Lynxpro Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Nothing which requires save game features so you can come back and keep adventuring/progressing. There are few long games, but they came later. Scrapyard Dog, Midnight Mutants, Commando and Dark Chambers are all pretty long. Also, Fatal Run and Meltdown have password saves. But yeah, would have been cool to have a Zelda. According the lore, there was supposed to be a Zelda-like game called Time Lords of Xantac. It was Tramiel-ized. Here's the details from Digital Press: Silly programmer... Time Lords are from Gallifrey! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynxpro Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 [ ----------------------------------------------- Designed by James V Zalewski. Description: According to programmer James Zalewski, the original concept called for this game to be a “Legend of Zelda” style game to compete against Nintendo. James informed Atari that he would need more memory on the cartridge to handle everything they wanted (map, characteristics, etc). Atari refused to spring for the added memory and thus the idea was scrapped before any work was started. Is Mr. Zalewski on Atariage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DracIsBack Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Is Mr. Zalewski on Atariage? Don't think so. Thought that Tempest from AtariProtos.com realized that they worked together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DracIsBack Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) I don't get some of these claims as such. They were willing to put 32kx8 SRAM chips onboard the carts, but weren't willing to push for a bit more ROM? (what, 256k?) Tramiels didn't like spending money on carts where they didn't have to. Krewat said the same thing about the Epyx titles: "Can't be 256K, got to be 128K." Peter Pachla said the same thing about fighting with the Tramiels over the additional RAM in the Jinks cart. The official dev guide says that there must be no additional RAM in any game without it in writing from a Tramiel. Sad reality. They just didn't want to have games that size. If POKEY was too costly to use practically, they could have opted for the likes of the SN76489 or the 16-pin mono sound-only version of the YM2149. (available by 1987) Or completed GUMBY like GCC planned. But any additional sound chip is still an extra cost. Except, Zelda on the NES is only 128k (plus the SRAM), and that's no larger than games Atari Corp was pushing by '89. Very true. I wonder if part of the issue here is that they'd have to pay someone to design and develop a game like Zelda? It's probably pretty easy to fill 128K with a relatively simple game. Look at Cracked. The development costs on an adventure title like Zelda would be quite a bit higher though. Sadly, by 1989, the competition was releasing 256K, 384K and 512K games while Atari was just starting to release 128K games. In 1987, Atari was releasing 16K, 32K and 48K games. Edited February 19, 2011 by DracIsBack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DracIsBack Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Maybe someone should make a 7800 homebrew called "loosen Jack's wallet". Milestones in the game would be Getting more ads on tv, More loaner review cartridges for magazines so they'd write reviews Additional development of in-cartridge enhancement chips Bigger game development budgets for A+ developers and A+ development cycle The final boss would be a 512K 7800 game with 16K RAM, a Mapper, a Pokey sound chip and a battery save created by someone like Konami, which was advertised on tv ... But I digress Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynxpro Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) Maybe someone should make a 7800 homebrew called "loosen Jack's wallet". Milestones in the game would be Getting more ads on tv, More loaner review cartridges for magazines so they'd write reviews Additional development of in-cartridge enhancement chips Bigger game development budgets for A+ developers and A+ development cycle The final boss would be a 512K 7800 game with 16K RAM, a Mapper, a Pokey sound chip and a battery save created by someone like Konami, which was advertised on tv ... But I digress Don't forget retrieving the Sword Quest sword from Tramiel's house... To get to the final boss [Jack], you gotta defeat Leonard by shaving off his shaggy beard* and you thwart Sam by throwing a bag of white powder at him. Then you borrow Woz's Segway and run over Jack with it before crushing him with millions of ET cartridges. *or you throw a bunch of science books at him with erroneous errors for him to correct... Edited February 21, 2011 by Lynxpro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiffyone Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Look, at the end of the day, if 7800 had games like Midnight Mutants, Alien Brigade Commando, Ninja Golf, Tower Toppler, and Scrapyard Dog (not to mention Plutos and Sirius) back in '86/87 rather than late '88-90 then it would've been a lot more appealing to gamers in the early run. More than anything else what Atari Corp. got wrong with 7800 was software. Sales made Atari profit, especially since they didn't really spend anything on supporting the system. But that was a short term thing. Had they supported 7800 as they should have then their long term viability in the home console market would've been stronger. And, who knows? Maybe we would've seen future sequels of franchises started on 7800 on newer gen Atari consoles. Imagine: Ninja Golf II for Atari Panther (IMHO, another Atari Corp. mistake was going straight to Jaguar even though, apparently, Panther was pretty much finished and ready for '91). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kool kitty89 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) What was more important than any of that, was a strong marketing budget from day 1 and a strong budget for software development (regardless of it being in-house or outsourced). 1. With a strong marketing budget and no exclusive software, what, exactly, would be marketed? 2. I think it goes without saying that a strong budget for software development is apparent in my hypothetical of Tramiel buying Atari Games and extending the contract with GCC. If he had the cash to secure both, he'd likely have the cash to support software development by both. It's sort of a chinking and egg sort of thing, without strong marketing, you won't go anywhere (especially in the US), and even without strong in-house software support, strong marketing and sales of the hardware WILL drive 3rd party developers. But that's not even what I was saying alone: you'd start with the initial 7800 lineup and have more of a budget not only for marketing, but for software development as well. (lack of funding for both is what Atari Corp lacked -they DID have some in-house game programmers a la the computer staff, but they really lacked the resources to put forth any sort of major development in general -otherwise they could have been outsourcing to 3rd parties in general much more than they did) Having exclusive games wasn't THAT critical either, but having a lot of marketable games WAS critical regardless. (exclusives are important, but just one facet of the overall issue, and one that feeds back into funding -exclusives licenses are considerably more expensive than non-exclusive ones -or even temporary exclusives that give a several week or moth lead on the release on one platform over another, plus commissioned games in general) Fully independent/licensed 3rd party support would have been a huge factor too though and had been critical for every platform since the NES. (just as marketing has -in house software has only occasionally been the deciding factor, and even then never for all regions -Nintendo losing Square was one of the biggest single factors -if not the biggest- in their weaker competition with the N64, especially in Japan -the catalyzing effect it had on pulling other 3rd party support in favor of Sony was massive as well) A timeply launch with strong marketing would mean a build-up of 3rd party support in addition of more revenue to feed back into the market (and/or reduce debt), and strong 3rd party support would mean Nintendo not being able to tie-up western developers. (and also making the exclusivity agreements far less attractive to Japanese companies -especially if Atari had already been pushing for licensed in '84) I'm operating on the notion of Tramiel still not releasing 7800 until '86 or '85 at the earliest. In the face of that, there is no chance for them to secure JP support because by then Famicom had come to rule the roost in Japan and Nintendo had already done the exclusive contract thing with said JP 3rd parties. They'd have to try for western devs, but many had fallen off during the Crash or gone to the personal computer market. 