The XE Game System as successor?

[carmel_andrews]

Interesting that Atari would want to go with the XEGS and yet, totally BASTARDISE the original concept/design of the 7800 (which was supposed to have included an expansion port, which sort of looked like a reversed A8 sio port)...bearing in mind that tramiel changed the design of the warners version of the 7800

 

Or am i getting the feeling that Atari at the time was just 'one big contradiction'

 

Also, wasn't the person that was dealing with atari's marketing comm's (at the time) none other then one of tramiels commodore stalwarts Neil Harris

[Rex Dart]

Interesting that Atari would want to go with the XEGS and yet, totally BASTARDISE the original concept/design of the 7800 (which was supposed to have included an expansion port, which sort of looked like a reversed A8 sio port)...bearing in mind that tramiel changed the design of the warners version of the 7800

 

Or am i getting the feeling that Atari at the time was just 'one big contradiction'

 

Yeah, I think a lot of people are under the misunderstanding that Atari, at the time, had a plan.

[kool kitty89]

Honestly -- and I'm a big 5200 fanboy -- the XEGS was what the 5200 should have been -- compatible with existing 8-bit software, and peripherals, expandable (relatively) to a computer. Would have been great with a 5200-style controller. In 82 it would have been groundbreaking. By the late 80s, it was an also-ran before it hit shelves.

There's lots of different routes they could have taken with the 5200, from something closer to the 3200 (hybrid A8/VCS chipset with VCS compatibility out of the box), a much more cost optimized 5200 design in general (maybe with better provisions for a 2600 adapter at minimal cost and maximum convenience), or sticking with just the VCS and A8 formats in general, and basically have the 5200 a directly consolized 400/600 (perhaps even using the prototype 600 as the basis for the system).

Given that there were only a few keys used for the majority of games, a minimalistic membrane/chiclet keypad could have been provided (either built-in or plugged in) with expansion support for a proper keyboard like the XEGS. (the "out of the box" keypad would be to address the foibles of the C64 GS and XEGS sans keyboard -a lot of games that used a few of the keys, but most limited to a few common keys in use overall -of course, they could also opt for the full 400-style membrane keyboard too with an option for a proper keyboard add-on)

 

The 2600 was definitely going to remain the mainstay mass-market console for a while longer in any case, and pushing computers was a safer bet than pushing a separate format (even if close to the computer hardware), especially since they still had no lockout to speak of.

 

As it was, many of the 5200's problems could have been addressed after the fact (especially convenience/cost effectiveness/reliability issues), and that could arguably have made more sense than dropping it like they did. (much more so in hindsight with the delays over the 7800)

 

 

Hell, they could have canceled a new dedicated "game" system altogether and pushed the 600 out in '82 positioned as a low-end computer and game system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regardless of what Atari execs may have stated to ONE news source (that gobblygook about 5200 being a "sports car" model), it's pretty apparent that 5200 was at the very least the intended successor to 2600.

 

Liar, never stated it was just one source. I've continuously stated that's what internal emails, documentation, and direct interviews have stated. That "one source" is simply the one source that could be used on Wikipedia until all the rest is published.

Honestly, most (especially successful) video game consoles do exactly that with their successors: the successors are initially positioned in the high-end market segment while the older machine dominates the mass market (often for over a year before the new system really takes hold -longer if the new system has problems on the market).

 

Better examples also specifically position the new console on the market to avoid conflict with the mainstay system until the latter has fully dropped in popularity on the mass market and moved into the budget-market niche. (some others end up waiting until the system is already close to dropping out before releasing a new system at all, lots of trade-offs and risks involved in the various options, and Atari had no historical basis to drawn on either, with the market as young as it was -albeit many ended up making similar mistakes in spite of the examples in hindsight)

 

The facts are there were two different models designated 3200, the latter one that also used it was not intended to replace the 2600. Kassar simply wouldn't allow it. The initial 3200 project was designed as an update to the 2600, with a new chip called the SuperTIA which would in effect simply produce a souped up 2600 (which is why the project was also codenamed Super Stella at one point). It was Bristow's project, and it was canned when the guys in HCD started complaining about the technology possibly marginalizing their PCS technology. Along with it's cancellation went the idea of updating the 2600. It was then later decided to restart the project (sometimes called System X in both versions) as a deluxe companion to the 2600, using PCS technlology. The move to PCS technology was not because of Mattel, as you try and allude to below, it was because of internal conflicts. And in fact when they moved to the PCS they had even more conflicts between the console team and the PCS guys that further effected the console design.

