What was Atari thinking?

[Trebor]

...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.)

 

It may have looked "anemic" to you compared to the NES because Nintendo invested the money in the cartridges which was not done for the 7800 (Especially crucial considering the sound aspect of the system was to be leaned upon from the cartridge) not the system onboard sound. In the other thread, Drac, succinctly states why the sound decisions were made.

 

There is also a slew of other circumstances and events associated with the situation as well. Nevertheless, if Atari would have invested the money in the carts like Nintendo did, the story may have played out differently.

 

Yes, the Nintendo first party title Donkey Kong is better on the NES than the 7800. A better comparison though would be a third party title like Commando; which many would state the 7800 version is superior.

[Jaynz]

It may have looked "anemic" to you compared to the NES because Nintendo invested the money in the cartridges which was not done for the 7800 (Especially crucial considering the sound aspect of the system was to be leaned upon from the cartridge) not the system onboard sound. In the other thread, Drac, succinctly states why the sound decisions were made.

 

But that's just it. By making that decision, the 7800 was effectively doomed. Atari already had a long history (regardless of who was at the helm) as doing things as cheaply as possible, even if it means gutting the integrity of the product. (Hence, the infamous 2600 PacMan). Having a grossly-outdated sound chip, which was below most competitors at the time, really sent yet another signal to the 'market' that Atari just wasn't serious about competing anymore. It was a major unforced error on Atari's part, regardless of who was at the helm.

 

Yes, the Nintendo first party title Donkey Kong is better on the NES than the 7800. A better comparison though would be a third party title like Commando; which many would state the 7800 version is superior.

 

Not sure if that's a fair comparison, since Commando uses a non-standard cart-layout on the 7800. That would be like comparing the Tengen Ms. Pac-Man to the 7800 Ms. Pac-Man. Yet, of course, PMP's "Pokey-Enhanced" collection blows them both away.

[Brian R.]

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.

 

Well, I guess this can be a case of where what you think you know isn't what happened at all. Thanks for the detail and insight.

 

I can't see how they considered the XEGS a "high end" console, given it was basically the same old 8-bit system in a new case.

[Brian R.]

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.

 

I was one of those gamers who didn't "get" the gamepad. I thought it was silly, and worse than a joystick. Atari I believe used that thinking as well, touting their systems as having "real" joystick controllers.

 

Who would've thought they were wrong? Sticks were what we used at the arcades. But, well, you know how it went...

[Trebor]

But that's just it. By making that decision, the 7800 was effectively doomed. Atari already had a long history (regardless of who was at the helm) as doing things as cheaply as possible, even if it means gutting the integrity of the product. (Hence, the infamous 2600 PacMan). Having a grossly-outdated sound chip, which was below most competitors at the time, really sent yet another signal to the 'market' that Atari just wasn't serious about competing anymore. It was a major unforced error on Atari's part, regardless of who was at the helm.

 

 

 

Not sure if that's a fair comparison, since Commando uses a non-standard cart-layout on the 7800. That would be like comparing the Tengen Ms. Pac-Man to the 7800 Ms. Pac-Man. Yet, of course, PMP's "Pokey-Enhanced" collection blows them both away.

 

Agreed that onboard added to the doomed scenario for the 7800. My comment was not addressing whether the sound decision aided in its demise, rather the notion that the system was "anemic" compared to the NES.

 

Here's where things start getting real fuzzy too. Commando is not a "standard" cart layout...Disagree.

Donkey Kong XM would be an example of a "non-standard" cart layout.

 

Again though, Atari invested in cart hardware the way Nintendo did and games like Bentley Bear - Crystal Quest, Donkey Kong XM, and beyond, could have been "standard" cart layouts.

 

But I digress as history tells the sad story.

[Retro Rogue]

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.

 

They didn't want on the homemarket to begin with, they were purely an arcade company. At the time of the split in '84, they certainly didn't want anything to do with consumer. In fact they blamed consumer for taking the whole company down. There was no one there with any consumer experience either. The desire to get into the homemarket came later after the NES was proving a success.

