How plausible would a "16 Bit 7800" or a "Portable 7800" have been?

[kool kitty89]

Another note on the hardware side of things: sort of a shame that Atari Corp had already had the ST blitter in 1987 since the Lynx blitter was far more powerful and it would have been smart for Atari to try to push cross development for console/computer hardware wherever possible. (for cost savings and better cross platform development for software)

 

Instead of the blitter earlier on, they could have simply focused on adding scrolling to the SHIFTER and pushing for faster CPUs and maybe adding DMA sound sooner (and/or a YM2203).

Then they could have converted the Lynx blitter for use in '88/89 on MEGAs and the STe and modify the SHIFTER to support packed pixels (perhaps chained bitplanes like VGA did).

I think the TT SHIFTER may have used true packed pixel modes, so maybe that's more what it should have been coupled with the lynx blitter. (that, and obviously offered in lower-end and mid-range models rather than just the high-end TT)

I'm not sure if the Lynx blitter was well-suited to working with 8bpp graphics (256 colors), but adding a 256 color packed/chunky pixel mode at the same time would have been great. (that would have made the STe a very really competitor for the time and a proper successor to the ST with very real advantages over the Amiga -especially with a fastRAM bus, or at least a separate bank for better fast page performance and fewer page breaks for the CPU and blitter)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think hardware choices would have made a huge difference.

Hardware was a huge problem in general: cost effectiveness, ease of programming, etc are all factors for both 1st and 3rd party development and quantity/quality of games, marketing etc. (the cleaner the hardware is the more options you have for marketing and getting developer interest)

The Lynx was nearly ideal for that with a friendly architecture and excellent development tools.

 

That was one of the problems with the 7800: it was a fairly powerful design, but rather contradictory for the defacto standards of hardware in the mid-late 80s. (character mode and sprite graphics using simple x/y positions -the C64 did it, NES did it, Master System did it- and it also clashed with the other main method of the time: frambuffer based graphics on computers, so it didn't even match up there)

The panther would have had the same problem, though been much more powerful and potentially competitive with the SNES and Genesis.

 

Systems don't live on 3rd party support alone. They live on first party games, at least until the last generation.

Yes and no, and I mentioned how hardware matters across the board above.

 

3rd party support is critical and there's no system that didn't rely on it (and few that didn't rely on it more than 1st party games). 1st party support is one facet of it, but lack of strong 3rd party support will kill your platform. (it's better to have competitive 3rd party support with weak 1st party support than the other way around, though if you're a massive software developer -like Sega- you might get away with it -as they did in Europe with the SMS)

EA's support on the Genesis (among many other critical 3rd parties -and some less critical ones) made it what it was. Sports games (1st and 3rd party) were just as big a killer app on the Genesis as the Sonic games back in the day, if not more so in some regions.

 

NEC thrived off 3rd party support with the PC Engine, and most of the PS1 and PS2 big games were from 3rd parties. (NEC could have been dominant with the TG-16 in the west if they had management remotely close to what Sony had some 4/5 years later -and if they'd actually released it in Europe)

 

3rd party exclusives (even if only exclusive for a couple weeks) can be as significant (or more significant) than 1st party games in some cases. (one of the PS1's first big killer apps was Tomb Raider, a game that was released before or just days after on the Saturn and PC -depending on region)

But there's very real potential for fully exclusive 3rd party games or defacto exclusives of computer games that no other consoles had. (especially in the US where the computer game market was much more niche relative to consoles)

 

Was Atari capable of a Sonic or Super Mario World?

With enough funding and a good developer to outsource, maybe, but probably not given they couldn't match the compeition's resources directly for 1st party games.

 

They weren't going to be dominant as such, but could have been a reasonable competitor. Albeit, management and marketing is also critical and withotu good marketing, Sega would have been weak as well (even with the same software -though without that management in the US, they would have lost EA, never had STI, marketed the Japanese games differently, etc).

How do you think Atari managed to stay well ahead of Sega with the 7800 and 2600 vs the SMS (more than 2:1 in sales), it was good marketing and brand recognition in spite of very limited funds and limited new software. (in large part thanks to Michael Katz, just as the Genesis's success was largely built on Katz's efforts followed by Kalinske -some would argue that Katz tempered spending better and could have had Sega healthier, perhaps even avoiding some conflicts in the mid 90s)

 

I definitely think that if Sega hadn't gotten Katz (or someone similar) and Katz had stayed at Atari (along with Jack rather than Sam and at least decent hardware to work with), they could have been more successful than Sega by a good margin, at least in the US if not Europe. (the SMS was strong, but the ST had been very strong as well in Europe, so both had a good brand name and Atari had more links to 3rd party software houses)

 

In hindsight, Atari obviously should have taken the offer from Sega to distribute the Mega Drive (offered in late 1988), but at the time it wouldn't have been so straightforward. The only definitive advantage would have been Sega's software support with arcade games and a few console exclusives (SMS was mostly arcade ports), and Atari had a much stronger market share in the US than Sega at that time. (so the haggling between Tramiel and Rosen is understandable)

If it would have meant Sega of Japan subsidizing Atari's marketing budget, that would have been more favorable, but I don't know the specifics. (I do know that Katz favored the offer, but Rosen and Trameil couldn't agree on the terms)

 

That was never their model.