Interesting, I'd gotten the impression that it was development delays that led to the original 3200's cancellation rather than political/bureaucratic issues.

 

In that sense, it's a shame that they didn't simply keep pushing directly compatible derivatives of the computers in general. (the 5200 route did have potential cost advantages, but all those were so badly missed that a reasonably clean 600 derived computer/console probably would have been a fair bit cheaper overall)

 

Atari saw themselves as potentially losing out some marketshare to Mattel due to the older hardware of the 2600.

 

Which of course was never a danger. It simply did not happen regardless, and the 2600 still remained the top selling console.

The 2600 hardware ended up breaking ahead of the Intellivision later on anyway (with programmers pushing its advantages more). Coleco had been a more significant threat though, and if it hadn't been for the crash, who knows what might have happened? (they were rapidly gaining market share in '82/83, though if it hadn't been for the existing market instability, that competition actually could have been very healthy for the overall market -Atari's monopoly had a huge amount to do with the instability in general, of course the home computer wars pushed the '82/83 slump into a full-on crash when the market otherwise may have recovered without such an incident)

 

In these terms, no - a successor would be something intended to replace another console. The 5200 was not intended to replace it, it was designed as and released as and promoted as a higher end alternative. Now the 7800 is certainly the successor to the 5200. It was designed and intended to replace the 5200, which is also why 5200 was cancelled.

Hmm, so the 5200 had never been considered to become an eventual successor to the 2600? Ie, initially be a high-end companion, and transition into mainstream as prices dropped and if/when the 2600's popularity wavered?

 

I wonder what Atari Inc management thought about the 7800 overall (given Warner was going to force it either way), compared to the various options with the 5200 and/or computers they had to work with.

The 5200 had tons of potential on the mass market compared to the 7800, integral backwards compatibility wasn't that big of an issue in the long run anyway (it was mainly the position of the market at the time and Coleco's adapter that confused things so much). It would have helped obviously, but it wasn't necessary (and has never been a make or break issue for any game console -a bonus or good gimmick, but never the deciding factor, sometimes more trouble that it was worth too -a detriment to the hardware).

 

That's especially significant after the fact of releasing the 5200 . . . it was out there and had considerable support; all of the major long-term problems could have been solved (cost, bulk, reliabiltiy) if Atari had invested in that. Hell, it could have ended up CHEAPER to manufacture than the 7800 by 1984 if they'd invested in a consolidated motherboard and generally low-cost design. (short of spring loaded joysticks, they also could ahev simply switched to using a "digital" joystick with pull-up resistors and made analog an optional accessory for the handful of games that needed it -and more that took advantage of it, but could work OK with just pull-up resistors- such joysticks would have been cheaper AND more reliable -the other issue was the flex circuitry/carbon dome switch problems)

Plus, the component commonality with the A8 would favor manufacturing even more. (stockpiled chips could be used in either, conslidation of 1 could generally be applied to the other, etc -ie GTIA, embedded DRAM logic, other merged custom chips, etc, etc -albeit you had some 5200 specific options like cutting out the unused POKEY pins/features)

 

The 7800 had a better reception in 1984 than the 5200 had gotten, but the context would be how a corrected 1984 (or even '83 if they'd recognized the shortcomings earlier) 5200 would have been received on the market, and that's totally up to speculation as the 5200 was never "corrected" as such.

 

Nope. The 5200's death had nothing to do with the crash, it had to do with making way for the 7800 - which was to be the 5200's replacement as the high end alternative console to the 2600. And the 2600 itself was going to be further pigeoned as the low end console with it's parallel move to the cheaper Jr. format.

