What was Atari thinking?

[BillyHW]

All Handy needed was a higher resolution + onscreen color mode. Surely that was doable. Handy was also ready in 1987. Take away the LCD screen and you've got a powerful and cost-effective home console at just the right time. It could have been the PC Engine of North America + Europe.

 

Then it wouldn't be Handy would it?

 

The 7800 wasn't necessary because the 5200 was already technically superior to the competition at the time. Atari would have been better off just focussing on making the 5200 smaller/cheaper, coming out with new controllers (here's an easy solution: take the 2600 controller, make it a little more sturdy and just add one more button), and making the best 5200 games possible.

 

By the mid 80s the 5200 technology was not a competitor to the NES, SMS or 7800 sprite/tile handling capabilities. The platformer was becoming king and that is a game genre that the A8s can't do well without a load of programmer tricks (and inherent restrictions) or you end up with bland looking games.

 

It would have been Handy 1.01.

 

And of course the 5200 would have been obsolete by the mid-80s, but every system is king of the hill for a couple years before something comes along to top it technologically. That's no reason to release a new system every two years. If Atari had just focused on maximizing the potential of the 5200, the way Nintendo did with the NES, then they could have been the technological leaders again in the late 80s. There's always back and forth leapfrogging amongst competitors.

[8th lutz]

I am familiar with the Lynx and the Tg-16 since I own both. The Lynx would have been a great game console in 1987, but there is a big problem. One of the reasons the Lynx took so long to get on the market was the fact Epyx created it before Atari under Tramiel was approached to release the system.

 

That meant if the Lynx was a game console, it would have been released in 1988 or 1989 and leave the Atari 5200 in a terrible spot because the 5200 technology was outdated by the time NES and the SMS were on the market like the Groovybee. The other thing to look at is the Atari 5200 can not bankswitch over 32k to my knowledge and that would be a big problem in 1987 and 1988 besides being very outdated from a graphical standpoint and what games it can do.

 

The only other way outside of the 7800 for 1987 is to use Atari ST technology for making it into a game console. The Atari St wouldn't be much of a problem as a game console to what was available in 1987 since the Sega Genesis was released in 1988 in Japan as the Megadrive.

 

The Atari 7800 itself actually is able to handle the SMS and Nes longer from a technology side in graphics and what type of games it can do than the Atari 5200 can. Prototypes of Plutos and Sirius show the Atari 7800 is able do scrolling shooter like Life Force and Gradius without problems from a scrolling standpoint and from a Graphical standpoint as an example. The Atari 5200 isn't capable of doing thing like Life Force, 1942, 1943 well unlike the 7800 from a graphical and scrolling standpoint. The only problem was sound. There is a youtube video that actually shows Plutos in action and another youtube video of Sirius in action.

 

The problems with 7800 back in the day for types of games and the quality of some some of the games it had was caused by a three things without mentioning the sound sound chip Atari 7800 had. The first thing is Atari 7800 early games were supported to released in 1984 and Atari under Tramiel took too long to start developing games that actually show what the 7800 is capable such as Midnight Mutants. This was not Tramiel's fault considering what Atari was going through at the time.

 

The 2nd problem was the quality of some of the programmers developing games for it including Ibid inc. as an example. Ibid Inc. has a pretty bad reputation as a 7800 development team and resulted in some poor ports or games or games that sucked to begin with such as Hat Trick. The development team that did Double Dragon also was on the lazy side by some of the stuff they did.

 

The third problem with the type of games and amount of games the 7800 had was the fact Atari under Tramiel was forced to keep the 2600 as long as it did like I mentioned on another post. It actually hurt the 7800 for multiple reasons including the fact Atari 2600 and Atari 7800 had games that were on both systems including later games like Ikari Warriors. This can't be blame on Atari because 2600 helped Tramiel keep Atari as long as his family did. Without the 2600 after the crash, Atari wouldn't have been in the console business as long.

 

In an ideal situation as an example, Ikari Warriors should been for the lynx as a handheld game and the 7800 as a game console game. What also would have happened an ideal situation for the 7800 with the 2600 is Atari 7800 would have gotten more games from 3rd party publishers the Atari 2600 had after the crash since most of those developers did games for the 7800 and the 2600. This is only guess and is something I rather not guess what would have been.

Edited March 7, 2012 by 8th lutz

[DracIsBack]

All Handy needed was a higher resolution + onscreen color mode. Surely that was doable. Handy was also ready in 1987. Take away the LCD screen and you've got a powerful and cost-effective home console at just the right time. It could have been the PC Engine of North America + Europe.

 

Then it wouldn't be Handy would it?

 

The 7800 wasn't necessary because the 5200 was already technically superior to the competition at the time. Atari would have been better off just focussing on making the 5200 smaller/cheaper, coming out with new controllers (here's an easy solution: take the 2600 controller, make it a little more sturdy and just add one more button), and making the best 5200 games possible.

 

By the mid 80s the 5200 technology was not a competitor to the NES, SMS or 7800 sprite/tile handling capabilities. The platformer was becoming king and that is a game genre that the A8s can't do well without a load of programmer tricks (and inherent restrictions) or you end up with bland looking games.

 

It would have been Handy 1.01.

 

And of course the 5200 would have been obsolete by the mid-80s, but every system is king of the hill for a couple years before something comes along to top it technologically. That's no reason to release a new system every two years. If Atari had just focused on maximizing the potential of the 5200, the way Nintendo did with the NES, then they could have been the technological leaders again in the late 80s. There's always back and forth leapfrogging amongst competitors.

