AV connector onboard the unit (they could have used a DIN-5 as with the 8-bits -and VIC/C64). The auto stitchboxes the NES used might not have been feasible in 1982, but I'm sure one which automatically switched when receiving power (+5V or such from the AV port -also used to power the RF modulator in the switchbox).

 

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.

Remember the 600 and 800XL came a good bit after the 5200 (and 1200XL), plus you need th ekeyboard to play many 8-bit cartridges. (going that route)

 

So at the time, the simplest unit to work with was the 400, they could have worked around that though and gone with a slightly more consolidated board, removed accessories and such and revised the case to remove th enow unnecesssary heavy sheilding. Of course, curt shows just that here: http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/121484-why-did-atari-ditch-the-5200/page__st__250__p__1871880#entry1871880

Albiet he changes the cart slot as well to avoid conflict with the computers and with the 400 case it's still fairly bulky, I think still smaller than the 5200, but I can't really tell without them side by side (or some demensions), the 5100/3200 Jr is a more practical form factor. Curt's design surre looks neat though!

 

I have to agree with Jetset. When I first found AtariAge in 2000 I was excited to look up and explore again the 5200. I had memories of it as the best pre-NES console (my cousin owned one). As I read online I realized all the complaints -- too big and bulky, crappy controllers, just an Atari 400, etc. You have to be in 1982 and see the massive 5200 box to realize how cool this system was and how much better Pacman was on it when compared to the 2600 - it was the future of gaming. Now - the pack-in game (Super Breakout) was a bad choice.

OK, but Pac-Man was better ont he 400, or rather equal but with better controller. (I seem to recall that by late 1982 the 400 was priced similarly to the 5200 as well, or at least when certain rebate offers for the 400 were available)

Plus, you logic is tied to a crappy port of Pac-Man on the VCS, with Ms Pac-Man it's a bit different as that was done quite well, but the controller really just scratch the surface anyway in the overall picture (not the 5200 alone, but Atari Inc and Warner overall).

 

Those controllers are quite flawed indeed; the Intellivision is well-deserving of "worst controller ever" status. However, even the stubby Colecovision stick is better suited to 1980s arcade games because they nearly all used digital sticks too. I'd guess most of them still work. I'm still friends with the kid (not a kid anymore, mind you) who had the 5200 and he still has the unit! And both of the controllers are still broken, of course.

There's the fire buttons (and inddeed the other start/pause/reset and keypad relability problems), but as to the stick, it's not just it being analog either, but rather a combination of the long throw of the joystick and lack of centering springs along with it being analog. Apparently the inital idea was to go with sometthing liek the analog control stick of a RC model plane transmitter, but somewhere along the line it got mutated into what it finally ended up as. Indeed the Vectrex is the perfect example of a well implemented analog joy/thumbstick (and controller in general), relativle short throw, well centered and comfortable to use. (even reasonable to 4/8-way directional games)

But still, given the large portion of games which were equal or better with digital control, it's not worth using as the standard controller. (an accessory, fine, but not standard)

 

And yeah, the CV stick is fine for pretty much anything that doesn't use the buttons (OK with 1 button, worse with 2), then it can be used comfortably as a thumbstick, but buttons complicate things and that knob is awakward as a conventional joystick. (had the CV featured a short rubberized stalk like the 5200 and marger fire buttons, it probably would have been great -and still good as a thumbstick) Best case is with games like frogger, qbert, or pac man, without buttons.

Edited February 25, 2010 by kool kitty89

[kamakazi]

First, to answer why Atari had the fire buttons on both sides. I had a friend with a 2600 who was left handed. To me, I feel the design of the 5200 controllers were to accomodate both left and right handed players with a single controller. Second, mine came with Super Breakout as Pac-Man for the 5200 wasn't released yet...and while others complain it was a poor choice, it was the only one at the time to offer 4-player support...which is probably why it was included with the system.

 

And I have to agree, to appreciate the 5200 you would of had to live the during the era. 2600 was really getting old in my area pretty quick. Other friends of mine were enjoying the TI/99 or other home computers...who could afford them. The rest of us wanting to enjoy home gaming had the 2600 which, not a bad console in its own right, paled when compared to the graph abilities of the aforementioned home computers. The 5200 offered to us not able to afford those computers a machine that could put us up there with them.

 

The 5200 will remain a long-standing debate on size, quality and misunderstandings. However, it offered a lot of firsts for Atari both good and bad...as well as console gaming in general that we take for granted today. Yea, the controllers on these systems were delicate...and they should of been treated as such. I thought it was pretty cool that I could barely move the joystick and move just enough out of the way of enemy fire WHILE still being able to get a target. Plus, the system was trying to compete with CV and INTELLI and came with a really neat storage compartment.

To me, the system just looked and played better than anything else I ever played...and I am glad I got to witness it.

 

And if you want a reason to play your 5200 again...pop in Galaxian, start a game, and don't shoot anything. If they hit the front of your ship correctly, you will kill them first.

[bohoki]

Best case is with games like frogger, qbert, or pac man, without buttons.

