What was Atari thinking?

[Retro Rogue]

Don't be confused, only remember that Nintendo begged Atari to distribute the NES in USA but Atari declined.

 

That depends on the source you follow.

 

If you read David Scheff's "GAME OVER", the claim is that Nintendo was never serious about the negotations.

 

If you listen to the 7800 25th anniversary MP3, the claim is that Atari was going to keep the NES tied up.

 

There are also articles that Atari wanted retaliation over seeing DONKEY KONG on Colecovision.

 

If you read other articles about the negotiations, they fell apart before a conclusion was reached (business negotiations take a long long time) because people from Atari kept getting replaced, the negotiations fell apart and Nintendo walked.

 

 

The point is, there are many stories out there. I don't know what's true or part of the truth. I do know it's likely not as simple as "Nintendo went to Atari and Atari said 'no'". That's likely a journalistic urban myth. having been in contractual negotiations where clauses are argued over ad nauseum, I can see how the last one would lead to a failed agreement.

 

They were seriously considering doing the licensing, we have the emails between engineers who were flying back and forth to Japan to evaluate the Famicom (it was still in wirewrap form and was not the release version). They were seriously evaluating the pros and cons of the Famicom's graphics capabilities and hardware vs. the still in development MARIA chip. The issue was Yamauchi was forcing a deadline on Atari's decision because his agreement (we have all the terms of his licensing as well) had the stipulation that it had to be released by Atari for the Christmas '83 season. They were also forcing terms of manufacturing, insisting all the actual hardware had to be manufactured and supplied at a cost by Nintendo (both the system hardware and cartridge hardware), Atari would just be doing the casing, labeling, boxes, etc. That's of course not the usual mode of operation for a company that handles all its own manufacturing, and it wasn't something being demanded by GCC in their deal. They were considering signing off on Yamauchi's terms to buy them more time for the GCC people to get farther along for a proper evaluation between the two (which is most likely where those myths spread from). But then the Donkey Kong thing happened to delay that, and then Kassar was cut loose right after CES, and then Morgan was brought on board but took a vacation before starting in September, and then he settled the Donkey Kong disagreement with all parties (Coleco, Nintendo) meeting at Atari, and then he froze Atari (all projects, deals, manufacturing, etc.) for a month long "evaluation". That assured there's no way they would be able to meet Yamauchi's demands (it even screwed up the release of Atari products that were scheduled for that Christmas season and already going in to manufacturing). That's when Yamauchi decided to go it alone.

[high voltage]

As for superior: the Atari 5200 Supersystem was superior to anything around in 82, the XEGS was superior to any other 8bitter during the late 70s/80s, the Atari 7800 Pro System was superior alone due to Maria.

[Jinks]

So which 7800 guy is gonna do wtf was atari thinking on the 5200 forum?? as the 5200 graphics look terrible!! not very smooth looking at all!! and the controllers are garbage from what I hear they always break down..i dont know why anyone would collect or buy a 5200 as they cant play 2600 games without an adapter and they are non-exsistant in most or the world. The 7800 should have been made in 82 with pokey and the 5200 should have never been made.. then there would have been no nintendo with all the developers making 7800 games..hows that for hindsighting..

[Retro Rogue]

i dont know why anyone would collect or buy a 5200 as they cant play 2600 games without an adapter and they are non-exsistant in most or the world.

 

Huh? They're on ebay all the time. There's two up right now in fact.

 

The 7800 should have been made in 82 with pokey and the 5200 should have never been made.. then there would have been no nintendo with all the developers making 7800 games..hows that for hindsighting..

 

The problem is, the 7800 was started by an outside company - GCC - in direct response to the 5200. I.E. They saw the 5200, felt it wasn't what should be on the market, and took it upon themselves to start designing the console they thought should be. Without the 5200, you'd have no 7800.

[kool kitty89]

I haven't been around much for quite a while, and I was considering brining up a new thread or 2 on some topics I'd been musing on, but this thread touches upon several issues I was thinking on, and it seemed like it was worth a reply.

 

Yes, and specific to stick analog controllers, they typically work by the use of two potentiometers (pots) whose resistances represent changes in x/y direction. Which is true of the Interton's, Vectrex's, 5200's, 80's Kraft and similar style computer sticks, the plethora of early 90's PC game controllers, and the later N64/Playstation/Dreamcast/Xbox model controllers. In fact, the Vectrex was the first to use minitiarized pots and connectors to provide an analog stick in a thumb factor (though still just long enough that it could also be controlled by the thumb/forefinger if desired).