 

Ahh Amrchair Ceo Syndrome. Where would forums be without it!

[BillyHW]

All Handy needed was a higher resolution + onscreen color mode. Surely that was doable. Handy was also ready in 1987. Take away the LCD screen and you've got a powerful and cost-effective home console at just the right time. It could have been the PC Engine of North America + Europe.

Then it wouldn't be Handy would it?

The 7800 wasn't necessary because the 5200 was already technically superior to the competition at the time. Atari would have been better off just focussing on making the 5200 smaller/cheaper, coming out with new controllers (here's an easy solution: take the 2600 controller, make it a little more sturdy and just add one more button), and making the best 5200 games possible.

By the mid 80s the 5200 technology was not a competitor to the NES, SMS or 7800 sprite/tile handling capabilities. The platformer was becoming king and that is a game genre that the A8s can't do well without a load of programmer tricks (and inherent restrictions) or you end up with bland looking games.

It would have been Handy 1.01. And of course the 5200 would have been obsolete by the mid-80s, but every system is king of the hill for a couple years before something comes along to top it technologically. That's no reason to release a new system every two years. If Atari had just focused on maximizing the potential of the 5200, the way Nintendo did with the NES, then they could have been the technological leaders again in the late 80s. There's always back and forth leapfrogging amongst competitors.

Ahh Amrchair Ceo Syndrome. Where would forums be without it!

 

Glory!

[high voltage]

See, great here eh, Billy, what you learn from us.

 

Basically Nintendo is lucky that it is not controlled by the 'suits' like Atari is since 1976. You only had a real Atari for four years basically.

[BillyHW]

I am familiar with the Lynx and the Tg-16 since I own both. The Lynx would have been a great game console in 1987, but there is a big problem. One of the reasons the Lynx took so long to get on the market was the fact Epyx created it before Atari under Tramiel was approached to release the system.

 

That meant if the Lynx was a game console, it would have been released in 1988 or 1989 and leave the Atari 5200 in a terrible spot because the 5200 technology was outdated by the time NES and the SMS were on the market like the Groovybee. The other thing to look at is the Atari 5200 can not bankswitch over 32k to my knowledge and that would be a big problem in 1987 and 1988 besides being very outdated from a graphical standpoint and what games it can do.

 

The only other way outside of the 7800 for 1987 is to use Atari ST technology for making it into a game console. The Atari St wouldn't be much of a problem as a game console to what was available in 1987 since the Sega Genesis was released in 1988 in Japan as the Megadrive.

 

The Atari 7800 itself actually is able to handle the SMS and Nes longer from a technology side in graphics and what type of games it can do than the Atari 5200 can. Prototypes of Plutos and Sirius show the Atari 7800 is able do scrolling shooter like Life Force and Gradius without problems from a scrolling standpoint and from a Graphical standpoint as an example. The Atari 5200 isn't capable of doing thing like Life Force, 1942, 1943 well unlike the 7800 from a graphical and scrolling standpoint. The only problem was sound. There is a youtube video that actually shows Plutos in action and another youtube video of Sirius in action.

 

The problems with 7800 back in the day for types of games and the quality of some some of the games it had was caused by a three things without mentioning the sound sound chip Atari 7800 had. The first thing is Atari 7800 early games were supported to released in 1984 and Atari under Tramiel took too long to start developing games that actually show what the 7800 is capable such as Midnight Mutants. This was not Tramiel's fault considering what Atari was going through at the time.

 

The 2nd problem was the quality of some of the programmers developing games for it including Ibid inc. as an example. Ibid Inc. has a pretty bad reputation as a 7800 development team and resulted in some poor ports or games or games that sucked to begin with such as Hat Trick. The development team that did Double Dragon also was on the lazy side by some of the stuff they did.

 

The third problem with the type of games and amount of games the 7800 had was the fact Atari under Tramiel was forced to keep the 2600 as long as it did like I mentioned on another post. It actually hurt the 7800 for multiple reasons including the fact Atari 2600 and Atari 7800 had games that were on both systems including later games like Ikari Warriors. This can't be blame on Atari because 2600 helped Tramiel keep Atari as long as his family did. Without the 2600 after the crash, Atari wouldn't have been in the console business as long.

 

In an ideal situation as an example, Ikari Warriors should been for the lynx as a handheld game and the 7800 as a game console game. What also would have happened an ideal situation for the 7800 with the 2600 is Atari 7800 would have gotten more games from 3rd party publishers the Atari 2600 had after the crash since most of those developers did games for the 7800 and the 2600. This is only guess and is something I rather not guess what would have been.

 

Wiki says that the 5200 was capable of bank-switching, BTW.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_5200

[Retro Rogue]

See, great here eh, Billy, what you learn from us.

 

Basically Nintendo is lucky that it is not controlled by the 'suits' like Atari is since 1976. You only had a real Atari for four years basically.

 

LOL, you mean the one that was almost constantly bankrupt? Honestly, without the "suits" you simply wouldn't have had the golden years of the Atari brand that most of the public is familiar with ('77-'84).

 

And Nintendo was controlled by one main "suit", Yamauchi.

 

 

Wiki says that the 5200 was capable of bank-switching, BTW.

