Why was 7800 discontinued

[Defender_2600]

4 hours ago, RevEng said:

As to which system has better resolution, it's more of a "which system fits the game design" sort of thing. 7800 can display both 320 and 160 modes, while the NES has a 256 mode. The NES resolution is a great middle-ground, but there are trade-offs. The NES can't produce graphics or text as dense as the 7800 320 modes (see Rikki+Vikki, or recall all of the NES "press A to continue" over and over again whenever dialog was involved. ) nor can the NES manage as many simultaneous colors as the 7800 160 modes.

 

Whenever you compare consoles that are contemporaries, it's rarely as cut and dry as "A" being better than "B". You may prefer one set of trade-offs over another, but it's hardly universal.

 

Absolutely true. A comparison between the NES and 7800 versions of the recent 'PETSCII Robots' Homebrew is an eloquent example that shows how misinformed and reductive it is to state things like "256 resolution is higher than 160 resolution, therefore 256 is better", deliberately omitting all the others technical specifications of the consoles in question.

 

The 7800 'stock' hardware is not only a beast at displaying many large multicolor sprites (per scanline, only 8 sprites on NES, instead 30 sprites on 7800), it also has a very versatile architecture that allows you to do several things that the NES 'stock' hardware or even the expensive MMC5 (1990!) can't (for example 7800 sprites/tiles *4 bits per pixel* with 12 colors/2 palettes from 256 colors palette, and more).

 

 

 

 

Trade-offs of the NES 'stock' hardware (video starts directly at 11:33):

 

 

7800 version:

[Defender_2600]

On 10/10/2023 at 6:16 PM, zzip said:

Anyway 5200 was plagued with technical issues, high price and complaints about 2600 compatibility.  Instead of addressing those they decided to kill it in 84 and offer the 7800 instead. [..]

 

I think it would be better if they told GCC to go back to the drawing board refine the design for an eventual 5200 successor in 86 or 87--  get a real sound chip, improve the high-resolution issues, for example. 

Don't hide the Atari 8-bit fanboy in you, you can say all this better...

 

 

On 12/6/2021 at 7:43 PM, zzip said:

[..]

But for the 7800, I don't think that offered enough of an upgrade over the 5200 to justify its existence, and it was a major step back in other ways.

 

Excellent.  In fact, the 5200 was selling like hot cakes in 1984 and would still be a best seller until 1986 or 1987, just as the XEGS did. The 5200 would have left the poor C64 in the dust as well.

 

And that 7800, made by that band of hackers? It shouldn't have existed, it didn't offer enough of an upgrade over the 5200 to justify its existence and it's a big step backwards in other ways. I really don't understand why some developers prefer 7800 and why they create all those 7800 games in 320 high resolution which has a lot of issues, as is demonstrated by the poor results achieved (see Rikki & Vikki).

 

 

7800 Rikki & Vikki  (high resolution multicolor mode)

 

 

Atari 8-bit PETSCII Robots  (high resolution monochrome mode)

 

 

P.S. Of course the post is ironic and everyone knows that Rikki & Vikki is a masterpiece. The 7800 is a third generation 8-bit system and it is unrealistic to expect the performance of an Atari ST.

 

P.P.S. For those wondering, I love Atari 8-bit, 5200, and 7800.

[zzip]

8 hours ago, Defender_2600 said:

And that 7800, made by that band of hackers? It shouldn't have existed, it didn't offer enough of an upgrade over the 5200 to justify its existence and it's a big step backwards in other ways. I really don't understand why some developers prefer 7800 and why they create all those 7800 games in 320 high resolution which has a lot of issues, as is demonstrated by the poor results achieved (see Rikki & Vikki).

Too bad developers weren't able to get this level of performance out of it in 1984-88 when it mattered.

 

8 hours ago, Defender_2600 said:

P.S. Of course the post is ironic and everyone knows that Rikki & Vikki is a masterpiece. The 7800 is a third generation 8-bit system and it is unrealistic to expect the performance of an Atari ST.

 

It didn't need ST performance, it just needed to squash the NES, and that includes not just hardware, but games library.   Instead playing a 7800 felt like playing a glorified 2600 because of the horrid sound.   It really should not have been that way

[RevEng]

1 hour ago, zzip said:

Too bad developers weren't able to get this level of performance out of it in 1984-88 when it mattered.

Compare NES Ballblazer to 7800 Ballblazer, or NES Commando to 7800 Commando. The tech and performance was good enough to compete in 1984. The development support and direction was the problem. Like NES, the performance would have gotten better over time, had the 7800 been a commercial success.

