7800 - what did Atari wrong?

[jbanes]

Ha ha, I agree with your criticism of the joystick, but it's not the poorest in history. Although I dislike them, I'd take a 7800 joystick any day over a Coleco or 5200.

 

See, I can live with the Coleco joysticks. And the 5200 joysticks are actually quite usable when they're not disintegrating and have had an eraser taken to the flex circuit. If Atari had used better materials, the 5200 joystick would have been (SHOCK!) pretty decent.

 

 

After writing three scrolling homebrew games (2 of them scroll in all 4 directions) I can't agree with this statement. The 7800 is easily capable of doing scrolling in all directions.

 

I agree that the 7800 was never pushed much back its day. However, I don't find the 7800 hard to program. Any game is always a trade off between the resources available and what you what it to do. If the 7800 is so lacking in prowess how is that I've developed six games in "C" on it? We all know about the overhead of "C" programs .

 

1. I program a wide range of languages from ASM to modern Javascript and everything in between. (e.g. Java, ObjC, PHP, C/C++, etc.) You won't catch a lot of snobbery from me.

 

2. You answered your own question. You're using modern toolkits to do your programming. That makes the task significantly easier. For Assembly programmers in the 1980's of which many had no real CompSci exposure, the 7800 was painful. And from what can be gleaned from the docs, it's very easy to do vertical scrolling over horizontal scrolling. Which is why I say it was a bad match to platformers.

 

----

 

On the subject of the XEGS, I think there's one other point that many folks forget. By the late 1980's, the IBM PC and Mac were nearly synonymous with "home computer". In part this was because PCs and Macs were seen as more "serious" than Ataris and Commodores. (Because everyone knows the only thing those did well is play video games! ) The other aspect was that the NES sealed this idea that video games were "toys" and were thus fundamentally different than computers.

 

The XEGS belonged to a time (i.e. the early 80's) when every game system was trying to also be a computer. Attempting to sell such a system in the late 80's was a really bad idea. Especially when your computer lacks the convenience of built-in drives and a bundled monitor.

[Lynxpro]

we can thank Rupert Murdoch

That's a policy I generally apply to everything. If there's something wrong in the world, usually it's his fault.

 

Uh-oh, on the verge of political. Can already guess your leanings.... heh heh

 

 

My disdain for Murdoch has nothing to do with his alleged politics. It has to do with him being a complete jerk as a businessman especially when it comes to tech.

 

First of all, he launched a hostile takeover of Warner Communications which he had no hope of winning. He was emulating Carl Icahn, another jerk. He bought the shares cheap, demanded Warner do certain things and threatened to take them over. When he was unsuccessful, he basically forced Warner to buy his holdings for a tidy profit just to shut him up. His attempted takeover was the reason why Steve Ross had to liquidate Atari Inc. at a firesale price so quickly even though Ross did not want to part with the company because even he saw the writing on the wall and felt the popularity of video games would return.

 

Example #2. Murdoch grabs a controlling interest in DirecTV. Murdoch forces DirecTV to cancel their agreements with TiVo and forces DirecTV to offer his inferior DVR wares from the Israeli company NDS that he owned. Not only did this hurt TiVo but DirecTV subscribers to this day still have to put up with DVRs with inferior software [although the hardware itself is decent; certainly better than what the cablecos offer]. Murdoch has been gone for a couple of years now but the damage was done.

 

Example #3. Overpaying for MySpace which nearly triggered another bubble via the Web 2.0 companies. He completely screws up MySpace and now the company has laid off half its work force.

 

Example #4. Blaming Google for all of News Corp's faults despite the fact Google directs lots of traffic to News Corp websites that probably wouldn't receive it otherwise.

 

I haven't even mentioned what he's done with the Wall Street Journal, nor anything to do with his politics. [although I despise him for the damage he's directly caused the Royal Family over the past 3 decades].

[+wood_jl]

Example #2. Murdoch grabs a controlling interest in DirecTV. Murdoch forces DirecTV to cancel their agreements with TiVo and forces DirecTV to offer his inferior DVR wares from the Israeli company NDS that he owned. Not only did this hurt TiVo but DirecTV subscribers to this day still have to put up with DVRs with inferior software [although the hardware itself is decent; certainly better than what the cablecos offer]. Murdoch has been gone for a couple of years now but the damage was done.