 

frogger was lame having to choose direction and the pressing button qbert tried to get clever with the analog diagonals which are easier to hit than a 8 way stick

 

 

back when i was like 10 and my friend got the 5200 i would ride over on my mongoose bmx bike to play it and thought hey this pac man is awesome my hand was big enough to hold the stick and use my pointer for the bottom button and my thumb for the top button in short time those buttons stopped working so we took apart a stick and flipped the buttons they too eventually stopped working buttons almost kill themselves since when they dont work perfect people push on them harder and harder then they wear away and their conductivity gets so bad then they die

 

the system felt very experimental the switchbox was revolutionary automatic switching wow i was impressed mine is sticky as heck i turn it on it switches over but when i power off it goes to the fuzz untill i tap the box with a screwdriver handle or just wait and if switches eventually

 

nothing could have saved it it was to expensive to make do discount enough

[DracIsBack]

.

The 5200 controllers are no worse than the Intellivision, and certainly not the Colecovision controllers

 

I hated those Intellivision side buttons.

Edited February 26, 2010 by DracIsBack

[kool kitty89]

First, to answer why Atari had the fire buttons on both sides. I had a friend with a 2600 who was left handed. To me, I feel the design of the 5200 controllers were to accomodate both left and right handed players with a single controller. Second, mine came with Super Breakout as Pac-Man for the 5200 wasn't released yet...and while others complain it was a poor choice, it was the only one at the time to offer 4-player support...which is probably why it was included with the system.

That's pretty obvious, but doing that is no good if neither left nor right handed people can use them properly. Even if they were reliable, having the buttons so small and close together is a bit funky, that and having them chicklet buttons rather than hard plastic capped ones.

 

Still, controllers soon went for gamepads and those certainly feel different for left, and right handed people. Although, I'll say that using the CX-10 (or CX40) as a joypad (left thumb on button, right on top of stick) does feel fairly natural in spite of it being the revese of what a gamepad does (dpad on left, buttons to the right). Having buttons switched after getting used to them is a bit weird, but not so much if it's the first time playing such a game. (ie, having a jas jump and b as attack wouldn't feel so weird on NES games if I wasn't used to the opposite)

 

And I have to agree, to appreciate the 5200 you would of had to live the during the era. 2600 was really getting old in my area pretty quick. Other friends of mine were enjoying the TI/99 or other home computers...who could afford them. The rest of us wanting to enjoy home gaming had the 2600 which, not a bad console in its own right, paled when compared to the graph abilities of the aforementioned home computers. The 5200 offered to us not able to afford those computers a machine that could put us up there with them.

Again, home computers were a viable option... and the A400 was close to, if not equal to the 5200 in late 1982, at least based on some articles I've seen. Yes, the 5200 was a nice machine, though a fair number of games aren't very impressive compared tot eh 2600 counterparts and many games take a hit compared to the 400/800 originals due to contol issues. (with some exceptions, paddles are better for paddle games, and joysticks -or gamepads for 4 or 8-way digital control)

 

In Europe, the 8-bit computers were the ONLY option for a more advanced Atari system as the 5200 didn't make it there. (really too bad the Ataris never caught on over there, not even the Atari -or at least Atari Corp freindly UK with the ST and Lynx being pretty popular and the 7800 and 2600 Jr still being sold in the early 90s) With the 8-bit computer gaming market being so strong and the Ataris being better for games than soem of th emain competitors (Speccy and CPC in most respects), it's a shame it wasn't very popular; perhaps it has to do with marketing or the availability of tape based software. (casettes and cartridges beign the main media for 8-bits in EU)

 

 

The analog stick may have been passable for most games (at least when the pots are free of dust and non jittery), but I doubt anyone will play as well for 4/8-way games (ie Pac man or Ms Pac Man) with those controllers than they would on the 8-bit computers.

 

The 5200 will remain a long-standing debate on size, quality and misunderstandings. However, it offered a lot of firsts for Atari both good and bad...as well as console gaming in general that we take for granted today. Yea, the controllers on these systems were delicate...and they should of been treated as such. I thought it was pretty cool that I could barely move the joystick and move just enough out of the way of enemy fire WHILE still being able to get a target. Plus, the system was trying to compete with CV and INTELLI and came with a really neat storage compartment.

To me, the system just looked and played better than anything else I ever played...and I am glad I got to witness it.

The games were nothing new for any Atari computer users of course, and the controllers aren't anywhere near as durrable as they should be (the analog stick is OK, just the boot wears out on early versions, but the flex circuitry wore out too quickly). The Vetrex only came out a little later and did a great job with anlog control. (and had more games catering to it too)

 

Best case is with games like frogger, qbert, or pac man, without buttons.

