What was Atari thinking?

[ZylonBane]

I gotta ask..not to doubt what you're saying, but where does this information come from?

 

My god, must I do everything? If you'd go look at the quoted section of the FAQ yourself, you'd see that the very next paragraph was:

 

The engineers were so adamant in their disapproval of the 5200's controllers that they sent a petition to the director of engineering in hopes that the non-centering joystick would not be released in its finished form.

 

Now, not present in the FAQ is an anecdote I read once about how Atari's engineers would mock the guys working on the 5200 joysticks by walking around with their wrists turned backwards (the required position for holding a 5200 controller). I can't remember where I saw this though... might have been one of the Atari history books.

[Jaynz]

And my point is that you're wrong, most everybody at the time knew that the 5200 controllers sucked. Analog X/Y joysticks were nothing new-- they'd existed on the Apple II for years prior to the 5200.

 

Okay, first, you're being a jackass unnecessarily.

 

Second, at no point did I say "Everyone at the time loved the new joysticks", because that wasn't the point. Marketing, in particular, pushed the joysticks out as a deliberate selling point about how 'professional' and 'mature' the new designs were. The idea was to make the 5200 into the 'adult's gaming system', which was becoming all the rage with the big video-game companies at the time, who were worried that the Atari 2600 legacy was falling out of favor but didn't really understand why.

 

Atari was hardly alone in this mindset, as it also brought down Intellivision and Colecovision. the 5200's sticks were just another example of 'marketing over common sense', which was pretty rampant back in those days. (And hardly unheard of now, right, Microsoft?)

[ZylonBane]

Criminy, we're going to have to nail down your goalposts and take away your tapshoes. The ONLY thing that I'm responding to is when you said this regarding the 5200 joysticks:

 

please keep in mind that today - 2013 - after the NES, SNES/GENESIS, PS1/N64, PS2/XBOX, and PS3/X360 generations we've had the advantages of learning a LOT of lessons about design, marking change ups, generational upgrades and all that. Back with the 5200 and 7800? Not so much. What seems obvious to us now was completely unheard of back then.

 

Which, as I've demonstrated, is bull. It was "obvious" to a great number of people inside Atari at the time that the 5200 joysticks sucked.

[Jaynz]

You're really parsing nits here to try to 'win'. Okay, congratulations, you win the internet. Be proud. Do a jig. Whatever.

[jetset]

Um...both of you are wrong and need to check your facts. I found this on youtube, an interview with Ray Kassar in '83 about the 5200.

 

[sqoon]

The thing is that everybody and their brother thought that hand-cramping telephone number pad style controllers were the greatest thing ever during that era. Mattel, Atari, Coleco, Emerson, they all had this style of controller. Did any game company ever conduct any consumer research tests or actually know what the word 'ergonomics' meant? For all those who argue that 5200 had the 'worst controllers ever', play some games on Colecovision or Intellivision and tell me that your hands are any less cramped after an hour or so.

 

One other item of interest: I lived during those years and clearly remember that not a single person I knew cared a single bit about backward compatibility of their consoles. It is funny how time tends to slant actual history, especially as accounts and stories reach urban legend status.

[jetset]

The thing is that everybody and their brother thought that hand-cramping telephone number pad style controllers were the greatest thing ever during that era. Mattel, Atari, Coleco, Emerson, they all had this style of controller. Did any game company ever conduct any consumer research tests or actually know what the word 'ergonomics' meant? For all those who argue that 5200 had the 'worst controllers ever', play some games on Colecovision or Intellivision and tell me that your hands are any less cramped after an hour or so.

 

That's because most people that owned those systems wanted them, liked them, and had patience with them. All three systems' controllers were far from perfect. The 5200 with the "infamous" non centering stick, the CV with the stiff stubby death nubs, and the INTV with the disc of terror. Ultimately, if you were a kid and that's what your parents bought, that was it. You played, you practiced, and eventually (some of us sooner than others) you actually LIKED the controllers. Most people pissing and whining about the 5200 stick not centering, or the CV being impossible to fire, or the disc on the INTV being too difficult only read about them online or *maybe* bought a system from Ebay, played for 10 minutes, realized they sucked, and gave up. I always think back to the Defender coin-op. What a ridiculous setup! WAY too many buttons...I mean, who was the retard that decided you had to press a button to turn the ship? And you played a few times and decided the games SUCKED. But...wow it looked cool...a few more quarters...a few more...a few more...and eventually that PRACTICE paid off, and you realized what an awesome game it was.

