How powerful was the cancelled Atari Panther compared to the Atari ST/Amiga?

[Lost Dragon]

17 hours ago, zzip said:

Coleco wasn't really a threat, it may have seemed like one at the time, but they shot themselves in the foot with the Adam, then then bowed out in 85.

 

In the meantime Atari panicked and started working on the 7800.   What they didn't realize is having the best hardware isn't the end-all be-all.   Having the right games is more important,  being competitively priced is more important.  Lots of generations have been won by the weaker system.   They should have stuck with the 5200, bringing better games to move more units instead of jumping to 7800 so quickly.   I mean..  if the idea was that the 5200 wasn't good enough to go against Coleco in 83,  how on earth was the XEGS good enough to go against Nintendo/Sega in 87?

 

In the 80s Atari 8-bit owners wanted the kind of support that Commodore was giving the C64/C128 and Apple was giving the Apple II line.   They used them as serious computers,  they wanted hard drive options, better floppies, better capabilities, better app support.  All that stuff came late, if at all, and was lacking.   When the XEGS came out, many owners took it as a slap in the face because they wanted their computers to shed the "game system" image.    Also XEGS did nothing to expand the graphics/sound capabilities of the system.

 

These are excuses.   The game industry isn't going to pause and wait for Atari to get enough income from ST.   Tramiel Atari wasn't serious about gaming at the time.  Sorry, they just weren't.   If they were, they would have made resolving the 7800 legal issues a priority, not let it fester for two years.   They would have kept releasing 2600 carts the whole time.   Instead they stopped completely, and only started again when they "rediscovered" the 2600.

 

Tramiel went into Atari only caring about the ST.   He only rediscovered game consoles when he noticed they started bringing in cash again.  In the meantime he squandered Atari's market position.   Mr. "Business is War" would never have let that happen if he cared about games.

That's the response i had from multiple sources at Atari UK during the 400/800 XL/XE era. 

 

Tramiel had no interest in pushing the hardware as a games platform, he wanted it pushed for serious users. 

 

All the press reports of renewed support from software houses after he had offloaded the unsold 800 XL"s to UK Electrical high street chain, was just nonsense. 

 

The staff at Atari UK had to do everything off their own backs to try and get games support from publishers for the A8 range. 

 

If not for likes of Red RAT, English Software, Zeppelin, Tynesoft, US Gold etc, the A8 scene would of been even worse over here. 

 

Ocean sat on Head Over Heels for years, had no interest in the XEGS, Imagine farmed out the conversion of Green Beret.. 

 

 

Domark came close to not releasing Star Wars after Zeppelin coded it for them. 

 

Gremlin Graphics gave it token support. 

 

Once Atari saw the NES capturing huge market share, the 7800 was taken out of storage, given minimal advertising and support. 

 

We had an absurd situation in the UK with Atari having the 2600 Jr, XEGS and 7800 all trying to compete for the same, limited 8-bit console market share, same games on all 3 platforms in some cases, no new, big name titles.. 

 

Tramiel thinking because the system's were cheaper than their rivals, they'd sell better, it was never going to happen. 

 

You combine that with Atari announcing new hardware far too early.. CD ST console.. 

 

[Leeroy ST]

5 hours ago, Lost Dragon said:

Once Atari saw the NES capturing huge market share, the 7800 was taken out of storage, given minimal advertising and support. 

 

How are you repeating a long debunked myth especially on an Atariage who was the first (as far as I remember) to uncover the myth in the first place?

[zzip]

18 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

In the meantime what? Atari 7800 was trapped in legal limbo, unless you mean after the 5200 was scrapped, in that case 7800 was just another attempt at a sucessor I wouldn't say Atari panicked that seems a bit extreme, but they did react.

It totally was a panic move.  If you launch a new console and scrap it within 2 years, you've screwed over everyone who bought it, and now who's going to trust you?   They should have created new controllers for the 5200 and maybe introduced a slimmer model,  bring more showcase games.   It would have cost them less than an entire new design too.

 

18 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

If you are talking about the 7800 they did have the right games for a quick launch in 1984. Maybe not the right number of games sure.