 

 

No, what it says is you can expand the addressable ROM space using bankswiching techniques. Any console or computer can have the address space expanded via bankswitching techniques. This usually involves the addition of additional hardware (most often via the game cartridge that requires it). That in no way was stating that additional hardware is resident on the 5200.

 

It also seems you're unfamiliar with the fact there were two different Ataris, i.e. two completely different companies. Atari Inc. and Atari Corporation. The company that did the 5200 (Atari Inc.) died in '84. As for "maximizing" it's potential, the 5200 was killed off because of it's poor market performance. The 7800 was acctually dessigned by GCC to address a lot of the percieved flaws of the 5200, including it's lack of computer expansion and outdated sprite capabilities. Furthermore it was to be joined by an even higher end 16-bit 68000 based console within the year.

 

As for the XEGS, that was the subsequent company's desire to "do the 5200 right." It was not intended to compete against the 7800 (nor was it marketed that way) but rather to go after a "higher end" console/computer market because the 7800's computer expansion had been cancelled.

 

 

The only other way outside of the 7800 for 1987 is to use Atari ST technology for making it into a game console.

 

Regarding using the ST as a console, that was actually a direction that was gone after, which then evolved towards the Panther when they got involved with Flare and then the Jaguar.

[BillyHW]

No, what it says is you can expand the addressable ROM space using bankswiching techniques. Any console or computer can have the address space expanded via bankswitching techniques. This usually involves the addition of additional hardware (most often via the game cartridge that requires it). That in no way was stating that additional hardware is resident on the 5200.

 

Well what's the issue then? It seems the 5200 was capable of larger carts just like every other system.

 

The 7800 was acctually dessigned by GCC to address a lot of the percieved flaws of the 5200, including it's lack of computer expansion and outdated sprite capabilities.

 

Oh no, not another console computer expansion. Those had such a huge track record of success.

 

Furthermore it was to be joined by an even higher end 16-bit 68000 based console within the year.

 

You've got to be kidding me. Three consoles at once?

 

As for the XEGS, that was the subsequent company's desire to "do the 5200 right." It was not intended to compete against the 7800 (nor was it marketed that way) but rather to go after a "higher end" console/computer market because the 7800's computer expansion had been cancelled.

 

It doesn't matter if Atari didn't 'intend' to compete with itself. The fact of the matter is that by having two, roughly equal in power systems on the market at the same time, they would necessarily be doing so.

 

The only other way outside of the 7800 for 1987 is to use Atari ST technology for making it into a game console.

 

Regarding using the ST as a console, that was actually a direction that was gone after, which then evolved towards the Panther when they got involved with Flare and then the Jaguar.

 

An Atari STGS would have made a lot more sense than an Atari XEGS.

[GroovyBee]

The fact of the matter is that by having two, roughly equal in power systems on the market at the same time, they would necessarily be doing so.

 

In terms of built in sprite handling the 7800 hands the 5200 its ass. However, in terms of built in audio the 5200 has the upper hand with POKEY. The two machines weren't direct competitors by the time the 7800 was available to the public.

[BillyHW]

The fact of the matter is that by having two, roughly equal in power systems on the market at the same time, they would necessarily be doing so.

 

In terms of built in sprite handling the 7800 hands the 5200 its ass. However, in terms of built in audio the 5200 has the upper hand with POKEY. The two machines weren't direct competitors by the time the 7800 was available to the public.

 

I was talking about the 7800 vs. XEGS. But whatever. I'm a bit confused by all this. I thought the 5200 and XEGS were both based on the Atari 8-bit computers...

 

I'm not sure it matters. I'm not sure it matters what system was superior or not. I can think of only one time in all of history when the technically superior console actually won the generation in terms of popularity and sales, and that was the SNES. And even then, just barely.

 

Only one of the 5200, 7800, XEGS should ever have been released. It was a very bad business move. If only one of them had been released in the 8-bit generation, and then an Atari "16-bit" system based on either ST or Handy, and then a less screwed up Jaguar in the 32-bit gen...then Atari might still be with us today in some form.

 

Anyways, I'm glad that Nintendo won the day in the end. They've always been the most innovative.

 

The market is big enough now for 3 healthy players: Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. Sad to see that Sega couldn't make it.

[GroovyBee]

I was talking about the 7800 vs. XEGS. But whatever. I'm a bit confused by all this. I thought the 5200 and XEGS were both based on the Atari 8-bit computers...

 

The 5200 and XEGS are all based on the A8 computer technology. So when you compare the 7800's sprite handling capability against any of them they can't compete with it.

 

I'm not sure it matters. I'm not sure it matters what system was superior or not. I can think of only one time in all of history when the technically superior console actually won the generation in terms of popularity and sales, and that was the SNES. And even then, just barely.

 

As I mentioned before, the platformer was becoming king in the 80s. The A8 technology cannot do scrolling platformers without tricks and compromises. It isn't plain sailing on the 7800 to do that style of game either (it takes more code) but it can compete against the NES. However the NES's tile/sprite based system was a powerhouse for that game genre.

 

Only one of the 5200, 7800, XEGS should ever have been released.

 

Yep! Should have been the 7800 .

[BillyHW]

I was talking about the 7800 vs. XEGS. But whatever. I'm a bit confused by all this. I thought the 5200 and XEGS were both based on the Atari 8-bit computers...

