I just edited the 5200 article on Wikipedia

[atariksi]

How could potential customers feel the controllers were terrible? Being potential, they've never touched one. That means they are going solely based on the picture on the box, and in that case, couldn't the same could be said if controllers for any system?

I guess this means people who don't have a system can't play it at a store display kiosk or a friend's house. The only people who even care what a wikipedia entry about an antique video game console says post here.

 

If people hear about controllers being bad, they may not buy one so that's potential customers who never touched the controllers. And internet wasn't around so people couldn't file as many complaints globally. Also, many controllers went bad over time so more complaints are expected later than immediately.

[Jess Ragan]

It appears whoever wrote the original edit didn't appreciate my changes, because he got rid off all my stuff and replaced it with the old "5200 failed and had terrible controllers" bit.

 

Yep. Thats the Wikipedia aristocracy for you.

 

I fucking hate those guys. It's not the encyclopedia anyone can edit if people can edit it right back to the way it was! They're trying to ride the fence between respectability and democracy and doing damned a poor job.

[Retro Rogue]

... in the vein of "ET caused the video game crash".

Speaking of introductory paragraphs on Wikipedia that need editing...

 

Where is that? I tried looking at North american video game crash of 1983 and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) and didn't see anything like that in either intro other than correctly claiming that it's "frequently cited".

Edited August 19, 2010 by wgungfu

[Retro Rogue]

I fucking hate those guys. It's not the encyclopedia anyone can edit if people can edit it right back to the way it was! They're trying to ride the fence between respectability and democracy and doing damned a poor job.

 

You're contradicting yourself there - if anyone can edit it right back, that's demonstrating anyone can edit it. You may not agree with the reversion, but that's different than nobody being able to edit it. Likewise, just because you can put info up or do an edit doesn't mean it should stay there. There's policies and guidelines for all sorts of content, all generated via discussion to form Consensus amongst other long time editors, people just like you or I (demoncracy in action). Just because people don't want to familiarize themeselves with the workings of the site before contributing, doesn't reflect in any way of there being a damned poor job done. It reflects more on those people.

 

Being heavily involved in the video game project there, I think the major issue with people who come on to edit is they don't seem to understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a fan page/blog. A lot of times the information added by people (with good intention) that gets reverted is either a) worded completely unencyclopedic (i.e. written in a personal commentary format like a blog, or not from a Neutral Point Of View), b) Composed of completely of Original Research, c) Based on a resource that's not considered Reliable or Notable.

 

Anyone *can* edit it, and reversion and revision of edits is part of the editing process. Saying "they" (who are "those guys"?) as if there's some official Wikipedia company person doing reversions and revisions doesn't make sense - because there's not. They're done by other contributors (like you and I) - the same as the people doing the additions in first place. If your edits are that valid that they are backed up by reliable and notable sources in the first place (like information in an encyclopedia should be), there shouldn't be a problem. If there are problems with another editor, there's an entire support network there of discussion policies, arbitration processes, complaints, etc. that one can take advantage of.

Edited August 19, 2010 by wgungfu

[Christophero Sly]

... in the vein of "ET caused the video game crash".

Speaking of introductory paragraphs on Wikipedia that need editing...

 

Where is that? I tried looking at North american video game crash of 1983 and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) and didn't see anything like that in either intro other than correctly claiming that it's "frequently cited".

 

I thought the E.T. landfill myth had finally been put to bed... but I DO NOT want to get into that argument again. Nevertheless, whatever the current interpretation of the landfill myth, "frequently cited" strikes me as about as "weasely" as two words can get.

 

But, honestly, I don't care about Wikipedia. It was just a sardonic comment. Take it or leave it.

[Divya16]

Here you go!

 

All I really did was correct the notion in the first part of the page that the 5200 sold terribly because of its controllers,

Well, that did need to be changed, because that reeks of opinion, and it deserved a [Citation Needed] at the very least. The simple test here is "says who?"

 

The side fire buttons were ergonomically bad, ,

 

That is pure opinion. In fact, those of us who owned one in the day knew that was one of the best parts of the design.