 

1 hour ago, zzip said:

It didn't need ST performance, it just needed to squash the NES, and that includes not just hardware, but games library.   Instead playing a 7800 felt like playing a glorified 2600 because of the horrid sound.   It really should not have been that way

The TIA sound was always a stopgap, and TIA music quality is also a function of the care given to it. I can point to several amazing homebrew/demo TIA tunes. Even going back to the original lineup, I reject that Ms Pac Man, Food Fight, Joust, Robotron, and Xevious have "horrid sound".

 

Your original argument was they should have built a 5200 successor instead of the 7800, based on your perceived 7800 hardware issues. When we point out it's mostly a matter of software, you pivoted to the quality of commercial library, which nobody was arguing about. Your imagined hyper-capable 5200 successor with an arcade port library would have also crumbled against the NES software library, especially in Jack's hands.

[Bakasama]

I dare say if Atari ported 8-bit Gremlins to the 7800 it might had featured more colors, red and white added in.

[zzip]

53 minutes ago, RevEng said:

The TIA sound was always a stopgap, and TIA music quality is also a function of the care given to it. I can point to several amazing homebrew/demo TIA tunes. Even going back to the original lineup, I reject that Ms Pac Man, Food Fight, Joust, Robotron, and Xevious have "horrid sound".

Even the 2600 can sound good at times.   Still when you get into any kind of distortion, the 7800 clearly reminds you of it's TIA sound.    Even at TIA's best,  Pokey sounds better,   and SID and YM 2151 sound better than that.    There's simply no  excuse for a 1984 console to have such an ancient soundchip as its primary.

 

1 hour ago, RevEng said:

Your original argument was they should have built a 5200 successor instead of the 7800, based on your perceived 7800 hardware issues. When we point out it's mostly a matter of software, you pivoted to the quality of commercial library, which nobody was arguing about

No my argument was always bringing the 7800 for 1984 release was a mistake.    Atari's most loyal fans just shelled out $270 for 5200 (a lot back then) on the promise of great games to come, only to have the system killed well before its 2nd birthday.   How many of those burned by that would have enthusiastically embraced a 7800?   Not many I would guess.   I cannot overstate how bad this move was, brand loyalty is crucial in this industry.

 

The eventual 5200 replacement could have been based on some 7800 tech.   The Maria chip was ahead of it's time.   But GCC would have had an extra 2 years at least to refine it.   At minimum it has a decent soundchip and a resolution fix.   7800's 320 mode has issues that kept many games from using it.   Either fix the shortcomings if possible, or come up with a 256 mode like some of Atari's competitors had.   160 just doesn't cut it for the late 80s.

 

1 hour ago, RevEng said:

Your imagined hyper-capable 5200 successor with an arcade port library would have also crumbled against the NES software library, especially in Jack's hands.

Well yeah,  I'm sure Jack & Co would have screwed whatever console they inherited.   They weren't videogame focused, and it took them a long time to get there.   In the meantime Nintendo ate their lunch.

 

Part of my scenario assumes Atari was better managed and perhaps a panic sale to Jack wouldn't have been necessary.    I don't think the Tramiels could ever have beaten Nintendo, but I think Warner could have.

[Defender_2600]

3 hours ago, zzip said:

It didn't need ST performance, it just needed to squash the NES, and that includes not just hardware, but games library. 

Should the 7800 have crushed the NES? Really? And how?

 

To get an idea, let's take as an example SMB3 (3 megabit cartridge + custom MMC3 for animated tiles, extra RAM, diagonal scrolling, etc), the game's total development and marketing budget was $25.8 million ($59 million adjusted for inflation) and the team consisted of more than ten people who took over two years to complete the game. And we could continue with SMB, SMB2, The Legend of Zelda, etc.

 

The 7800, although it had powerful hardware, couldn't compete with the NES, and to say the competition was unequal is an understatement. A 7800 third-party game was typically programmed by a single man who in several cases also worked on the graphics, having only a few months for development and for a fee of around US$25K (for example, 7800 Toki). With such resources available, there wasn't much that could be done.

[zzip]

54 minutes ago, Defender_2600 said:

To get an idea, let's take as an example SMB3 (3 megabit cartridge + custom MMC3 for animated tiles, extra RAM, diagonal scrolling, etc), the game's total development and marketing budget was $25.8 million ($59 million adjusted for inflation) and the team consisted of more than ten people who took over two years to complete the game. And we could continue with SMB, SMB2, The Legend of Zelda, etc.