 

The 5200 and XEGS are all based on the A8 computer technology. So when you compare the 7800's sprite handling capability against any of them they can't compete with it.

 

I'm not sure it matters. I'm not sure it matters what system was superior or not. I can think of only one time in all of history when the technically superior console actually won the generation in terms of popularity and sales, and that was the SNES. And even then, just barely.

 

As I mentioned before, the platformer was becoming king in the 80s. The A8 technology cannot do scrolling platformers without tricks and compromises. It isn't plain sailing on the 7800 to do that style of game either (it takes more code) but it can compete against the NES. However the NES's tile/sprite based system was a powerhouse for that game genre.

 

Only one of the 5200, 7800, XEGS should ever have been released.

 

Yep! Should have been the 7800 .

 

Well, I'm fine with it being the 7800, but when you've already released the 5200 it was a mistake to release the others after that. Plus, didn't the XEGS only have one button? What were they thinking??!

[DracIsBack]

Plus, didn't the XEGS only have one button? What were they thinking??!

 

Easy:

 

"I have warehouses full of cartridges, peripherals, and parts ... and a retail channel that is refusing to carry the computers so I can move through this inventory ... Let's call the 65XE a video game console and give it a shot at helping us move through all this stuff before we scrap it. Plus, we can license somewhat competitive disk games and stick them on a cartridge for a lot less than developing from scratch for the 7800".

 

Nintendo won the day in the end. They've always been the most innovative.

 

In terms of software, I agree. In terms of hardware, I don't at all. Most of the things they were praised for 'innovating' appeared elsewhere first. What they did do was package things up nicely and make them accessible.

 

I've certainly seen a lot of fanboys praise them for "inventing" things like "Backwards compatibility on the GameBoy colour" (cough - 7800), "Analog joysticks on the N64" (cough - 5200 and computers), hardware scaling on the SNES (cough - Lynx), "motion controls" (cough - Dreamcast fishing rod), Wii U screen controller (cough - Dreamcast VMU) etc.

 

I think all Nintendo's systems are nicely designed and do package things up nicely ... and their games are outstanding.

Edited March 11, 2012 by DracIsBack

[high voltage]

Except, they're (Nintendo) only releasing the same games over and over and over..... Mario Kart 7 anyone, I call it 'milking the cash cow'. I also don't believe Nintendo 'won'.....maybe only for you.

 

Also, it is a well known fact that the Japanese people are a nation of copiers, not innovators.

Edited March 11, 2012 by high voltage

[Retro Rogue]

Well what's the issue then?

 

Already covered that in my articles on the 5200 and 7800 in RetroGamer, really don't want to repeat all that again. Hardware issues. The 5200 (previously System X) was a product of internal bickering vs. it's original intent.

 

It seems the 5200 was capable of larger carts just like every other system.

 

I'm getting the perception you're not coming from a lot of research in to these systems and backgrounds, and coming more from a cursory arm chair glance as someone previously mentioned? Why would "larger carts" be a factor?

 

 

Oh no, not another console computer expansion. Those had such a huge track record of success.

 

They were actually in big demand at the time, especially in '84 after the computer industry shakeout was finished and more 3rd party companies were moving towards home computer support. I think you're confusing the previous attempts at computer "like" expansions that didn't fool consumers. The 5200 was actually lambasted for being the same internal capabilities as the 400 but with no ability to expand in to an actual 400.

 

 

You've got to be kidding me. Three consoles at once?

 

The 2600 would be phased out in favor of the 2600 compatibility of the 7800. Likewise a 5200 expander for the 7800 to support those games was also planned.

 

It doesn't matter if Atari didn't 'intend' to compete with itself. The fact of the matter is that by having two, roughly equal in power systems on the market at the same time, they would necessarily be doing so.

 

That's again why I questioned your familiarty with any of this.They weren't on "the market", they were in different markets. The 7800 was marketed in the same retail network as the NES and SMS, and was set to compete with them. The XEGS was marketed mainly in computer stores and chains and intended as an entry game system for people interested in computing. Completely seperate markets, and they in no way competed against each other. That's pure speculation.

 

 

An Atari STGS would have made a lot more sense than an Atari XEGS.

 

Not in the least, at the time of the XEGS the ST technology was still too new and expensive to market it as game console or game console expandable to a computer. Likewise as someone pointed out, they had a large backstock of 65xe technology and inherited 8-bit software (from the previous Atari) to use up. That's also why it re-used the 8-bit standard CX-40 joysticks (regarding your silly complaint of what were they thinking about by using single button joysticks). These consoles were for the low end computer market (making them higher end/priced "consoles"). Different market than the 7800's home console market filled by the NES/7800/SMS.

 

Likewise you keep saying "they" in regards to the 5200 and "the others". Two completely different companies, the "they" that did the 5200 and 7800 is a different company that the one that did the XEGS. Likewise, the 5200 and it's execution and then marketing is what was the mistake. One that was to be rectified with the 7800.

 

Anyways, I'm glad that Nintendo won the day in the end. They've always been the most innovative.

 

In what way? They didn't invent platformers, they didn't invent sprites, they didn't invent the idea of a directional pad, etc., most of their marketing and cross-promotional techniques were also already previously pioneered by Atari Inc./Warner. The big thing they had going for them initially was the licensing lockout on developers and games. Please tell me you're not going by the usual myths.