 

As for the people claiming that the 7800 in no way compares to the NES, we have the internal emails with Atari engineers discussing the pros and cons between the Maria Chip and the then yet to be released Famicom, with the engineers split in their decision. Half felt the MARIA was superior because it could handle far more sprites via software, and sound was never an issue. Regarding the backwards capability for the 2600 it was indeed very important at that time in 1983. The 5200 was originally lambasted the year before because it didn't launch with the 2600 backwards compatibility, And they didn't want to make that mistake again.

[7800]

I was one of those gamers who didn't "get" the gamepad. I thought it was silly, and worse than a joystick. Atari I believe used that thinking as well, touting their systems as having "real" joystick controllers.

 

Who would've thought they were wrong? Sticks were what we used at the arcades. But, well, you know how it went...

 

I also prefer joysticks. The closer to the arcade feel, the better. The single button handheld stick works fine, but the multi button handheld joystick doesn't work well IMO. a tabletop joystick with as many buttons as it needs is the perfect scenario... you can put it on your lap, floor, table, etc. But realistically, a console with a packed in tabletop joystick would bring the price up too high... It would have been cool though. I remember using the NES Advantage for the first time... never went back to the pads. ... although the NES Max was pretty cool for Ice Hockey.

[Jaynz]

As for the people claiming that the 7800 in no way compares to the NES, we have the internal emails with Atari engineers discussing the pros and cons between the Maria Chip and the then yet to be released Famicom, with the engineers split in their decision. Half felt the MARIA was superior because it could handle far more sprites via software, and sound was never an issue.

 

That should be a bit of a clue, though. I think a lot of the internal people in Atari didn't want to tell their higher-ups that 'yeah, our console is going to look pretty dated and bad and please don't add me to the personnel cuts you're doing'. The 7800 would have been a strong contender in 1983 and probably would have taken Atari through to 1990 with good support in that scenario, but it was ultimate passed over as a 'new' machine in 1986. The market, and even the nature of console gaming, really had changed, and Atari simply didn't keep up. They blew their window.

 

Regarding the backwards capability for the 2600 it was indeed very important at that time in 1983. The 5200 was originally lambasted the year before because it didn't launch with the 2600 backwards compatibility, And they didn't want to make that mistake again.

 

It may have been a big deal in 1983, which is already an arguable point. (Parents cared more about it than the gamers, who likely ALREADY HAD the 2600 anyway.) But in 1986 it was a bit more of a 'so what?' move. "Johnny, can you play your older brother's (or even possibly your dad's) seven-year-old ASTEROIDS game on it?" wasn't all that important by the time the NES was coming out, and it certainly wasn't worth gutting the quality of your machine in the face of impressive competition.

[Trebor]

It may have been a big deal in 1983, which is already an arguable point. (Parents cared more about it than the gamers, who likely ALREADY HAD the 2600 anyway.) But in 1986 it was a bit more of a 'so what?' move. "Johnny, can you play your older brother's (or even possibly your dad's) seven-year-old ASTEROIDS game on it?" wasn't all that important by the time the NES was coming out, and it certainly wasn't worth gutting the quality of your machine in the face of impressive competition.

 

The 7800 like the NES(Famicom) was designed in 1983. Using '1986 reasoning' doesn't work as Atari is not about to scrap the already designed and built machines.

 

What quality of the base hardware could they have improved that wouldn't have rendered the already designed and built machine from 1983-84 obsolete? If they weren't investing in hardware in the cartridges, they aren't going to redesign the system in 1986. They only thing they could do, and should have done, as originally planned, is invested in the cartridge hardware like Nintendo did with its Famicom/NES.

[Jaynz]

The 7800 like the NES(Famicom) was designed in 1983. Using '1986 reasoning' doesn't work as Atari is not about to scrap the already designed and built machines.