Many of those games were old for 1984:   Asteroids, Dig Dug,  Ms Pacman.   The had been on other Atari systems already.

 

The problem is the industry didn't know what they were doing at the time,  they didn't know what the consumers wanted.  You can see that in the peripherals launching.  Everyone was rushing out keyboard attachments to turn their consoles into computers.   None of these succeeded.   Atari thought they needed 2600 backwards compatibilty.   But history has shown that backwards compatibility isn't really a deal breaker.   History has also shown that having the best games beats having the best tech.   The Atari 2600 beat out the Intellivision.    I think the 5200 could have done just fine vs the Colecovision with the right games and marketing.  And it's not like the 7800 was that much better,  it had a better sprite engine but terrible sound.

 

18 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

Also the XEGS sold out it's initial shipments, and actually had a strategy the 5200 should have used (why Atari decided not to push it in marketing is a mystery) and that is to have cross-games with the computer line. 5200 should have had the games it came with and received its first years plus posts of computer line-up games. 5200 got some like Rescue on Fractlus among others, but not enough. 

Well I've said before that the 600XL was a better 5200 than the 5200!

 

  But I think what the issue was is how games were licensed at the time.  Remember that Coleco got the console license for Donkey Kong, and Atari got the computer license.   Atari threw a fit when they saw Donkey Kong running on the Adam and ended the NES deal over it.   If the 5200 had been compatible with the 8-bit line, Atari would have had the same issue with games like Donkey Kong.   They would have had to create a lockout mechanism for such games making the 5200 a crippled version of the Atari 8-bit line.

 

19 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

I also don't get why you are being stubborn on this, the 7800 was in LEGAL LIMBO, they couldn't DO ANYTHING, nobody believed the industry would wait for Atari and I'm not even sure what that means since the NES was a 1983 machine the 7800 was strong enough. The games it launched with were hold overs that were already COMPLETE when it released in 1986 it would take time to put out new games and they did come out at the end of the year. There's really nothing to misunderstand here, you seem to be just beating on Atari to beat on them.

I'm stubborn because I remember this era like it was yesterday, and don't buy the revisionist spin that the Tramiels have since tried to put on it.   In 1984, the thinking at least in the US was that consoles are dead, video games were a fad,  and home computers were the way forward.   Jack helped originate this idea by telling parents they should buy Commodore 64's instead of game consoles the previous year.  Also it was clear their intent was to polish up the Atari image as a respectable computer company and downplay the gaming past.   That's why they didn't buy the arcade division.   Yes the ST had games.  Every computer had games.    But Apple wasn't focused on games,  IBM wasn't focused on games,  Tramiel's Atari Corp  wanted to be more like them and shed their past image.   That's what the first few years of Tramiel Atari were like.   But eventually the PC clone market started eating more and more of their lunch.  The cheap Amiga 500 started playing directly on their turf in 87.   And game consoles started selling again.  They liked money, so it was only at that time that they rediscovered gaming.

 

The idea that they were interested all along but their hands were tied just doesn't pass the smell test.   If the excuse was the 7800 was tied up, what would have stopped them from building an XEGS in 1985?   Why did they stop releasing 2600 carts in 84 and resume in 86 if they were so serious about gaming?   Why did they not license or develop any new gaming IPs until at least 1987?   We all know how ruthless Jack Tramiel could be.   Yet he didn't give Nintendo the "Business is War" treatment when they emerged, which shows he was not focused on that market at the time.   Nintendo feared the Warner Atari.  They didn't Fear the Tramiel Atari.   That speaks volumes.

 

19 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

This shows you don't understand the cause for the delay. Atari Corp didn't "let" anything fester for two years. It was actually Warners fault the system as delayed in the first place since they screwed over GCC, which eventually Atari Corp caved to cover their mess and then had to create a new studio and department head for the console division.

Yes exactly.  Atari resolved the issue by cutting a check.   They could have cut that check at anytime if the 7800 was a priority.    They didn't care until they saw consoles selling again.