 

One other item of interest: I lived during those years and clearly remember that not a single person I knew cared a single bit about backward compatibility of their consoles. It is funny how time tends to slant actual history, especially as accounts and stories reach urban legend status.

 

Yep. Same thing. Very little complaints by actual owners about the controllers, and even less...bordering on zero about backwards compatibility. Just fanboy bs that wasn't an issue until the late 90's. Nobody bought a 5200 thinking "oh boy! I can't wait to play the old, shitty graphic 2600 games on this new advanced system" any more than people said "TheColecovision comes with Donkey Kong? Big fucking deal...Wait, what? you can buy an adapter to play the way substandard Atari 2600 games on it? Well shit sign me up!!"

 

Pfft.

[fiddlepaddle]

I can remember when I got my 5200, I already had a Vectrex and a Colecovision and a 2600, and I was excited to have the "premium" system, but was a bit disappointed because there just weren't that many good games for it. They WERE better than their 2600 counterparts, but not enough of them, and not enough original games. I had no concern whatever about the design of the joysticks nor the desire to get the compatibility attachment, which I thought was kind of silly. I saw something in the newspaper about manufacturing defects in the joysticks and did take mine back to Atari (in Sunnyvale, in person) for replacements, which were provided free with no questions or documentation requirements. They still work.

[7800]

When I had my 5200, the joystick itself was faulty. There was something mechanically wrong with it, on top of the already infamous non-centering issue. But when your a kid, the last thing you want to do is take it apart and try and fix it. Now things are different, we can make a 5200 controller work with no issues if we really try. Holding a joystick in the palm of your hand while pushing the button with your thumb works just fine with the 2600 controller... but having 4 buttons to deal with while holding it the same way is uncomfortable. What baffles me is why they carried over the same concept with the Proline joystick years later.

 

Yes, the Intellivision controller was crazy, but it worked good after getting used to it. The round disc was awkward and the buttons were THE worst, worse than the 5200 buttons. Nintendo had the right idea with their control pad.

Edited June 12, 2013 by 7800

[jetset]

When I had my 5200, the joystick itself was faulty. There was something mechanically wrong with it

 

Interesting...what mechanical issue? From a reliability standpoint the fire buttons wearing out were pretty common, but the stick itself was rarely mentioned as an issue. In fact 30+ years later if you find a 5200 stick in the wild or on ebay, you're almost guaranteed the fire button(s) won't work, but beyond that they rarely have any other issues.

[7800]

Interesting...what mechanical issue? From a reliability standpoint the fire buttons wearing out were pretty common, but the stick itself was rarely mentioned as an issue. In fact 30+ years later if you find a 5200 stick in the wild or on ebay, you're almost guaranteed the fire button(s) won't work, but beyond that they rarely have any other issues.

 

The Analog stick was quirky... Not sure, it was almost 30 years ago. But now that I've seen the inside guts of the controller in recent years, I think the stick wasn't aligned properly with the pots...maybe. Never had a problem with the buttons though.

[Jaynz]

The thing is that everybody and their brother thought that hand-cramping telephone number pad style controllers were the greatest thing ever during that era. Mattel, Atari, Coleco, Emerson, they all had this style of controller. Did any game company ever conduct any consumer research tests or actually know what the word 'ergonomics' meant? For all those who argue that 5200 had the 'worst controllers ever', play some games on Colecovision or Intellivision and tell me that your hands are any less cramped after an hour or so.

 

The 5200 had the awkward phone pad and a sloppy non-centering main stick! Win win! But no, "Ergonomics" wasn't on the radar of game companies yet. That would really start with the 'revival' from Sega, Nintendo, and the PC Engine - pretty much as a direct response to the last of the pre-crash systems. Remember, as far as retailers were concerned, these were simply expensive toys and the people who head up toy companies were the marketers. (Read a lot about the Blue Sky Rangers of Intellivision about how all this wound up working).