 

Man, he wanted DirecTV, BADLY. I remember news stories that if he couldn't buy DirecTV/Hughes from GM, he was prepared to buy GM in its entirety, keep the DirecTV, and dump GM since he had no interest in the auto industry. That's hardcore.

 

You don't have to like a businessman. That's not the measure of a businessman. The measure is success in business - the very game they are in. Murdoch has proven himself - time and time again - to be a shrewed businessman, or he'd be out by now. I admire anyone's success at what they do, even if they're an asshole. That's a separate consideration, and the two should be kept distinct.

[jd_1138]

On the subject of the XEGS, I think there's one other point that many folks forget. By the late 1980's, the IBM PC and Mac were nearly synonymous with "home computer". In part this was because PCs and Macs were seen as more "serious" than Ataris and Commodores. (Because everyone knows the only thing those did well is play video games! ) The other aspect was that the NES sealed this idea that video games were "toys" and were thus fundamentally different than computers.

 

But in the late 80's, IBM's and Macs cost thousands of dollars, whereas the XEGS was like $250, so even though IBM/Macs stood for "home computer", it'd be rational to expect that the sheer low price of the XEGS would've caused people to buy it. But I guess even though the price was dirt cheap, if the XEGS/Atari 8 bit computers weren't taken seriously, then people who couldn't afford a Mac/IBM would just go without a computer.

 

I think if it weren't for the huge success of the NES, the XEGS would've been much more successful. (that's an understatement!)

Edited February 4, 2011 by gps_trekker

[jbanes]

But in the late 80's, IBM's and Macs cost thousands of dollars, whereas the XEGS was like $250, so even though IBM/Macs stood for "home computer", it'd be rational to expect that the sheer low price of the XEGS would've caused people to buy it.

 

That would only matter if consumers saw the XEGS as a computer. I suspect the $250 price tag had the effect of reinforcing prejudices against it rather than convincing consumers to purchase one.

 

Remember, the C64 had already nailed this space. The fact that consumers had abandoned Atari and Commdore computers as serious competitors means that there was a quiet disenfranchisement with cheap computing devices.

[Lynxpro]

[

You don't have to like a businessman. That's not the measure of a businessman. The measure is success in business - the very game they are in. Murdoch has proven himself - time and time again - to be a shrewed businessman, or he'd be out by now.

 

 

One word... MySpace.

 

 

Murdoch really doesn't understand the internet. He's old media. He's like the Polish army fighting German tanks with men on horses [except he's rich].

 

In contrast, the problem with the late Steve Ross - much like Governor Jerry Brown - is that he was a good 20+ years ahead of his time.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Lynxpro

[Atari_Falcon]

Good points in here

 

I agree that the XEGS was timed completely wrong, at least regarding the 7800... And in 1984 even the 7800 should have been upgradeable as a computer... so it would have been in competition with the XL line, too... (the same thing Coleco failed at, I mean Adam was no success at all!)

 

In fact, if they'd included pokey in the 7800 there would have never been a question which system was more enhanced and maybe we had seen Atari 8-bit computers based on the 7800... maybe...

 

As for games, I totally agree that what was finished in 1987 should have been released and as they had seen Mario&co. they should better have invested in titles like that, than going on with the old stuff until at least 1989. While some of you mention the computer games... here you had "Giana Sisters" on the ST and C-64 as a super mario clone... so Atari had seen a clone might have solved that gap... Sonic - if you like - can also be considered as a "clone" to Mario... so why didn't Atari do what was just too obvious? Bentley Bear may have been a good choice, at least a few people could remember crystal castles back then... The lack of as maskot is still something Atari can be blamed! My only answers to this question is, either they didn't want to spend the money for a decent platformer or they were so old fashioned in their heads that they really believed people still want old arcade ports in 1987...

 

I mean sure it is easy to tell that from now, as we KNOW Atari did fail. But back then, they made everything different than their competitors and I don't think this is clever as long as you don't do something unique and Atari MUST have know that old arcade ports will NEVER compete.