 

frogger was lame having to choose direction and the pressing button qbert tried to get clever with the analog diagonals which are easier to hit than a 8 way stick

Really? I've never, ever known any analog stick to respond better to 8-way control (or 4-way) as well as a d-pad or digital joystick with decent components. (actual microswitches as in arcades are ahead, of course). THe closest I've seen is on the Nintendo consoles with the 8-way notches around the analog stick. (N64, GC, Wii)

 

 

the system felt very experimental the switchbox was revolutionary automatic switching wow i was impressed mine is sticky as heck i turn it on it switches over but when i power off it goes to the fuzz untill i tap the box with a screwdriver handle or just wait and if switches eventually

 

nothing could have saved it it was to expensive to make do discount enough

I think the 1977 RCA Studio II had the same switchbox mechanism, single RF cable from the unit which carried DC power and the RF signal. Again, if the ca 1985 type auto switchboxed of the NES onward were not practical at the time, at very least it should have been posible to rig up an auto switch box that would switch when powered on. (ie an integrated RF modulatior+switch plugging into an A/V port which also had a power lead on it -as with the monitor ports on many home computers and the AV ports of almost all consoles following the Master System)

 

As to cost, I don't think the hardware was really that expensive, but in the way the 5200 was initially built, it doesn't seem all that cost optimized. (namely the overly bulky case -increased weight and box size) I think it might even be larger than the 400/800. (probably not heavier though due to the heavy RF sheilding in those computers)

 

One problem though was lack of lockout, so it would be tougher to discount the hardware price. (3rd party licencing royaltees greatly facilitates cutting the hardware price) That's one of the 5200s big problems, and one among others the 7800 fixed. Still, Atari had a large enough portion of the software market to supplement the base unit pretty nicely, the same could have been said for the computers themselves though. (maybe even enough to help combat Commodore's virtical integration, but screw ups in '82 and '83 pretty much scratched that off the list of possibilities)

 

In that light, it really wouldn't have been a bad idea to go with something like the XEGS instead. (and probably discontinue the 400 and forego the 600XL) The only snag there is that there might have been friction between the video game and computer camps at A Inc inhibiting this.

The 400 sounds liek it was originally intended as something more along the lines of the XEGS, but it was neither marketed as such nor cheap enough prior to 1982 (maybe) to be such. Again, they really screwed up with the 8-bits in '82 with the 1200XL. If they couldn't have had the 800XL and 600XL out by the time the 1200XL was, they could have stuck with the older designs and even done soem more rudimentary cost cutting there. (if the aluminum castings weren't integral to the cases, they could have started by removing that and using mimimal steel sheeting for RF sheilding -with the FCC regs being more lax by that point)

 

 

.

The 5200 controllers are no worse than the Intellivision, and certainly not the Colecovision controllers

 

I hated those Intellivision side buttons.

Umm, I don't know why anyone would prefer the Intellivision controller to the CV one, the disc at the bottom, recessed, 16 directions, membrane keypad (model 2 was worse) etc. The main problem I see with the CV controller is that the buttons get covered by your hand if using the knob as a thumbstick, and the knob is iffy to use as a handheld joystick.

Edited February 26, 2010 by kool kitty89

[cryinglion]

Ahem...

 

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/121484-why-did-atari-ditch-the-5200/page__view__findpost__p__1871880

 

 

 

Curt

 

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).

 

NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! Would've been so much better, and and I bet Atari would have seriously cashed in if they did it right (just like this way) from the beginning (along with better marketing)! Thanks Curt!

[kool kitty89]

Ahem...

 

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/121484-why-did-atari-ditch-the-5200/page__view__findpost__p__1871880

 

 

 

Curt

 

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).

 

NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! Would've been so much better, and and I bet Atari would have seriously cashed in if they did it right (just like this way) from the beginning (along with better marketing)! Thanks Curt!

 

Yep, make the carts incompatible, remode expansion ports (possibly add an new one for a mimimalist computer exmapnsion -ie tape deck+keyboard), etc. The case is still a bit bulky though, but I'm not sure how the 400 itsself compares to the 5200 in size. (so it could be a lot better already, plus they could repackage a smaller unit later on anyway) Regardless that thing looks badass.

Avoiding memory remapping, they could still have a flat 16 kB (14-bits) of address space available (the 800 split that into 2 separate cart slots; not sure why they went that route rather than a single 16 kB cart slot in the first place -maybe to differentiate the 800). If remapping the RAM space wasn't too problematic in terms of game conversions, that might have been a good idea too (5200 has 32 kB mapped), of course bank switching is not much of a challenge either, so flat address space available isn't that critical.

 

Oh, and as I mentioned, with the standard joystick ports, tere are plenty of options for enhanced controllers. (2-axis analog sticks with 5 direct mapped buttons, digital stick plus 2, or 3 buttons using pot lines, plus possible options for non-action buttons using other inputs -for pause, select, start, etc -or even a keypad possibly) A keypad would probably be best kept separate though, as on the 2600. (and more flexible with 4x ports too) Plus, any such controller could be applied to the 400/800, or even the 2600 with coresponding games.

 

The only other factor would be a lockout mechanism; that would REALLY have been the key factor. (again, the 7800 added the checksum system) One possible problem with that would be 3rd parties clinging to the 2600 more due to lack of lockout (and licencing fees/restrictions). However, if Atari really pushed the 5200 as the successor to the VCS and started pulling out resourses for the VCS, that could have changed things. Putting too much into the 2600 for too long was one of warner/atari inc's big problems.