[zzip]

10 hours ago, atarian1 said:

We were comparing systems and price. A decent 486 was still more expensive than a Falcon

Depends on the year.  When I bought my first PC,  a 486DX4-100, it was roughly the same price as a Falcon

 

10 hours ago, atarian1 said:

and the DSP certainly helped in application performance. Maybe not in word processing or spreadsheets, but for graphics and music, it certainly helped.

The application needed to be coded to use the DSP.   How many DSP-enhanced apps are there that aren't demos or games?

 

10 hours ago, atarian1 said:

Can you really tell the difference in the speed of a word processor or spreadsheet on a 486 vs a Falcon? Not really.

Yes!  Everything was noticably faster on my 486 because the GEM UI was always rather slow.

 

10 hours ago, atarian1 said:

Emulators at the time could not emulate a Falcon, so I know you are lying about the PC emulating Falcons faster than a real Falcon. 

And still no emulator can emulate a Falcon 100%

What I said was I could emulate a 68030 faster than a 16mhz one, that meant the 486 was many times more powerful than a 68030.  Other benchmarks show that to be a case-  it's roughly equivalent to a 386DX,  or maybe a 486SX if the 030 was clocked at 60mhz.

 

At the time I felt bad for jumping ship from Atari to PC, my heart wanted a Falcon, but my head wanted a PC, so I became a bit obsessive benchmarking it to make sure I made the right decision.   I discovered it wasn't really a contest.

[Lost Dragon]

5 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

How are you repeating a long debunked myth especially on an Atariage who was the first (as far as I remember) to uncover the myth in the first place?

Don't blame me, that's how it was presented in the last article i ever saw on the system:

 

https://issuu.com/michelfranca/docs/retro_gamer____132

 

P24 onwards, talks of system being re-launched to go head to head with the NES and Master System, lack of promotion etc. 

 

Call it mothnalling, projects put on hold, whatever, that's how the magazine presented it in an historical feature. 

 

They had a resident Atari proof reader. 

 

To be fair though, they also claimed Lynx Gauntlet III was a conversion of the coin op Gauntlet, rather than a stand alone title renamed and this in a feature on the Tramiel era Atari. 

 

I was constantly shot down whenever i questioned the Atari coverage in the magazine, so if it's good enough for them to claim it.. ?

 

Edited September 5, 2020 by Lost Dragon

[Leeroy ST]

2 hours ago, Lost Dragon said:

r. To be fair though, they also claimed Lynx Gauntlet III was a conversion of the coin op Gauntlet, rather than a stand alone title renamed and this in a feature on the Tramiel era Atari. 

 

I was constantly shot down whenever i questioned the Atari coverage in the magazine, so if it's good enough for them to claim it.. ?

 

Seems to be a common trend with magazines covering that timeframe.

[empsolo]

6 hours ago, zzip said:

We all know how ruthless Jack Tramiel could be.   Yet he didn't give Nintendo the "Business is War" treatment when they emerged, which shows he was not focused on that market at the time.   Nintendo feared the Warner Atari.  They didn't Fear the Tramiel Atari.   That speaks volumes.

 

 

This was especially true. A great example of this was the anti-trust lawsuit that Atari Corp launched against Nintendo. Howard Lincoln and John Kirby were able to get the Tremiels on the stand and got them to admit that Atari Corps game development and licensing practices were bush league. I believe Leonard Tremiel admitted that Atari Corp had done zero courting of American or Japanese third parties and kinda expected them to fall into Atari's lap like the old Atari Inc days. In doing so, NoA was able to paint the Tremiel Atari as being run by morons who had no clue how the gaming industry worked and the jury crucified Atari for it.

[Leeroy ST]

5 hours ago, zzip said:

It totally was a panic move.  If you launch a new console and scrap it within 2 years, you've screwed over everyone who bought it, and now who's going to trust you?   They should have created new controllers for the 5200 and maybe introduced a slimmer model,  bring more showcase games.   It would have cost them less than an entire new design too.

I wouldn't say it was a panic move, it was more like a change of strategy since the 7800 was being made as the 5200 was still on the market and it was clear Warner figured that new consoles "may" perform better and would cut their losses instead of tying to salvage and profit off the 5200. Also we don't know about the cost of the design since the 7800 was licensed out to another manufacture and wasn't made by warner unlike most of the 5200.