 

Nintendo had:

 

Super Mario Bros

Zelda

Castelvania

 

Sega had:

 

After Burner

Hangon

Alex Kidd

 

And we all know that Atari had nothing like that. Pole Position II and Xevious were the best (graphically) in my opinion.

 

And even the Atari computers got not the games they deserved, while on the c-64 you had many great scrolling platformers, any game of that type sucked on the Atari (8-bit) machines... those never got a decent platformer, at least none I know about, until the appearance of 8-bit crownland...

 

In fact Scrapyard Dog on the 7800 was the first Atari game I could show to my friends Before the only title they regularly played with me on 7800 was Double Dragon (and yes,they did complain about the sprites, but liked music, background graphics and gameplay).

 

I still think that games were the key to better sells and Atari didn't deliver. That does not mean they made bad games, but the games were Retro even at the time they came out and retro gaming wasn't a bestseller back then

 

And I still think they should have get rid of the 2600. It was competing with the 7800 and the 7800 wouldn't have stolen 2600 (game) sells as 2600 games can be played on 7800. But to develop new games for the VCS was a mistake in 1987! At least if they wanted to succeed in video games. And as someone mentioned, maybe they didn't want.

 

Maybe they really wanted to be a "serious" computer company and at least with the ST they became and lost any image of fun they ever had, for marketing it as a black/white graphics buissness machine here in Europe and so failed against the Amiga in some way... I think they couldn't handle that "dancing on many weddings"-thing

 

When it comes to the Jaguar it often seems that they didn't want it to be a success, too... great games (e.g. Brett Hull Hockey) were halted even when those sports simulations were top sellers on any other system... But other story

[GroovyBee]

And from what can be gleaned from the docs, it's very easy to do vertical scrolling over horizontal scrolling. Which is why I say it was a bad match to platformers.

 

After implementing in code what's in the docs its not hard to do scrolling games. I agree its not as easy as some systems and its not as hard as others where you have to pre-shift bitmap data or write fast scroll routines. Its still achievable to scroll on the 7800 and have a game going at the same time (and thats all that matters). As a legacy game, Scrapyard Dog is a testament to that fact.

[Atarifever]

we can thank Rupert Murdoch

That's a policy I generally apply to everything. If there's something wrong in the world, usually it's his fault.

 

Uh-oh, on the verge of political. Can already guess your leanings.... heh heh

Dead centre.

 

And don't worry, that statement is as political as I will get on here.

[Atarifever]

 

 

He's old media. He's like the Polish army fighting German tanks with men on horses [except he's rich].

 

Not quite accurate. See, the internet doesn't do any work. Read any actual "news" story on the internet, and it will say something like "The NY Times discovered..." or "A reporter with the AP has found that..." People think "new media" gets you the "news" quickly. It doesn't. It gets it after "old media" has put it out. You get more updates (Read: opinion) through "new media," but you actually get your news later. Look at the big wikileaks thing. They went to newspapers for a reason. Someone has to actually analyze and examine stuff, and it ain't going to be the internet. We're here talking about 30 year old videogame systems. Where are we finding the time to examine 300,000 jargon filled documents?

 

So the comparison would actually be the polish army fighting german tanks with men on horses. However, those men on horses have all the fuel and ammunition the tanks need, so the tanks are pretty much defenseless unless they go out and find a supply of their own. Until then, they're going to end up under on the wrong end of some horseshoes.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Atarifever

[+wood_jl]

[

You don't have to like a businessman. That's not the measure of a businessman. The measure is success in business - the very game they are in. Murdoch has proven himself - time and time again - to be a shrewed businessman, or he'd be out by now.

 

 

One word... MySpace.

 

 

Murdoch really doesn't understand the internet. He's old media. He's like the Polish army fighting German tanks with men on horses [except he's rich].

 

In contrast, the problem with the late Steve Ross - much like Governor Jerry Brown - is that he was a good 20+ years ahead of his time.

 

More than one word: "Everything else that's made the the dog filthy rich, other than Myspace."