 

In other words, so far as the 'money people' were concerned, the only difference between the Rubik's Cube, Stomper 4x4s and the Atari 2600 was the price point.

 

One other item of interest: I lived during those years and clearly remember that not a single person I knew cared a single bit about backward compatibility of their consoles. It is funny how time tends to slant actual history, especially as accounts and stories reach urban legend status.

 

I knew a lot of PARENTS that cared about the modules, but most of us already had a working 2600 when the 5200, etc., were coming out. We weren't all that worried about backwards compatibility since we could just plug the old machine in if we were really jonesing for a game that wasn't out on the new stuff. (And this did happen sometimes.) By the time the C-64 came out, though, the issue was dead as pretty much ALL of the 2600's classic library had been done better on that little computer.

[Jaynz]

Interesting...what mechanical issue? From a reliability standpoint the fire buttons wearing out were pretty common, but the stick itself was rarely mentioned as an issue. In fact 30+ years later if you find a 5200 stick in the wild or on ebay, you're almost guaranteed the fire button(s) won't work, but beyond that they rarely have any other issues.

 

The friend of mine back then that actually had the 5200 got it right when it came out at Children's Palace - and it had faulty sticks in it. Atari replaced them right away, though, and I think he actually got them by New Year's. The replacements weren't too bad for a lot of games, but things like Pac-Man were just frustrating as all hell. Interestingly, the 5200 display unit at Woolworth's had a completely different pair of more arcade-like joysticks, much closer in resemblance to the Colecovision's controllers than what the 5200 actually got. I always wondered what was up with that.

 

Probably a thought best taken over to the 5200 threads, though.

[+thegoldenband]

The sticks on my brand-new Atari 5200 back in Christmas 1983 or 1984 (not sure which) were fine, but the fire buttons on both controllers were essentially DOA. Out of the box they required a ridiculous amount of pressure to even work, and within 2-3 weeks they weren't functioning at all. My folks eventually got a 2600 controller adapter, and that made all the difference in the world. But the idea that a brand-new console could dream of having a problem like that permanently soured me on Atari, I think -- even at that young age, I knew that was BS, and felt scammed.

 

I think that entire generation of machines was mostly an ergonomic disaster, really, and I've often wondered if that contributed to the crash more than is acknowledged. I've gotten used to the Intellivision controller (though it's still taxing), but the 5200, 7800, and CV are all physically unpleasant to use, and my CV especially doesn't get touched much because of that. At least the Vectrex got it right but otherwise, controllers arguably went downhill after the VCS (though the Odyssey^2 controllers are OK, and I'm told the Astrocade had good controllers too).

[Loktar]

but the 5200, 7800, and CV are all physically unpleasant to use

 

The 7800 pro-lines are so terrible, ever since I was a kid I've had issues with them, they hurt so bad. I recently got the 7800 control pads which are "ok" but even those are a bit stiff, so now I use a modded NES controller. When I look back at the time of the 7800 and NES it makes me respect Nintendo even more for the time put into their controller designs.

[Jaynz]

I think that entire generation of machines was mostly an ergonomic disaster, really, and I've often wondered if that contributed to the crash more than is acknowledged. I've gotten used to the Intellivision controller (though it's still taxing), but the 5200, 7800, and CV are all physically unpleasant to use, and my CV especially doesn't get touched much because of that. At least the Vectrex got it right but otherwise, controllers arguably went downhill after the VCS (though the Odyssey^2 controllers are OK, and I'm told the Astrocade had good controllers too).

 

Like I said, it was more of a symptom than the disease. The desire to be 'more than a kid's toy' from marketing made them do some pretty stupid things, and the inclusion of the 'phone pad' on EVERY major console of those years was just part of that. (Why they thought having a phone-pad was a big deal for any player is beyond me.) The 7800, for its part, oddly kept the button placement and rather shoddy stick.. but LOST the phone pad that was the whole reason for the doorstop design!

[sqoon]

I knew a lot of PARENTS that cared about the modules...

 

This really touches on the main reason Mattel, Atari and Coleco designed controller storage areas into their early 80's consoles. Kids didn't care a bit, but stuffy moms didn't like the family entertainment area cluttered up with spaghetti messes of controllers and wires. If they could only see my collection and setup area now..