Yes, and they either failed to consider the advantages of keeping the 5200, or simply couldn't/wouldn't implement those options. (who knows what might have happened if GCC+Warner had never pushed the 7800 at all -the 5200 Jr was a step in the right direction, but still a very modest improvement compared to what they could have been pushing in 1984 -more like what it should have been in the first place in 1982)

 

You've got it wrong again. Per direct talks with Michael Katz (head of the Electronic Entertainment Division) and Leonard Tramiel, the XE Game System (it was not the "XE") was released in the same relationship as the 5200 was to the 2600. It was specifically planned and marketed as a higher end GAME CONSOLE to the mid level 7800. In fact Leonard's words verbatim are "We wanted to do the 5200 done right." They wanted to do a game console that could expand in to a legitimate computer, and in the process use up the 8-bit inventory. And yes, it was intended as an upgrade path for those who wanted to have a game console that could expand in to a computer - which is also why the computer expansion for the 7800 was never pursued further and the expansion port wiped out. It simply made more sense to leverage already in use tech instead of the expense of further developing the unreleased 7800 computer tech. Especially to someone like Jack, who had already went through enough expense having to pay for the MARIA development and 10 launch titles and wasn't looking to have to pay GCC even more on unproven (market wise) technology. Hence it was simply cheaper to recycle the 8-bit tech to do the same job. The only part you got right was "and it was NEVER intended to eventually, perhaps, "replace" 7800 in the future if and when 7800 stopped selling enough to merit manufacturing it." Which ironically is describing the exact same scenario for the 2600/5200 that you don't want to accept. In fact you could literally plug it in: "and it was NEVER intended to eventually, perhaps, "replace" 2600 in the future if and when 2600 stopped selling enough to merit manufacturing it."

Hmm, I thought the XEGS was planned as an entry level computer that was promoted for gaming capability.

 

Pushing the XE chipset as a "high end" game console at the time made rather little sense . . . the high price tage (relative to the $99 65XE) made even less sense for the time.

It would have made FAR more sense to just use the normal 65XE in a gaming bundle and avoid the overhead of another case/board design. (actually it could have made a lot of sense not to change from the XL board/case deign either -maybe cut costs a little, but it would seem like keeping the existing boards/cases would have cost advantages compared to retooling -let alone avoiding market confusion with a very different looking design -as it is, the 800XL motherboard is pretty close to the same size as the XE's board -they could have switched to a cheaper keyboard while keeping the rest the same)

 

If they really did want to push a "high end" game console in '87, they should have pushed a cut-down ST based console instead. (even that didn't make too much sense though, given the overall market at the time)

Or they could have beefed up with 7800 directly (sort of like curt's XM, but more within limits of '87) and offered it as an add-on and a total system. (like added RAM, POKEY and SIO+keyboard ports)

Hell, they could also use that to totally eliminate 7800 games with onboard POKEY or RAM in favor of exclusive "Super 7800" games using the add-on/upgrades system. (they could even have used the same 32kx8-bit SRAM chips used in Epyx games in '87/88 anyway, though given it was a separate module, they could have opted for cheaper DRAM and added interface+refresh logic -that might have even made 64k cost effective, albeit you'd need bank switching to go beyond 48k)

 

 

 

 

OTOH, something like the XEGS would have been FAR more useful in '84/85 if Atari Corp had decided to ditch the 7800 (and associated red tape). Though, for the time, it would have made more sense to push a 16k machine (ie 600XL derived) for lower cost in general. (they could have evene started by repackaging remaining 600XL stock before moving on to a modified form factor -perhaps even directly derived from the 600XL's case design- with a minimalistic membrane keypad -wired via a 15-pin plug like the XEGS or embedded into the top of the system- with separate expansion for a full keyboard a la XEGS -and retaining the PBI for RAM expansion)

 

 