I'd argue the Vectrex was the first console to have anything close to the modern concept of a gamepad (very close to teh Famicom's release thouch), and defintiely the first with an analog stick in that sort of form factor.

 

That said, the Colecovision and 5200 controllers were steps in the direction of the gamepad as well. (not the d-pad as such, but the handheld game pad in general) Honestly the ergonomics of the 5200 pad are close to being very nice, and it would have been interesting to have seen a digital/pseudo-digital joystick counterpart with better build quality. (ie reliable buttons -perhaps slightly larger fire buttons too) The CV controller is a good bit less comfortable by comparison (even using the knob as a thumbstick has problems), and the Intellivision controllers are considerably worse still.

 

Analog controllers of all types fell out of favor entirely (aside from home computers -particularly PCs) in the late 80s to mid 90s, though prior to the N64 pad, Saturn 3D pad, and Sony Dual-analog, there was also Sega's AX-1E for the Mega Drive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AX-1E (an actual analog gamepad . . . and pretty elaborate at that -- there's also various analog racing wheels and joysticks for early 5th gen consoles of the mid 90s too, but this was earlier still and an actual gamepad)

 

What's also kind of ironic is that the N64 and Saturn "analog" controllers aren't analog at all. They don't use potentiometers as such, with the N64 using a mechano-opitcal disc set-up similar to a ball mouse, and the Saturn pad using magnetic proximety sensors for the triggers and stick (more of a knub or pad than a stick though). Interestingly the contemporary Gravis Xterminator used the same technology for its "stick" (pad very similar to Saturn) and triggers/flippers as well. (plus one more for the throttle control)

 

The first multiplayer (more than two) racing video arcade game I'm aware of is Atari/Kee's gigantic Indy 800 game from 1975, an 8 player racing game (and yes it was in color as well)

He was talking "kart" racing games in terms of masscot/cartoonie/cutsie themed racing games in general . . . which is NOT a genre, but a subgenre. Additionally, there's the separate sub-genre that many (but not all, but far) "kart" style racing games also have, and that's the combat.powerup elements, something that's also present in many non-kart racing games too. (albeit not simulation style ones either)

 

Nintendo invented NONE of those sub-genres either, though Super Mario Kart implemented a specific set of styles and features that ended up as a general formula or framework for many subsequent games.

 

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.

Fixed-screen platform games are certainly older than DK, and then looking at actual multi-screen platform/obsticle run and jump games, you've got 2 major examples from 1982 with Pitfall and Smurf (parts of Jungle Hunt is in that same vein too -and some scrolling sections for that matter). Pitfall II went a good deal beyond those, more into the area of mainstay 2D platform games of the late 80s. (and there's others worth mention too, like Pac Land -albeit that's more of a run and jump obsticle game than a platformer, though unlike Pitfall II, you could attack enemies -but the latter isn't a qualification for being a platformer, plenty of post-Mario platform games are passive dodge-enemy/obsticle style games like the Dizzy series or Crane's own A Boy and His Blob)

 

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.

Agree, though one could argue that evolution/refinement are part of innovation too. Introducing new/innovative elements to an established core concept would be a consideration for that, but noting that specific context is quite important.

 

That said, even in those sort of situations, there's tons of things Nintendo gets credit for "inventing" where they did no such thing. (some things others get credit for too in other industries . . . sometimes it's the fault of media and/or consumer perception and assumptions -pride/fanboyism- or intentional promotion of misinformation, or -more often- a combination of those)

 

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.

Character mode graphics were common in arcades, computers, and consoles well before the Famicom went to market. (and that goes for programmable character graphics and hard-coded text character modes) The TMS9918 (and related) VDP used sets of 256 8x8 pixel chacter cells as its primary means of background generation (chip used on TMS99/4, Colecovision, MSX, SG-1000, and others), Atari's 8-bit computer chipset supported many character playfield modes and those were the most practical for typical games (framebuffer modes eat up a decent chunk of RAM, plus the 5 color playfield mode is only possible with characters).

So that was something well established by the end of the 70s.