 

Ideally they would have released and pushed the machine in 1983 as its primary console. It would have been more competitive at that time, even with the limitations of the sound chip. The decisions for the 7800 would have made some sense if they weren't pushing two versions of the 2600 and the 5200 at the same time with the /real/ desire of the company to push three different Atari-branded computers right with it.

 

What quality of the base hardware could they have improved that wouldn't have rendered the already designed and built machine from 1983-84 obsolete? If they weren't investing in hardware in the cartridges, they aren't going to redesign the system in 1986. They only thing they could do, and should have done, as originally planned, is invested in the cartridge hardware like Nintendo did with its Famicom/NES.

 

We're kinda stating the obvious here. The 7800 wasn't a competitive system in 1986. As a three-year-old system (if it had been Atari's mainline) it would have had momentum and the carts would have seen improved 'default' layouts by then. But as a 'newish' launch against the NES? Suicide. Really, there wasn't a LOT that Atari could have done in 1986 with existing hardware to change things much... but it wouldn't have taken THAT much in a redesign to turn that around.

[Retro Rogue]

 

 

That should be a bit of a clue, though. I think a lot of the internal people in Atari didn't want to tell their higher-ups that 'yeah, our console is going to look pretty dated and bad and please don't add me to the personnel cuts you're doing'.

 

Not at all. A) there were no cuts in engineering or those types of places until '84, and that wasn't on any of these people's minds. B) the comparisons went on for months and were very serious, including having a group of engineers fly out to Japan. The impetus for all this was because Yamauchi wanted Atari to carry the Famicom world wide. It ultimately fell apart because of his unrealistic demands and timeframe.

 

The 7800 would have been a strong contender in 1983 and probably would have taken Atari through to 1990 with good support in that scenario, but it was ultimate passed over as a 'new' machine in 1986. The market, and even the nature of console gaming, really had changed, and Atari simply didn't keep up. They blew their window.

 

What Atari? You're talking about two different companies. Atari Corp. didn't have the ability or anyone with experience to design game consoles. Likewise, you're confusing games released vs. capabilities. (Which seems to be a common problem with people comparing consoles). Hardware wise, the 7800 was very capable of being competitive on the market, and later homebrewers have shown that. The problem was lack of third-party developers for the console releasing anything of note, let alone Atari Corp. not having any game developers of its own. Atari Corp. tried to keep on some of the developers in contract positions, but as it became clear the 7800 wasn't going to come out any time soon, it wasn't economically feasible to do so as the financial problems of the company were actually getting worse through the Fall of '84. Had they been able to keep on some of the creative game developers from Atari Inc., there would've been no reason why they couldn't have come out just as competitive a game as Mario or Zelda. Back in the Atari Inc. days, most of the creativity came from the coin developers and then the second tier where the consumer developers, which is why Atari's own games dominated. Atari Corp. was nothing like that, having to rely on outside third-party developers, and even then only the ones that weren't locked into the exclusive agreement with Nintendo. But to say it wasn't competitive anymore is just completely silly. There's a reason it came in second over the master system in the US, not dead last.

 

 

 

It may have been a big deal in 1983, which is already an arguable point. (Parents cared more about it than the gamers, who likely ALREADY HAD the 2600 anyway.) But in 1986 it was a bit more of a 'so what?' move. "Johnny, can you play your older brother's (or even possibly your dad's) seven-year-old ASTEROIDS game on it?" wasn't all that important by the time the NES was coming out, and it certainly wasn't worth gutting the quality of your machine in the face of impressive competition.

 

Cutting the quality of what machine, it's the same machine. Or are you operating under the assumption that they could've gone back and redone the 7800? See above. It would've been an incredible waste of money either way to redo an already finished console. Let alone for the cash-strapped company that Atari Corp. was at the time. And never mind the fact that Warner was pressuring Atari Corp. to get the 7800 out as well.