 

 

And again, one other option would have been to hold off on a new console and push the computers for the time being. Perhapce replace the 400 with a strealined "computer game system" (like the XEGS), which is kind of what the 400 had been intended as. Then leave the more capable (and expandable) 800 and 800XL to the more serious part of the home computer market.

They could have then released a proper new console a little later than the 5200. (either the 7800, or perhaps finishing the Sylvia design) Even if th eformal crash had been avoided, the console market would have undowtedly slumped with the C64 gettign so popular in the early/mid 80s, but Atari could have taken advantage of this with their own 8-bit computers if they hadn't screwed up (1200 XL, Morgan's unfortuante hold in late '83, etc) and missed any chance at real competition with the C64. (of course the new, high-end serious 16-bit Atari Inc machines never surfaced either, perhaps they might have if Atari hand;t been bought/split up in '84)

[rjchamp3]

I remember being at one of the CGE in Vegas a few years back, and they had an adaption on a 5200 machine using a PS2 controller, to this day a purchase place for this wonderful item has not surfaced and why I don't know.

 

I will tell you my lifetime 5200 controllers I got, have not troubled me in any way but they are not the ones that came in the orig system and they were overhauled.

[atariksi]

...

Oh, and as I mentioned, with the standard joystick ports, tere are plenty of options for enhanced controllers. (2-axis analog sticks with 5 direct mapped buttons, digital stick plus 2, or 3 buttons using pot lines, plus possible options for non-action buttons using other inputs -for pause, select, start, etc -or even a keypad possibly) A keypad would probably be best kept separate though, as on the 2600. (and more flexible with 4x ports too) Plus, any such controller could be applied to the 400/800, or even the 2600 with coresponding games.

...

Actually, they could have had a digital joystick even without the PIA by incorporating the trigger lines and select lines on the GTIA chip. Perhaps going for a 3-port system with a digital joystick and two analog joystick ports would have kept the controller issues minimized and given them some incompatibility which they seem to have been looking for to prevent competition (monetary loss) with the computer division. They ended up using the CONSOL's 3 general purpose i/o pins for output to select which ports to activate which is useless.

 

They could have then released a proper new console a little later than the 5200. (either the 7800, or perhaps finishing the Sylvia design) Even if th eformal crash had been avoided, the console market would have undowtedly slumped with the C64 gettign so popular in the early/mid 80s, but Atari could have taken advantage of this with their own 8-bit computers if they hadn't screwed up (1200 XL, Morgan's unfortuante hold in late '83, etc) and missed any chance at real competition with the C64. (of course the new, high-end serious 16-bit Atari Inc machines never surfaced either, perhaps they might have if Atari hand;t been bought/split up in '84)

 

Well, even without further developing the A8, they had real competition and were on top even after C64 was released, but their marketing/pricing wasn't in competition. Commodore was also badly screwing themselves and shooting themselves in the foot with their incompatible machines, but they kept the prices low and made their inferior products look better to the masses.

[kool kitty89]

...

Oh, and as I mentioned, with the standard joystick ports, tere are plenty of options for enhanced controllers. (2-axis analog sticks with 5 direct mapped buttons, digital stick plus 2, or 3 buttons using pot lines, plus possible options for non-action buttons using other inputs -for pause, select, start, etc -or even a keypad possibly) A keypad would probably be best kept separate though, as on the 2600. (and more flexible with 4x ports too) Plus, any such controller could be applied to the 400/800, or even the 2600 with coresponding games.

...

Actually, they could have had a digital joystick even without the PIA by incorporating the trigger lines and select lines on the GTIA chip. Perhaps going for a 3-port system with a digital joystick and two analog joystick ports would have kept the controller issues minimized and given them some incompatibility which they seem to have been looking for to prevent competition (monetary loss) with the computer division. They ended up using the CONSOL's 3 general purpose i/o pins for output to select which ports to activate which is useless.

Yes, that's doable, but then you run into the problem of buttons to use for port 1 unless you could use pokey for that and have fire read as a key input. (plus the CTIA/GTIA trigger inputs are read more slowly that the PIA ones, aren't they -not that that would be much of an issue)

I don't know how flexible key inputs are through pokey, namely how many keys could be used in place of buttons. (or can more than 1 key be held down at any time)

 

One other option would be using a sort of rudimentary digital to analog conversion inside the controllers usign a few resistors to approximate pot values. (which I assume is how the digital joystic adaptors for the 5200 worked anyway) I'm not sure how the cost would compare to the onboard pots, but the mechanism should be such that 5 resistors were used, but with an otherwise simple digital joystic layout liek the CX-10/40. (such that 1 value is given for centered, and 2 values for each axis -up+dn and L+R, so you get 8 possible directions) Then they could have real analog controllers avaialble as accessories)

 