 

Quote

Many of those games were old for 1984:   Asteroids, Dig Dug,  Ms Pacman.   The had been on other Atari systems already.

 

Some of the games were old yes, but there were plenty of newer games as well. You are also forgetting one of the main attractions of powerful consoles which is odd since you say you remember the time back then, and that was graphical representation of the arcades.

 

Sure Dig dug was old, but there was dig dug that looked like these "atari systems":

 

 

]

 

That now looked like this:

 

 

sooooooooooo just sayin. And that's one of the weaker gaps, there are some ports that look extremely different between the three consoles.

 

So yes for 1984 this would have been a major selling point PLUS the newer games, and in addition the primary competitor, the Colecovision, didn't even have a release of some of these games like for example, Dig Dug. 

 

Quote

The problem is the industry didn't know what they were doing at the time,  they didn't know what the consumers wanted.

Is that why consumers kept buying games even after the crash and brought 2600's for another 7 years after 1985? 

 

Quote

 Atari thought they needed 2600 backwards compatibilty.   But history has shown that backwards compatibility isn't really a deal breaker. 

This comment doesn't even make sense, the 5200 didn't even have BC and it failing actually made BC more viable tot he console Warner continued past the 5200. Also the 7800 was the FIRST consoles with full BC so there isn't really a history when we are looking at it from a "for the time" lens, it was also an important selling point, slightly diluted by redesigning the 2600 to look similar to the 7800 with the JR redesign but was a major point initially before the massive (2600) price cuts in late 87 onward.

 

Not sure what this has to do with anything though, BC was a smart move, especially if it released in 84 like originally planned because Warner if they never sold, would have had a reason to scrap the 2600 finally.

 

Quote

I think the 5200 could have done just fine vs the Colecovision with the right games and marketing.  And it's not like the 7800 was that much better,  it had a better sprite engine but terrible sound.

This is the part you aren't getting about the 5200, it did have the right games and marketing (somewhat) but they had caused around 2-3 self-inflicted wounds that would cause the 5200 to be a money sink and looking at it long-term from their own analysis Warner decided to kill the 5200. I agree they should have tried fixing it first but you're adding more factors in that do nothing but unfairly bash Warner/Atari down.

 

Quote

it's not like the 7800 was that much better,  it had a better sprite engine but terrible sound.

Pokey was good sound the issue was it was optional and not built in due to costs.

 

As for not being much better that's a very strange comment since the 7800 can compete with 2nd generation MMC NES chips with regular hardware. Unless you think sound is 80% of hardware this statement doesn't even make sense.

 

Just a random game that isn't even that good graphically based on the hardware outdoes everything on the 5200 nothing comes close:

 

 

Quote

Atari threw a fit when they saw Donkey Kong running on the Adam and ended the NES deal over it.   If the 5200 had been compatible with the 8-bit line, Atari would have had the same issue with games like Donkey Kong.   They would have had to create a lockout mechanism for such games making the 5200 a crippled version of the Atari 8-bit line.

Atari would have access to the vast amount of the library, you're forgetting how many games across how many genres the 8-bit line has in its library by that point plus newer titles. 5200 not having some of the computer-line games with it's console library was a mistake and may have helped the consoles even with the bad controls buying time.

 

Quote

and don't buy the revisionist spin that the Tramiels have since tried to put on it.

What revisionist spin? It was a fact that the 7800 was in legal limbo between Warner, GCC, and Jack. There;s nothing to argue there.

 

Quote

In 1984, the thinking at least in the US was that consoles are dead, video games were a fad,  and home computers were the way forward.

And consoles were still selling, and games were still being brought, the issue was games were being brought at bargain prices which hurt the industry and bankrupted companies, not the "lack" of consumers, though some retail did takes games off the shelves but many just threw them in bins. The market was still flush with cash the Industry is what crashed which retail is apart of. Why would people buy another 1 million 2600 consoles and companies think of releasing consoles in 1985 along with new games releases, if no one was buying?

 

Quote

Also it was clear their intent was to polish up the Atari image as a respectable computer company and downplay the gaming past.