[BillyHW]

They were actually in big demand at the time, especially in '84 after the computer industry shakeout was finished and more 3rd party companies were moving towards home computer support. I think you're confusing the previous attempts at computer "like" expansions that didn't fool consumers. The 5200 was actually lambasted for being the same internal capabilities as the 400 but with no ability to expand in to an actual 400.

 

Despite what people may have told market researchers, nobody has ever actually wanted a console and computer to be the same thing. Name me a single example of a console/computer that succeeded in the market.

 

Many companies made the mistake of giving people what they said they wanted instead of what they actually wanted. Everybody wanted the iMac to have a floppy disk drive...

 

You've got to be kidding me. Three consoles at once?

 

The 2600 would be phased out in favor of the 2600 compatibility of the 7800. Likewise a 5200 expander for the 7800 to support those games was also planned.

 

From what you've described, there would have been the 7800, XEGS, and the unnamed 68000 based 16-bit console. Oh my God, a 5200 adapter for the 7800, someone please shoot me.

 

It doesn't matter if Atari didn't 'intend' to compete with itself. The fact of the matter is that by having two, roughly equal in power systems on the market at the same time, they would necessarily be doing so.

 

That's again why I questioned your familiarty with any of this.They weren't on "the market", they were in different markets. The 7800 was marketed in the same retail network as the NES and SMS, and was set to compete with them. The XEGS was marketed mainly in computer stores and chains and intended as an entry game system for people interested in computing. Completely seperate markets, and they in no way competed against each other. That's pure speculation.

 

 

An Atari STGS would have made a lot more sense than an Atari XEGS.

 

Not in the least, at the time of the XEGS the ST technology was still too new and expensive to market it as game console or game console expandable to a computer. Likewise as someone pointed out, they had a large backstock of 65xe technology and inherited 8-bit software (from the previous Atari) to use up. That's also why it re-used the 8-bit standard CX-40 joysticks (regarding your silly complaint of what were they thinking about by using single button joysticks).

 

You must really like pressing up to jump.

 

These consoles were for the low end computer market (making them higher end/priced "consoles"). Different market than the 7800's home console market filled by the NES/7800/SMS.

 

 

 

 

Likewise you keep saying "they" in regards to the 5200 and "the others". Two completely different companies, the "they" that did the 5200 and 7800 is a different company that the one that did the XEGS. Likewise, the 5200 and it's execution and then marketing is what was the mistake. One that was to be rectified with the 7800.

 

I'm curious, were all personnel replaced in the transition from Atari Inc. to Atari Corp?

 

Anyways, I'm glad that Nintendo won the day in the end. They've always been the most innovative.

 

In what way? They didn't invent platformers, they didn't invent sprites, they didn't invent the idea of a directional pad, etc., most of their marketing and cross-promotional techniques were also already previously pioneered by Atari Inc./Warner. The big thing they had going for them initially was the licensing lockout on developers and games. Please tell me you're not going by the usual myths.

 

Nintendo created the first platformer, Donkey Kong. Then they cemented the definition with Super Mario Bros. They invented the multiplayer kart racing genre too. Mario 64 may not have been the first released 3D platformer but it was probably the first to begin development, and they certainly perfected the genre in their first attempt. Gameboy. Virtual Console exposed tens of millions to classic gaming for the first time. Tile-based NES system design. There are many other examples.

 

Every company copies Nintendo's controller designs. The SMS, Gen, PC-Engine and EU 7800 copied the NES pad. The SMS and XEGS copied the Zapper with their light guns. The 6-button Gen pad and Saturn and original PlayStation copied the SNES pad with trigger buttons and layout. Sega and Sony rushed to release analog sticks once Nintendo did with the N64. Nintendo led the way with the Rumble Pak (I honestly hate rumble, though), which was copied by others. Look at a modern classic-type controllers, the digital d-pad, analog thumbsticks, triggers and button layout are about 90% Nintendo-derived. Sony and Microsoft are now rushing to follow the trail that Nintendo originally blazed through with their Kinect and Move. It will be very interesting to see what they do with the Wii U screen controller, and how the followers will attempt to copy it.

 

Even when Nintendo dropped a few turds, like with the Superscope, Sega was quick to release their own shameless ripoff in the Menacer.

 

And from a business perspective, they pretty much invented the viable home console economy with their licensing model (even if it was too heavy-handed and borderline illegal at first).

 

There's been plenty of innovation to come from other companies as well. But can anyone really hold a candle to Nintendo?

[Retro Rogue]

Despite what people may have told market researchers, nobody has ever actually wanted a console and computer to be the same thing.

 

And this is based on what? And I'm certainly not going by "market researchers", but then it doesn't seem you're familiar with my background either.

 

Name me a single example of a console/computer that succeeded in the market.

 

Nice try, but it's a trick question as your definition of "succeed" will of course be more exclusive. Computer expansions for the Bally sold well for that console, but the console itself would not be considered a "market success" by your definition. Likewise Coleco's ADAM performed decently (I also had shares and stock reports at the time), it's problems on the market were due to manufacturing inconsistencies, not low demand for a hybrid as you're missinformed of. Likewise the XEGS performed decently, being on the market from '87-'92. "Nobody wanted" would be no sales, no constant demand by game and computer companies, and no efforts. These companies did not pursue trying to release hybrids for well over 15 years because of some supposed lack of demand. That's just silly to insinuate otherwise.

 

 

Many companies made the mistake of giving people what they said they wanted instead of what they actually wanted. Everybody wanted the iMac to have a floppy disk drive...