You're joking. That's a fact. Buttons are better if they are easier to press and on top and big like on Wico or Atari 2600 joysticks. Also, Wico/Atari 2600 joysticks make it easier to use two hands so you press the button with left hand and move around with right hand. Atari 5200 controllers are harder to press (assuming they are fully working) and harder to grip. You may get away with it for some games that have little or no use for the buttons, but for games like Montezuma's revenge, Donkey Kong, etc. where timing and position of jumps is critical, you can easily experiment and see how Atari 2600 joysticks win easily. The only person who says Atari 5200 buttons are best part of design has a very narrow or zero experience of the controllers that were available at the time. And the rest of the buttons and stick aren't better than Atari 2600 controller either.

 

Now that we can agree on. There should be no hating based on the opinions of a few any more than there should be lovey-dovey for the system or the controllers. Hopefully there is nothing left about how terrible the controllers, or the system are/were. I think that's what initially started this whole thing.

 

I'm sure if someone went onto the 7800 wiki and mentioned how absolutely horrific those controllers were there'd be a shitstorm. Should be no different for the 5200.

I certainly don't accept your opinion about controllers to be in touch with reality. Even 7800 controller buttons aren't that much better than Atari 5200 fire buttons although the springs and size help. Atari 5200 controllers are terrible indeed for those who have had experienced the other controllers at that time. For those only played with Atari 5200 controllers-- yeah they are the best because you haven't experienced anything else.

[128Kgames]

Well, anyone can edit my post. And maybe it's worded badly, but those of who had the 5200 back when it came out know there was never an issue with the controllers, aside from the fire buttons occasionally wearing down. The controllers are the same as thy were back in 1982, yet fast forward to 2010, and suddenly the majority of people who have touched a 5200 stick say they suck because they don't self center. So we don't need people to travel back in time. Those that were there then and still are now know.

Bottom line, *if* the 5200 was a failure it was in no way due to the controllers.

 

Well, I was around when the 5200 came out, I had an extensive 2600 collection and yet I bought a ColecoVision instead of the 5200. Know what one of the reasons was? The crappy controllers on the 5200 not self centering. And I'm sure I wasn't the only one who didn't like them. So I sold my 2600 lot and started playing Donkey Kong on an almost as crappy controller (but at least it self-centered!).

 

Again, that's just my opinion, but who is to say it's not the reason the 5200 didn't sell well? I also think the fact that Atari didn't advertise a 2600 adapter for the 5200 (at least not right away, not from what I remember) and Coleco did was a factor as well. How many kids had more than one game system back then, or more importantly, what parent was going to buy their kids another one? (OK, mine did, but I was special). Coleco marketed their console better in my opinion, and I believe it outsold the 5200, did it not?

 

So you could say that the reason it did not sell as well or was not embraced as much as the other second generation systems was due to a number of factors, one of which may have been what was perceived as a poor design of the controllers with their lack of self centering, blah blah blah... (don't quote me on the blah's)

[Bill Loguidice]

Here you go!

 

All I really did was correct the notion in the first part of the page that the 5200 sold terribly because of its controllers, and stated some facts that were left out at first.

 

Nice!

Not sure I had noticed whatever was said about the controllers the 1st time I read the wiki page. I'm so used to hearing people complain about it I probably skimmed over it.

At any rate, definitely a great edit. I agree 100% it wasn't until the internet kicked the "classic" game collecting into high gear that I heard word one about how (supposedly) terrible the controllers were. Back then how good a system was went by word of mouth, and/or the gaming mags of the time. for my part, I never heard of one person passing on the 5200 because of the controllers. The people who had a coleco or intellivision had them because they either wanted Donkey Kong, or thought the sports titles in the intelly were cool. I'm also fairly certain most of the gaming mags said little if anything about the controllers, certainly nothing that would sway the choices of so many.

I also noticed the comment " The controller also had a tendency to lock up.", which needs be edited. not sure what that means exactly, but in all honesty this is THE first I've ever heard of THAT complaint.

 

Good eye though catching and editing that info. Sounds like there was some 5200 hate going on in that info page. Stands to reason. It's wikipedia, and anyone can put (practically) enything they want.

 

I don't know, I think the controllers were considered at least something of a problem during the system's heydey. For instance, the leading videogame magazine of the time, Electronic Games, talked regularly about how bad the controllers were (mostly about the lack of self-centering) and I had a friend (I know, one-off example, but still relevant, since I'm sure his experiences could be extrapolated) who had a 5200 who ended up with several broken controllers and pretty much gave up on the system. Again, this was all during the system's original run. While it's true that many people weren't fans of either the Intellivision or ColecoVision's controllers (particularly the former), the lack of self-centering and relatively short functional life of the Atari 5200 controllers probably trumped the others' form factor shortcomings.