It's odd that Atari Corp ended up repeating some of the same mistakes Atari Inc had made (lack of expansion on the computers, oddly times conflicting/overlapping products, etc, etc).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting that Atari would want to go with the XEGS and yet, totally BASTARDISE the original concept/design of the 7800 (which was supposed to have included an expansion port, which sort of looked like a reversed A8 sio port)...bearing in mind that tramiel changed the design of the warners version of the 7800

 

Or am i getting the feeling that Atari at the time was just 'one big contradiction'

The expansion port was for laserdisk, removing it was no big deal. The cart slot was a far better general purpose expansion port for RAM+sound+I/O+coprocessing, etc. (hence why the 7800 XM is possible)

 

Also, wasn't the person that was dealing with atari's marketing comm's (at the time) none other then one of tramiels commodore stalwarts Neil Harris

I thought Katz was handling all the marketing for the entertainment side of things.

Edited April 18, 2011 by kool kitty89

[kool kitty89]

The facts are there were two different models designated 3200, the latter one that also used it was not intended to replace the 2600. Kassar simply wouldn't allow it. The initial 3200 project was designed as an update to the 2600, with a new chip called the SuperTIA which would in effect simply produce a souped up 2600 (which is why the project was also codenamed Super Stella at one point). It was Bristow's project, and it was canned when the guys in HCD started complaining about the technology possibly marginalizing their PCS technology. Along with it's cancellation went the idea of updating the 2600. It was then later decided to restart the project (sometimes called System X in both versions) as a deluxe companion to the 2600, using PCS technlology. The move to PCS technology was not because of Mattel, as you try and allude to below, it was because of internal conflicts. And in fact when they moved to the PCS they had even more conflicts between the console team and the PCS guys that further effected the console design.

I addressed parts of this earlier, but there was something nagging me, and I finally realized what:

 

Curt's (fairly recent) addition to the 3200 article doesn't describe things as you did:

http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/sylvia/sylvia.html

Meanwhile, time was running short for Atari, Intellivision was breathing down Atari's neck so to speak and rumor had it that other companies were developing new game consoles. The 2600 with its aging technology was in danger, a new console was needed and quickly. Before project Sylvia even got a name (The console was named ATARI SYSTEM X) the project was cancelled and replaced with a quick solution. Repackaging the Atari home computer technology into a game playing console codenamed PAM, Atari almost named the second "SYSTEM X" PAM which would have stood for P.ersonal A.rcade M.achine, however Atari 5200 was chosen.

 

 

So is your information something that has come to light in the months since that update about a year ago?

 

 

 

 

As you describe it, it seems to be a perfect example of the conflicts between the computer and console divisions at Atari Inc. A shame that things ended up like that. (you'd think better management at least could have aimed at a better compromise that catered more to both sides)

Except, it seems like the 5200 actually may have been more capable than the 3200/Sylvia design (assuming STIA doesn't add some really neat stuff over GTIA and TIA -and especially depending on how sound got expanded), so that doesn't really make too much sense either. (the 5200 ended up being pretty much exactly as capable as the A8 -better in some areas where the controllers actually had an advantage, more so if they hadn't been more reliable)

[Retro Rogue]

The facts are there were two different models designated 3200, the latter one that also used it was not intended to replace the 2600. Kassar simply wouldn't allow it. The initial 3200 project was designed as an update to the 2600, with a new chip called the SuperTIA which would in effect simply produce a souped up 2600 (which is why the project was also codenamed Super Stella at one point). It was Bristow's project, and it was canned when the guys in HCD started complaining about the technology possibly marginalizing their PCS technology. Along with it's cancellation went the idea of updating the 2600. It was then later decided to restart the project (sometimes called System X in both versions) as a deluxe companion to the 2600, using PCS technlology. The move to PCS technology was not because of Mattel, as you try and allude to below, it was because of internal conflicts. And in fact when they moved to the PCS they had even more conflicts between the console team and the PCS guys that further effected the console design.