 

LOL, now you're trying to rip off a Steve Jobs quote and put it in to the wrong context. First you say they didn't want it then you use a comment that states they were saying they wanted it but it just wasn't right.

 

 

The 2600 would be phased out in favor of the 2600 compatibility of the 7800. Likewise a 5200 expander for the 7800 to support those games was also planned.

 

From what you've described, there would have been the 7800, XEGS, and the unnamed 68000 based 16-bit console. Oh my God, a 5200 adapter for the 7800, someone please shoot me.

 

Nope, never described that. Oh my god, someone please get an English interpreter for this guy. And an acting coach, the fake drama just isn't working.

 

Once again TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES. The 2600, 5200, and 7800, and Mickey (the 68000 based AMIGA console) were Atari Inc. The XEGS was Atari Corporation, the company formed after Atari Inc.'s Consumer Division was purchased. Atari Inc. was planning on canning the 2600 in favor of the 2600 compatibility of the 7800 and releasing a 5200 adaptor to satisfy people who had a 5200 library of games (no different than the 2600 adapter released for the 5200). The AMIGA based console was to be the highend console offering, just as the 5200 was placed as the high end offering to the 2600 when it was released. The company went under, it's assets split and Atari Corporation founded. Different company, different plans, research, etc. The XEGS was an Atari Corporation product.

 

 

That's again why I questioned your familiarty with any of this.They weren't on "the market", they were in different markets. The 7800 was marketed in the same retail network as the NES and SMS, and was set to compete with them. The XEGS was marketed mainly in computer stores and chains and intended as an entry game system for people interested in computing. Completely seperate markets, and they in no way competed against each other. That's pure speculation.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws3PcFqBLdQ

 

Which contradicts anything I said in what way? Like that's the first time I've seen that commercial? As stated, it was positioned as a higher end system because it could expand in to a computer and use the back library of the 8-bit Atari computers. As stated, it was mainly marketed in computer stores and chains and intended as an entry game system for people interested in computing. It did not compete directly against the 7800. As a higher end console, it sandwhiched the NES between the lower end 7800 and "higher end" XEGS, hence the commercial. I know the people behind the commercial, I know the people behind the console, I know the people involved in the entire setup. Once again, you're using pure speculation based on your missinterpration of facts.

 

 

You must really like pressing up to jump.

 

That's simply how those previous games worked. The XEGS wasn't new technology, it was chiefly a rehash of a previous computer game library and computer technology. Adding a second button on a controller wouldn't have changed the library of games any more than adding a second button on the 7800 changed the 2600 titles on it. Adding a second button would have been purely cosmetic and would have been as silly as saying your computer goes to 11.

 

Likewise you keep saying "they" in regards to the 5200 and "the others". Two completely different companies, the "they" that did the 5200 and 7800 is a different company that the one that did the XEGS. Likewise, the 5200 and it's execution and then marketing is what was the mistake. One that was to be rectified with the 7800.

 

I'm curious, were all personnel replaced in the transition from Atari Inc. to Atari Corp?

 

There wasn't a transition, they were completely different companies. Jack Tramiel simply bought the Consumer Division of Atari Inc., not the entire company. He then folded that in to his company, Tramel Technology Ltd., which he then renamed Atari Corporation. Likewise, he bought the Consumer related IP, consumer related facilities (corporate offices and buildings related to Consumer, manufacturing and warehouses related to Consumer) and the distribution network. The people were not part of the deal. Hence they did interviews of all the Consumer Division related people to see who they wanted to keep (and did interviews of some of the people at Coin to try and get them to come to the new company as well). Most were related to daily operations (one of the advanced research that were on the 68000 console project at Atari Inc. was simply hired on to help run Atari Corp.'s mainframe for instance), and the rest chiefly towards retail operations (since he planned on having the company survive in the immediate term on the large backstock of product that came in the purchase) and computer design operations (for what became the ST). Almost everyone from the console development area was not hired over or went away on their own. The issue of why there was a lot of confusion amongst the Atari Inc. employees is because the buyout happened so suddenly and with no normal "transition period" for employees. They came back from the July 4th extended vacations to find out about the purcase. They thought they were working for Jack now and that Jack owned "Atari". Likewise they thought they were being interviewed to see if they'd be fired. They were not. They were being interviewed to see if they would be *hired* to Jack's company. Atari Inc. still existed at that point (in fact it existed on paper for another good year to deal with legal issues), but was being wound down as the coin-op operations were split to another company (Atari Games) and the rest sold off or simply closed down.

 

When Jack finally settled with Warner and GCC over the 7800 development payment, he had to completely start up a new game division, which is where Mike Katz came in. He started up the 7800 again that October '85 and finally released the cost reduced 2600 (which was originally supposed to be the stopgap last model of the 2600 under Atari Inc.) He was against the XEGS being released when Jack pushed for it in '87, but not for any of the reasons you claim. It was because he didn't consider it to have any "hot" launch titles, which was true.

[Retro Rogue]

Had to include the rest of my reply in this subsequent post. Apparently too many quotes for the forum software in one posting.

 

Nintendo created the first platformer, Donkey Kong.

 

No, the idea of running around and climbing on platforms was around before Donkey Kong. Donkey Kong (as with other Nintendo titles) simply added something things to it (as most games do) and provided some popular characters - which Nintendo certainly deserves credit for.