[kool kitty89]

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

 

Edit: LOL.

I do. (I never really use any other term for that either)

 

 

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.

The thing with the 5200 is that a huge chunk of the problems with the system could have been solved after the fact (smaller form factor -and then even more so with an updated denser/cost-reduced board; most/all controller issues, games available, etc), and while there's a good argument that it shouldn't have been released at all (namely that focusing on the 8-bit computers would be better) it made even less sense to cancel it the way they did. (the 7800 had merits, but IMO they didn't outweigh the disadvantages of putting yet another distinct and incompatible platform out there)

 

As to the controllers in particular, if you actually compare them to all the contemporaries of the time, they're actually pretty damn awesome IMO . . . at least in some respects. In terms of functionality and ergonomics they blow almost everything else out of the water save the traditional 2600 sticks and game-pad-like vectrex controller (not gettign into the myriad of 3rd party console/computer controllers). Compared to the coleco pads and especially intellivision things they're WAY more fomfortable to use and (in practice) having 2 action buttons on 1 side rather than 1 on each is MUCH easier to use while having a matching pair on the other side is even better. (allows 3 ways to grip the controller so you can rest both thumb and index finger on the buttons and squeeze the matching pair, or have only thumb resting on buttons or only finger on buttons -in practice better than the 7800 set-up and also much better placed than the CV or IV controllers) It's also more comfortable than the 7800 proline sticks and the 2800 combo paddle sticks. (and most likely the 2700 and proto 3200 sticks too)

 

The 2600 sticks were pretty solid, but the 5200 ones are generally easier to hold and use, especially considering multiple button requirements (albeit 2 buttons should have worked fine on a modified CX-40). I don't care for the hard plastic joystick cap that spins though; a tough gripply rubber cap molded into the boot would have been great (like the CX-40), wouldn't spin or slip, and probably would have resisted tearing the boot better too. Analog didn't makse sense as standard either . . . it still ended up better than the funky 16-way IV disc (both in ergonomics and accuracy) but was just not necessary or practical. Having a plain 8-way digital stick (with rubber cap) on an otherwise similar controller woudl have been great. Having an analog joystick peripheral as an option (or requirment) for some games would have been nice though. (and could have been done on the 2600 and 8-bit computers too -easily with up to 5 digital buttons as well, or more with multiplexing -less easy)

As far as analog sticks go though, the Vectrex did that right for sure . . . and interesting game-pad-like lay-out with an aircraft RC controller style spring-loaded 2-axis pot module (something the 5200 was planned to later get too) and thumb.

 

However, the really big problem is reliability of the flex circuits meaning buttons tended to wear out excessively fast, and that's something they really needed to solve (more than the analog stick issues IMO). Then again, had they gone with a digital stick from the start (and an otherwise similar layout) it probably would have been relatively practical to use wired PCBs rather than the flex circuits (except maybe for the keypad -if they kept it). If they omitted the keypad they easily could have used the 2600/A8 controller ports too, and introduced such a controller for general use. (up to 3 buttons using the 2 pot lines without multiplexing) And, again, an analog joystick as a peripheral would make perfect sense too.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh please, people inside Atari hated the 5200 joysticks even before they were released. If memory serves, the main reason they were approved was because their design involved a lot of patentable technology. Just another example of clueless management.

And my point is that you're wrong, most everybody at the time knew that the 5200 controllers sucked. Analog X/Y joysticks were nothing new-- they'd existed on the Apple II for years prior to the 5200.

I gotta ask..not to doubt what you're saying, but where does this information come from? Your quote from the 5200 faq certainly points to early disapproval from "focus groups", but those aren't people *inside* atari necessarily. I can understand people who played the games for ten minutes in a trial not liking them, but like many other controllers out there, you don't always love them from the first time you use them. Seems to me like the Atari employees might have played more than a few times, and by then if they're halfway decent games, probably changed their opinions...Maybe from a quality standpoint, since the firs buttons were known to wear out fast...???

I don't buy some of this personally, and for the same reasons I detailed above. The 5200 joystick is, in many ways, one of the best game controller of its time.

 

OTOH, I'd totally buy that testing exposed the flaws in the design that should have been corrected (especially the reliability issues) and that management of the time forced it to be released as-is anyway. Whether it was focus groups or other play testing methods, I'd certainly believe that sort of outcome.