 

The 7800, although it had powerful hardware, couldn't compete with the NES, and to say the competition was unequal is an understatement. A 7800 third-party game was typically programmed by a single man who in several cases also worked on the graphics, having only a few months for development and for a fee of around US$25K (for example, 7800 Toki). With such resources available, there wasn't much that could be done.

This too is a function of the sale to Jack.   Atari Corp never had the development and marketing budgets needed to compete.     Under Warner,  Atari had marketing muscle that scared even Nintendo.   They would have spent the money to keep the competition at bay..  that free-spending was part of their undoing.

[RevEng]

2 hours ago, zzip said:

Even the 2600 can sound good at times.   Still when you get into any kind of distortion, the 7800 clearly reminds you of it's TIA sound.    Even at TIA's best,  Pokey sounds better,   and SID and YM 2151 sound better than that.    There's simply no  excuse for a 1984 console to have such an ancient soundchip as its primary.

Well, you're fighting against claims not made. I never said TIA is the same calibre as Pokey, SID, YM2151, etc. I just said it was good enough for the original launch titles, which it was, after which TIA audio would be supplemented by whatever was in-cart. +$2 or whatever per cart isn't a deal breaker, and it opens the door to custom per-game wavetables. (part of the minnie design) The Famicom has a similar in-cart audio feature, and the NES folks missed out on enhanced audio for some games.

 

I'll also suggest that If the 7800 had been shipped with quad pokeys, it wouldn't have helped sales in the least.

 

2 hours ago, zzip said:

The eventual 5200 replacement could have been based on some 7800 tech.   The Maria chip was ahead of it's time.   But GCC would have had an extra 2 years at least to refine it.   At minimum it has a decent soundchip and a resolution fix.   7800's 320 mode has issues that kept many games from using it.   Either fix the shortcomings if possible, or come up with a 256 mode like some of Atari's competitors had.   160 just doesn't cut it for the late 80s.

There aren't any issues with 320 mode that kept games from using it - it has some quirks, but you can design around it without much difficulty - people just preferred high-color to high-res visuals at that time. People's tastes have skewed the other way, so now you see more 320 development on the console. That's the nice part of having selectable modes.

 

I think you're getting a bit caught up in the idea that a console must be dramatically superior in most aspects to win a console war. It's about the experiences the console can deliver, and always has been. The 7800 was in the same class as the NES, with each one having strengths in different directions.

 

2 hours ago, zzip said:

Well yeah,  I'm sure Jack & Co would have screwed whatever console they inherited.   They weren't videogame focused, and it took them a long time to get there.   In the meantime Nintendo ate their lunch.

 

Part of my scenario assumes Atari was better managed and perhaps a panic sale to Jack wouldn't have been necessary.    I don't think the Tramiels could ever have beaten Nintendo, but I think Warner could have.

TBH I agree with your assertion that Atari shouldn't have put out so many platforms. But if we're undoing business decisions, Atari should gone with the Candy game console concept in the first place, rather than making the 400 computer, and later re-entering the console market with 5200, 7800, and XEGS.

 

I just disagree that the 7800 tech as launched wasn't competitive with contemporaries. The tech was there - as many homebrew titles have shown - but the management and development wasn't.

[Defender_2600]

6 hours ago, zzip said:

Instead playing a 7800 felt like playing a glorified 2600 because of the horrid sound.

3 hours ago, zzip said:

Even the 2600 can sound good at times.

You are in contradiction. So is the TIA sound 'horrid' or can it sound good?

 

3 hours ago, zzip said:

Even at TIA's best,  Pokey sounds better..

It doesn't always happen, in fact in some circumstances TIA has beaten POKEY and NES APU.

So POKEY and NES APU sound 'horrid'?

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, zzip said:

There's simply no  excuse for a 1984 console to have such an ancient soundchip as its primary.

3 hours ago, zzip said:

No my argument was always bringing the 7800 for 1984 release was a mistake.    Atari's most loyal fans just shelled out $270 for 5200 (a lot back then) on the promise of great games to come, only to have the system killed well before its 2nd birthday.   How many of those burned by that would have enthusiastically embraced a 7800?   Not many I would guess.   I cannot overstate how bad this move was, brand loyalty is crucial in this industry.

Speaking of excuses, Atari's crisis coincides with the release of the 5200, and there is 'no excuse' for releasing old hardware in 1982, presenting it as a new system. People quickly realized that it was pretty much a repackaged Atari 400, with some of the usual 2600 games, and with all the additional technical problems we know so well.