7800 would still need exclusives. Atari Games, GCC, and internal consumer developers ensures that. That's a totally different context than what I'm saying, and implies Atari Corp purring mor effort into other things which also may have left them better off. They wanted the 7800 out ASAP, and a proper transition could have facilitated that. Assuming they DID hold off on the 7800's release, that could mean various preparations for securing game licensing, building up software more, making connections with various 3rd party developers, etc. If all of that was diverted to the ST instead, that may have meant the ST got better marketing or even better hardware from the start among other things. (and that also could have put Atari Corp in a stronger position in general) And even then they could have still looked into Japanese arcade licenses much sooner than they did. Plenty of other possibilities for this context. Strong marketing would mean nothing without product to back it up. That means software. That means exclusive software. In light of Nintendo having already snatched up those JP houses with exclusive support, that means Atari has to A. Go it alone and B. try to secure some western support. The latter you've touched on. But the latter means nothing if said 3rd parties also develop for NES, which they would've done as the loop hole would be there. And as much as paying for 3rd party exclusivity is appealing, at the end of the day the loop hole would likely exist on that end as well and the 3rd parties through subsidiaries or spin offs would still make games for Nintendo as well. And that brings us back to square one of my point: that means Atari Corp. needs Atari Games, and GCC, as well as the internal Atari Corp. devs. All three give them a "sell" to consumers: exclusive home ports of Atari arcade games and original software from Atari 1st and 2nd party devs (internal devs, Atari arcade division, and GCC respectively). Again, exclusive games are well down the list of the issue: having reasonably strong 3rd party support (even for multi-platform games in general) would be a MASSIVE step up especially if those games were good quality versions on the 7800 and got good marketing. (unless the lower price point and 2600 compatibility could push beyond that and broaden the market for Atari in spite of weaker net software support -getting European developer support would also be significant and something they missed out on historically) In that context, we're already talking about Atari Corp being behind Nintendo in general, but much better off in the market than they were historically. (a smoother transition with a 1984 7800 release, more in-house development staff and probably a good relationship with Atari Games would have been the context for Atari Corp to actually pull AHEAD of Nintendo at the time) Nintendo wouldn't have won with strong marketing alone. They needed a "get". That "get" was Nintendo software. The software was the major piece of marketing, actually. Yes, but they'd have gotten nowhere without that marketing, and that's partially depicted in Europe. Sega carved out their niche, whatever you may think of that niche, via Sega IPs arcade ports and console originals. Atari didn't have either, really, and they needed it to sell to a wider audience. Sega really just lacked the right marketing, they had enough good software to compete in '86/87, and having reasonable 3rd party support would have bumped things a lot more. (again, more or less so what they had with the Genesis, but earlier and with some contextual differences -rather than breaking Nintendo's stranglehold on the US market, they'd want to prevent that from forming and thus get generally competitive multiplatform 3rd party support and prevent Nintendo's exclusivity in general -including pushing even Japanese developers to support it and possibly finding loopholes around any of Nintendo's licensing contracts) iirc, Tramiel had the opportunity to buy akll or part the arcade division as well. In my scenario, he does so. Also in my scenario, he extends some form of contract with GCC. Tramiel did, as did several others, but none would agree to Warner's terms (either lacking the funds or unwilling to make such an investment with the corresponding risks). That's why Warner later called Tamiel (more or less out of the blue iirc) and offered the split deal on more favorable terms. (Marty or Cure would know more, but I'm not sure what the terms were for any full Atari Inc sales proposals) They didn't need Atari Games or GCC specifically, they just needed more funding and resources for marketing and (to some degree) in-house/licensed software in general. (having the better chunk of console/computer programmers would have done that, having GCC and Atari Games would have helped too though) Also, again, on Genesis/MD, things were opened up a bit for 3rd parties due to the litigation surrounding Nintendo's practices with NES. For Sega on SMS, all they really had was themselves in the early going, and Atari likewise with 7800. The difference is Sega had something from which to draw while Atari really didn't. Even so, Atari did pretty well if the sales numbers are to be believed. Imagine how better they would've done with more and better software to support 7800. Neither would likely have beaten NES, but Atari would've been in a MUCH better position heading into the next gen of the home console race. Sega managed to beat Nintendo in several European markets mainly due to marketing/mass market appeal and distribution. (and the arcade tie-in was only part of it -having better Euro sports games is also a notable area on top of the competitive marketing and perception of superiority of the SMS in general -especially the graphics being closer to 16-bit computers vs the NES looking more like the likes of the C64 to a fair extent) Actually, they did have internal devs, they took on most of the Atari Inc computer game (and application) programmers, but without the budget it didn't matter. (and the delays and mess caused by the split killed much of the potnetial revenue and funding possible in '84/85)[/i] Would that not have been partly avoided had there been no real "split"? Tramiel had the opportunity to get the arcade division as well. Extending the contract with GCC ensures an earlier release of 7800 (perhaps not early enough to get those JP devs as Famicom was taking off in Japan by that time, but still enough to ensure some profitability in '85). Yes, or no Sale at all rather. A sloppy sale with other snags (which definitely could have included the 7800/GCC issues as those had nothing to do with the split and everything to do with the transition away from Warner) could have been just as problematic and worse than a split that got a proper transition. (the loss of Atari Games wasn't nearly as bad as the legal conflicts the sloppy management of said split forced on Atari Corp vs Games and the separate issues over the 7800/GCC, Morgan's reorganization plans, general chaos at Atari in general, etc) Best case would be that Warner had stuck it out regardless or spun off Atari Inc in some other manner that avoided such conflicts and problems but still got it off the books. It was Sega's marketing and careful management that allowed that to open up And, iirc, the litigation Nintendo was fighting. That probably helped, but was a relatively small factor in the short run and Nintendo took years to pull their exclusivity. (no antitrust suits were ever won in court Against Nintendo iirc, but some were settled favorably out of court) There were plenty of loopholes prior to that though and the lack of interest/market share was the bigger problem for getting 3rd party support. Nintendo also had no lockout on the Famicom and thus no way to prevent 3rd parties going unlicensed as such. (and their success in the west would determine whether they could assert such policies or not -without a strong lead in the west, they couldn't enforce such policies) Except that ignores that NES shipped with lock out chip in place already. So they already planned the enforcement of such policies in the west. Yes, but so did the 7800 from day 1 and in any case, lockout only meant they could (to some degree) protect against unlicensed development, but actually enforcing restrictive contracts (beyond royalty agreements for licensing) would depend on Nintendo attaining a strong market position and market share without strong competition to make such terms unattractive to 3rd parties. That, and they also needed the chip for region locking. (something some previous systems did by necessity due to differences from PAL and NTSC logic internally) Even in Japan, even without the lockout chip, JP developers were beholden to Nintendo as far as the home console market was concerned. They were still under that stranglehold contract. As that happened prior to the release of NES in the west, getting JP support from devs that were supporting Famicom in Japan would've been a pipe dream still. Atari would thus need themselves. A whole Atari, not part. They needed Games, GCC, and, as you stated, a budget to support such development. But there was no technical limit that required such licensing whatsoever. It would have been like Atari, Mattel, Coleco, etc offering such licensing contracts to said developers. (the ONLY thing Nintendo could have supplied was development documentation, nothing else would have remotely been a factor) I need to look more into the specifics on the Famcicom, but I really don't see how they managed to enforce such licensing agreements in Japan. (and extending them to westerm markets would have been a separate issue anyway on top of the various loop-holes for publishing under proxy or licensing the game to be published on another platform -same games Nintendo explicitly paid to be licensed exclusively for their platform -which is a different context of the limiting licensed publisher contracts) There's no reason they couldn't have done that in '86 had they had the right management, and without the strong early lead Nintendo got from fall/winter of '86 and full solidification after the 1987 holiday season, Nintendo would never have been able to establish the policies they did. Except Nintendo kinda had those policies in place in Japan already from my understanding (otherwise devs in Japan would've supported Mark III or other JP home consoles in the way they did NES. They didn't). Yes, but how secure were they? I really don't see how there couldn't have been predominantly unlicensed Famicom publishers in Japan, let alone licensees who later jumped ship for unlicensed releases. In the west, Tengen jumped ship as such and the only snag was the copyright infringement of the code in the RABBIT chip (they were cleared of patent infringement, but the copyright issue remained iirc). Had they done that in Japan, it would have been a non-issue (and I think Tengen Japan may have done just that). It's rather ironic that Atari Games put all the effort into R&D for reverse engineering and implementing a clone lockout "key" while contemporaries used a simple/cheap (and legally foolproof) voltage spiking mechanism to get around the lockout chips. (later model NESs supposedly prevented that from working, but I believe later voltage spike mechanisms also broke that and the number of such consoles was few anyway -plus the NES2 removed the lockout chip entirely) Look, at the end of the day, if 7800 had games like Midnight Mutants, Alien Brigade Commando, Ninja Golf, Tower Toppler, and Scrapyard Dog (not to mention Plutos and Sirius) back in '86/87 rather than late '88-90 then it would've been a lot more appealing to gamers in the early run. More than anything else what Atari Corp. got wrong with 7800 was software. Sales made Atari profit, especially since they didn't really spend anything on supporting the