[Retro Rogue]

I also think the fact that Atari didn't advertise a 2600 adapter for the 5200 (at least not right away, not from what I remember) and Coleco did was a factor as well.

 

Actually, it was in their original promo material sent out that spring and summer of '82. Including the material handed out at that Summer CES. So was the speech synthesizer module.

[4Ks]

So was the speech synthesizer module.

 

Why would they advertise a speach synthesizer, when the 5200 already has a speach synthesizer inside the system?

[thebiggw]

It appears whoever wrote the original edit didn't appreciate my changes, because he got rid off all my stuff and replaced it with the old "5200 failed and had terrible controllers" bit.

 

Yep. Thats the Wikipedia Wickedpedia aristocracy for you.

 

There I fixed it for you.

[Retro Rogue]

So was the speech synthesizer module.

 

Why would they advertise a speach synthesizer, when the 5200 already has a speach synthesizer inside the system?

 

 

It doesn't have one inside the system, not sure where you got that idea. You can get the POKEY sound chip to play pre-digitzed sound files in a game if that's what you were thinking (ala Bezerk)?

 

It was a separate module being designed in conjunction with Milton Bradley in both 5200 and 2600 versions called the Voice Commander. Because of the financial problems from Dec. '82 onwards, Atari canceled and Milton Bradley sued for breach of contract.

 

The only Atari hardware with built in speech synthesis hardware that I'm aware of are the 1400 and 1450XLD computers.

[128Kgames]

I also think the fact that Atari didn't advertise a 2600 adapter for the 5200 (at least not right away, not from what I remember) and Coleco did was a factor as well.

 

Actually, it was in their original promo material sent out that spring and summer of '82. Including the material handed out at that Summer CES. So was the speech synthesizer module.

 

The speech module is news to me, and I just don't remember the 2600 adapter being pushed by Atari at all. I will take your word for it though. I do think Coleco did a much better job on their adapter though, as far as advertising it. It's one of the things I remember the most, that and the fact that Donkey Kong was the pack in game.

[Retro Rogue]

The speech module is news to me, and I just don't remember the 2600 adapter being pushed by Atari at all. I will take your word for it though.

 

 

Without me putting up the original CES stuff, here's a Sept. 1st, 1982 article that covers the 2600 adaptor and speech module. (scroll to the left a little to the "Win at Video" article)

 

It also clearly promotes (through direct quotes of then Atari Consumer president Michael Moore) that the 5200 was not a replacement for the 2600, rather a higher end game system to compliment it.

 

One thing that it all clears up, and I don't know where it originally came from, is the idea that the 5200's 2600 adaptor was done later in response to Coleco's 2600 adaptor - i.e. as an afterthought. (I'm thinking someone saw the later release date of it, but not all this material and assumed that). It was planned from the beginning, which was a logical idea considering the actual evolution of the design of the console (which I cover in the Retro Gamer article). Originally stemming from the 3200/Sylvia, which was also originally System X, 2600 backwards compatability was a feature. When System X was changed over to the 400 architecture it was still planned, but via the adaptor instead for obvious reasons.

Edited August 20, 2010 by wgungfu

[Retro Rogue]

I don't know, I think the controllers were considered at least something of a problem during the system's heydey. For instance, the leading videogame magazine of the time, Electronic Games, talked regularly about how bad the controllers were (mostly about the lack of self-centering) and I had a friend (I know, one-off example, but still relevant, since I'm sure his experiences could be extrapolated) who had a 5200 who ended up with several broken controllers and pretty much gave up on the system. Again, this was all during the system's original run. While it's true that many people weren't fans of either the Intellivision or ColecoVision's controllers (particularly the former), the lack of self-centering and relatively short functional life of the Atari 5200 controllers probably trumped the others' form factor shortcomings.

 

Interestingly, I dug up the Consumer Reports review of the 5200 today (Update: Tests of two new video games, January '83, pp 18-19). They're actually reviewing the 5200 and Colecovision against each other. What they had to say about the 5200 joysticks though:

 

"Our panelists had criticized the joystick controllers on the Atari VCS, which we covered in our November report. But our panelists liked the controllers on the Atari 5200. The new joysticks feature "continuous action"; in some games the control lets you position objects accordingly to how you push the joystick. However, the new stick doesn't spring back to the central, neutral position when you release it. The old one did. Some panelists criticized the new linkage, saying it had too much play."