They could have used an alternate I/O chip to PIA as well, they seemed to be planning on using a 6532 RIOT instead for the hybrid Sylvia (3200) design. I'm not sure if RIOT is any cheaper than PIA though, it could very well be more expensive. (quantities used could depend of course, and they would have a lot witht eh VCS being produced) If they wanted to include VCS compatitibility, replacing PIA with RIOT would be a natural choice, though putting TIA on the board would add a fair bit to cost. (further integration later on could mitigate that, but then cost could still have been further reduced if TIA wasn't there -except in a case with a standard RIOT+TIA ASIC used for both the 2600 and 5200)

Compatibility could have been handeled in other ways as well, like still leaving out TIA, but adding provisions to accept an expansion to provide VCS compatibility. (with RIOT onboard the main console, all it would mean would be providing a suitable interface and an expansion unit with TIA and a VCS cartridge port)

 

 

They could have then released a proper new console a little later than the 5200. (either the 7800, or perhaps finishing the Sylvia design) Even if the formal crash had been avoided, the console market would have undowtedly slumped with the C64 getting so popular in the early/mid 80s, but Atari could have taken advantage of this with their own 8-bit computers if they hadn't screwed up (1200 XL, Morgan's unfortuante hold in late '83, etc) and missed any chance at real competition with the C64. (of course the new, high-end serious 16-bit Atari Inc machines never surfaced either, perhaps they might have if Atari hand;t been bought/split up in '84)

 

Well, even without further developing the A8, they had real competition and were on top even after C64 was released, but their marketing/pricing wasn't in competition. Commodore was also badly screwing themselves and shooting themselves in the foot with their incompatible machines, but they kept the prices low and made their inferior products look better to the masses.

It wasn't just marketing, or at least not just advertizing (marketing could encompassed a number of other problematic management issues overall). The shift to the XL series was handeled poorly and the coresponding price points didn't match either. Had they been able to go straight to the 800XL (even with no 600 at all), avoiding the 1200's compatibility problems and managing a price point reasonably competitive with commodore, I think it could have doen much better, at least if suitable advertizing and marketing strategies were used. (they never managed to really break into the broad European 8-bit market either -which would have secured a long lifespan on that market) They lacked the vertical integration of commodore, but they had several advantages of their own, a popular brand name tied to video games (a major selling point of both the A8-bit and C64), a large portion of games produced in-house (profits made there could help allow slimmer hardware profits opposed to CBM's reliance on vertical integration on the hardware side), most games were readily available on cardtiges, so not requiring a disk drive right away (or dealing with slow loading off tape -which was more vulnerable to piracy and degridation), and finally the machines had been on the market for several years already, had an established userbase and software libray.

 

Even if the XL series wasn't ready as soon as they wanted, they could have made soem more modes cost-cutting measures to the original 400/800. Maybe consolidate the board somewhat if that wouldn't involve a ton of work. (since the 800 was shipping fully expanded, perhaps they could have removed the expansion slots and soldered the RAM directly, or added a riser board to replase it -to avoid a board redesing as it was for the intrim) Perhaps soem minor modifications to the cases to save cost, but the big one would be removing the aluminum castings, replaced with mimimal steel RF shieldign to meet the more lax FCC requirements. (the plastic cases would need to be modified to address any portions where the alumimum castings were structually inegral to the design though) I seem to recall that the 400 had a RAM/CPU expansion slot as well; perhaps that might have gotten removed too. (and perhaps a better keybaord standard for the 400, or start phasing out the 400 entirely, dependign on how things were going -like if they went with a XL game system instead of the 5200; that could replace the 400 or 600)

 

 

The C64 was new and didn't support the VIC-20's library (or any other CBM computers like the PET for that matter), though I'm not sure how much VIC-20 compatibility would have really helped. The VIC sold pretty well, but how much would its software base help to support the C64, let alone how many VIC-20 users would want to upgrade to a C64. (or at least andy more than they would with the C64 lacking backwards compatibility) The VIC hadn't been on the market all that long and the hardware wasn't really that compelling for games. (even compared to the VCS)

 

I think dropping th PET line may have been more significant than abandoning the VIC. In that case they could probably have continued to suppor the PET line with newer, enhanced models, and kept them in a separate, more buisness/education oriented category from the breadbox home computer consoles. (they could even have applied soem of the hardware from the other designs in the upgraded PETs to save on cost -if the color PET idea went though or such) Plus other things like the C-16, MAX, C64GS, and various other designs which really just clutted up the selection when they should have stuck with the C64 its self -prior to Amiga, of course. (unless the MOS engineers had developed a really good next generation, compatible C64 successor)

Edited February 28, 2010 by kool kitty89

[atariksi]

...

Oh, and as I mentioned, with the standard joystick ports, tere are plenty of options for enhanced controllers. (2-axis analog sticks with 5 direct mapped buttons, digital stick plus 2, or 3 buttons using pot lines, plus possible options for non-action buttons using other inputs -for pause, select, start, etc -or even a keypad possibly) A keypad would probably be best kept separate though, as on the 2600. (and more flexible with 4x ports too) Plus, any such controller could be applied to the 400/800, or even the 2600 with coresponding games.

...