system. But that was a short term thing. Had they supported 7800 as they should have then their long term viability in the home console market would've been stronger. And, who knows? Maybe we would've seen future sequels of franchises started on 7800 on newer gen Atari consoles. Imagine: Ninja Golf II for Atari Panther (IMHO, another Atari Corp. mistake was going straight to Jaguar even though, apparently, Panther was pretty much finished and ready for '91). Yes, and the only thing stopping that was funding, just as with Strong marketing. (a smooth transition would have not only meant an earlier entrance of the 7800, but many other areas leading to more funding earlier on to re-invest into software and marketing) By '87/88, Atari Corp was in a much better position than '84/85/86 financially, and that's part of why you saw a lot more investment in the 7800 among other things. OTOH, in an ideal case where Atari Inc stayed whole and NATCO was completed, they'd almost certainly have had BETTER games than the above list by '86/87 on top of stronger 3rd party support and a much larger chunk of multiplatform games in general. (something I forgot to mention explicitly above: every multiplatform game means 1 less exclusive for the competition ) Another thing I forgot to mention earlier was that Nintendo could focus most of their resources on the NES while Atari Corp had to balance several console and computer platforms on top of the other issues. (that also feeds back into the possibility of pushing the likes of the XEGS in '85 with unified software support) Edited February 22, 2011 by kool kitty89 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kool kitty89 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I don't get some of these claims as such. They were willing to put 32kx8 SRAM chips onboard the carts, but weren't willing to push for a bit more ROM? (what, 256k?) Tramiels didn't like spending money on carts where they didn't have to. Krewat said the same thing about the Epyx titles: "Can't be 256K, got to be 128K." Peter Pachla said the same thing about fighting with the Tramiels over the additional RAM in the Jinks cart. The official dev guide says that there must be no additional RAM in any game without it in writing from a Tramiel. Sad reality. They just didn't want to have games that size. It makes sense though, especially since low cost was the one definitive selling point for the 7800. (and by '89, the 7800 was in decline with only about 1/2 the sales of 87/88) I will agree they pushed the low-cost angle too sharply for some things though, and not only could have pushed a higher end side of the software market, but probably could have pushed higher profit margins in general on the games and still had a significant advantage on the competition. (in Europe it was tighter with the heavy computer competition of budget games -yet another reason to push for Euro development support though, a great source of budget titles that would mesh well with the low cost advantage of the 7800) Hell, given the amount of hardware they had to put on some carts from RAM to POKEY, I wonder fi they ever considered passing that off to an add-on (one that would also be cheap enough to integrate to the main board for future models -more or less something that would "correct" many of the 7800's shortcomings tied to the 1984 release plans) As it was, the production volumes of games pushed apparently never reached the point of economies of scale that favored custom logic for bank switching (embedded in the ROMs in extreme cases), embedded low-cost sound chips (embedded in the banking ICs or maybe even ROMs in extreme cases), glob top ICs, etc. (not sure about the glob-top issue since some pirate games and relatively low production run games used glob tops too iirc) If POKEY was too costly to use practically, they could have opted for the likes of the SN76489 or the 16-pin mono sound-only version of the YM2149. (available by 1987) Or completed GUMBY like GCC planned. But any additional sound chip is still an extra cost. Yes, but we don't know how capable GUMBY would have been, we don't know the added costs related to that, Atari Corp was already tired of the issues from dealing with Warner over GCC and weren't interested in pressing on with that, etc. Any such custom IC would A. only become attractive once POKEY supplies were exhausted, and B. only if they were producing said chips in high enough volumes to be attractive over using off the shelf options. (especially if also investing in custom banking logic in which the sound logic could be integrated for a general savings on cart board space) Such investments should have paid off the long run, but only with sufficiently high production and resulting economies of scale. As it was, I'm not sure why GCC didn't cram a smaller off the shelf sound chip into the 7800 from the start or ask for Atari Inc assistance in designing the sound chip logic, perhaps even deriving it from POKEY. (especially if they could embed it in MARIA, but at very least make a new low-cost POKEY with a smaller die and pin package -though keeping some of POKEY's I/O functionality could have paid off for the planned computer add-on) Except, Zelda on the NES is only 128k (plus the SRAM), and that's no larger than games Atari Corp was pushing by '89. Very true. I wonder if part of the issue here is that they'd have to pay someone to design and develop a game like Zelda? It's probably pretty easy to fill 128K with a relatively simple game. Look at Cracked. The development costs on an adventure title like Zelda would be quite a bit higher though. This also reminds me: Nintendo wasn't willing to put it on cart initially either (or several other large games) and hence the use of the Famicom Disk system add-on for such large games early-on, though all eventually went to cart as well and the FDS ended up declining in Japan and never was released in the US (in part due to piracy). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coleco Gemini Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 3 reasons: Being released in 1986 instead of 1984 Arcade games, not deep adventure games like NES Blocked ability to create better games because of NES licenses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kool kitty89 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 3 reasons: Being released in 1986 instead of 1984 Arcade games, not deep adventure games like NES Blocked ability to create better games because of NES licenses Extreme oversimplification of issues already addressed. (and lack of many other issues that have also been addressed) I'll give you the '86 vs '84 issue not really being oversimplified though. (the "WHY?" behind it is the area of complexity) The latter 2 are sort of the same thing (and definitely are the same issue), and it wasn't an issue of arcade games vs "adventure games" along, but really an issue of not enough games in general. (many newer arcade games WERE inclusive of adventure games -or with strong action/adventure elements- short of the likes of Zelda or various RPGs) A huge chunk of the NES's library is made up of arcade ports or derivatives/clones of arcade games or other games of the same genre as current arcade games. (SHMUPS, platformers, beat em' ups, run n' gun, action-adventure, rail shooters, etc) And again, the "WHY?" behind that is the real issue. (and the answer in brief is that it was due to a combination of factors from the problematic split in '84 to related management issues to funding issues, etc, on top of Nintendo's anti-competitive tactics, popularity in Japan -for various reasons, and ability to get established in the US market without strong competition -in terms of having the right hardware/software/marketing/management and the funding to push that accordingly) Having the 7800 out by late 1984 (or even in '85) would have made a big difference, but looking at the reasons it wasn't released, there's a LOT more tied to that same issue (the mess caused by Warner's management of the split/sale of Atari -and the split/sale in itself) that had considerable negative effects for all involved. Then you could argue whether pushing for the 7800 was the right move at all (especially under the circumstances of Atari Corp immediately post-split, but even prior to that -ie whether Atari Inc should have pushed for the 7800 over sticking with the 2600 and 5200 and A8 for the time being -whether the 5200 should have been different from the start or released at all is a separate matter from what happened after the fact). In the specific context of the post-split Atari Corp, you had the issues of the conflct with Warner over the GCC contract delaying plans for release considerably and the whole mess of the transition putting Atari Corp in a worse position than Morgan's Atari Inc had been (and different priorities on top of that). Keeping the 2600 going was obvious and something they already did, but there were a variety of options for a newer/more capable mass market games platform: re-introduce the 5200 (which had previously been discontinued) and push hard for cost reduction of the hardware as well as addressing the functional and reliability issues of the pack-in controllers (a variety of short and long-term options for both of those issues), or they could keep the 5200 dead (though still being sold off for the following year or so) and push the A8 line as the prominent games platform (perhaps with a specific low-cost model with a gaming bundle -sort of like the XEGS but cheaper and more realistic for 1984/85 -probably a derivative of the 600XL). In either of those cases, you'd avoid the delay issues of the 7800 and have a high degree of commonality for hardware production and software development, more so for the direct computer option. (the 5200 option would build onto a system already positioned solely as a game console and with a hardware loadout allowing lower cost for generally similar functionality -the lower cost was wastefully contradicted in the original 5200 design, but could have paid off more in the long run) In both cases you also had stockpiles of components for hardware (especially A8 chips) as well as software whereas the 7800 only had a few thousand units completed (about 5,000 with a little more for non-asembled components) that would be realistic to write off in the long run. (plus, the commonality of production would