 

I'm not here to defend his record; I have no dog in this fight. Yeah, it looks like a dumb move with Myspace. So let's fixate on that, and ignore the rich bastard's other shrewd moves, simply because we don't like him? Let's try and be a little more objective on this, ok? That pig got rich because he must be a pretty good businessman. I don't know anybody perfect, but perfection ain't necessary in order for business pigs to be successful. Whether or not you like Murdoch or the Tramiels is entirely irrelevant. The Tramiels had a bit of success, and they came out of it rich, so they must be somewhat successful too. Even if you hate all of them, your opinion of them is irrelevant. I wish the Tramiels had more success, but I'm not going to post in a forum as if I'm smart enough to have second-guessed their moves, knew the industry better, and should have been in charge. That's as ridiculous as pretending that Murdoch isn't a successful businessman.

[+wood_jl]

we can thank Rupert Murdoch

That's a policy I generally apply to everything. If there's something wrong in the world, usually it's his fault.

 

Uh-oh, on the verge of political. Can already guess your leanings.... heh heh

Dead centre.

 

And don't worry, that statement is as political as I will get on here.

 

Ha ha I was just foolin' with you. Take care.

[Pilsner73]

Atari 7800 should have been what the first successor to the 2600 instead of what was the 5200. The 5200 was very powerful but I believe it was too expensive, lacked out of the box compatibility with the 2600, and the joysticks caused a love/hate relationship.

 

If Atari could of released the 7800 hardware in 1982-83 it would probably of been a major hit. New improved graphics/games and parents who invested hundreds of dollars on a 2600 games and hardware wouldn't see that investment discarded. Atari releases the 7800 hardware no later than 1983 before Nintendo locks up the title rights and the 7800 has all the 2600 games and a ton of updated/new games for the improved hardware of the 7800.

 

Now Nintendo comes along in 1985 with their NES and Atari has a head start, fights them on the licensing of games, and 7800 game developers are on the next generation of games for which really exploit the features of the machine to the fullest.

[Atarifever]

Atari did have another great option that doesn't get a lot of discussion. What if they had skipped the 5200 and the 7800 entirely. The market was still being fleshed out, so a 5 year replacement wasn't required. The 5200 was a great idea, but ended up doomed because of the crash. The 7800 was a great idea but lost because of timing. I am not saying Atari could have or should have seen that coming. And of course, we're talking about two different Atari's here.

 

But imagine a world where they didn't do the 5200 thing at all, but decided to just sit on the 2600. Then, during the crash, all they have is the 2600. Once the crash is over they support just the 2600 Jr. and the computers. No 7800 to launch and support, and no 5200 stock to spend time unloading, or bad controllers on anyone's minds.

 

The 2600 sells the millions of games and systems that it did in that time period anyway. Plus, because of a smaller amount of systems, accessories, etc. to push, they probably do even better on it. They could also have used the saved resources to do more Solaris, Off the Wall, Secret Quest type stuff. Perhaps Activision without the other system to develop for does a couple more games like Double Dragon and Rampage.

 

The only thing Atari would be known for when they released their next system, whatever it was, would be the best, or second best (depending on Nintendo's numbers by then and the increased 2600 sales) selling system of all time. Sure it would be seen as really out of date, but again, we're only talking about going to 1991 or so, which really only means getting through the time when they also released the also ran 7800 and the failed XEGS, so is one outdated system really any different?

[jbanes]

The only thing Atari would be known for when they released their next system, whatever it was, would be the best, or second best (depending on Nintendo's numbers by then and the increased 2600 sales) selling system of all time. Sure it would be seen as really out of date, but again, we're only talking about going to 1991 or so, which really only means getting through the time when they also released the also ran 7800 and the failed XEGS, so is one outdated system really any different?

 

I honestly don't think it would have mattered. For the vast majority of consumers, Atari fell off the map after the 2600. Anything past the 2600 wasn't even a blip on their radar.

 

In effect, you got your wish. For the vast majority of players it was 2600 -> Jaguar.