"The joystick does allow the quick positioning needed by some games, such as Breakout and Missile Command. But players missed the spring-return joystick for Star Raiders, where skillful gaming depends on stopped the movement of crosshairs at just the right moment.

 

Regarding the fire buttons on the sides -

 

"Some panelists found it easy to rest a finger accidentally on the buttons opposite the ones they were using, which locks out the firing action."

 

 

Also later:

 

"The panelists liked the Atari's controllers more than the Coleco's."

 

The only criticisms for things breaking down:

 

"Three of our five Colecovisions malfunctioned and one of two Atari samples blew an internal fuse."

Edited August 20, 2010 by wgungfu

[Bill Loguidice]

Oh, the build quality of all Coleco products was pretty bad. They had good product, but poor, plasticky designs, with seemingly minimal quality control. With that said, the Atari 5200 controllers were far more prone to malfunction than the solidly built Coleco controllers (one of the few areas where their design held up). We don't need to hammer home the obvious, though, in regards to how bad the 5200 controllers were.

 

For my money, the biggest knock against the 5200 controllers besides their ability to last was simply that people weren't used to analog control on consoles. What would have been a potential saving grace (again, putting the reliability issues aside for a moment) would have been a mechanism in place like on many Apple II analog joysticks, with adjustment pots where you could essentially make the stick more or less free floating like the 5200 controllers we know, or a bit stiffer with a spring-back to the center. That would have minimized the problems with games like Pac-Man. The other big knock against the system when it was first released was the tepid launch library. Whereas the ColecoVision's launch line-up seemed fresh because it mostly consisted of either little known arcade conversions or big-name arcade conversions that weren't yet officially ported, the Atari 5200's launch line-up mostly consisted of games - like Space Invaders and Breakout - that had been seen/experienced too many times before, particularly on Atari's own platforms. The third and final "knock" against the system was that it was from Atari. Why was this bad? Because there was this naive perception by a vocal minority that Atari wanted them to "throw away" their investment in Atari 2600 games and get the new system. Not having the backwards compatibility out of the box (at least available as an add-on) hurt its perception, particularly among parents. Again, this can be confirmed with magazines at the time. I suppose a fourth possibility was simply that the ColecoVision already had good momentum and there was not a large technological difference between the two systems (at least that the average gamer could see), so there wasn't much of an angle for the 5200 to hang its competitive hat on. Of course, sales on the 5200 DID pick up and the library did improve, but the "crash" kind of put the kibosh on seeing how this would have all played out (with the x factor of a proper 1984 release of the 7800).

[jetset]

I don't know, I think the controllers were considered at least something of a problem during the system's heydey. For instance, the leading videogame magazine of the time, Electronic Games, talked regularly about how bad the controllers were (mostly about the lack of self-centering) and I had a friend (I know, one-off example, but still relevant, since I'm sure his experiences could be extrapolated) who had a 5200 who ended up with several broken controllers and pretty much gave up on the system. Again, this was all during the system's original run. While it's true that many people weren't fans of either the Intellivision or ColecoVision's controllers (particularly the former), the lack of self-centering and relatively short functional life of the Atari 5200 controllers probably trumped the others' form factor shortcomings.

 

Interestingly, I dug up the Consumer Reports review of the 5200 today (Update: Tests of two new video games, January '83, pp 18-19). They're actually reviewing the 5200 and Colecovision against each other. What they had to say about the 5200 joysticks though:

 

"Our panelists had criticized the joystick controllers on the Atari VCS, which we covered in our November report. But our panelists liked the controllers on the Atari 5200. The new joysticks feature "continuous action"; in some games the control lets you position objects accordingly to how you push the joystick. However, the new stick doesn't spring back to the central, neutral position when you release it. The old one did. Some panelists criticized the new linkage, saying it had too much play."

"The joystick does allow the quick positioning needed by some games, such as Breakout and Missile Command. But players missed the spring-return joystick for Star Raiders, where skillful gaming depends on stopped the movement of crosshairs at just the right moment.

 

Regarding the fire buttons on the sides -

 

"Some panelists found it easy to rest a finger accidentally on the buttons opposite the ones they were using, which locks out the firing action."

 

 

Also later:

 

"The panelists liked the Atari's controllers more than the Coleco's."

 

The only criticisms for things breaking down:

 

"Three of our five Colecovisions malfunctioned and one of two Atari samples blew an internal fuse."