 

What they could've done was introduced a small expansion to increase the RAM and sound chip like what we're doing with the XM expansion, but that would've required working with GCC some more to expand it and that wasn't gonna happen without paying even more development money which they didn't have - Not to mention that GCC didn't have any of the same people anymore, it had already been downsized because of the crash.

[7800]

I agree that if Atari really tried, they could have made some doable modifications and enhancements to the 7800, bringing it closer to a real contender for the NES. But Atari was legally locked out by Nintendo from producing certain great selling game titles... this would have hurt the 7800 regardless.

[Trebor]

Ideally they would have released and pushed the machine in 1983 as its primary console. It would have been more competitive at that time, even with the limitations of the sound chip. The decisions for the 7800 would have made some sense if they weren't pushing two versions of the 2600 and the 5200 at the same time with the /real/ desire of the company to push three different Atari-branded computers right with it.

 

 

 

We're kinda stating the obvious here. The 7800 wasn't a competitive system in 1986. As a three-year-old system (if it had been Atari's mainline) it would have had momentum and the carts would have seen improved 'default' layouts by then. But as a 'newish' launch against the NES? Suicide. Really, there wasn't a LOT that Atari could have done in 1986 with existing hardware to change things much... but it wouldn't have taken THAT much in a redesign to turn that around.

 

Number of consoles sold yearly increased from 86-88 for the 7800. The suicide was not the launch against the NES necessarily, but the lack of backing it up with games and the cartridge hardware it needed.

[Jaynz]

I agree that if Atari really tried, they could have made some doable modifications and enhancements to the 7800, bringing it closer to a real contender for the NES. But Atari was legally locked out by Nintendo from producing certain great selling game titles... this would have hurt the 7800 regardless.

 

It was less of a limitation than most people think, though. Atari had a huge catalog of games they could have drawn from. Not just the 2600 standbys, of course, but a large amount of games for 'gaming computers' that had started to take off. They did this a little bit with games like Kareteka, of course, but the 7800 could have also taken titles like Pool of Radiance, and a large number of 'computer only' RPGs that were becoming gaming's new dominating force.

 

As Trebor said, the lack of games, particularly games that looked and sounded as good as the NES games, really hurt the system. Where were games like Phoenix, Kangaroo, Vanguard, etc., that Atari already had locked up? Sure, they were a little old, but the NES library at launch wasn't all that spiffy either. If Atari had proven the 7800 with a diversity of titles... but, yes, we're going 'if only' once again. It really seems like Atari dropped the ball on the 7800 on every single opportunity it had.

[7800]

I think Atari may not have had a good idea of what gamers wanted and/or needed back in the early 80's, as if there was zero market research. They new they had competition but by the time they figured out what to release, it was too late... a lot of scrambling to release anything that would appear to be a better product rather than focus on practicality. I'm not trying to knock Atari, but they were a business and like all businesses they are out to maximize profits, etc. So, I think the main focus was on cutting costs rather than trying to make a true revolutionary game system. Otherwise the 5200 would have been more than just a 400/800 in drag.

[Lynxpro]

Yes, the Nintendo first party title Donkey Kong is better on the NES than the 7800. A better comparison though would be a third party title like Commando; which many would state the 7800 version is superior.

 

 

Or Xevious...or Galaga...or Double Dragon [err, make that Single Dragon on the NES!].

[jetset]

Otherwise the 5200 would have been more than just a 400/800 in drag.

 

It actually is more than that. Maybe not by a mountainous amount, but it is.

Games like Realsports Baseball for example. One of if not THE best baseball titles of the era. And while there may be some that you could argue are as good on the 400, the control scheme, having only one button on the stick make the flow of gameplay a nightmare. On that note any games which require more than one button are a much better experience than the 400. Try playing Defender with having to use your toes(s) to activate the smart bomb and/or hyperspace. Then there's Space Dungeon...not available on the 400. Nor is as good of a dual joystick option like the 5200 coupler. That also makes Robotron a MUCH better game on the 5200.

And in addition to Space Dungeon;

Berzerk? Not on the 400.