 

Even the NES's sprite system wasn't really innovative. It was easier to program than standard Atari style sprites, but in the same vein as the TMS VDP had already implemented or the C64 for that matter. (more like the TMS VDP in that a much larger number of hardware sprites were supported on-screen than could be drawin within the bandwidth limits of a single scanline -ie 32 and 64 sprites but only 8 visible per line)

 

Actually, the object list line-buffer "sprite" system of GCC's MARIA was probably one of the more innovative graphics generation mechanisms developed in that timeframe. (with the Panther and Jaguar object processors being conseptual successors . . . I'm not aware of any contemporaries using similar methods, but I wouldn't be surprised if those exisited too -it certainly didn't become a particularly popular method though)

 

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.

Sega's and Atari's were both more advanced than what the NES used. IIRC, both of those ran in sinc with the video beam and worked somewhat like light pens on CRTs and light guns in arcades and pretty much all later consoles using CRTs. (hence why you don't have the flicker/flashing screen issue with Master System and XE light gun games)

 

Granted, the Atari 8-bit light gun was sorely underutilized next to its contemporaries. (though developer support for the platform in general was proportionally weaker as well)

 

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.

The 5200, Intellivision, and Colecovision all had 14 keys/buttons already. Without special modifications, you could get 2 added buttons on the VCS/A8 pretty easily too (pull-up the POT lines) or 5 buttons for an analog joystick. (or 2 button paddles for that matter)

 

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.

Nintendo's limited model on 3rd parties didn't end with the NES though (they remain more constrictivie than competitors to this day in some respects -particularly with their ROM based handhelds). Albeit, in regards to the exclusivity and "lock in" model in general, that wouldn't have even happened had the Japanese video game market (and business world in general) functioned more like it had in the US, since the Famicom would have gotten unlicensed games just as the pre-crash consoles did. (somehow, that totally unsecure system avoided that though)

Hell, even WITH security on the NES, there were a significant number of unlicensed 3rd party publications from developers who put the effort in to working around the lockout system. (be it reverse engineering as in the Atari Games Rabbit chip, or the cheaper/simpler -and more legally foolproof- voltage spiking circuit the likes of Color Dreams and Camerica -Code Masters- implemented)

 

 

 

 

 

Complicated question. Here's a few reasons:

 

- Nintendo published substantially better games than Atari did

- Nintendo games had bigger development budgets than Tramiel was willing to pay. Tramiel oftened hired the cheapest developers possible and gave them pitances to work with.

- Nintendo invested in larger cartridges with additional hardware to make the games better. The Tramiels discouraged developers from using additional RAM memory, POKEY chips and larger carts

- The XEGS effort distracted from the 7800

- Nintendo locked in almost all 3rd parties to the NES. Atari released the same titles on all their systems (ie. This version of DARK CHAMBERS is for 2600 and 7800; This one is just for 7800)

- Nintendo had terrific 1st party titles (as did Sega). Atari's current games were Atari Games' brand and not available

- Nintendo bullied stores that carried competitors

- Nintendo advertised a lot. Atari advertised little outside of retail

- Nintendo developers made 3, 4, 6, 7 generations of NES games. Most 7800 developers jumped ship after one, not getting to know the system.

Don't forget Nintendo's stranglehold on 3rd party developers: they had a monoply in Japan and a lock on most 3rd party arcade/console/computer licenses for home console publications . . . and even contricted for releases on the Famicom itself. The same sort of thing got extended to western developrs once the NES got established (ie by the time developers really WANTED to pulbish for the system), though resistance was much stronger and legal action was taken much more strongly than in Japan.

 

Honestly I'm not sure how Nintendo managed to lock in licenses like that since the Famicom had absolutely no security on it . . . ie basically the same situationa as the VCS/CV/all pre-crash US consoles, and god knows 3rd parties didn't care about licensing there. (at least once Activision established a precident for it)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your brother is weird

He sounds like a typical fanboy of ANY generation . . . and um, yeah, I'd say most fanboys are weird. (and not in the cool ways)

Edited April 24, 2013 by kool kitty89

[kool kitty89]

The problem is, the 7800 was started by an outside company - GCC - in direct response to the 5200. I.E. They saw the 5200, felt it wasn't what should be on the market, and took it upon themselves to start designing the console they thought should be. Without the 5200, you'd have no 7800.