Outside of you know, Atari pushing gaming on the ST early with aggression, supporting the 8-bit line with software, adding the 7800 to the transfer deal with Warner, and thinking about an ST console not long from the computers launch. 

 

The "dropping gaming image" seems to mostly have been a thing in Europe but that wasn't the case in the US, there were some attempts here and there in some regions but people were calling the ST a gaming machine here. 

 

You are literally creating fiction at least from a US stand point, which is the region of discussion.

 

Quote

If the excuse was the 7800 was tied up, what would have stopped them from building an XEGS in 1985?

The XEGS was made to extend the 8-bit lines life with games and also from what I understand get rid of parts inventory. The 7800 was already a finished product and was held up in until 1986. 

 

Quote

Why did they stop releasing 2600 carts in 84 and resume in 86 if they were so serious about gaming?

Well there's a few obvious flaws in your logic here. First, many third-parties were reeling and those that were able to come back did so slowly on computers because they could charge higher prices and get more power.

 

Secondly, the 2600 did have releases in 84 and 85, I have no idea where you are getting this crap from. They cut games later in 84 during the peak of the crash impact yes, which makes perfect sense. You could argue Atari themselves did not publish games in 85 but you said stop releasing carts in general which wasn't true.

 

Quote

Why did they not license or develop any new gaming IPs until at least 1987?

They did. Unless you are talking about consoles, in that case the 7800 was in legal discussion so what were they going to put new ips on? Remember until the legal issue was resolved there wasn't a console division because that was what would be created when the deal was done. (not to mention the loss of games from the original 1984 launch that was dropped with the warner, gcc dispute.)

 

You're complaints don't make much sense and can be easily explained by the situation Atari corp was in while their gaming division was being negotiated.

 

Quote

Yet he didn't give Nintendo the "Business is War" treatment when they emerged, which shows he was not focused on that market at the time.

What emergence? The 7800 released before the NES nationwide, the NES had a test run before that with skepticism at that, Atari released their consoles nation wide in spring iirc or early summer while the NES nationwide US launch was in September.

 

ST was only just starting to make money and turn the Atari name around economically, and the money from the 7800 wouldn't really become significant until he end of the year, and Atari sold all the units they could produce which was limited due to costs and new manufacturing and included the forzen stock already made before the legal delay. 

 

So Nintendo's marketing and competitive marketshare wouldn't even be obvious to Atari until the end of the year, which after they did shift more money over with the new finances and increase the marketing campaign considerably (which of course wouldn't really work with those locked-in third party deals which still hurt their library and made it so that Atari would have to produce every title including under their name for a few third-party companies that they could get which cost extra money.)

 

Quote

Yes exactly.  Atari resolved the issue by cutting a check.   They could have cut that check at anytime if the 7800 was a priority.    They didn't care until they saw consoles selling again.

 

This statement is dumb and I mean that legitimately. You are in the middle of buying a product from a company, and you have a third-party claiming a crazy amount of money partner A owes them, and you are already going to have to spend a lot to transfer everything over, start new R&D and marketing, why would you not try to figure out:

 

A) What happened

B)If the money asked for was legit.

C) If you could negotiate the money

 

and in 1985 there were other parts of the deal still being dealt with, with warner NOT including the console division. This isn't something you do in two weeks and you won't find a single-example of it happening anywhere else during that time period but you will find other examples of what DID happen occurring similarly across that time frame.

 

Like I said you are basically trying really really hard to break down Atari, especially Jack who had his issues but you are piling on artificial negatives.

 

Quote

Nintendo feared the Warner Atari.  They didn't Fear the Tramiel Atari.   That speaks volumes.

This is also crap, Warner Atari was still around in 84, for all Nintendo knew until 1985 Warner still owned Atari and hadn't finished the deal with Jack. If your basis about "fear" is Nintendo deciding to release the console in the US that was going to happen even if Warner stayed in the game because they refused to distribute the machine, that and Atari Corp didn't even have the console division in 1985 and was still negotiating. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[empsolo]

1 minute ago, Leeroy ST said:

What emergence? The 7800 released before the NES nationwide, the NES had a test run before that with skepticism at that, Atari released their consoles nation wide in spring iirc or early summer while the NES nationwide US launch was in September.