 

The fundamental problem is that Atari never understood how to adapt to the changing game market. They just kept doing more of what had already failed. Which at least made some money for Tramiel since he got the entire stock of equipment in a buy-1-company-get-10,000,000-pieces-of-hardware-free sale. But once that ultra-cheap stock ran out, Atari didn't know what to do with itself.

 

The Jaguar simply couldn't compete in the market. And it wasn't because of the hardware. (Though being the first major 3D console on the scene with no hand-holding for developers didn't do it any favors.) It was because Atari didn't understand how to cater to its market. They didn't know how to approach them, reach them, or otherwise build games for them. For every Tempest 2000 or Aliens vs. Predator, there were 10 Cybermorphs or Kasumi Ninjas.

 

Without getting into a long, drawn out analysis, Atari had the business side down pat but completely failed on the Movie Videogame Magic needed to inspire their customers. Without a fundamental shift toward games and away from stupid technical statements, Atari never stood a chance.

Edited February 6, 2011 by jbanes

[DracIsBack]

In effect, you got your wish. For the vast majority of players it was 2600 -> Jaguar.

 

More like 2600 -> "Whatever happened to Atari? I loved the 2600 ..."

 

I still remember turning on my brand new Jaguar in my res room and most of the room seeing the logo and saying,

 

"Atari??? That's so old??!!!!!!!!"

 

Then "Rayman" fired up and it was kind of vindicating to a room expecting COMBAT.

 

But yeah, agree with your points about them not really adapting well.

[Atari_Falcon]

I understand your points. The 7800 was not really welcome and maybe there wasn't a need for it. Maybe... but on the other hand, tob be backwards compatible and feature enhanced graphics make sense for a successor. Like PSone and PS-2, Gamecube and Wii. So regarding my personal feelings (homechair CEO *g*), I would have stopped anything BUT the 7800. I mean they had developer for the 2600 and letting those develop 7800 games would have been nice... (Sure I understand they had warehouses full of 2600 stuff)... I don't know, how many ready to go 2600 titles they got when the Tramiels took over Atari, but selling those, while concentrating on 7800 development, would make much more sense to me!

 

Sure Off The Wall and Secret Quest are excellent 2600 titles (and nice to play on 7800, too), but they couldn't compete with NES titles in any way. Okay gameplay wise, but this is also something you cannot print on a package or show in a commercial. Both would have been AMAZING 7800 titles, but compared to the competitors they just look like mediocre games. So given both were 7800 titles with "high-end" graphics and maybe a pokey soundchip AND released way before 1989, those could have been "killer apps".

 

The same goes for Scrapyard Dog, Alien Brigade and Midnight Mutants... Those game, released in 1987 to be competitors to Zelda and Mario would have had a real chance, but in 1990 it was way too late!

 

I mean they saw the NES having success in 1986, they could have pushed 7800 development until 1987 and maybe the result would have been games in "1990 quality", while selling out the 2600 titles they have in stock. In my opinion this would have made sense. Oh well and of course exchange Louie by a "mascot"

[CRV]

Just remember that in America, Atari Corp. was #2 in market share before the Genesis came out. It was Sega that came to Atari Corp. with what became the Genesis.

 

At least in the short term, it was probably not a terrible decision to not invest a ton of money into the 7800 when you're not going to get anywhere near Nintendo's sales anyway.

 

As for the 2600 vs. 7800 argument, I think it would be fitting to suggest that Atari should've continued selling the 2600 as long as they could but not allocate precious development dollars on titles for it at the expense of the 7800. As for 7800 vs. XEGS development dollars, unless I am mistaken, there wasn't much development dollars necessary to take already existing Atari 8-bit disk based games and "convert" them to cartridge versions.

 

Of course, we don't actually know anything about the development contracts or money spent.

 

I wish we had sales numbers for the 2600 during that period. Did it sell better than the 7800 (at 3.77 million in the US)?

 

The problem is that by the time the 7800 hit the market, Nintendo had already changed it at a fundamental level.

 

They hit the market at about the same time (in the US).

 

The games that players wanted to play didn't look anything like arcade games.

 

Then again, I believe Ms. Pac-Man was the top-selling title on the 7800 and was apparently the biggest selling third-party cartridge on the Genesis. Or maybe people just REALLY liked Ms. Pac-Man...