I addressed parts of this earlier, but there was something nagging me, and I finally realized what:

 

Curt's (fairly recent) addition to the 3200 article doesn't describe things as you did:

http://www.atarimuse...via/sylvia.html

Meanwhile, time was running short for Atari, Intellivision was breathing down Atari's neck so to speak and rumor had it that other companies were developing new game consoles. The 2600 with its aging technology was in danger, a new console was needed and quickly. Before project Sylvia even got a name (The console was named ATARI SYSTEM X) the project was cancelled and replaced with a quick solution. Repackaging the Atari home computer technology into a game playing console codenamed PAM, Atari almost named the second "SYSTEM X" PAM which would have stood for P.ersonal A.rcade M.achine, however Atari 5200 was chosen.

 

 

So is your information something that has come to light in the months since that update about a year ago?

 

 

 

The issue is that page on his site is mostly old text mixed with a few new things - his site doesn't get worked on that much because he's pretty busy. In fact I have to nag him to update certain things on his site when I see people using some of the older material there as a reference. The material I mentioned regarding the 3200/System X development is from our joint research and references, and also what went in to the Atari 5200 article I did for RetroGamer last year (which he also looked over as a second pair of eyes for accuracy).

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2011 by wgungfu

[kool kitty89]

Any idea why they ended up dropping the 3200 tech due to the PCS guys' concerns about it marginalizing the PCS hardware, but then ended up going with the 5200 using the PCS hardware itself, but in an incompatible system that would be in even more direct competition with the A8 than the 3200 likely would have?

 

Was there something about the 3200 that actually gave it significant performance advantages over the A8/5200 hardware? (not cost or compatibility, but actual sound/graphics/cpu performance)

 

 

I seem to recall you mentioning that the early design concepts for the 5200 (or the A8 derived System-X) was intended to be VCS compatible, is that correct?

 

 

. . . I really need to get a copy of that retrogamer issue.

[Retro Rogue]

http://retrogamer.net/back_issues.php

 

Issue 80. I believe they have downloadable pdf back issues for purchase as well.

[kool kitty89]

http://retrogamer.net/back_issues.php

 

Issue 80. I believe they have downloadable pdf back issues for purchase as well.

Cool, I didn't realized that had free downloads of older issues. (I know a lot of publisher do, but I didn't see it when I looked on their site before)

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

http://retrogamer.net/back_issues.php

 

Issue 80. I believe they have downloadable pdf back issues for purchase as well.

Cool, I didn't realized that had free downloads of older issues. (I know a lot of publisher do, but I didn't see it when I looked on their site before)

 

UHM I don't think they do? Please link if I missed something. All I could find is links to order back issues and not PDF either but magazines that are delivered.

[GroovyBee]

Retro gamer mags on DVD :-

 

https://www.imagineshop.co.uk/dvds/retro-gamer-emag-load-01.html (out of stock)

https://www.imagineshop.co.uk/dvds/retro-gamer-emag-load-02.html

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

Retro gamer mags on DVD :-

 

https://www.imagineshop.co.uk/dvds/retro-gamer-emag-load-01.html (out of stock)

https://www.imagineshop.co.uk/dvds/retro-gamer-emag-load-02.html

 

Yep I got both of those, a good alternative to the cost of the printed Mag especially getting shipped to Canada.

[kool kitty89]

http://retrogamer.net/back_issues.php

 

Issue 80. I believe they have downloadable pdf back issues for purchase as well.

Cool, I didn't realized that had free downloads of older issues. (I know a lot of publisher do, but I didn't see it when I looked on their site before)

 

UHM I don't think they do? Please link if I missed something. All I could find is links to order back issues and not PDF either but magazines that are delivered.

Yeah, I went back and couldn't find any either . . . and issue 78 (with the 7800 retroinspection) is out of stock too, though issue 80 isn't at least. (too bad they don't even have cheaper options for digital distribution, if not free back issues after 6 months or so like some commercial magazines do)

[Vic George 2K3]

The XEGS is what the Atari 5200 should have been like if they were going to just mod the 8-bit personal computer line into a gaming system.