Actually, they could have had a digital joystick even without the PIA by incorporating the trigger lines and select lines on the GTIA chip. Perhaps going for a 3-port system with a digital joystick and two analog joystick ports would have kept the controller issues minimized and given them some incompatibility which they seem to have been looking for to prevent competition (monetary loss) with the computer division. They ended up using the CONSOL's 3 general purpose i/o pins for output to select which ports to activate which is useless.

Yes, that's doable, but then you run into the problem of buttons to use for port 1 unless you could use pokey for that and have fire read as a key input. (plus the CTIA/GTIA trigger inputs are read more slowly that the PIA ones, aren't they -not that that would be much of an issue)

I don't know how flexible key inputs are through pokey, namely how many keys could be used in place of buttons. (or can more than 1 key be held down at any time)

...

There's four select pins (S0..S3) and 4 trigger pins (T0..T3) so you have 8 digital inputs on GTIA -- enough for a good digital joystick port as well as multiple buttons. They can also keep the 2 analog ports for a 3-port system. The trigger inputs are just as fast as PIA -- just a LDA would work in 4 cycles. POTs take longer to read up to a frame of time unless you use fast pot scan.

 

...

Even if the XL series wasn't ready as soon as they wanted, they could have made soem more modes cost-cutting measures to the original 400/800. Maybe consolidate the board somewhat if that wouldn't involve a ton of work. (since the 800 was shipping fully expanded, perhaps they could have removed the expansion slots and soldered the RAM directly, or added a riser board to replase it -to avoid a board redesing as it was for the intrim) Perhaps soem minor modifications to the cases to save cost, but the big one would be removing the aluminum castings, replaced with mimimal steel RF shieldign to meet the more lax FCC requirements. (the plastic cases would need to be modified to address any portions where the alumimum castings were structually inegral to the design though) I seem to recall that the 400 had a RAM/CPU expansion slot as well; perhaps that might have gotten removed too. (and perhaps a better keybaord standard for the 400, or start phasing out the 400 entirely, dependign on how things were going -like if they went with a XL game system instead of the 5200; that could replace the 400 or 600)

...

I think we discussed this before on this planet. It's good to have expansion capabilities like Apple and IBM did. It was bad that they went for the non-expandable 800XL although it did make it cheaper and they had to do something about an inferior system (C64) eating up the market. Perhaps, have both-- expandable system and a cheaper 800XL system. RF shielding requirements were more stringent back then. It would have been great to have a memory board for a 256K card or 1MB card like they had for IIGS or PC. I remember PCs came with 64K and expandable to 640K with memory cards-- later on motherboard. Perhaps a video board upgrade would work within the CPU slot since that has the GTIA on it. That would have helped to get past the 384*240 resolution limit.

 

...

The C64 was new and didn't support the VIC-20's library (or any other CBM computers like the PET for that matter), though I'm not sure how much VIC-20 compatibility would have really helped. The VIC sold pretty well, but how much would its software base help to support the C64, let alone how many VIC-20 users would want to upgrade to a C64. (or at least andy more than they would with the C64 lacking backwards compatibility) The VIC hadn't been on the market all that long and the hardware wasn't really that compelling for games. (even compared to the VCS)

 

I think dropping th PET line may have been more significant than abandoning the VIC. In that case they could probably have continued to suppor the PET line with newer, enhanced models, and kept them in a separate, more ...

Both PET and VIC compatibility would have helped-- they did sell million or so; that's a big established user base. PCs always retained compatibility and so did Apple until Mac. Compatibility always helps so people don't have to learn from scratch or rewrite already written stuff.

[kool kitty89]

There's four select pins (S0..S3) and 4 trigger pins (T0..T3) so you have 8 digital inputs on GTIA -- enough for a good digital joystick port as well as multiple buttons. They can also keep the 2 analog ports for a 3-port system. The trigger inputs are just as fast as PIA -- just a LDA would work in 4 cycles. POTs take longer to read up to a frame of time unless you use fast pot scan.

GTIA has I/O for pots as well, I thought that was all handeled by POKEY on the 8-bits and 5200?

 

I think we discussed this before on this planet. It's good to have expansion capabilities like Apple and IBM did. It was bad that they went for the non-expandable 800XL although it did make it cheaper and they had to do something about an inferior system (C64) eating up the market. Perhaps, have both-- expandable system and a cheaper 800XL system. RF shielding requirements were more stringent back then. It would have been great to have a memory board for a 256K card or 1MB card like they had for IIGS or PC. I remember PCs came with 64K and expandable to 640K with memory cards-- later on motherboard. Perhaps a video board upgrade would work within the CPU slot since that has the GTIA on it. That would have helped to get past the 384*240 resolution limit.

In the context of the original A800 they didn't really limit the expandability any more though, did they? RAM was already expanded past the max of the A800 on the 800XL and it added the PBI. (but removed cart port 2 and joyports 3 and 4) Perhaps soem kind of beneral purpose expansion port (like the Amiga had) would have helped, but isn't the PBI a bit like that to some extent?