 

Heh... would you write Castlevania for a system with the 2600's sound chip, though? I get your point, though.

 

[jbanes]

Just remember that in America, Atari Corp. was #2 in market share before the Genesis came out. It was Sega that came to Atari Corp. with what became the Genesis.

 

The 7800 sold 3.7 million to Nintendo's 38m US / 61m World. Atari may have been second, but it was not much of a competitor.

 

The problem is that by the time the 7800 hit the market, Nintendo had already changed it at a fundamental level.

 

They hit the market at about the same time (in the US).

 

Fair enough. Still, the NES radically changed the landscape. Once players tried Super Mario Bros and Legend of Zelda, they weren't going back.

 

The games that players wanted to play didn't look anything like arcade games.

 

Then again, I believe Ms. Pac-Man was the top-selling title on the 7800 and was apparently the biggest selling third-party cartridge on the Genesis. Or maybe people just REALLY liked Ms. Pac-Man...

 

I think people REALLY liked Ms. Pac-Man. The Pac-Man series are still big sellers today, 3 decades after they were first relevant. As for it being the top seller on the 7800, I think that says more about the lack of software than anything else.

 

I understand your points. The 7800 was not really welcome and maybe there wasn't a need for it. Maybe... but on the other hand, tob be backwards compatible and feature enhanced graphics make sense for a successor. Like PSone and PS-2, Gamecube and Wii.

 

FWIW, backwards compatibility is overrated. It was a big deal when the 5200 came out for two reasons:

 

1. The 5200 failed to wow due to the technical difficulties

 

2. Players often sold their 2600 to buy-up, then felt cheated when they had a pile of 2600 games they could no longer play. (An issue which Coleco exploited by offering the 2600 compatibility module. No more feeling cheated, just get the expansion module!)

 

By the era of Genesis, it simply wasn't a bit deal. The Genesis was backwards compatible with the Master System with an adapter, but I hear from very few players who took advantage of it. The SNES eschewed backwards compatibility completely, even though it was MORE feasible than with the Genesis.

 

With more modern consoles, backwards compatibility is a Nice to Have that lets players declutter their living room. It also helps console makers cover the gap when their console is new and software is scarce. Lack of such compatibility would not prevent consoles from flying off the shelves.

 

If the 7800 had a stronger software library, backward compatibility would probably not have been an issue. As it was, the compatibility was as much a liability as it was a benefit. Being associated with that "antique" 2600 game console was not the best way to prove the superiority of your system.

[Atari_Falcon]

If the 7800 had a stronger software library, backward compatibility would probably not have been an issue. As it was, the compatibility was as much a liability as it was a benefit. Being associated with that "antique" 2600 game console was not the best way to prove the superiority of your system.

 

That's the point... when people say Atari they mean 2600. And IMO they could only have changed that by abandon the 2600 and focus on 7800.

[Metal Ghost]

 

 

With more modern consoles, backwards compatibility is a Nice to Have™ that lets players declutter their living room. It also helps console makers cover the gap when their console is new and software is scarce. Lack of such compatibility would not prevent consoles from flying off the shelves.

 

 

So, um, did you really trademark that?

[spiffyone]

On the subject of the XEGS, I think there's one other point that many folks forget. By the late 1980's, the IBM PC and Mac were nearly synonymous with "home computer". In part this was because PCs and Macs were seen as more "serious" than Ataris and Commodores. (Because everyone knows the only thing those did well is play video games! ) The other aspect was that the NES sealed this idea that video games were "toys" and were thus fundamentally different than computers.

 

But in the late 80's, IBM's and Macs cost thousands of dollars, whereas the XEGS was like $250, so even though IBM/Macs stood for "home computer", it'd be rational to expect that the sheer low price of the XEGS would've caused people to buy it. But I guess even though the price was dirt cheap, if the XEGS/Atari 8 bit computers weren't taken seriously, then people who couldn't afford a Mac/IBM would just go without a computer.

 

I think if it weren't for the huge success of the NES, the XEGS would've been much more successful. (that's an understatement!)

 

No. Gotta disagree with both of those assessments.