I'd be interesting to know details on how consumers actually felt towards the large form factor of the system though. (another management push . . . and certainly a major detractor for warehouse space, shipping, and retail shelf/storage space -something that particularly becomes obvious when you see the full retail box in person )

 

I'll also believe that upper management pushed the analog stick as standard thing too: the main argument I've seen is to counter the intellivision's disc which is really ironic given how crappy that thing was in its own right. (to the 5200's credit, the analog stick is still much better than the IV disc in both ergonomics and functionality -even when pressed into the role of an 8-way stick, though for the latter the CV knob has an edge in functionality though not ergonomics)

 

For whatever reason, Mattel, Atari, and Coleco all pushed for some odd design choices with their standard controllers, but I'd argue Atari actually got it close to really good (in terms of concept and general ergonomics) but funcionality and reliability issues remained. (too bad the 7800 didn't fix that either . . . or rather, retain the ergonomics and fix the functionality/reliability -ie use the same form factor stripped down to non-flex-circuit fire buttons and a digital joystick, as I commented on above)

 

 

 

 

LoTonah, please keep in mind that today - 2013 - after the NES, SNES/GENESIS, PS1/N64, PS2/XBOX, and PS3/X360 generations we've had the advantages of learning a LOT of lessons about design, marking change ups, generational upgrades and all that. Back with the 5200 and 7800? Not so much. What seems obvious to us now was completely unheard of back then. You have to cut them a little slack.

This is something I always try to keep in mind in these sort of discussions (criticism and hypothetical alternatives). As such, there's some things that do make reasonable sense for the time, but other things that I can't fathom made sense back then (hindsight or no). And it's understanding WHY those sorts of strange decisions were made that's interesting . . . and equally interesting to center hypothetical "what if" or "alternate reality" discussions around those decisions. (that and other decisions that were more up to random chance where the alternatives were roughly equally attractive without hindsight, so it was more luck of the draw)

 

In the case of Atari Inc and Warner, almost all the major issues with the company in general boil down to management problems (either with Atari Inc's management alone, or the dual-management issues with Warner), though the details are still really interesting to look at beyond that blanket-statement.

 

 

 

 

 

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

Yeah, except that's mostly wrong:

5200 = problematic design/market model/maagement/execution that still had reasonable potential for the long run but had that screwed up as well.

7800 = reasonable better altenrative to the 5200 that made less sense being developed as a replacement for the 5200 on the market, was delayed by the liquidation and reformation of Atari Inc assets to Atari Corp (and various legal issues between Atari Corp, GCC, and Warner) that delayed the system for a year, finally started gearing back up in early 1985 (along with the arrival of Mike Katz) and finally ready for mass release the following year (approximately at the same time as the NES and earlier than the SMS).

2600 = never had a re-release as such, or not beyond the various cosmetic and marketing incarnations it saw in the Warner-Atari years up to the Jr. Disribution continued throughout the crash, though the release of the Jr was held back until early '86 (Vader continued to be distributed prior to that). It remained positioned as the low-budget system in their lineup albeit somewhat different market-wise under ACorp than AInc/Warner had intended alongside the 5200 or 7800.

 

Then there's the 3200 and 400/800/XL/XE . . . but I think I said plenty on that back on post 80/81 in this thread.

 

 

 

 

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!

As detailed at some length in my posts back on page 4, focusing on the A8 in the first place should have made perfect sense at the time. Had they put the effort involved witht he 5200 (let alone 7800) into cost-reducing, streamlining, re-packaging, and marketing the A8 (including launching the 600 alongside the 1200XL) that should have worked out great. Given the pricing on the 16k 400 in mid/late 1982, the cost-reduced 600 easily should have been price-competitive with the Colecovision and cheaper than the 5200 while generally more attractive than either. (not to mention how that might have helped compete on the aggressive home computer market . . . and even if Atari Inc still went under, it would have left Atari Corp better off too and with fewer products to focus on -ie 2600, A8, and ST)

 