 

 

I'd love to see some more info dug up on the reviews from back then. It was mentioned earlier that EG mag had bad things to say about the 5200 controllers, but to be honest, I remember most of the gaming mags of the time having very little if anything to say about the 5200 controllers (certainly nothing scathing).

Based on what you've posted it seems as if at least one pretty major periodical had good things to say about the controller.

I really wish there were a way to poll people, who owned a 5200 back in the day yet have not been exposed to the angry videogame nerd/videogamecritic.com 's scathing hate for the controllers.

I did find a site that had scans of the old electronic games mag(s), but the format is some, funky .cbr format that no program recognizes (apparently it's for comic books). I downloaded a few readers but none of them worked properly.

Refreshing to see though a little proof that not everyone hated thos controllers.

[Retro Rogue]

What would have been a potential saving grace (again, putting the reliability issues aside for a moment) would have been a mechanism in place like on many Apple II analog joysticks, with adjustment pots where you could essentially make the stick more or less free floating like the 5200 controllers we know, or a bit stiffer with a spring-back to the center.

 

Yes, I logged many hours on friends' Apple II's with Kraft joysticks like that. Miss those.

 

 

The other big knock against the system when it was first released was the tepid launch library. Whereas the ColecoVision's launch line-up seemed fresh because it mostly consisted of either little known arcade conversions or big-name arcade conversions that weren't yet officially ported, the Atari 5200's launch line-up mostly consisted of games - like Space Invaders and Breakout - that had been seen/experienced too many times before, particularly on Atari's own platforms.

 

Funny you should mention that. Also from the Consumer Reports review:

 

"Our panelists unanimously preferred the Colecovision's games, and a majority said that Colecovision was the machine they would prefer to receive as a gift. But that choice was largely based on the selection of games currently available. Colecovision's games are new, fresh ones; most of the Atari's have been played to death in arcades."

 

The third and final "knock" against the system was that it was from Atari. Why was this bad? Because there was this naive perception by a vocal minority that Atari wanted them to "throw away" their investment in Atari 2600 games and get the new system.

 

Which was odd to have when you had PR quotes by Atari execs like the previous one I shared, clearly stating that wasn't the case.

 

I suppose a fourth possibility was simply that the ColecoVision already had good momentum

 

How? They were both announced PR wise at the same time (May) and Colecovision had a month retail lead time (early September vs October). And both were getting plenty if not the same coverage in the press (newspapers, etc.)

[+thegoldenband]

The side fire buttons were ergonomically bad, to the point where I rigged up my own fire button using a bunch of aluminum foil wrapped around my big toe. But they were not bad enough that I wished I didn't have the 5200, and certainly not something I would have known about before having the 5200.

 

The buttons failing due oxidation of the flex circuits (the problem with the controllers NOW) wouldn't happen for a few years.

I can personally attest that my 5200 had this problem out of the box on Christmas Day 1983. The fire buttons were extremely stiff to begin with, and basically became nonfunctional within a few weeks. This was on both controllers, by the way, so no way it was a fluke. I don't know whether it was oxidation or something else, but I do know that it was 100% inexcusable.

 

Otherwise, I agree that the side-fire buttons are a big problem, and not just for the suspect build quality -- I've always thought the Atari 5200 controllers were being criticized for the wrong reason. The analog stick ain't great for some games, but it's doable for most; having grown up with a CoCo (which uses analog joysticks), you get used to it. But the size, placement, and responsiveness of the side fire buttons has always felt very awkward to me. It's a problem on the CV and Intellivision as well, but the 5200 has the biggest problem IMHO.

 

BTW have folks looked at Games Magazine? It's mainly a puzzle and crossword mag, but used to have reasonably detailed console reviews, and would be another source to check out. Also, jetset, the .cbr format is really easy to work with, I think it's just RAR or something renamed and, in any event, there are readers for OS X and Windows. I'd be very interested in seeing everything EG wrote about the 5200; its short-lived successor, Computer Entertainment, might also have some coverage.

Edited August 20, 2010 by thegoldenband

[Bruce Tomlin]

The side fire buttons were ergonomically bad

 

That is pure opinion. In fact, those of us who owned one in the day knew that was one of the best parts of the design.

You bet it's an opinion. The the opinion of my thumb was "pain".

[jetset]

The side fire buttons were ergonomically bad

 

That is pure opinion. In fact, those of us who owned one in the day knew that was one of the best parts of the design.