 

Then they cemented the definition with Super Mario Bros.

 

No, they simply released the most popular/iconic platformer game. Side scrolling platformers were out earlier than that.

 

They invented the multiplayer kart racing genre too.

 

You have to be kidding. Multiplayer racing games were around far before Mari Kart, even in the arcades.

 

Mario 64 may not have been the first released 3D platformer but it was probably the first to begin development,

 

Nope in both counts. Development was less than two years before it's relese and 3d platformers were around (as in released) before that. Mario 64, as with the previous SMB, deserves the credit for popularizing the genre.

 

and they certainly perfected the genre in their first attempt.

 

Perfecting a game release != innovate, neither does popularizing. Innovation usually involves doing something new or in a new way. Mario 64 popularized the 3D platformer format because it brought together all the elements in a solid production, which in turn proved the industry switch to 3D immersible worlds was viable. Certainly extremely important to the industry as a whole.

 

 

Gameboy.

 

What about it? The Lynx was in development far before that.

 

Virtual Console exposed tens of millions to classic gaming for the first time.

 

There were plenty of online services doing emulation and rom downloads already. That's once again a popularization, not an innovation.

 

Tile-based NES system design.

 

Tile based games were around long before the NES, that was pioneered in coin-ops and computer games, and even some games on the 5200 and Colecovision used tile based graphics for their background. Once again, the NES popularized the format.

 

There are many other examples.

Where? More examples of popularization?

 

Every company copies Nintendo's controller designs.

 

More surmising, and once gain does not demonstrate "innovation". The idea of a dpad controller in a handheld device actually started before that. Nintendo deserves the credit for popularizing it's usage over a joystick.

 

 

The SMS and XEGS copied the Zapper with their light guns.

 

LOL, light guns were around long before Nintendo's. In fact Nintendo had to pay royalties for their light gun to Magnavox. And the XEGS light gun works completely different than Nintendo's. Likewise Nintendo's big game for it's light gun, Duck Hunt, was a complete ripoff of an earlier Atari light gun game.

 

 

The 6-button Gen pad and Saturn and original PlayStation copied the SNES pad with trigger buttons and layout.

 

Again, more casual observation based on hindsite. Adding the two extra buttons is innovation? If that's the case, the Colecovision's Super Action Controller has 16 buttons and trumps them all.

 

Sega and Sony rushed to release analog sticks once Nintendo did with the N64.

 

That's another WTF claim. Analog controllers were around long before the N64,

 

Nintendo led the way with the Rumble Pak (I honestly hate rumble, though), which was copied by others.

 

Sorry, but haptic feedback was around long before the rumble pak.

 

Look at a modern classic-type controllers, the digital d-pad, analog thumbsticks, triggers and button layout are about 90% Nintendo-derived.

 

Yes, Nintendo has done great work in modern consoles and console work. How at all does that relate to the claim of "out innovating everyone", especially in a period where said company we're discussing (Atari Inc.) didn't exist? The innovations by Atari Inc. in games and hardware through coin-op, consoles, computers, and other consumer devices, from the early 70's onwards (including the gigantic library of patents) represent a gigantic array of innovations. Let alone the innovations in marketing, support, and consumerisms that were pioneered.

 

Sony and Microsoft are now rushing to follow the trail that Nintendo originally blazed through with their Kinect and Move.

 

Sorry, motion sensing in consoles and games were around far before the Wii.

 

And from a business perspective, they pretty much invented the viable home console economy with their licensing model (even if it was too heavy-handed and borderline illegal at first).

 

a) They didn't invent licensing, nor did they invent locking out on a console. b) Their model of forcing 3rd party developers to develop only for them was simply a transitional model that it abandoned by the time of the lawsuits and not in any way responsbile for the modern "home console economy" (and it's called a market not an "economy". B) It was the appearance of all three consoles (the NES, the 7800 and the yet to be released SMS) at the '86 Summer CES that was being trumpeted as signs of a reviving market by the press and the public at the time. Not any console's third party licensing scheme. It wasn't until after the national launch in late '86 that the market was declared revived and Nintendo was considered in the lead because of it's sales.

Again, it seems you keep going by cursory familiarity and hindsite in all this vs. actual serious research. Reading a few books, googling websites, and watching youtube videos is not serious ressearch.

 

There's been plenty of innovation to come from other companies as well. But can anyone really hold a candle to Nintendo?

 

Apparently the entire history of game companies, patents, and whatnot.

 

Nintendo is a great game company, it's done a lot of great stuff, and it has invented some cool products. But not everything fans claim started with them did, as I previously stated. I would suggest you actually read through the previous thread on these forums where all this was largely discussed before. You're just rehashing things as if it's the first time anyone here has heard anything like you're claiming.

 

Now I'm going back to writing the book, that's a bit more important use of my time.

[BillyHW]

OMG, you were the kid in the XEGS commercial, weren't you Retro?!

[akator]

Already covered that in my articles on the 5200 and 7800 in RetroGamer, really don't want to repeat all that again.

 

This comment begs for various replies:

• Apparently in your research, you must have missed "copy & paste." It's an amazing time saver.
  
• Not all of us are willing to drive hours and pay $22 cover prices or pay a $140/year subscription to read one of your articles.
  
• Insert comment about inflated ego and unnecessary attitude here, preferably with humorous punchline about how suppositories, ketchup, or a smack in the face might cure it.
  