mean parallel cost reduction and consolidation of both units -with some divergence with the 5200 due to the lack of use of some features or components) Continued popular support for the 5200/A8 would have meant generally more competitive late generation games for both platforms to the extent of quite being ahead of many 7800 games (even the better ones) and much more competitive with sheer content against Nintendo (though not technical capabilities obviously) or Commodore for that matter. (and they could have been working on a full next gen console to address that issue) All of those issues except the timing of the 7800's release also apply to Atari Inc in general or Atari Corp with a better transition. (ie the fundamental argument of whether the 7800 was needed/preferable at all) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiffyone Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Seeing as how they already test-marketed the console (7800) to some success, and the 5200 was not such a great success, I think they made the right move going with 7800. It was the product with more consumer interest at the time they announced it and test marketed it. But I can see what you're saying, kool kitty. Obviously the change over had a lot to do with the issues surrounding Atari's competitive nature at the time in the home console market. Maybe in that regard a 400/800 console revision (ala the later XEGS) would've been the better move in '85, with the 7800 shelved, what with the lower financial support available for such projects. That said, I'm operating on the imaginary scenario that Tramiel would've sunk more money into Atari during the initial "purchase". In that light, going with 7800, extending a contract with GCC, and getting Atari's arcade division along with the consumer division would've made for a much more competitive 7800. Yes, I know the reality of the situation was not enough money to do those things, and in that regard the completely ass backward bungling change over from Warner to Tramiel was a big part of the problem (if not THE problem), but in my scenario whatever Warner screwed up would've been negated by more money thrown at the problem by Tramiel. Bad relationship between Atari Corp. and Atari Games due to the change over? "Solved" with Tramiel buying the arcade division along with the consumer division. Issue regarding the late release of 7800 due to the GCC contract dispute with Warner? "Solved" with Tramiel just extending the contract with GCC. Issues regarding software library? "Solved" with the purchase of the arcade division and extension of GCC's contract, the latter of which would've meant an earlier release due to that extension and better 3rd party support due to that earlier release on market (strike while the iron is still hot, and NES isn't on market yet). Everything "solved" in my scenario by Tramiel paying more money from he get-go. Atari arcade game IPs would only be ported to Atari consumer hardware, thereby "solving" the issue regarding exclusives. The contract extension with GCC would make them a very close 2nd party software house exclusive to Tramiel's Atari thereby throwing another "solution" at the exclusive problem, and they would also a valuable asset in regards to 3rd party relations due to assistance they could provide with 7800 dev tools thereby ensuring better 3rd party offerings. The earlier 7800 release due to extending that contract would've made for better fortunes in the consumer market as well with attracting 3rd party studios, as by the time NES is released in the US in '86 nationwide, Atari's 7800 would already over a year or so on the market nationwide thereby skirting the later NES death grip on the western studios and the consumer market. Yes, the change over being bungled by Warner was the biggest problem. The solution you're proposing is Warner not bungling it in the first place. The solution I'm proposing is Tramiel spending more cash and buying the whole thing outright which would've completely negated Warner's silliness. Both are really pie-in-the-sky fantasies, tbqh. Tramiel wasn't going to spend more cash, and Warner was (and still is) infamous for messing even the simplest things up completely. Sure, there was a better plan in place at Warner, and all they had to do was follow it. But by that same token Tramiel had more money to spend, but didn't spend it. Both weren't going to happen, because Warner was run by idiots and Tramiel wasn't going to spend one red cent more than he felt he had to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kool kitty89 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Seeing as how they already test-marketed the console (7800) to some success, and the 5200 was not such a great success, I think they made the right move going with 7800. It was the product with more consumer interest at the time they announced it and test marketed it. Yes, but that's in the context of Atari not even really trying to fix the 5200. A properly redesigned/remodeled 5200 would have been cheaper, similarly compact, etc, etc not only compared to the original 5200, but potentially with the 7800 as well. With CGIA, a consolidated DRAM interface IC, removed expansion port, consolidated motherboard in general (optimized around 2 ports and lack of the expansion port), redesigned compact casing to go along with that, corrected controllers, and marketing to match all of that you'd have something to actually compare with the 7800. That's in the context of not dropping the 5200 at all, of course. (and as it was, Atari didn't even make a decent effort to correct the major 5200 issues in the short run -switching to simple pull-up resistor based joysicks and a 5100/5200 Jr type layout ASAP would have been the short-term hack option prior to actual consolidation and such -of course, you would be stuck with the less efficient VCS adapter as that's really something they needed to add provisions in the original design) In the XEGS-like example, that would have been best if pushed in place of the 5200 in the first place, though not a bad "after the fact" option as well. Of course, the 3200 (with embedded compatibility and a high degree of cost efficiency) or a derivative of the 5200 with much greater cost emphasis and design facilitating a lower cost/simpler adapter module (and more fool proof controllers) would have some arguable advantages over the pure 3200 concept. (which the 7800 was rather close to in general concept) There's various trade-offs in any case in regards to splitting the market further (vs a fully compatible computer), a very close design facilitating simple ports to/from the A8 and sharing many components for ease of production/consolidation (and provisions for a low-cost VCS adapter -more efficient and user friendly than the 5200's actual adapter), and integral compatibility with the VCS as with the 3200. Though technically, you could even have parallels in production/development with the 3200 (or similar alternatives) depending just how similar it was to the A8. (one time saving hack could have been to scrap STIA in favor of plain ANTIC+GTIA used rather like MARIA in the 7800 -though you also have 8 I/O ports to optionally use with GTIA -once they switched to CGIA it would be even more like the 7800- and there would be possibilities for the design to use SRAM a la 3200/7800 or push for DRAM instead, push for the full 1.79 MHz SALLY speed vs the 1.19 MHz planned for the 3200 -or maybe implement interleaved DMA at 1.19 MHz- and there was the RIOT IRQ line that could be enabled for 3200/5200 mode and the 1-bit GTIA CPU driven sound channel to also take advantage of -so somewhat better off for sound than the 7800 -especially when a little CPU resource could be spared for IRQ driven modulations- AND much earlier on top of that) But I can see what you're saying, kool kitty. Obviously the change over had a lot to do with the issues surrounding Atari's competitive nature at the time in the home console market. Maybe in that regard a 400/800 console revision (ala the later XEGS) would've been the better move in '85, with the 7800 shelved, what with the lower financial support available for such projects. That's part of it, but as I said above, there's plenty of other areas where it would have been attractive under Atari Inc alone. The 7800 was really more of a fix after the fact and while nice in some respects, it was far from ideal in others including some ways compared to fixing the 5200 itself after the fact. (especially with a couple million units already sold, etc, etc) Of course, Atari didn't really have a say (or any input in general over the design) on the 7800 since it was all Warner/GCC and would be forced on Atari Inc regardless. (at very least, they probably should have pushed for some healthy collaboration -maybe they could have gotten better onboard sound or some other changes) Though Atari's own problems in general were far greater than just the 5200, or even mistakes made with the computers (a huge number of compounding problems -one of the biggest being with distribution), so even focusing on these issue alone would be trivial in some respects. (in fact, the management issues were a major factor in the cause of many other problems from the computers to the 5200 to ET to distribution, etc) Though going back to the point about the XEGS-a-like in 1982 (not just 1984/85, so more like the 600 or a true successor to the 400 as such), they could have positioned it as a low-end gaming oriented computer at a competitive price point but also kept it as a interim option with the 3200 development continuing as the "main" successor to the 2600. (or possibly considering sticking with the computers alone if they manged to get popular enough -of course, they'd made mistakes prior to 1982 that missed potential in pushing the computer more -especially in terms of marketing iirc, but '82 was the bigger jump in mistakes as such) And back to the Context of Tramiel (or Atari Inc later on with more say on the matter of GCC), you could argue that the 7800 should have been halted overall (be it in favor of the corrected 5200 or computers in general), but GCC's work not abandoned. Rather, they could have pushed for MARIA to be implemented in a more comprehensive new system that better tok advantage of its capabilities (and maybe keep MARIA's design open a bit longer to add more features/flexibilities -more resolution options, maybe onboard sound, perhaps DRAM interface logic, etc). As it was, GCC was working on a 68000 interfaced version of MARIA, but they probably could have goen beyond that in general. (Atari Inc would have had to weigh the merits of such against the existing Advanced technologies designs and the relative merits -not just choosing one over the other but also reserving the possibility for using both in different roles -MARIA needed some significant added tweaks to be useful for a next gen computer, so that would decide whether it would be desirable for that vs console/arcade stuff specifically) That said, I'm operating on the imaginary scenario that Tramiel would've sunk more money into Atari during the initial "purchase". In that light, going with 7800, extending a contract with GCC, and getting Atari's arcade division along with the consumer division would've made for a much more competitive 7800. Yes, I know the reality of the situation was not enough money to do those things, and in that regard the completely ass backward bungling change over from Warner to Tramiel was a big part of the problem (if not THE problem), but in my scenario whatever Warner screwed up would've been negated by more money thrown at the problem by Tramiel. Money wasn't the only issue, the bigger issue (that led to a sustained lack of funds and ongoing problems early on) was due to the sloppy management of the split and to some extent due to Tramiel's shift in priorities over Morgan. A properly managed split would have meant MUCH less problems and much better organization across the board with a reasonably smooth transition and a healthier company off the bat. (and better potential use of exiting Atari Inc staff and resources -including possible utilization of ATG hardware and software for the planned 16-bit systems) The Amiga deal/lawsuit could have been combated and won faster as well. So many of the same things of Morgan's Atari could potentially have been done under Tramiel with good management of the split. (not as good in some areas, but maybe even better than Morgan+Warner could have managed as such -in part due to ongoing bureaucratic problems from Warner) A smooth transition would have meant increased efficiency and accelerated recovery/development across the board, and with the 7800 pushed sooner as such (moving forward with the already established 1994 plans), that could have meant pushing for the likes of Katz sooner as well. (and possibly jumping on Japanese licenses before Nintendo really had it locked up as it was in mid/late 1985) Bad relationship between Atari Corp. and Atari Games due to the change over? Due in large part to Warner's sloppy and confusing management of the split and transition. Even if the companies were made separate, a proper transition could have meant a good working relationship from day 1 of Atari Corp's establishment (or TTL's renaming). Part of that could also be sharing of technology for consoles/computer/arcade stuff (and probably better than what finally happened with the CoJag in the mid 90s). "Solved" with Tramiel buying the arcade division along with the consumer division. Yes, but there's more to it than that, and that may not even have been preferable. (having the arcade division spun-off as a separate entity could even have been beneficial in general, especially on top of a healthy working relationship with Atari Corp -you could argue similar under NATCO, though I don't think that was ever part of the plans) There's a reason TTL and several others declined to take on Warner's terms to sell Atari Inc as a whole. I don't know the details, but it was obviously less favorable than the later example. (I wonder if they ever offered the IOU/loan option for selling Atari Inc as they did with selling the consumer division -that's the main reason they were even able to pull off the sale with TTL as they did since Tramiel had already made substantial investments with private funds to create TTL in the first place and taking on Atari Inc in general was a rather big risk -much more so after what Warner did to it with the split) Issue regarding the late release of 7800 due to the GCC contract dispute with Warner? "Solved" with Tramiel just extending the contract with GCC. Just shoving out more money after the fact would not be good business sense. The point is that Warner should have had all those issues laid out BEFORE any sale went through at all, hence the greater problems after the fact across the board. (from the mess of Warner laying off the staff without notice, total lack of a proper manifest/inventory for the sale/split, etc, etc) Not just Warner either, but Warner, Morgan/Atari, and Tramiel/TTL needed to work out comprehensive plans well ahead of time to manage a smooth transition. (that's of course, if Warner couldn't be persuaded to retain or spin off Atari Inc in some other manner, or revise the offer for total sale of Atari Inc that would retain it as a whole and continue the NATCO plans) But what you're suggesting is Tramiel paying more after the fact, and that would still mean many of the same problems... Atari games was off the table under those circumstances anyway (that was the premise of Warner offering the new deal with the split/liquidation of the consumer division rather than the previously offered -and apparently inflexible- sale of Atari Inc as a whole that others -as well as Tramiel- had declined) If you mean TTL buying Atari Inc outright with the earlier offer (or one of the other prospective buyers), that's a totally different context. (same for the context of Warner keeping that premise, but pushing the promisary note option with the sale as they did for Atari Corp -I assume the original offer was rather different, but I haven't seen any specifics -it would make sense for a more favorable offer for just the consumer division since that's where all the debt and problems were pooled that Warner wanted to purge) It was an absolute mess, and virtually every single problem Atari Corp faced early on (and in many cases later on due to lasting impact) were tied to how the split had been managed. (some issues were tied to Tramiel's management, but that was a mixed bag in general vs the universally harmful management of the split and resulting chaos) And don't forget that this would not only benefit the game side of Atari, but the 8 and 16-bit computer management/plans for hardware and software as well. THAT could have been even more substantial than the games in some respects. (granted Atari Inc had already screwed up a good deal with the A8 line up through 1983 -in the US and Europe in different ways) Issues regarding software library? "Solved" with the purchase of the arcade division and extension of GCC's contract, the latter of which would've meant an earlier release due to that extension and better 3rd party support due to that earlier release on market (strike while the iron is still hot, and NES isn't on market yet). Not really. GCC and the Arcade division had relatively little to do with that overall. In-house development with computer and console developers (the latter they had, the former they shouldn't have lost with a properly managed split) would have been enough, especially on top of a healthy relationship with Atari games. (again, facilitated by the split) The earlier release of the 7800 would have been facilitated by better management of the split as well. Everything "solved" in my scenario by Tramiel paying more money from he get-go. Hardly, most of the problems wouldn't have been solved at all, and again it would never have been about paying more, but getting more loans/IOUs from Warner as they had negotiated for Atari Consumer. All those issues were tied to Warner not giving a proper account of what TTL was getting and how it was to be distributed, and not putting Atari Inc/Morgan in the loop from the start and pulling off proper management from start to finish. Even if Tramiel had *paid* more, that wouldn't have solved all the many, many hidden problems that were created. Except with the case of Warner being willing to make a more favorable deal for Atari Inc to sell as a whole with no funny business over the split as they did. (again, no one would take on Atari Inc under the terms Warner was offering -not just TTL, but others too, Marty or Curt should have specifics- so they'd have to change the game there as such) If they were keeping Atari Inc whole and going ahead with Morgan/NATCO, there was really no need to sell the company either, and there should have been various other options for spinning off Atari Inc to separate it from Warner and get the debt off the books to keep Warner shareholders/board members happy. Atari arcade game IPs would only be ported to Atari consumer hardware, thereby "solving" the issue regarding exclusives. The contract extension with GCC would make them a very close 2nd party software house exclusive to Tramiel's Atari thereby throwing another "solution" at the exclusive problem, and they would also a valuable asset in regards to 3rd party relations due to assistance they could provide with 7800 dev tools thereby ensuring better 3rd party offerings. Only to a modest extent, since that could have been solved regardless of what you mentioned with or without GCC and Atari Games retained. Of course, the relationship with both would have been better WITH the split if it was managed properly. They could have had good in-house development and 2nd/3rd party licensed/commissioned development with or without Atari Games or GCC directly linked. I'll give you that better dev tools may have helped, but that could have been commissioned regardless and still wouldn't have helped in many areas. (there's a limited extent you can do with such a radically different architecture and the main issue is getting it established on the mass market early on before other defacto standards push it out entirely) I've already addressed the other issues (including how exclusive games are only one small part and multiplatform games can be MORE important in quantity -and every multiplatform game is one less exclusive for competition ), so I'll stop there. Yes, the change over being bungled by Warner was the biggest problem. The solution you're proposing is Warner not bungling it in the first place. The solution I'm proposing is Tramiel spending more cash and buying the whole thing