 

ST was only just starting to make money and turn the Atari name around economically, and the money from the 7800 wouldn't really become significant until he end of the year, and Atari sold all the units they could produce which was limited due to costs and new manufacturing and included the forzen stock already made before the legal delay. 

 

So Nintendo's marketing and competitive marketshare wouldn't even be obvious to Atari until the end of the year, which after they did shift more money over with the new finances and increase the marketing campaign considerably (which of course wouldn't really work with those locked-in third party deals which still hurt their library and made it so that Atari would have to produce every title including under their name for a few third-party companies that they could get which cost extra money.)

In 1987, Atari shifted resources away from 7800 advertising and development in order promote the XEGS against the NES here in the United States after it became very apparent at the end of 1986 that Nintendo's "test markets" had moved over 1 million units into consumer hands despite the fact that in only 3 months of 1986 was the NES available nationwide.

[Leeroy ST]

5 minutes ago, empsolo said:

This was especially true. A great example of this was the anti-trust lawsuit that Atari Corp launched against Nintendo. 

You mean the case that would influence the decision to deem the monopolistic policies illegal which ended up helping Sega with third-parties?

[Leeroy ST]

Just now, empsolo said:

In 1987, Atari shifted resources away from 7800 advertising and development in order promote the XEGS against the NES here in the United States after it became very apparent at the end of 1986 that Nintendo's "test markets" had moved over 1 million units into consumer hands despite the fact that in only 3 months of 1986 was the NES available nationwide.

You're mixing up the 1985 test launch (which I'm referring to) with the expanded launched in 1986. Which was the year Atari sold everything they could make and clearly wasn't expecting by the end of the year to see NES consoles move that much and adjusted accordingly (but couldn't get third-parties)

 

Also lol, they increase marketing and game releases for the 7800 in 87 and that continued into 88. The Xegs was a niche side console and it wasn't intended to replace the 7800 to compete against the NES. Especially since the XEGS was released at the END of 1987.

[empsolo]

Just now, Leeroy ST said:

You mean the case that would influence the decision to deem the monopolistic policies illegal which ended up helping Sega with third-parties?

Nintendo was not only found not guilty in this case but that many of Nintendo's third party practices remain in the present day because of the falllout of Nintendo of America v. Atari Corp. IE exclusives, timed exclusives, restrictions on who can publish on the platform, lockout mechanisms to prevent unlicensed third party games etc.

[Leeroy ST]

1 minute ago, empsolo said:

Nintendo was not only found not guilty 

Irrelevant, that's not what I said. I said it influenced the factual later decision to make some of those polices illegal which is why Nintendo couldn't use them for the SNES. That's all I said. 

 

(also lock-out chips and restrictions existed before Nintendo, even the 7800 had a software mode. It's just historically Atari which was the biggest name in games beforehand didn't really try with their previous machines while Mattel and Coleco did.)

 

This is also a deceiving posts because it's obvious which policies I'm referring to since I said "later deemed illegal"

Edited September 6, 2020 by Leeroy ST

[empsolo]

Just now, Leeroy ST said:

You're mixing up the 1985 test launch (which I'm referring to) with the expanded launched in 1986. Which was the year Atari sold everything they could make and clearly wasn't expecting by the end of the year to see NES consoles move that much and adjusted accordingly (but couldn't get third-parties)

 

Also lol, they increase marketing and game releases for the 7800 in 87 and that continued into 88. The Xegs was a niche side console and it wasn't intended to replace the 7800 to compete against the NES. Especially since the XEGS was released at the END of 1987.

If I said the 1985 launch I would have said it. I specifically meant the 1.1 million consoles sold by Nintendo going into January of 1987. The XEGS was niche? You mean bullshit like this wasn't being blitzed American homes in an attempt to head off the NES?

 

 

 

 

[empsolo]

1 minute ago, Leeroy ST said:

Irrelevant, that's not what I said. I said it influenced the factual later decision to make some of those polices illegal which is why Nintendo couldn't use them for the SNES. That's all I said. 

Which policies? Street Fighter II was a fucking exclusive for the system.