You bet it's an opinion. The the opinion of my thumb was "pain".

 

You should try the 7800 or colecovision buttons then. Twice the pain, half the usability.

[Bill Loguidice]

The side fire buttons were ergonomically bad

 

That is pure opinion. In fact, those of us who owned one in the day knew that was one of the best parts of the design.

You bet it's an opinion. The the opinion of my thumb was "pain".

 

You should try the 7800 or colecovision buttons then. Twice the pain, half the usability.

 

I agree about the 7800 buttons, but not the ColecoVision's. The ColecoVision's controller problems were not the buttons, but the way you had to skrinch your hand to hold the controller because of the joystick nub. You add a nice ball top instead and it's actually a very comfortable controller. The worst buttons though by far have to be the ones for the controllers on the Intellivision II. Rock hard and not particularly responsive.

[Bill Loguidice]

How? They were both announced PR wise at the same time (May) and Colecovision had a month retail lead time (early September vs October). And both were getting plenty if not the same coverage in the press (newspapers, etc.)

 

Maybe it was a question of supply, then, because I remember the ColecoVision being available earlier than the 5200, certainly more than a month. Obviously, your dates are correct, but I wonder how many units of each were actually in the supply chain. Of course, having "Donkey Kong" as your pack-in versus "Super Breakout" probably had a little something to do with Coleco's early "momentum" as well...

[jetset]

The side fire buttons were ergonomically bad

 

That is pure opinion. In fact, those of us who owned one in the day knew that was one of the best parts of the design.

You bet it's an opinion. The the opinion of my thumb was "pain".

 

You should try the 7800 or colecovision buttons then. Twice the pain, half the usability.

 

I agree about the 7800 buttons, but not the ColecoVision's. The ColecoVision's controller problems were not the buttons, but the way you had to skrinch your hand to hold the controller because of the joystick nub. You add a nice ball top instead and it's actually a very comfortable controller. The worst buttons though by far have to be the ones for the controllers on the Intellivision II. Rock hard and not particularly responsive.

Yes but ergonomically, both are horribly placed. It's impossible to simultaneously press both at nearly the same time on 2-button games. Unless you have three hands, one for the stick, one for each of the opposite-placed fire buttons. The 5200 buttons, though often wear out are perfectly positioned where you have only to move your thumb a fraction of an inch to move from fire #1 to #2. Still, in any case a little practice goes a long way. If you're going to play ten minutes and give up because the controller is a little difficult, you're pretty much looking for a reason to dislike the controller.

I will say though, I've hear many things bad about the 5200 controllers, but "pain"? At pushing a rubber fire button? That's definitely an interesting, if not new complaint.

[SoulBlazer]

Going back to something that was said eariler about Wiki and making edits....sometimes it feels like you're stuck in a Catch 22 with posting things on there.

 

For example, a couple months ago I was reading their article on the video game crash, curious to see what it would say. For the most part, I found it to be a very good article, and knew it had to have undergone a lot of work, so I went to the dicussion page to see what was going on 'behind the scenes'. One guy was complaing about some edits he made that were being removed and the others were talking to him about it. It was a pretty civil conversation, but the main thrust of why the edit was done was that the guy was making a Original Research argument.

 

His argument was there for everyone to read and IMHO it was a GREAT analayis of the factors that REALLY crashed the crash and had a very cause and effect relationship to them -- this happened, which caused this to get worse, which caused this to happen as well, and so on. Everyone even agreeded that it was a good argument. The problem was, it had never been stated anywhere else before. The guy had done research on the factors and causes of the crash, so it wasn't like he was totally off base. He was just tying all of this together to make his argument on how the crash could be looked at. But because it was 'new' and considered Original Research, it couldn't be included in the article per Wiki's guidelines -- even if everything that he had said in the argument had been said in some other way in the past!

 

I made a post telling the guy that if the Orginal Research argument was the problem go ahead and write it up in a nice looking article and either get it published by a print publication or posted on a commerical website publication site. Then once it was in print he could use that as a reference. Wham, it goes from being Original Research to having a source.

 

I'm not sure if he ever did that, I should go back and look. I'd post the argument here but this is more about the 5200 then the great video game crash.

 

The point is, trying to do anything for Wiki is a real pain in the ass and anyone who bothers has my respect and admiration of sticking through it and making it a better resource then it allready is.