outright which would've completely negated Warner's silliness. Both are really pie-in-the-sky fantasies, tbqh. Tramiel wasn't going to spend more cash, and Warner was (and still is) infamous for messing even the simplest things up completely. Sure, there was a better plan in place at Warner, and all they had to do was follow it. But by that same token Tramiel had more money to spend, but didn't spend it. Both weren't going to happen, because Warner was run by idiots and Tramiel wasn't going to spend one red cent more than he felt he had to. Tramiel spending more was not necessary and didn't/doesn't make sense. He should have had what was to be buying laid out in the first place, which is not what happened. The biggest single fault of the whole split was not keeping Atari in the loop in the slightest (GCC was also left out of the loop), and that's part of why there was so much misinformation on the subject until Curt and Marty really dug deeper: it was an absolute mess that could have been largely avoided by having Atari at the negotiating table rather than totally caught off-guard from upper management to general staff. Tramiel wouldn't have been expected to keep jumping through hoops just to correct Warner's mistakes like that, especially after the huge mess he/his staff had to clean up with Atari consumer as it was. (with the NATCO lawsuits as part of that) As Marty mentioned before, Morgan knew of Warner's interest in selling Atari, but he wasn't worried since the premise was selling the company as a whole (and thus having a general replacement to Warner -which could indeed have been better than the mes of Warner's bureaucracy). Thus, he also wasn't pushing Warner management to be kept in the loop for such dealings, but that was critical to do once they switched to the split/liquidation plans for Atari Inc (which Morgan -and the rest of Atari- was obviously totally ignorant of and even Tramiel had been caught off guard with Warner contacting him out of the blue -I think the call may have even been made at an odd hour in the early morning). Warner didn't rush into selling Atari Inc, but they most certainly rushed into the deal over the split/liquidation of Atari consumer and rushed that sale itself. I wonder what would have happened if Morgan had refused to sign the contract for the split until he had fully read over it and commented on the plans and curtailing the major problems with it as best he could. Would Warner have simply forced his hand and/or fired him over such, would it have created enough friction with Tramiel to make the situation worse in other ways, or would it have actually paid off with a better transition? And after all that, I still don't see how Nintendo would have had any greater sway over the Japanese market/3rd parties with the Famicom than Atari Inc/Warner had had with the VCS/7800. The only difference is that Nintendo actually offered 3rd party licensing and development tools while Atari didn't (their 3rd party market was based on leaked/reverse engineered development documentation). Neither had any form of lockout to prevent 3rd parties from going unlicensed (indeed, there was a lot of unlicensed development on the Famicom as such), and there's no reason initially licensed developers couldn't later jump ship as such. (they did it in the west to a small extent and only got successfully sued in the case of Tengen's copyright infringement with the code used in the RABBIT chip -vs the totally legal voltage spike glitch used by contemporaries) Edited March 2, 2011 by kool kitty89 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceDice2010 Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 I don't get some of these claims as such. They were willing to put 32kx8 SRAM chips onboard the carts, but weren't willing to push for a bit more ROM? (what, 256k?) Tramiels didn't like spending money on carts where they didn't have to. Krewat said the same thing about the Epyx titles: "Can't be 256K, got to be 128K." Peter Pachla said the same thing about fighting with the Tramiels over the additional RAM in the Jinks cart. The official dev guide says that there must be no additional RAM in any game without it in writing from a Tramiel. Sad reality. They just didn't want to have games that size. It makes sense though, especially since low cost was the one definitive selling point for the 7800. (and by '89, the 7800 was in decline with only about 1/2 the sales of 87/88) I will agree they pushed the low-cost angle too sharply for some things though, and not only could have pushed a higher end side of the software market, but probably could have pushed higher profit margins in general on the games and still had a significant advantage on the competition. The low low budget strategy pretty much killed the 7800 imho. Selling games at $10 did not give them the margins that they really needed for a proper marketing campaign. Low budget, from a marketing standpoint, appeals to a certain group. And let's say that Nintendo didn't have a lock on all the best games, how many developers would really be interested in designing a game that sold at retail for $10? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kool kitty89 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) The low low budget strategy pretty much killed the 7800 imho. Nah, it was just one among many (several larger IMO) issues that contributed to Atari Corp's problems with the 7800. (albeit, unlike some of the other critical problems -especially those directly caused by the mismanaged split/transition of Atari Consumer, it at least had positive trade-offs) Selling games at $10 did not give them the margins that they really needed for a proper marketing campaign. Yes, I agree, though I don't think that's what the total prices were. (I know the games with SRAM onboard were significantly more, though I'm not sure of $10 being the standard price in general -rather than the price for the early games or just older releases in general -ie dropped prices after release as all platforms tend to do) In general though, I agree: they could have still focused on low pricing as a definitive element of their marketing, but tempered it more to be just cheap enough to have a significant gap over the competition and make additional changes in pricing depending on how competition responded. That, and you could do both: cater both significantly to the lower end prices as well as offering higher end games at higher prices. (though if catering to the general market model of lower pricing, the most costly games should have been less than the competition's -preferably under $40) That, and they definitely should have kept the low hardware price point (maybe even dropped it slightly lower -selling at cost- if software sales allowed it). The low cost strategy would have catered much more to the Euro market where prices were very sensitive and viral marketing was relatively effective. (except you already had various tape based platforms that would already be undercutting even the tightest cart based prices by the mid 80s, so that would be more of a bust too -and the A8 had more or less lost any chance of a strong market position in Europe by '85 -the C64 and Speccy were the main options with some support for the CPC as well) Again, I'm not sure of the actual price points of new releases for the 7800, or, for that matter, who actually dictated the market model for the system. Jack obviously would have had the influence over any final decisions, but Katz would have been the one actually managing everything to do with the game systems of the time. (from marketing to distribution to delegating software development, etc) Low budget, from a marketing standpoint, appeals to a certain group Granted, it did dominate the European market into the late 80s (though things were changing by then and it depends somewhat on how you define "budget"). The 2600 was really the definitive budget option on the market ($10 games would have made a lot of sense for that -probably even less for some older/smaller games, especially ones that were stockpiled), as such it also only needed very modest advertising to secure that position (just enough to make sure consumers knew it was still being sold, that a few new games were still coming out, and what the general price point was -they wouldn't need to introduce the 2600 as such since it had a well established market position). As such, the 7800 was not the budget option but, rather, the lower end price bracket of the mid-range/current generation machines of the time. As such, I do agree on some points relative to pricing and games in general of the 7800: Even after all the problems and delays brought on by the split, higher margins on 7800 games would at least have allowed somewhat better competition for 1st party software (commissioned, licensed, and in-house) as well as the critically needed advertising (TV adds being one of the weakest points). Even if nearly 100% of the games still pushed on the budget side in terms of production quality, that could still cater to a certain market model as such. (but even for a budget machine -aside from an old console like the VCS or the NES in the early/mid 90s, etc- you still need to advertise it for people to really know that it exists and what its merits -or supposed merits- are) Obviously, the 7800 would have been better off with a head start and better stability from day 1 (even with the same marketing strategies used later on) and that would have meant more funds as well as a more solid market position by the time Nintendo or Sega emerged in the market in '86, but the problems Atari Corp suffered meant they were relatively stuck on the 7800 even with ideal market positioning. (they may have been able to do better, but they still had a huge up hill battle to work through with Nintendo, much more so after Nintendo had the position in the US to convince developers to sign onto such restrictive contracts) As a side note on the Atari Corp pricing: I think the drop to $99 for the 800XL in 1984 was a bit premature as well since they probably could have cut to around $150 and still had an advantage over the C64 at the time. (Atari Corp didn't seem to have the capacity for production/distribution at that time to even take advantage of possible sales increases at the $99 level -assuming that was even a profitable price point and not just used to generate revenue