??? "their" who? Atari Inc or Atari Corp? And under whose management?

 

The 2600 was powered mainly by arcade ports, same for Colecovision, 5200, and the 7800.

Same for the Master system and even the NES had a massive number of arcade conversions or remakes (or spinoffs of arcade games) in their libraries. (the fact that many people had no idea they were arcade games has more to do with the state of the US arcade market of the time)

The 2600 had massive numbers of original games or computer conversions, the CV and 5200 had a fair amount of computer conversions (especially the 5200) though were on the market for too short of a time to really show anything.

The 7800 had some arcade ports, but a lot of original games fill its library as well. (it just had too few games in general and no 3rd party support -or almost none)

 

The NES would have been a much smaller player without all that 3rd party support with arcade games, arcade-like games (talking late 80s, so not like early 80s arcade games, but sidescrolling platformers/beat-em-ups/etc, shmups, among others)

 

The 2600 had a huge amount of 3rd party, console-only stuff, like all those great Imagic and Activision games we love.

A lot of Atari original stuff as well. (and computer conversions)

Of course, many of those original games were clones of arcade games and most paralleled the style of arcade games of the time. (some were really innovative though like early platformers with Pitfall and Smurf -the latter being much more complex and more like later platformers, though less popular and less playable, especially on the CV)

 

Intellivision was an entire system of console-only stuff.

Tons of arcade clones though and clones of competitor's console/computer games.

 

Atari would have needed to showcase 4 or 5 main first party launch titles that would be very popular, and convince 3rd parties to come along.

I agree about getting developers onboard, but simply having the platform out there was part of that. What they did with the Jaguar was probably fairly "right" in that respect though: 3rd party sign-ons and lots of 1st party published games (lots of invesments on Atari's part). Of course, Atari was simply in a terrible financial/management/marketing position with the Jaguar to pull that off. (they were many times better off around the time they released the Lynx -and as above, one could argue that it should have become a home console instead and only later converted to a handheld)

 

Of course, Atari Corp wasn't a software developer and thus outsourced almost everything (including all the Atari Corp published 7800 games), so it would depend on which 3rd parties they contracted and how much bang for the buck they could get. (especially since they didn't have the funding resources to invest like the competition, though 1988/89 was the time to act with the ST and 7800 booming or just past their peaks)

 

They didn't necessarily need exclusives, but they'd probably have to shell out for some of the early games until 3rd party publishers really got onboard. (the easier to develop for and the better the tools, the better the support, the better quality the games -1st and 3rd party, lower development costs, easier marketing, etc)

 

Not all old school programmers transitioned well into the higher graphics era, let alone 16 bit. Ask David Crane about that. Personally, I don't believe Atari had the people with the skills and imagination that Nintendo and SEGA had.

Umm, Atari didn't have any game programmers from mid 1984 onward (or very few), almost 100% of software (even much of the ST's later OS work iirc) was outsourced as I addressed above. (lots of trade-offs with that method, but still a good option, especially if you got strong relationships with 3rd parties and they became de facto 2nd parties of sorts -Sega had many examples of that, especially with smaller start-ups)

 

As for David Crane, maybe, maybe not. I don't know the details, but it seems like he may have been breaking the trend of larger development teams and continued to go it alone with game development. (ie do most/all himself rather than having a mix of programmers, art designers, music composers, sometimes dedicated sound programmers, etc -depending on the flexibility of the development staff and the budget) Hell, even a fair amount of the budget Euro software was done by more than 1 person. (siblings or relatives in many cases interestingly enough)

 

Platformers really were king at that time

Yes, many big arcade platform games of the time, many of which got conversions or remakes for the NES. (and some NES platformers got remakes for the arcade -not talking about playchoice)

 

A fair amount of adventure and action/adventure arcade games of the time too, scrolling SHMUPS were pretty big, etc. (oh, and racing/driving games of course, yet another genre Atari was weak in with the 7800 -Nintendo and Sega had a lot of games, as did computers -including Nintendo's blatant clone of Out Run: Rad Racer)

 

The SMS and NES (and to large extent Genesis and SNES) thrived on arcade conversions and remakes as well as exclusive/original games. (some of which were clones of arcade games)

 

The problem was that Atari didn't have the funding or 3rd party interest to really compete with all those games. (and 3rd party support was heavily blocked by Nintendo -only starting to change at the very end of the 80s) One very good reason to push for computer and European developers especially. (can you imagine if Atari had managed to get a favorable deal with EA like Katz did at Sega in mid 1990)

 

 

Sega had the software right (in spite of lack of 3rd party support), though still somewhat weaker than Nintendo due to 3rd parties, and they had the budget for powerful advertising too. However, they apparently had poor to mediocre management up until Katz came onboard in late 1989 after the Genesis's launch. (Tonka was better with the SMS than Sega had been in '86/87, but not even close to what Katz managed with "Genesis Does" among other things)

Atari OTOH had some pretty good management under Katz, but lacked the resources to push out the likes of Sega's 1st party stuff, had weaker/difficult to work with hardware (especially for the context of the late 80s), blocked 3rd party support, and less resources for marketing.

 

This is really more for these discussions though, and I've spend much of my time just rehashing what was already addressed:

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/164639-i-think-now-i-understand-why-the-nes-beat-the-7800/page__st__175

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/176524-7800-what-did-atari-wrong/page__st__200