 

As for shielding, yes, it was still a hefty requirement, but iirc the FCC changed reguations by that time to allow such devices to emit RF as long as it was not significant enough to interfere with surroundign equipment. With the previous restrictions the 800/400 were designed for, no detecatble radiation could be emitted by the unit while in operation, the then new class B certification I think. That was a significant reason for the redesign from what I understand. (as well as general cost reduction)

 

Both PET and VIC compatibility would have helped-- they did sell million or so; that's a big established user base. PCs always retained compatibility and so did Apple until Mac. Compatibility always helps so people don't have to learn from scratch or rewrite already written stuff.

Did the PETs sell round a million too? I'm not sure ont he solid figures (or worldwide vs US), but I'd immagine a fair bit of the VIC's sales would have occured after the C64 was released. Not insigificant though, and given MOS designed the VIC at least, it would have made sense to have the VICII backwards compatible. (than again, it would have made soem sense to have CTIA backwards compatible with TIA and possibly allow the 8-bits to run VCS cartridges)

[atariksi]

There's four select pins (S0..S3) and 4 trigger pins (T0..T3) so you have 8 digital inputs on GTIA -- enough for a good digital joystick port as well as multiple buttons. They can also keep the 2 analog ports for a 3-port system. The trigger inputs are just as fast as PIA -- just a LDA would work in 4 cycles. POTs take longer to read up to a frame of time unless you use fast pot scan.

GTIA has I/O for pots as well, I thought that was all handeled by POKEY on the 8-bits and 5200?

...

POKEY handles the POTs; GTIA handles the CONSOL digital I/O pins S0..S3 and Trigger lines T0..T3. POTs are slower to read because they are analog values being sampled to digital using a slow method.

 

I think we discussed this before on this planet. It's good to have expansion capabilities like Apple and IBM did. It was bad that they went for the non-expandable 800XL although it did make it cheaper and they had to do something about an inferior system (C64) eating up the market. Perhaps, have both-- expandable system and a cheaper 800XL system. RF shielding requirements were more stringent back then. It would have been great to have a memory board for a 256K card or 1MB card like they had for IIGS or PC. I remember PCs came with 64K and expandable to 640K with memory cards-- later on motherboard. Perhaps a video board upgrade would work within the CPU slot since that has the GTIA on it. That would have helped to get past the 384*240 resolution limit.

In the context of the original A800 they didn't really limit the expandability any more though, did they? RAM was already expanded past the max of the A800 on the 800XL and it added the PBI. (but removed cart port 2 and joyports 3 and 4) Perhaps soem kind of beneral purpose expansion port (like the Amiga had) would have helped, but isn't the PBI a bit like that to some extent?

 

As for shielding, yes, it was still a hefty requirement, but iirc the FCC changed reguations by that time to allow such devices to emit RF as long as it was not significant enough to interfere with surroundign equipment. With the previous restrictions the 800/400 were designed for, no detecatble radiation could be emitted by the unit while in operation, the then new class B certification I think. That was a significant reason for the redesign from what I understand. (as well as general cost reduction)

I like that solid metal bomb-calorimeter type shielding, but they needed to make that CPU card more accessible.

 

Both PET and VIC compatibility would have helped-- they did sell million or so; that's a big established user base. PCs always retained compatibility and so did Apple until Mac. Compatibility always helps so people don't have to learn from scratch or rewrite already written stuff.

Did the PETs sell round a million too? I'm not sure ont he solid figures (or worldwide vs US), but I'd immagine a fair bit of the VIC's sales would have occured after the C64 was released. Not insigificant though, and given MOS designed the VIC at least, it would have made sense to have the VICII backwards compatible. (than again, it would have made soem sense to have CTIA backwards compatible with TIA and possibly allow the 8-bits to run VCS cartridges)

 

Game consoles don't always compete with computers. But when you have written thousands of programs, you want them to work on your next computer upgrade. They should have made an enhanced GTIA rather than reshape the computer from Atari 800 to XL/XE/XEGS.

[kool kitty89]

POKEY handles the POTs; GTIA handles the CONSOL digital I/O pins S0..S3 and Trigger lines T0..T3. POTs are slower to read because they are analog values being sampled to digital using a slow method.

OK, I must have misinterpreted your previous post.

 

I like that solid metal bomb-calorimeter type shielding, but they needed to make that CPU card more accessible.

It's cool, but not cost effective. It hurts both in material/manufacturing costs and shipping/distribution costs. (due to weight)

 

Game consoles don't always compete with computers. But when you have written thousands of programs, you want them to work on your next computer upgrade. They should have made an enhanced GTIA rather than reshape the computer from Atari 800 to XL/XE/XEGS.

Well, the VCS library was relatively small when the 400/800 were releases, so that may not have been quite so obvious. (plus the VCS lasted far longer than the originally intended design life)

A further upgrade to GTIA would have definitely been nice, additional color registers would have been useful (especially allowing 16 colors per line), perhaps higher resolution color graphics modes could have been added too. (like 16 colors in 160 pixels wide or 4 colors in 320 wide) The latter would seem to be more trouble though (and more to do with ANTIC than GTIA I think), but the former might be more realistic and especially useful for character modes if any 2 or 4 of 16 selected colors could be used per character (per line). If they could have allowed for multicolor sprites as well, that would have pretty much mitigated the C64's advantages and retained the 8-bits other advantages.