OTOH, (as stated on page 4), I wonder why Atari Corp bothered with the 7800 at all as it was . . . with the state of things at the time, it would have made sense to drop it entirely and more or less do what Atari Inc could (and probably should) have done earlier sans the 3200. Having just the 2600, A8, and ST to work with would have made the most sense in general, but especially given Atari Corp's tight budget, and if they'd wanted a middle-position game/computer product they could have kept the 600XL goign (and released a 16XE or 32XE -32k is nice as that's the max RAM you get for cart software without bank-switching a la 130XE or 3rd party upgrades)

 

Beyond that it made even less sense to push out the XEGS after the fact in '87 . . . that would have made some sense had they dropped the 7800 in the first place, but not otherwise. (even then the XEGS was oddly priced at twice that of the functionally similar 65XE of the time and the bundled "extras" hardly made up for that -65XE was $99 in 1987 -in fact, the 64k 800XL/65XE had been roughly $99 since late 1984; the XEGS launched at $200)

An ST-derived console would have made a lot more sense in 1987 (with or without the 7800), especially if it added the Blitter. (then again, having a blitter-equpped 520ST would have been smart too -made it more likely to be commonly adopted in software and generally accessible to the lower-end market)

 

Oh, and in total hindsight, cutting out the 7800 would also have meant sidestepping Nintendo's exclusive licensing agreements since those didn't cover "computers" so the A8 would have been safe (it was historically too, but not prominent enough on the market to merit major focus on it in the late 80s).

 

 

 

 

 

 

You better read this:

 

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

 

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

Except re-releases/compilations (and upgraded remakes) tend not to be mainstream products or system sellers, but more niche things to fill smaller specific market demands.

Actual sequels and spin-offs are another matter entirely as those are NOT the same games, but new games of an established franchise. (which they had back then too . . . Ms Pac Man, Pac Man Jr, DK Jr, Galaxian, Pitfall II, Defender II, etc, etc)

 

On top of that, the good/marketable re-releases (2600 and/or A8 ports) were lacking at launch too . . . so you got things like Super Breakout pack-in rather than Pac Man.

 

There's also the separate issues of overproduction of games (more so in volumes of single titles than numbers of unique titles with nearly idential gameplay -but both were problems) and general issues with distribution, accurate market sales and growth projections, etc.

 

 

 

 

I've always been curious:

 

I believe that the reason that the 5200 was cartridge-incompatible was because of the rivalry between the computer and consumer videogame divisions.

 

But what if they hadn't done that? What if the computer carts worked on the 5200? So the RAM layout is the same, everything is the same... (heck, keep the 5200 sticks the way they were, converting analog to digital signals isn't that weird).

 

 

Wouldn't that have sold more of the 5200 systems? The library of games would have been a lot larger at launch.

Wouldn't that have sold more Atari computers, because the software market would have been stronger?

Wouldn't that have been better for consumers? When they were ready to jump from gaming machine to a computer, they wouldn't have to buy their favorite games again?

 

THAT'S what makes me wonder what Atari was thinking. A strong CEO would have brought the divisions together when it made sense to.

 

P.S. I'm a 5200 owner. I'm still amazed that Atari greenlit those joysticks. What the--??

I'm really not quite sure why promoting/updating (ie 600) the A8 line in the low-end-computer/high-end-console markets apparently wasn't a major consideration. I'd thought it was infighting, but given what I've gleane so far from Curt and Marty (including "Business is Fun" ) it seems the 5200 was primarily just part of plans for a new generation of game systems with 3 distinct platforms originally planned (re-released Stella/2600, Sylvia/3200, and PAM/5200).

I could undrstand releasing the 3200 to complement the mid-range console market (in-between the 400/600 and 2600) but PAM just didn't make sense IMO. (with different hardware it would have made more sense; ie a new design more powerful and cost-effective than the A8 chipset and preferably 2600 compatible too . . . so like Sylvia but more advanced -or like the 7800 but perhaps less rushed and somewhat different, being internally developed . . . like having Sylvia with a TIA upgrade that was more capable than GTIA, more RAM than the 3200 planned, and maybe an ANTIC upgrade too)

Edited June 29, 2013 by kool kitty89

[Lynxpro]

I always figured that the XEGS was an attempt to cash in on the 8-bit computer technology before it was too far past its sell date. I had never heard the particular explanation that was offered in the other thread, but it makes its own kind of sense: if you have a rich library of games for the 8-bit computer line, and if you have relationships with distributors who want to sell game consoles but not computers, it seems logical to repackage the 8-bit computer as a game console so you can get those assets on the market while it's still possible to make some money with them. Personally, I always liked the XEGS; my only complaint is that they didn't go with more of a Mega ST style "pizza box" design, which would have saved lots of desk space by allowing you to put your TV on top of the console itself.