Countermeasure? Not on the 400

Blueprint? Nope (ok...kind of a stinker but still)

Gremlins? Nope (a GREAT game)

Meteorites? Nope (ok...stinker)

Vanguard? Nope

Then there's Centipede. Availably on the 400, but graphically a stinker. The 5200 is damn close to arcade perfect. AND the trakball for the 5200 is better than ANY available for the computer line, which also makes Missile Command much better.

Of course everyone whines about the 5200 controllers, and ultimately there are many games where people can't adapt to them. I would submit the same kind of casual gamers would have a real hard time dealing with the often stiff analog controllers used on the 400 with free roaming games (like Defender for example...playing an hour long game session on a 2600 stick where you're CONSTANTLY pushing all directions can be tortuous).

I'll also throw in something that rarely comes up defending the 5200 (but ironically is one of the supposedly huge benefits to the 7800. Backwards compatibility with the 2600. Yes, you need an adapter, but no such beast exists for the 400.

 

All that said I'm NOT trying to say because of these reasons the 5200 is a far better option. The 400 has about a million more games available with only a handful that the 5200 has exclusively.

 

Still...it's not 100% the 400 clone everyone makes it out to be. There's more to love than it gets credit for.

[Trebor]

Still...it's not 100% the 400 clone everyone makes it out to be.

 

Absolutely, it did not have Donkey Kong

 

The XL version was converted for the 5200 nowadays, but back then, no DK for you 5200

[jetset]

Absolutely, it did not have Donkey Kong

 

The XL version was converted for the 5200 nowadays, but back then, no DK for you 5200

 

Oh absolutely! Again I was not making the case for the 5200 being better overall than the 400/800 line, just that the 5200 has plenty of its' own charm that makes it worth owning ALONG with a 400. It's not the same of everything. Close, but not the same

[Trebor]

...the 5200 has plenty of its' own charm that makes it worth owning ALONG with a 400....

 

Nah, the 5200 has plenty of its own charm that makes it worth owning without the need of a 400.

[Retro Rogue]

I think Atari may not have had a good idea of what gamers wanted and/or needed back in the early 80's, as if there was zero market research.

 

It was actually the opposite, they had lots of focus groups.

 

 

They new they had competition but by the time they figured out what to release, it was too late... a lot of scrambling to release anything that would appear to be a better product rather than focus on practicality.

 

Not what happened at all, there was never any scrambling. Where did you get that idea?

 

I'm not trying to knock Atari, but they were a business and like all businesses they are out to maximize profits, etc. So, I think the main focus was on cutting costs rather than trying to make a true revolutionary game system. Otherwise the 5200 would have been more than just a 400/800 in drag.

 

Again, not what happened at all. The issues with the 5200 had more to do with internal politics (oh, and there were focus groups for it as well). We have the whole story of the development, including the in development systems before it, in the book.

[Trebor]

We have the whole story of the development, including the in development systems before it, in the book.

 

And a heck of a lot more than that...

 

http://www.amazon.co...Business is Fun

[jetset]

Nah, the 5200 has plenty of its own charm that makes it worth owning without the need of a 400.

 

From a nostalgia point of view I agree 100%. If the only draw is simply the vast number of games and nothing else (which is often the boast of the 400 over 5200 argument), you could get the same experinece on a modern pc with an emulator.

I like having both.

[DracIsBack]

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.

 

Not everyone has read your article or Atariage and there's a lot of misinformation out there in general. You can inform without coming across like that ...

 

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.

 

There is some merit to what he said, though obviously there's more to the story. I always liked this contemporary post:

 

https://groups.googl...y4/zNYxPzguppgJ

 

Hope your recovery is going well.

Edited July 16, 2013 by DracIsBack

[DracIsBack]

Double Dragon [err, make that Single Dragon on the NES!].

 

The thing about NES double dragon is that I find it a much better game. The graphics are better, the music is better, the controls are better, the AI is better. It's just a really bad translation of the game "double dragon".