This seems like it may have been for better or worse. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem like the way GCC took that project upon themselves and the way Warner picked it up prevented Atari Inc from having input on the design itself (which could have led to a more efficient implementation of compatibility -less waste/redundancy, and more features), and also prevented Atari from having say in whether the project would be released at all. (ie if they felt it was better to move forward with their existing products instead)

 

On that latter remark, there were major trade-offs to consider for launching another platform so soon and discontinuing the 5200. You'd complicate logistics further, need more investment in many different areas (marketing, software development, manufacturing, distribution, etc), waste investiment on existing games developed for the 5200, and you'd risk confusing users more and frustrating those who already invested in the 5200. Alternately, they also could have chosen to drop the 5200 and push the 600XL as their higher-end game platform, doubling as their low-end computer platform -or even release a cost-cut model with a 400 style membrane keyboard to better fit that model too. (albeit, that's really what they should have done in the first place instead of the 5200 -ie launch the 600 alongside the 1200 rather than bothering with the 5200 at all)

 

Also note, this would be an even bigger argument against Atari licensing the Famicom hardware, since it would be a totally new design with neither compatibiltiy with any of Atari's existing platforms nor ease of porting/multiplatform programming or shared manufacturing resources.

 

Looking at the bigger picture in general:

 

You've got Atari up through 1981 with just the VCS and the A8 computer line as their main consumer platforms. So, following that, and in line with the mix of ideas/goals for a higher-end game system around '81/82, they either could have pushed a cost-reduced derivative of the atari 400 (which itself was already falling into the price range of contemporary high-end consoles) and adjust marketing to make it more obvious how capable a games system the 8-bit computers were (on top of being a computer -major selling point, and out of the box, unlike add-ons or prospective add-ons for contemporary consoles). This could also be includive of introducing new accessory controllers for the A8 (or VCS for that matter), like digital joysticks with more buttons (via POT lines), and/or analog joystics with up to 5 buttons.

 

Alternatively, if Atari DID want to produce a new, more powerful platform, distinct from the A8, then it would have to have significant advantages over just using the computers. (lower cost, and/or greater performance, and/or 2600 compatibility, and/or a lock-out mechanism to regulate and profit from 3rd party software) The SS1000 (3200/Sylvia) project had several of those merits (at least lower cost and compatibility -not sure how STIA compared with GTIA+POKEY), but for whatever reason, Atari/Warner opted to target the PAM project instead, and from that PoV, the Atari 600 would have made far more sense all-around.

The 600 would have been directly compatible with basically all games that would run on a 16K 400 or 800 (so almost all cart games) and be a fully functional home-computer out of the box. (if they really wanted to push more the low-cost computer slash high-end console angle, a cheaper keyboard would have made more sense -as above- and probably not included aynthing beyond the Atari OS and memopad built-in -more like the 400) That's aside from separate issues like including 4 controller ports and the older (more compatible) OS revision. (more of an argument to pose on the A8 line's development in general than specific to selling to the console market)

 

Or, for that matter, if they felt 2600 compatibility was important, but felt the 3200 was too weak, yet still wanted a "quick fix" platform to address the high-end competition, then they could have pushed the 400/600 into that role for the short term, while investing in a more powerful 3200/7800-like design to be released somewhat later. (imagine a 1984 counterpart to STIA . . . and by '83, there'd be a stronger argument for that new console to be a mainstream replacement for the VCS and less of a high-end complement as Atari targeted in 1982 -albeit keeping the VCS going as a budget platform would make sense)

 

 

 

I already addressed my throughts on the considerations during the 7800's development, but there's also the issue of Atari Corp after Atari Inc:

 

With what Atari Corp had to work with in 1984 onward, there would seem to be tons of sense for them dropping the 7800 along with the 5200. The 5200 was already oficially discontinued (and being liquidated with legacy support -more or less), so re-introducing that would have made less sense. Then looking at the 7800 itself, there was the major snag hit with Warner still owning the rights to the GCC contract.

 

Then, just look at the remaining 2 Atari platforms: the 2600, and the A8 comptuers, and think of Atari Corp's limited resources overall in addition to their goals for the ST on top of that.

Supporting and promoting just those 2 platforms could have made tons of sense, especially from a logistical standpoint: both already had considerably software libraries and programmers with existing experience on both (and potential for further improvement -particularly on the A8). The 2600 was a great budget platform with a massive following on the market already, and the A8 was reasonably established as well as being a computer, which was more attractive for many retailers and consumers immediately post-crash.