 

Atari didn't kill the 5200 in 1984, they wouldn't kill the golden goose. The truth is much simpler, in 1984 the 5200 was obsolete, poorly designed, expensive, bulky, but above all the 5200 sales failure was killing Atari (along with all other financial issues), and in the end it wasn't a choice but a necessity. And I'm sorry to say it, since I have two 5200.

[zzip]

6 minutes ago, RevEng said:

Well, you're fighting against claims not made. I never said TIA is the same calibre as Pokey, SID, YM2151, etc. I just said it was good enough for the original launch titles, which it was, after which TIA audio would be supplemented by whatever was in-cart. +$2 or whatever per cart isn't a deal breaker, and it opens the door to custom per-game wavetables. (part of the minnie design) The Famicom has a similar in-cart audio feature, and the NES folks missed out on enhanced audio for some games.

Right but the difference is NES games seemed to take advantage of this more.   My understanding is only two commercial 7800 games used Pokey?   If more games had done so, it might change my opinion of the system.   But even Pokey was kind of dated by the 7800 launch.  (it has a harsh quality to it compared to other sound chips-  Can't imagine what the happy, bouncy music of NES games would sound like on Pokey)

 

Maybe this part of the 80s was a time when the good sound chips were just out of reach, or custom like SID, Amiga, and Atari's own ill-fated AMY, and that's why even the ST has a rather disappointing YM2149.

 

26 minutes ago, RevEng said:

I'll also suggest that If the 7800 had been shipped with quad pokeys, it wouldn't have helped sales in the least.

I'm sure it wouldn't, because games sell consoles.     But I would expect certain things at a minimum to be in a late 80s console.

 

28 minutes ago, RevEng said:

There aren't any issues with 320 mode that kept games from using it - it has some quirks, but you can design around it without much difficulty - people just preferred high-color to high-res visuals at that time. People's tastes have skewed the other way, so now you see more 320 development on the console. That's the nice part of having selectable modes.

I wanted both.   The competition was showing both.    160 is just not enough because it gives weird elongated pixels that limit the amount of detail you can have in sprites.   That's fine for early 80s, with the 5200 or C64,  but by the late 80s I believe it needed more.    Even 240 or 256-width would be an improvement if 320 was too much.

 

33 minutes ago, RevEng said:

I think you're getting a bit caught up in the idea that a console must be dramatically superior in most aspects to win a console war. It's about the experiences the console can deliver, and always has been. The 7800 was in the same class as the NES, with each one having strengths in different directions.

No it's price and games that win a console war.

 

My thinking is more like this--  

   1. Atari had no business releasing a new console in 1984, the 5200 was too new

   2. The Atari sale turned  the 7800 effectively into a 1986 console built on 1983/4 tech.

   3. What if Atari had told GCC in 83 that they aren't quite ready for a new console, but they think the 7800 tech is promising.   If they go back and refine it and add this and that, it will be the eventual 5200 successor,  by the time it does come out, it would be built on newer 1986ish tech that would certainly crush the NES's (1983) specs,  but of course Atari still has to bring the games (and if Jack & Co are in charge in that timeline, it would probably end just as poorly)

 

The 7800 as it was suffers from bad timing,  

 

52 minutes ago, RevEng said:

TBH I agree with your assertion that Atari shouldn't have put out so many platforms. But if we're undoing business decisions, Atari should gone with the Candy game console concept in the first place, rather than making the 400, and later re-entering the console market with 5200, 7800, and XEGS.

 

I just disagree that the 7800 tech as launched wasn't competitive with contemporaries. The tech was there - as many homebrew titles have shown - but the management and development wasn't.

Yeah the other way out of Atari's 5200 quandry is not release the 5200 at all.   If Candy was released a couple years earlier, then maybe the time would be right for the 7800 in 84.   7800 seems to have been designed as a Colecovision killer and it has the specs for that-  Although Colecovision had a 256x192 graphics mode and could sometimes produce visuals Atari systems of the time would have a hard time matching.   

 

Part of the problem was it got delayed for two years,  probably kept on the market for too long with no real successor until the Jag, and the hoped-for carts that would have extended the systems capabilities were few and far between.    So it ended up competing in an era that made it look dated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zzip]

59 minutes ago, Defender_2600 said:

You are in contradiction. So is the TIA sound 'horrid' or can it sound good?

No contradiction,  I explained myself in the part of my post you chose not to quote.

 

1 hour ago, Defender_2600 said:

It doesn't always happen, in fact in some circumstances TIA has beaten POKEY and NES APU.

So POKEY and NES APU sound 'horrid'?

Pokey sounds harsh to my ears,  I'm no huge fan of it, but it does sound better than TIA in general.  Of course programmers can always make a better chip sound worse and a bad chip do impressive things.