[Leeroy ST]

Just now, empsolo said:

If I said the 1985 launch I would have said it. I specifically meant the 1.1 million consoles sold by Nintendo going into January of 1987. The XEGS was niche? You mean bullshit like this wasn't being blitzed American homes in an attempt to head off the NES?

 

 

 

 

Ok, and the 7800 had a higher marketing presence in the press and on shelves with more titles while the XEGS was a side machine expanding the computer line with few new releases and a ton of old games.

 

You can attack the 3 consoles strategy but acting like the XE was "replacing" the 7800 to be the main competitor to the NES as you imply is just silly. If that was so they would have greatly increased the marketing and push for the console later on after its successful initial shipment and they didn't. 

 

 

 

[Leeroy ST]

3 minutes ago, empsolo said:

Which policies? Street Fighter II was a fucking exclusive for the system.

Why are you arguing about this if you don't know what I am referencing? It was later deemed illegal for Nintendo to lock in third-party developers, the whole reason why Atari and Sega barely had third-party devs on their consoles. Hello?

 

The method of getting SFII as an (timed) exclusive wasn't "deemed illegal" I can only possibly be referring to ONE thing by saying that and it's the lock-out method that kept third parties from having multiple console releases (and number of games)

Edited September 6, 2020 by Leeroy ST

[empsolo]

Just now, Leeroy ST said:

Why are you arguing about this if you don't know what I am referencing? It was later deemed illegal for Nintendo to lock in third-party developers, the whole reason why Atari and Sega barely had third-party devs on their consoles. Hello?

 

The method of getting SFII as an (timed) exclusive wasn't "deemed illegal" I can only possibly be referring to ONE thing.

Nintendo didn't have a third party lock in policy. Howard Lincoln and Minoru Arakawa both testified as such in thier depositions in the Atari Corp lawsuit. Not only that, but Atari found no documents in discovery that could prove such an allegation nor obtain any witnesses from any of the third party's unhappy with thier relationship with NoA, of which there were many. What nintendo did have was a 2 year policy where any game title published on the NES was exclusive to the NES for two years. Companies publishing were free to either make different games, make a different game in the series, or wait two years when porting a game to the a competing platform. That policy was judged in an of itself legal in court.

[Leeroy ST]

6 minutes ago, empsolo said:

Nintendo didn't have a third party lock in policy. 

 

10 minutes ago, empsolo said:

What nintendo did have was a 2 year policy where any game title published on the NES was exclusive to the NES for two years. 

So yes they did have a third party lock-in policy, which was on shaky legal ground, and they were forced to remove it and settle with the FTC.

[empsolo]

Just now, Leeroy ST said:

 

So yes they did have a third party lock-in policy, which was on shaky legal ground, and they were forced to remove it and settle with the FTC.

They settled with the FTC because the FTC knew that with the Atari Corp and Atari Games suits going south, there was no way the FTC could win a case in federal court where the standard of proof for guilt is higher. That is why the FTC let Nintendo off with a consumer rebate as a "fine." In exchange, Nintendo agreed to drop its more onerous policies despite reserving the right to point that the courts had agreed that its policies were not illegal under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

[Leeroy ST]

5 minutes ago, empsolo said:

They settled with the FTC because the FTC knew that with the Atari Corp and Atari Games suits going south, there was no way the FTC could win a case in federal court where the standard of proof for guilt is higher. That is why the FTC let Nintendo off with a consumer rebate as a "fine." In exchange, Nintendo agreed to drop its more onerous policies despite reserving the right to point that the courts had agreed that its policies were not illegal under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Atari games has nothing to do with it.

 

FTC had findings, Nintendo reacted and removed the policies first before they settled with the FTC. Which involved the Consumer $5 "rebate".

 

The myth that the FTC had found nothing is flat out false. The revisionist history ignores the FTC had continued investigating after the initial results, Nintendo reacted before the settlement. 

 

And going back top my point, the Atari Corp initial failure influenced the change, which helped competitors like Sega, there's no controversy here that's what ended up happening.

 

Oh and don't forget they also had to settle on a price fixing issue as well.

Edited September 6, 2020 by Leeroy ST

[empsolo]

8 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

Atari games has nothing to do with it.