On top of that, Atari Corp ended up slashing the 800XL down to $99 SRP in late 1984 already (the later 65XE being priced similarly), so well into the console price range too . . . had they positioned the 600XL as the definitive console/game computer (and budget computer) in addition to that, it would seem to be pretty close to ideal. (and/or transition to a more specific redesign in the XE computer family . . . you could argue the 800XL could have been pushed to more like $150 too and been a pretty safe bet -and still undercut average C64 prices significantly) Or, aside from the 600XL, they could have gone for 32k instead. (given that was the max that cart games would make use of prior to the 130XE)

That would seem to have been a much more efficient use of their limited resources. (not to mention it would have worked around Nintendo's licensing constraints too, being a computer and not a console . . . else Nintendo would alienate all publishers wanting to target any computing platform)

 

Then they could have focused on jsut 2 older platforms and the ST as the up and coming high-end product. (let alone potentially later introducing a more "console like" ST model that could compete in that segment too)

 

On top of that, they'd have avoided the weird market position the XEGS ended up creating by effectively doing that sort of thing instead of the 7800 in the first place. Well, except there's some weird things about the XEGS regardless of the 7800, especially the relatively high price point of $200 (later $150) next to the nearly identical $99 65XE. (granted, a less elaborate bundle out of the box, but TBH, the XEGS's pack-ins weren't particularly compelling for that added $50 or $100) That and the relatively late release date. (for 1987, an ST derived -compatible or otherwise- console could have been a lot more interesting, especially if it included the BLiTTER -or a SHIFTER variant with V/H scroll registers)

[7800]

Agreed, the 5200 was rediculous. The system was HUGE! LOL! And the concept of storing the controllers within the unit was getting old. I doubt many people actually stowed their controllers away for the sake of keeping things nice and neat. The controller itself was poorly designed. The idea of having an analog stick was great, but it was poorly executed and cheap, without the ability to self center too. The idea of having hard to press side buttons on either side of a joystick was just WRONG... and they continued the trend with the 7800 proline stick. The 5200 games were the same old arcade titles that were already hits on the 2600, they should have introduced new games that didn't exist on any older system, especially during launch. They were on the right track with the 7800, except for the decision to eliminate POKEY from most of the games released, and the controller should have been concieved differently.

[high voltage]

And now we know that Miyamoto didn't even code Donkey Kong:

Donkey Kong (Arcade)

 

When Nintendo first got into creating arcade videogames, it didn't yet have the capability to program them itself. This hidden message in the code of Donkey Kong shows that development of Nintendo's breakout hit was at least partially outsourced to a company called Ikegami Tsushinki:

CONGRATULATION !IF YOU ANALYSE DIFFICULT THIS PROGRAM,WE WOULD TEACH YOU.*****TEL.TOKYO-JAPAN 044(244)2151 EXTENTION 304 SYSTEM DESIGN IKEGAMI CO. LIM.

The message, among several other bits of code, helps prove Ikegami’s otherwise-hidden role in the game's development. Ikegami would later sue Nintendo for illegally producing extra Donkey Kong games without its consent, as it was also the contracted manufacturer, as well as reverse-engineering Ikegami's code to create Donkey Kong Jr.

 

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/funny-occasionally-dirty-hidden-messages-favorite-games-192013980.html

[ZylonBane]

Agreed, the 5200 was rudekuluos. The system was HUGE! LOL!

 

Protip: Any time you find yourself using "LOL" as a component of a persuasive argument, you have lost (and made yourself look like a prepubescent halfwit).

[7800]

Protip: Any time you find yourself using "LOL" as a component of a persuasive argument, you have lost (and made yourself look like a prepubescent halfwit).

 

Wow... not even on this forum for 24hrs and already being trolled. Thanks for your constructive input.

[ZylonBane]

Wow... not even on this forum for 24hrs and already being trolled.

 

No, you haven't been trolled. You've been informed.

 

Going on an Atari forum, calling yourself "7800", and picking the Atari 2600 E.T. box art as your avatar... now that's trolling. Perhaps a bit too subtle for these parts though. You might want to kick it up a notch if you're hoping to snag anyone.

[7800]

No, you haven't been trolled. You've been informed.

 

Going on an Atari forum, calling yourself "7800", and picking the Atari 2600 E.T. box art as your avatar... now that's trolling. Perhaps a bit too subtle for these parts though. You might want to kick it up a notch if you're hoping to snag anyone.