with stockpiled hardware- so that ended up somewhat moot -they could have made more with their limited stock with more tempered price cuts, perhaps less so in Europe) And let's say that Nintendo didn't have a lock on all the best games, how many developers would really be interested in designing a game that sold at retail for $10? Again, I don't think $10 is an accurate figure as such, but in any case it would only have been Atari published (developed/commissioned) games that they'd have such influence over. 3rd parties should have been free to develop and sell games for any category as they saw fit (Atari's budget marketing strategy would have had some influence on that, but would not have been a fully deciding factor). The bigger issue is that Atari had almost no 3rd party publisher support (almost all games were developed with Atari Corp money by commission -not sure if any were in house), and that's something that obviously got less and less likely of being corrected after Nintendo came in with their monopolistic licensing contracts. (and something that the 1984 launch could critically have changed, even without a strong marketing budget) One thing I've been wanting to know (but haven't found details on -and haven't really prodded Curt or Marty for details yet) is how Atari Corp handled 3rd party licensing for the 7800. It's a bit ironic that the 7800 ended up with one of the most powerful lockout schemes of the time (almost foolproof and very hard to crack), but was in a position that rendered it largely useless. It seem like Atari Corp should have even considered free licensing for all 3rd party publishers (maybe just a requirement for quality assurance and avoiding the likes of the 2600 porn games ) with only the development tools/hardware being charged for. Beyond that, they could have even offered 3rd parties (especially smaller developers) an out for Nintendo's contracts by offering direct publishing under the Atari label but retaining royalties/sales (or even production) all for those 3rd parties. (whether the licensees were totally free or changed anything would probably depend on Atari's market position -ie the weaker they were, the more favorable the contracts should have been) Many of those problems also tie into my comments on the A8/5200 being used in place of the 7800 entirely. (or various situations where that could have been preferable for a variety of reasons -I detailed many possible circumstances for the 5200 or A8 in my previous 2 posts just above yours) Though a couple added things I hadn't realized: the footprint of the Atari 800 is actually about the same as the 800XL and the motherboard isn't much smaller even, but the 600XL is actually significantly smaller than either. (not sure how the motherboard compares to the XEGS though) So it may have been more cost effective to not invest in the XE series at all, but work more on moderate cost reductions of the existing A8 machines (especially without massive sales figures to make the economies of scale attractive for a redesign -and then you'd want to push more like CGIA anyway). And, of course, it would have been less confusing to consumers if the XL style cases were retained in general. (some XL keyboard feel almost as "mushy" as the XE boards as it is -whether their manufacturing cost showed that is another matter- so actually switching to dome switch+flex circuit keyboards in the normal XL cases wouldn't have been that big of a shift either) Tying into my above statements on a possible XL based game system for '84/85 (ie ASAP), they probably should have used the 600XL motherboard directly and possibly even most of the tooling for the case, but removed the keyboard and added a connector for an external keyboard a la XEGS (except using a ribbon cable to connect it to the normal keyboard connector on the motherboard rather than redesigning the motherboard for a directly mounted connector -at least for early models). You'd then have either a minimal membrane keypad to plug into that pack-in (for all the keys used by most games) or have those keys built into the main unit as buttons and a membrane keypad. (some most used keys might be better as buttons -a la XEGS- to reduce wearing of the membrane contacts) Edited March 7, 2011 by kool kitty89 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high voltage Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Is this like 3 different threads ranting on about the same thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+wood_jl Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Is this like 3 different threads ranting on about the same thing? Indeed. Certain posters believe themselves to be such a wellspring of valuable opinion, that not only one thread runneth over, but 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynxpro Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Who sold 7800 games for $9.99? Was it Sears [via the Sears catalog] during the initial 1986 [re] launch? I'm trying to remember but I think most of the "later" titles were $14.99 and up [and the Super Games were $30+]. I can distinctively remember my dad driving me across over to the South Sacramento Federated store to buy Food Fight because the closer Citrus Heights Federated didn't have it nor did any of the local Toys R Uses, KB, or Good Guys. I never saw the 7800 sold at any of our Targets in this part of NorCal either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kool kitty89 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Who sold 7800 games for $9.99? Was it Sears [via the Sears catalog] during the initial 1986 [re] launch? I'm trying to remember but I think most of the "later" titles were $14.99 and up [and the Super Games were $30+]. I can distinctively remember my dad driving me across over to the South Sacramento Federated store to buy Food Fight because the closer Citrus Heights Federated didn't have it nor did any of the local Toys R Uses, KB, or Good Guys. I never saw the 7800 sold at any of our Targets in this part of NorCal either... That sounds more realistic, and it would also have made more sense for the smaller (non bank switched 32/48k) games to be cheaper in general like Sega's card games. $10 would have made some sense for older games that had been on the market for a while. (ie even if the launch games weren't $10 in '86, they could have been sensibly $10 -or close to it- a bit later on) Were the newer 2600 games priced at $10 or less? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynxpro Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Were the newer 2600 games priced at $10 or less? I don't remember. I wasn't buying any 2600 games at the time. Even then, I thought it a waste for Atari to continue making 2600 games instead of focusing on the 7800... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenfused Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Who sold 7800 games for $9.99? Was it Sears [via the Sears catalog] during the initial 1986 [re] launch? I'm trying to remember but I think most of the "later" titles were $14.99 and up [and the Super Games were $30+]. I can distinctively remember my dad driving me across over to the South Sacramento Federated store to buy Food Fight because the closer Citrus Heights Federated didn't have it nor did any of the local Toys R Uses, KB, or Good Guys. I never saw the 7800 sold at any of our Targets in this part of NorCal either... I remember buying several 7800 games at Circus World (a competitor to Kay-Bee Toys back then). They were pretty cheap at around $10ish IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kool kitty89 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 (edited) Were the newer 2600 games priced at $10 or less? I don't remember. I wasn't buying any 2600 games at the time. Even then, I thought it a waste for Atari to continue making 2600 games instead of focusing on the 7800... Nah, it was a very good idea: the definitive budget gaming machine to capitalize on. It would have been stupid to NOT support it. (at very least with re-releases and continued production, if not a few new games) It would have been like Nintendo killing off the NES/Famicom in 1990/91 when it had years ahead of it in the budget market. (more so in Japan -same with the SNES, PSX, PS2, etc -Sega made that mistake with the MD/Genesis and lost out big time for a potential strong late-gen budget market) The fact that they 7800 was also so budget oriented limited that though. (they could probably have focused more on the 7800 being closer to NES/SMS game prices -but cheaper enough to still have an advantage in general, more so for hardware prices, and ended up a fair bit better off in general -more profits if nothing else, but also the ability to re-invest that for more/better games and advertising) The 2600 was still selling (more than the 7800 by a good margin from what I understand) and demand actually outlived that for the 8-bit computers and even the 7800. (so for whatever you can argue about the 7800's management, the 2600 was a keeper) Edited March 9, 2011 by kool kitty89 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynxpro Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Nah, it was a very good idea: the definitive budget gaming machine to capitalize on. It would have been stupid to NOT support it. (at very least with re-releases and continued production, if not a few new games) It would have been like Nintendo killing off the NES/Famicom in 1990/91 when it had years ahead of it in the budget market. (more so in Japan -same with the SNES, PSX, PS2, etc -Sega made that mistake with the MD/Genesis and lost out big time for a potential strong late-gen budget market) The fact that they 7800 was also so budget oriented limited that though. (they could probably have focused more on the 7800 being closer to NES/SMS game prices -but cheaper enough to still have an advantage in general, more so for hardware prices, and ended up a fair bit better off in general -more profits if nothing else, but also the ability to re-invest that for more/better games and advertising) The 2600 was still selling (more than the 7800 by a good margin from what I understand) and demand actually outlived that for the 8-bit computers and even the 7800. (so for whatever you can argue about the 7800's management, the 2600 was a keeper) What I meant was I felt it was stupid for Atari to continue