 

 

The XEGS was meant to serve the market for parents who wanted to buy their children a video game system that could also double as a computer.

 

The XEGS was also meant to entice developers back into developing for A8 which developers had been dropping - despite continuing to develop games for the Commodore 64 - and scapegoating as a piracy-plagued platform. Sure, Atari Corp. had a lot of leftover 8-bit parts to use but hey, they did try to prop up A8 for awhile longer when others had given up on it.

 

So you had the 2600 for the lower income families, the 7800 for gamers who wanted more advanced graphics and better arcade ports, and the XEGS for families that wanted Junior to have a game system that was also a computer.

 

It's too bad the 7800 didn't have a POKEY standard, not to mention match the RAM of the earlier 5200 [16K] if not increase it. It's also a shame the MARIA wasn't made available to the A8 line. Then again, it's a shame the GUMBY apparently wasn't finished and Atari Corp. botched the AMY chip. On the ST side of things, the BLiTTER development-to-production life was also plagued [but at least it worked well and eventually made it to market].

[7800]

The thing with the CX-52 is... It's a really cool design but, It should have been developed longer. They were working on a self-centering stick AFTER the fact... which was the mistake. Why not perfect the design first , then put it in production? The CX-52 also could have benefited from ALL buttons having being solid plastic with a better feedback response instead of the mushy, hard to press ones. Other than that, I have no real problems with the overall design. It's a bit uncomfortable, but if all you have to do is effortlessly tap the fire buttons and move the analog stick, then ergonomics can take a back seat. The Proline is uncomfortable because it suffers from the same lack of feedback fire buttons. They had the right idea making the buttons a solid plastic, but you still had to really press on them. The stick acted as a lever and made using it and holding it a bit of a chore. For the record, these are my opinions based on actually owning and using the hardware. I did not copy this from anyone else although many of the facts here have no doubt already been beaten to death... LOL!

[Brian R.]

To start, you can't judge decisions made then with information known now.

 

My in short answers to the issues originally raised:

 

1. Why replace the 5200?

The bad controllers and lack of backwards compatibility with the 2600. I think the backwards compatibility was the bigger issue, which is why it was built into the 7800. Being able to play the 2600 games everyone already had was huge.

About the controllers - I think there was more interest in patents than playability.

 

2. Why is the 7800 inferior in sound?

Because it uses the 2600's sound chip, I believe. The 2600 is in there so it can play 2600 games. And, as said, the idea was to put sound chips in the cartridge rather than the console - to keep costs down for the console, also.

 

3. Why release the XEGS?

Change in ownership I believe happened, and the release of the NES. Tramiel took over Atari, and shelved the 7800 in favor of computers. Nintendo came along and showed video games weren't a fad. So Atari dusted off the 7800 and (again) repackaged the 8-bit computer tech into a game console that could be touted as a computer. You also had the 2600 jr. come out to try to get some money out of the revived market.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Brian R.

[Retro Rogue]

3. Why release the XEGS?

Change in ownership I believe happened, and the release of the NES. Tramiel took over Atari, and shelved the 7800 in favor of computers. Nintendo came along and showed video games weren't a fad. So Atari dusted off the 7800 and (again) repackaged the 8-bit computer tech into a game console that could be touted as a computer. You also had the 2600 jr. come out to try to get some money out of the revived market.