 

LOL! Are you friggin kidding me? I'm actually in disbelief after reading your post. So let me get this straight. I'm a troll because of my screen name differing from my avatar? Normally I'd fight you tooth and nail because I don't like troublemakers, but since I'm new here I will be humble and brush off your pointless comments before I get banned or something.

[Matthew]

Please, don't be humble.

[ZylonBane]

Yeah, seriously. Who still says "screen name" anymore?

 

Edit: LOL.

Edited June 4, 2013 by ZylonBane

[Crazy Climber]

My summary...

 

5200 = next big thing that didn't pan out, it happens.

7800 = NES sales were good so atari gave it a shot

2600 (rebirth) = Quick cash grab

[Crazy Climber]

BTW - I'm surprised nobody grabbed the name 7800 after all these years?

[The Usotsuki]

I use "handle"

[Jinks]

Nickname.

[jetset]

Agreed, the 5200 was rediculous. The system was HUGE! LOL! And the concept of storing the controllers within the unit was getting old. I doubt many people actually stowed their controllers away for the sake of keeping things nice and neat. The controller itself was poorly designed. The idea of having an analog stick was great, but it was poorly executed and cheap, without the ability to self center too. The idea of having hard to press side buttons on either side of a joystick was just WRONG... and they continued the trend with the 7800 proline stick. The 5200 games were the same old arcade titles that were already hits on the 2600, they should have introduced new games that didn't exist on any older system, especially during launch. They were on the right track with the 7800, except for the decision to eliminate POKEY from most of the games released, and the controller should have been concieved differently.

 

Wow.

Same. Old. Tired. Crap.

Did you even own a 5200 back in the 80's? My guess is not. So much wrong with your flame, I'll pick on the most egregious of stale complaints....

 

The 5200 games were the same old arcade titles that were already hits on the 2600

 

That is exactly what gamers wanted back then. The best at home arcade money could buy. Who DIDN'T want a better version of Pac-Man, Defender, Centipede, Missile Command, or Pole Position to name a few? Look at the Colecovision. Most of their biggest sellers were arcade games. Hell their pack in, which sold the system was Donkey Kong! Even the 7800's library was heavy with arcade games.

I'll give you credit...of all the tired (mostly wrong) critiques you piled on at least you didn't whine that the 5200 wasn't backwards compatible with the 2600. That's probably the second stupidest complaint considering not a lot of people gave a rats ass about backward compatibility back then, and for those that did there was an adapter.

[SoundGammon]

The relationship is this: The Atari 400 became the 5200, minus a chip, the XEGS is a 5200 with more memory and a keyboard and the missing chip back. They are ALL the same thing with a few changes! Problem with Atari was that when the 400/800 came out in 1979, Atari screwed the design engineers out all the bonus money they were suppose to get and a lot of them quit! They didn't think much of their game designers either and they left. Atari was great at pissing on their OWN people! They expected to stay in business? To prove it Atari had to go outside the company to get both the 7800 system and games for all their own systems, 2600, 5200 & 7800. What idiots! I wish there was book out about the people who ruined Atari!

[high voltage]

and they continued the trend with the 7800 proline stick. The 5200 games were the same old arcade titles that were already hits on the 2600, they should have introduced new games

 

You better read this:

 

http://www.gamasutra...atz_.php?page=5

 

Same games, Nintendo's been doing this for years!!!!

Edited June 5, 2013 by high voltage

[7800]

I guess just posting my opinion about a game system just wasn't wise, Who knew all the cry babies would come out of the woodwork. Sorry fellas, I had no idea posting that was going to stir the pot. And again, If you think it was flaming or trolling, you seriously need to lay off the energy drinks. Have a nice day guys.

[ZylonBane]

BTW - I'm surprised nobody grabbed the name 7800 after all these years?

 

It's encouragingly impressive, actually. That would be like, say, going on a Star Trek forum and picking "Capt Kirk" as your username. Or going on a Nintendo forum and declaring yourself "Mario".

 

(my own username was first created when registering on a Freespace 2 forum, so it wasn't quite as on the nose there as it is here)

[Jinks]

Zylonb is a antisemetic name and should be banned..

[Matthew]

The username 'Jinks' should be banned. Such satanic witchcraft is against my religious beliefs.