paying to develop *new* games for the 2600. They could've continued manufacturing the pre-existing games as long as it was profitable [and it would've been great for them to have started making combo carts at the time of the older classics that were "out of print" so to speak] but as far as I'm concerned, a dollar spent on developing *new* 2600 games could've been a dollar spent on developing new 7800 games, acquiring decent games through licensing, and/or spending on advertising for the 7800. In retrospect, they should've paid to finish developing the "2600 on a chip" and then taking the 5100 design, adding a 2600 cart slot to it, wedging the 2600-on-a-chip [the Jan design? isn't that the name] into it and then maybe adding the Maria chip to it. Granted, that might've cost more in R&D than actually what Tramiel spent in finally paying GCC for the 7800...not to mention all the pre-existing cases already manufactured. Granted, Atari Corp. probably could've found a use for the already manufactured 7800 cases had they abandoned the design...Tramiel certainly reused the SX212 case for the XEP80 case and if memory serves correctly some sort of interface case for the Atari laser printers... ***Albeit even with such a design, they probably would've been out extra expense including the Atari 2600 joystick ports on it in addition to the 5200 ports [whether 2 port or 4 port] but at least it would've been completely backwards compatible not to mention being able to handle more than 2-3 fire buttons on it... Which reminds me...do the 5200 controller ports have roughly the same capabilities as Atari's "enhanced joystick ports" later used on the STE, Falcon, and Jaguar? It wouldn't surprise me if Atari Corp. did go back and recycle the designs even with a different pin configuration... Edited March 10, 2011 by Lynxpro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kool kitty89 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 What I meant was I felt it was stupid for Atari to continue paying to develop *new* games for the 2600. They could've continued manufacturing the pre-existing games as long as it was profitable [and it would've been great for them to have started making combo carts at the time of the older classics that were "out of print" so to speak] but as far as I'm concerned, a dollar spent on developing *new* 2600 games could've been a dollar spent on developing new 7800 games, acquiring decent games through licensing, and/or spending on advertising for the 7800. Fair enough, though under better circumstances Atari could have afforded to do more all around and still bring out a handful of new VCS games (selectively). Compilations definitely would have been nice, at least after they exhausted stockpiles of old games. And, of course, some of those VCS games weren't Atari Published either, but from 3rd parties. (like Activision) It's also rather mind boggling to think that the 5200 actually got some new releases as late as 1987, or at least 1 game that was finally brought to market. (Apolloboy mentioned that to be, though it may not have been a "new" game as such, but one that had been previously stockpiled and unreleased for whatever reason) In retrospect, they should've paid to finish developing the "2600 on a chip" and then taking the 5100 design, adding a 2600 cart slot to it, wedging the 2600-on-a-chip [the Jan design? isn't that the name] into it and then maybe adding the Maria chip to it. That's a bad idea for cost reasons. It may have been OK for a deluxe system (wouldn't have been bad for '83 especially), but not as the mainstay design as it simply wasn't cost effective and not remotely worth it for the gimmick of internal compatibility. (which would quickly become less important as time went on) The JAN chip certainly would have made the VCS adapter cheaper to make though, so not bad there. The other issue is that (I'm pretty sure) that Atari had a ton of VCS chips (at least TIAs, probably STELLAs and RIOTS too) already stockpiled to use up before production of JAN even made sense. (that may have been the main issue to early 2600 Jrs using normal VCS chips rather than JAN being incomplete) It may have been the same issue that led to CGIA being unused: Atari Corp may have never exhausted Atari Inc's stockpile of ANTIC/GTIA chips, or A8 chips in general for that matter. (which would also explain the use of POKEY on Commando rather than a cheaper SN76489 or the 16 pin sound only version of the YM2149 that was on the market by '87) If that was really the case, that's even more reason that they should have kept the 5200 or pushed the A8 more. (potentially pushing the A8 as a game console in any of the various contexts I listed above in posts 211 and 213) Also some comments on that elsewhere, like my middle response (to your comment) here: http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/163658-7800-atari-corp-revival/page__st__200__p__2225079#entry2225079 (also made notes on possible advantages of retaining the existing XL case styling and motherboards -and how it probably would have been cheapest to re-use the 600XL motherboard and most of the case for an XLGS of sorts in 1984/85) Un-retiring the 5200 after the official discontinuation in early 1984 would have been a bit tricky so they'd have to weigh that with going with a pure XL based game system instead. (either case would use all the custom A8 chips -PIA was off the shelf- and both would benefit from most potential consolidation/cost reduction to the chipset) The main advantage of the 5200 was lower cost (potentially) due mainly to the lack of PIA and more so once they stripped out the expansion port and consolidated the board a bit more. (the PCB should have been smaller and cheaper than the 600XL in 1983 as it was and I think the 5100 hadn't even managed that) Given the circumstances of Atari Corp in '84/85, a direct XE derivative would probably have been most effective. (either drop the 7800 entirely or stay in negotiations and maybe move MARIA to another project) With the 5200 or all A8 route, you'd consolidate software development much more, rely on hardware that many developers had already been working on, and promote the A8 line more in general because of that. (using an older design rather than releasing the 7800 also could have meant pushing for a 16-bit/4th gen game system sooner -maybe by 1988) The XEGS was obviously too late (and oddly expensive given the $99 65XEs on the market prior to it, not to mention somewhat conflicting with the 7800), but '84/85 had many more possibilities. There's also tons of other possibilities Atari Inc could have done in place of the 5200 from the 3200 (or a hacked alternative with TIA and GTIA), to a consolized 600, to simply releasing the 600 in '82 and marketing it as a low-end computer with gaming capabilities (and no other new console), to something close to the 5200 but better thought out with a high emphasis on low cost (the existing 5200 design should have been cheaper to make than the Colecovision -or perhaps 7800) as well as addressing the controller issues (lots of options) and adding provisions to allow a low-cost and more convenient VCS adapter than the existing one. (ie piggyback on the 6502c, just RIOT and TIA in the adapter, use semi-compatible controller ports that could directly remap for VCS compatibility, a front-mounted expansion port more like the CV to avoid removing the adapter when playing 5200 games, etc) Granted, that might've cost more in R&D than actually what Tramiel spent in finally paying GCC for the 7800...not to mention all the pre-existing cases already manufactured. Yes, and again somewhat pointless. (better to just use JAN in later 2600 adapters and Jrs -if they indeed kept the 5200 going) As for wasting the 7800s in stock, you'd also have to weigh that against wasting stockpiled A8 chips that could have been put to use on 5200s or more A8s (or A8 consoles). They could have scavenged the CPUs for A8s/5200s, used the RIOTs and TIAs in 2600s, and some of the other ICs and SRAMs for something else. (and recycled the PCBs and any other useless parts) Granted, Atari Corp. probably could've found a use for the already manufactured 7800 cases had they abandoned the design...Tramiel certainly reused the SX212 case for the XEP80 case and if memory serves correctly some sort of interface case for the Atari laser printers... There were only 5000 produced up to then (and parts for a bit over 1000 more), so not that much to waste as such. (I'm not sure about games) Maybe they could have saved the cases (and tooling) for later revisions of the A8 based system or 5200 (the controller ports would be too small for the latter though), or maybe used it for the Jr instead and designed the Jr's motherboard around that case design. (hell, they could have rebranded the initial 7800s as 2600 Jrs and only used the backwards compatibility feature -and wasted the rest rather than scavenging it) Which reminds me...do the 5200 controller ports have roughly the same capabilities as Atari's "enhanced joystick ports" later used on the STE, Falcon, and Jaguar? It wouldn't surprise me if Atari Corp. did go back and recycle the designs even with a different pin configuration... Not remotely, the EJP interface was a 12-bit digital parallel interface (Jag has provisions for 1 pot input though). They also used different connectors (DE-15 -like VGA- vs DA-15 -like PC gameport or old ethernet cards). I think the XEGS's keyboard port used DA-15 too, but it was obviously different from the 5200 ports as well. See: http://pinouts.ru/Inputs/EnhancedJoystickAtari_pinout.shtml http://www.gamesx.com/controldata/ejp_faq.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johannesmutlu Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 For what i do know is , the atari 7800 did had top games such as donkeykong 1,donkeykong jr, mario bros and mr pacman, trough it did not had popeye or pac man, but still, those nintendo ip's should,ve been the killer app for that console, also since the atari 5200 didn't had a donkeykong port except for popeye and mario bros, so that's really weird,and while the atari 2600 did had a port of the donkeykong games, mario bros and popeye, by that time the 2600 became already outdated,so the 7800 should,ve be the ultimate system, also since many issues from the 5200 were fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.