[akator]

Nintendo created the first platformer, Donkey Kong. Then they cemented the definition with Super Mario Bros. They invented the multiplayer kart racing genre too. Mario 64 may not have been the first released 3D platformer but it was probably the first to begin development, and they certainly perfected the genre in their first attempt. Gameboy. Virtual Console exposed tens of millions to classic gaming for the first time. Tile-based NES system design. There are many other examples.

 

Every company copies Nintendo's controller designs. The SMS, Gen, PC-Engine and EU 7800 copied the NES pad. The SMS and XEGS copied the Zapper with their light guns. The 6-button Gen pad and Saturn and original PlayStation copied the SNES pad with trigger buttons and layout. Sega and Sony rushed to release analog sticks once Nintendo did with the N64. Nintendo led the way with the Rumble Pak (I honestly hate rumble, though), which was copied by others. Look at a modern classic-type controllers, the digital d-pad, analog thumbsticks, triggers and button layout are about 90% Nintendo-derived. Sony and Microsoft are now rushing to follow the trail that Nintendo originally blazed through with their Kinect and Move. It will be very interesting to see what they do with the Wii U screen controller, and how the followers will attempt to copy it.

 

But can anyone really hold a candle to Nintendo?

 

Code Fanboy Emergency. Doctor... is it too late, or possible to perform a complete mental enema?

 

There are so many things wrong with your statements that you must be:

• completely unwilling to read vetted sources (not Wikipedia)
  
• unable to process the vast quantities of information available disproving the majority of opinions quoted
  
• trolling
  

Whether it only one or all 3, there really isn't much point for anyone to continue arguing.

[BillyHW]

Very funny Akator.

[doctorclu]

^{I think if I had to question the way-back-machine, it would be why there was not a game console release in 1985. That is just my take on it. Back when all this was going on, there seemed to be a good lapse of time between the 5200 and 7800. 1984 was a bit too early (though it would have been awesome if they went full board with it then) and 1986 was a bit too late.}

 

^{The feeling I had back when all this was going on... the 2600 was WAY old even by 1982. Intellivision and Colecovision were WAY superior. Kids were laughing at Atari by then calling it "Retardi" in my class. But the games kept coming out for it, and the graphics were laughable. It was clear that a game on Colecovision was just amazingly more superior. (Check out Venture for the two systems as a good example.)}

 

^{The 5200 came out, and it did have an amazing feel to it. However, by then, most of us Atari fans had Atari 400/800 computers. And what was even more interesting was that Atari seemed to be coming out with more games for the 5200 than their own computer line. One converted 5200 game for the Atari computer even made mention of this "Thanks to the mismanagement of Atari, we bring you this 5200 game for the Atari computer" or something along those lines.}

 

^{To me the 5200 was a joke. Why would I buy a game system and spend $40 a game cartridge when I had a computer that played the same games that I could get from friends for free? Well, I was 12 at the time, and the idea of trading floppies was much more fun. You could trade grame cartridges, but as a kid I only had so much money. A box of floppies for $25 that held many games, or a game cartridge for $35-$40? Hmmm, as they would say in the Atari Jaguar days "Do the math..."}

 

^{Saw the 7800 games in the stores and were just blown away. But that was 1984 and I remember seeing the games cheaply in 1984 as all other video game items were being sold cheaply. I think I saw the 7800 games when I bought a SuperCharger for the 2600 for like $20.}

 

^{1984 was not a good time to release the 7800. The video game industry was crashing and clearing house. I think a year later however would have been good.}

 

^{The rest of the 80's for me was all about the REALLY about 2600 and Atari computer.}

[BillyHW]

The feeling I had back when all this was going on... the 2600 was WAY old even by 1982. Intellivision and Colecovision were WAY superior. Kids were laughing at Atari by then calling it "Retardi" in my class. But the games kept coming out for it, and the graphics were laughable. It was clear that a game on Colecovision was just amazingly more superior. (Check out Venture for the two systems as a good example.)

 

Actual conversation I had with my brother in the '80s:

 

Me looking through the ColecoVision catalogue: "Hey with this expansion module we can play all the games for Atari."

 

Older Brother: "Atari games suck."

 

Me: "Atari games suck?"

 

Older Brother: "Yeah. ColecoVision games are way better."

 

Me: "Okay."

 

Me again: "Hey, this Tunnels and Trolls game looks really cool."

 

Older Brother: "I don't think that game ever came out."

[high voltage]

Analogue controller were around in the 70s for numerous Pong consoles, the first home console to introduce it was the Interton VC 4000 in 1978, followed by Vectrex and 5200. The Vectrex had the 'first' joypad style control, eg control = left hand, fire = right hand. And, the Vectrex had 4 buttons, nothing new there. Atari 5200 had four buttons too.

 

First platform game: Space Panic(1980)

 

Lightgun, well Magnavox Odyssey (1972), and basically arcades and numerous Pong consoles during the 70s.

 

Multiplayer racing, many arcade games during the 70s. Pitstop II with split-screen on C64, A8.

 

3D games: Hunter (Amiga) Alone in the dark (PC), both early 90s.

 

But you are right, nobody can hold a candle to Nintendo for .....copying.....

 

And mocking gaming commercials, check out some cheesy American or Japanese NES adverts. Cringeworthy to the hilt.

Edited March 12, 2012 by high voltage