 

For one, while IBMs and Mac's were thousands of dollars in '87 when XEGS "launched", the Amiga 500 had launched that same year for around $700 with MUCH greater capabilities than the 8-bit computers and right up there with the much more expensive Mac platform (actually better graphics capabilities for the Amiga, iirc). Also, Commdore 64's were still selling to the lower end market in the late '80s as they were right around $100 or so at the time, which was about $100 or so less than the XEGS.

 

Plus you have to factor in value perceptions. Game consoles carry lower perceptions of value than computers, and so that coincides with what consumers are willing to spend on the former compared to the latter. A game console at $200-250 (which is what XEGS was priced at when it "launched") was well over the price of NES, SMS and Atari's own 7800 and 2600 consoles. Atari might have gotten away with pricing XEGS at that price had they marketed it as starter computer. $200-250 for a game console at the time? Heck no. $200-250 for a starter computer? Hmmm...maybe. Again, it's perception of value tied into price point.

 

Hell, iirc, plans the option given to retailers was less expensive XE computer or repackaging it as a game system and selling it for more. In hindsight, the former would've been the better longer term move, as it's what Commodore was doing with C64 right into the early '90s.

 

A for the "if it weren't for NES....", well, I mean, if it weren't for NES the 7800 would've been more successful too.

 

XEGS didn't "fail" because of NES, it failed because it was a confusing product (to most consumers) that wasn't well handled and quite frankly a bad long term idea, and furthermore took away marketing and dev muscle that could've gone to 7800 which should've been Atari's "go to" home console competitor. 7800 "failed' because of NES and Atari's own doing in not putting enough muscle behind the product. Nothing they could've done about the former, but they could've done something about the latter and one of those was NOT release the XEGS...or at least not in that form (as a "game system").

[krewat]

4K RAM, should have been 16K minimum.

 

That one single thing would have made a world of difference. 32K would have just ... well ... been the cat's meow. For the price of the console, I can't imagine a single 256Kb static ram chip (or even a set of dynamic if you really HAD to go there) would have really done much to the price.

 

Imagine not having to put ram in the carts. Sigh...

[jaybird3rd]

That one single thing would have made a world of difference. 32K would have just ... well ... been the cat's meow. For the price of the console, I can't imagine a single 256Kb static ram chip (or even a set of dynamic if you really HAD to go there) would have really done much to the price.

 

Imagine not having to put ram in the carts. Sigh...

Indeed. Or a POKEY, for that matter. What's really sad is that 28-pin SRAMs are only available in 8K or 32K (someone correct me if I'm wrong about this), but Atari's cartridges could only support up to 16K. So if a game needed more than 8K, they had to put a 32K chip in there and then use only half of it. Very wasteful.

 

They probably could have fit more RAM inside the console if they had used larger RAM chips than the pair of 2K SRAMs that they went with. Perhaps two chips were used instead of one because they needed to be scanned independently by the hardware, but even so, larger ones would have been nice.

[Lynxpro]

That one single thing would have made a world of difference. 32K would have just ... well ... been the cat's meow. For the price of the console, I can't imagine a single 256Kb static ram chip (or even a set of dynamic if you really HAD to go there) would have really done much to the price.

 

Imagine not having to put ram in the carts. Sigh...

Indeed. Or a POKEY, for that matter. What's really sad is that 28-pin SRAMs are only available in 8K or 32K (someone correct me if I'm wrong about this), but Atari's cartridges could only support up to 16K. So if a game needed more than 8K, they had to put a 32K chip in there and then use only half of it. Very wasteful.

 

They probably could have fit more RAM inside the console if they had used larger RAM chips than the pair of 2K SRAMs that they went with. Perhaps two chips were used instead of one because they needed to be scanned independently by the hardware, but even so, larger ones would have been nice.

 

 

 

Imagine if there was a slot you could open up the 7800 and drop cartridge style slot RAM [a la the 800] into it to max out its capabilities... That would've been easy enough for Joe Consumer to upgrade the RAM for more intense "pro" and "super" games. Of course, it would be best to encourage it being done at an Atari Authorized Service Center....