 

No, that's not what happened at all. First off, Tramiel didn't shelve the 7800, and this has been covered a plethora of times here already as well as in my 7800 article in Retro Gamer Magazine. The 7800 didn't come as part of the purchase (which was a purchase of the Consumer Division and the Atari brand name, not a purchase of Atari Inc.) Warner still owned it because GCC's contract was directly with Warner, not with Atari Inc. Jack wanted it and felt it should have come with the purchase, but the development of MARIA and the launch titles still had to be paid to GCC, so Warner wanted Jack to pay it in order to get the ownership. Jack refused, there were on-again and off-again negotiations until Spring '85 when Jack paid for MARIA development, and then set about negotiating for the launch titles which was completed over the Summer of '85. At that point Jack began looking for someone to start up the consumer video game division again and began wooing Mike Katz at Epyx in late August. Katz agreed to come on board in late September and was starting up the 7800 for relaunch at that point (including looking for more titles to license for development) as well as prepping the Jr. for a Christmas '85 release (it was not released during a "revived market").

 

The re-release of the 7800 in January '86 had zero to do with the NES's test marketing in New York in '85 (which was actually viewed as a poorly received test marketing).

 

Lastly, the XEGS was purely done because they wanted a "higher end" console on the market (so they'd have products in the low, mid, and high end market) and they wanted to do the "5200 done right." Katz was against the XEGS purely because he didn't feel it had any "hot" launch titles, but Jack insisted on it.

[Lynxpro]

No, that's not what happened at all. First off, Tramiel didn't shelve the 7800, and this has been covered a plethora of times here already as well as in my 7800 article in Retro Gamer Magazine. The 7800 didn't come as part of the purchase (which was a purchase of the Consumer Division and the Atari brand name, not a purchase of Atari Inc.) Warner still owned it because GCC's contract was directly with Warner, not with Atari Inc. Jack wanted it and felt it should have come with the purchase, but the development of MARIA and the launch titles still had to be paid to GCC, so Warner wanted Jack to pay it in order to get the ownership. Jack refused, there were on-again and off-again negotiations until Spring '85 when Jack paid for MARIA development, and then set about negotiating for the launch titles which was completed over the Summer of '85. At that point Jack began looking for someone to start up the consumer video game division again and began wooing Mike Katz at Epyx in late August. Katz agreed to come on board in late September and was starting up the 7800 for relaunch at that point (including looking for more titles to license for development) as well as prepping the Jr. for a Christmas '85 release (it was not released during a "revived market").

 

 

Considering Warner owned the 7800 and how badly the Atari Games folks wanted in on the home market, I'm surprised the 7800 didn't go to Atari Games Corp. Sure, they would've had to have re-licensed the "Atari" brand for home use, or they could've rolled it out as the "Tengen 7800". Then the 7800 would've had the Atari Games Corp. hits on it. I know when I saw the 7800 was being re-released, I assumed Tramiel had purchased Atari Games and that their hit titles would be coming to the console. It was quite a shock to see in the following year Gauntlet and RBI Baseball instead were heading for the NES. As a 7800 owner - and as a huge Atari arcade fan - that felt like a gut punch.

 

Once I learned Atari Games was still separate and that Tengen was actually them, I started writing/pestering Atari Corp. on a weekly basis to buy back Atari Games if only to reduce consumer confusion. I'm sure most consumers who bought the 7800 and were aware of the modern - at the time - Atari arcade titles naturally assumed they've be released for the Pro System. Finally, Atari Corp and Atari Games Corp worked out a deal which saw the titles arriving on the Lynx but that was too late for the 7800 and the XEGS to benefit from them.

 

Had those Atari Games Corp. titles been exclusives to the Atari Corp consoles, they would've been a very strong #2 contender instead of a weak one next to Nintendo. At least they still outsold Sega up until the Genesis.

[Jaynz]

I got to say it, and it is a little painful to admit, but the 7800 really couldn't, in the long run, compete with the NES. The limitations of the 7800, largely due to being backward compatible at a time where few even CARED about the 2600 (or, if they did, could get one for under $50 new pretty much anywhere) really undermined its competitive edge. The issue with the sound-chip ALONE make the 7800 look 'primitive' compared to the NES, as well as the doorstops, etc. The 7800 needed to come out against the Intellivision and Colecovision (rather than the 5200), and would have kept Atari going strong for a bit.. but it looked anemic compared to the NES. (Seriously, compare the 7800 DK and the NES DK and it really is just /over/ at that point.)

[7800]

Imagine if in 1983, Atari came out with a system that had comparable capabilities as the NES, or Famicom... and did away with the joystick and produced a gamepad? I suppose in a parallel universe Atari is still on top.