 

 

But this is veering off from the 5200 topic.

[atariksi]

POKEY handles the POTs; GTIA handles the CONSOL digital I/O pins S0..S3 and Trigger lines T0..T3. POTs are slower to read because they are analog values being sampled to digital using a slow method.

OK, I must have misinterpreted your previous post.

 

I like that solid metal bomb-calorimeter type shielding, but they needed to make that CPU card more accessible.

It's cool, but not cost effective. It hurts both in material/manufacturing costs and shipping/distribution costs. (due to weight)

...

It can be picked-up. Doesn't have to be shipped.

 

Game consoles don't always compete with computers. But when you have written thousands of programs, you want them to work on your next computer upgrade. They should have made an enhanced GTIA rather than reshape the computer from Atari 800 to XL/XE/XEGS.

Well, the VCS library was relatively small when the 400/800 were releases, so that may not have been quite so obvious. (plus the VCS lasted far longer than the originally intended design life)

A further upgrade to GTIA would have definitely been nice, additional color registers would have been useful (especially allowing 16 colors per line), perhaps higher resolution color graphics modes could have been added too. (like 16 colors in 160 pixels wide or 4 colors in 320 wide) The latter would seem to be more trouble though (and more to do with ANTIC than GTIA I think), but the former might be more realistic and especially useful for character modes if any 2 or 4 of 16 selected colors could be used per character (per line). If they could have allowed for multicolor sprites as well, that would have pretty much mitigated the C64's advantages and retained the 8-bits other advantages.

 

 

But this is veering off from the 5200 topic.

 

It's still related to A5200 as the chipset is the same minus PIA. An enhanced GTIA would work within a A5200 as well as an Atari 800/XL/XE. Now, you have to resort to software driven modes to get 40+ colors/scanline in 160*200 but doing it in hardware would have been better. But interlace modes with Gr.9/10 look great and give a perceived 160*200*30 shaded imagery-- unachievable on any 8-bit machine at the time. Atari 5200 has problems with that mode in practical game situations only due to lack of RAM but can still do a small window in that mode like 160*100*30 or 128*128*30 or using ROM banking it can do the full-blown version.

 

I prefer A8 sprites since no need for vertical multiplexing and uniform DMA but a few more would have helped. Like 16 sprites with 8 players and 8 missiles and overlap mode gives more colors.

[kool kitty89]

I like that solid metal bomb-calorimeter type shielding, but they needed to make that CPU card more accessible.

It's cool, but not cost effective. It hurts both in material/manufacturing costs and shipping/distribution costs. (due to weight)

...

It can be picked-up. Doesn't have to be shipped.

How else is it going to get from the factories to retailers/distributors if not shipped? Regardless, the manufacturing/materials cost is valid.

 

I also forgot to comment ont he CPU card: was that a feature of both the 400 and 800, or just the 800?

 

Now, you have to resort to software driven modes to get 40+ colors/scanline in 160*200 but doing it in hardware would have been better. But interlace modes with Gr.9/10 look great and give a perceived 160*200*30 shaded imagery-- unachievable on any 8-bit machine at the time. Atari 5200 has problems with that mode in practical game situations only due to lack of RAM but can still do a small window in that mode like 160*100*30 or 128*128*30 or using ROM banking it can do the full-blown version.

Is the hadware lacking to do this due to ANTIC or GTIA? I thought it was ANTIC which handled all the bitmap information and such, I only have a general understandign of the chips, but it seems like GTIA's main limitation in that respect is just the number color registers. (working around that would require changing the color registers mid-line I'd assume -plus flicker/interlace creating more percieved colors due to persistance of vision)

 

I prefer A8 sprites since no need for vertical multiplexing and uniform DMA but a few more would have helped. Like 16 sprites with 8 players and 8 missiles and overlap mode gives more colors.

Does the A8 actually alow combining sprites like the amiga, so double the color depth, or only simple overlay. (that makes the difference between 2 and 3 color sprites -not counting transparent)

Edited March 2, 2010 by kool kitty89

[Chuck the Plant]

The 5200 was a grease fire. The controller design was an abomination, and the software library was uninspired. The pack-in was a joke...Super Breakout is a fine game, but not a system seller, especially without a paddle. Back-compatibility was far more important to people than Atari estimated, and they paid the price.

 

The poor thing never had a chance. I doubt true 400/800 compatibility could have saved it. If they wanted to play 400/800 games they had a 400/800 for that. They wanted their old 2600 games to work, and they wanted new games or superior arcade ports they'd never seen before, like Colecovision offered. The 5200 gave them neither. There just wasn't much software worth buying a 5200 to play. It's a sad testament to Atari's mismanagement that the best game on the 5200, Adventure 2, was a homebrew effort developed 20 years later by a talented hobbyist. Atari should have been developing games like that, 5200 exclusives that you had to play.

 

It's a shame. The 5200 was innovative. The four controller ports were ahead of their time, as was the idea of analog control and multiple button input. The 5200 is a case study of good ideas implemented in a terrible way.