 

FTC had findings, Nintendo reacted and removed the policies first before they settled with the FTC. Which involved the Consumer $5 "rebate".

 

The myth that the FTC had found nothing is flat out false. The revisionist history ignores the FTC had continued investigating after the initial results, Nintendo reacted before the settlement.

Atari Games brought a similar Anti-trust lawsuit against Nintendo over both its five games a year rule and it's licensing practices and lockout mechanism. Atari games also had acted as an interested party in the Atari Corp lawsuit.

 

Secondly, FTC findings are not statements of fact or legally binding. They are the opinions of the FTC. The FTC chose to settle with Nintendo because the federal government rarely tries cases they they know they don't have a good chance at winning. Had the FTC sued Nintendo and lost, it would severely hurt the FTC. In fact, the very court settlement did not require NoA to admit guilt as a condition of the settlement is telling that FTC knew it had no legal leg to stand on.

 

Edited September 6, 2020 by empsolo

[atarian1]

11 hours ago, zzip said:

Depends on the year.  When I bought my first PC,  a 486DX4-100, it was roughly the same price as a Falcon

 

The application needed to be coded to use the DSP.   How many DSP-enhanced apps are there that aren't demos or games?

 

Yes!  Everything was noticably faster on my 486 because the GEM UI was always rather slow.

 

And still no emulator can emulate a Falcon 100%

What I said was I could emulate a 68030 faster than a 16mhz one, that meant the 486 was many times more powerful than a 68030.  Other benchmarks show that to be a case-  it's roughly equivalent to a 386DX,  or maybe a 486SX if the 030 was clocked at 60mhz.

 

At the time I felt bad for jumping ship from Atari to PC, my heart wanted a Falcon, but my head wanted a PC, so I became a bit obsessive benchmarking it to make sure I made the right decision.   I discovered it wasn't really a contest.

All the graphics and music applications released on the ST took advantage of the DSP if it detected a Falcon.

 

My experience was different. I had my Falcon and 486 next to each other at one point in time and I don't see much difference in word processing or spreadsheet work.

 

Benchmarks only say so much. Using them in real time is another. Matching what you include in a Falcon compared to a same-priced typical 486 shows you still get a lot more with a Falcon.

 

From what I gather, you sound like someone who wanted to play the hottest games, do some word processing and maybe some telecommunications. I don't blame you for buying a PC. You simply buy what fits your needs.

[Lost Dragon]

13 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

Seems to be a common trend with magazines covering that timeframe.

I've never had any direct involvement with the 7800.

 

My memories of it from the period were Atari unveiling it at a London show, hardware and expected  launch titles, pricing etc. 

 

Then Atari UK Boss Bob Gleadow telling press why Atari UK instead were going with the XE GS system for the UK. 

 

Then it gets a one-off feature in C+VG magazine, Son Of VCS and suddenly Atari UK have 3 8-bit cartridge based consoles on sale. 

 

As the articles in Retrogamer magazine are paid-for works, i expect a certain level of accuracy, especially when covering the overseas markets. 

 

But i gave up buying magazines years ago, the dedicated Retro books coming out often have far more time spent on research and writing, plus the luxury of more pages available to cover subjects and they offer far greater VFM for my tastes. 

[Leeroy ST]

13 hours ago, empsolo said:

Atari Games brought a similar Anti-trust lawsuit against Nintendo over both its five games a year rule and it's licensing practices and lockout mechanism. Atari games also had acted as an interested party in the Atari Corp lawsuit.

 

Which has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

Quote

Secondly, FTC findings are not statements of fact or legally binding. They are the opinions of the FTC. The FTC chose to settle with Nintendo because the federal government rarely tries cases they they know they don't have a good chance at winning. 

Yet Nintendo reacted first. Which was my point, you are trying to use the settlement as an excuse when Nintendo was scared and reacted before the settlement to remove the 2-year policy which they wouldn't have done if they didn't have their own attorneys point out that it would work against them. The amount of pressure also dropped after that (and another) change, and may explain why the FTC really gave Nintendo a near equivalent of wagging their finger.

Edited September 6, 2020 by Leeroy ST