[+davidcalgary29]

56 minutes ago, Defender_2600 said:

You are in contradiction. So is the TIA sound 'horrid' or can it sound good?

 

It doesn't always happen, in fact in some circumstances TIA has beaten POKEY and NES APU.

So POKEY and NES APU sound 'horrid'?

 

 

 

 

 

 

. The truth is much simpler, in 1984 the 5200 was obsolete, poorly designed, expensive, bulky, but above all the 5200 sales failure was killing Atari (along with all other financial issues), and in the end it wasn't a choice but a necessity. And I'm sorry to say it, since I have two 5200.

These points are well taken, but I think it's very easy to spend too much time focusing on hardware specs as a driving factor for the reason behind the success (or failure) of any particular computer or console. The 5200's architecture was certainly not obsolete for 1982, and it was certainly competitive with the CV and INTV; it just wasn't the new kid on the block at that point, and easy to criticize as being "outdated". It's worth noting that the A8 line continued to sell into 1992.

 

Atari probably learned the wrong lessons from the 5200 and 7800: the Lynx, Portfolio (and, arguably, Jaguar), were cutting-edge systems at the times of their respective releases...and they were all commercial failures, for reasons that had little to do with their specs. The 2600, on the other hand, wasn't even the first cartridge-based system, or better than a lot of its contemporaries, but they had cash, marketing, and the software to make it into a major success. The PRGE Jag panel was pretty informative in describing the frantic cash juggling that went on in the late '80s and early '90s that was required to keep all of these projects up in the air at the same time with almost no funds. 

[Defender_2600]

1 hour ago, zzip said:

I wanted both.   The competition was showing both.    160 is just not enough because it gives weird elongated pixels that limit the amount of detail you can have in sprites.   That's fine for early 80s, with the 5200 or C64,  but by the late 80s I believe it needed more.    Even 240 or 256-width would be an improvement if 320 was too much.

 

 

I'm not interested in your opinion but, for people who don't know the technical specs of the 7800, I'll add some considerations to avoid that someone can get confused between an example of bad programming/bad pixel art and the real potential of the system.

 

Again, first of all the usual omission, the 7800 has a maximum resolution of 320×240, thus higher than the NES resolution of 256×240. In this mode, the 7800 can display 9 colors per scanline/zone (4 colors + background & transparent from 2 palettes) and we have examples with 25 colors on screen like in Froggie. At the time, Tower Toppler and One on One Basketball used 320 mode, and many games used this mode for text and score numbers. The 7800 had a small library, otherwise we would certainly have had more games in 320 mode, this mode works very well for arcade games (and not only).

 

For interested people, here is the list of 7800 games made in 320 modes:

 

Asteroids Deluxe

AstroBlaster

Astro Fighter

Baby Pac-Man (maze)

CrazyBrix

Death Merchant

Defender (WIP)

Dungeon Stalker

Frenzy/Berzerk

Froggie

Galaxian

Graze Suit Alpha

Jacks or Better

Kiloparsec

Moon Cresta

Ms. Pac-Man 320

One on One Basketball

Pac-Man 320

Pac-Man Collection - 40th Anniversary Edition

Pac-Man Plus 320

Plink

Plumb Luck DX

Rikki & Vikki

Rip-Off

Scramble

Space Invaders

Tower Toppler

UniWarS

 

 

Speaking of high resolution, the 7800 320 mode (320×240) shows square pixels (pixel aspect ratio: 0.9 NTSC and 1.0 PAL) and can replicate the correct aspect ratio of the arcade graphics. For example, the NES with 256 horizontal pixels by 240 vertical pixels display wide pixels and therefore wide sprites/tiles compared to arcade graphics / 7800 320 mode (same goes for ColecoVision, Sega Master System, CoCo 3, SNES, etc., for these systems the pixel aspect ratio is approximately 1.2 NTSC and 1.4 PAL). Also, when you have only 240 vertical pixels it may be useful to place a extra display (scores, status, etc.) on the right side of the main game but in this case the play field will be compromised if you have only 256 horizontal pixels rather than 320 horizontal pixels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, zzip said:

I wanted both.   The competition was showing both.    160 is just not enough because it gives weird elongated pixels that limit the amount of detail you can have in sprites.   That's fine for early 80s, with the 5200 or C64,  but by the late 80s I believe it needed more.    Even 240 or 256-width would be an improvement if 320 was too much.

 

Again, "256 resolution is higher than 160 resolution, therefore 256 is better", this is a fairy tale for the kids. Again, all other technical specs are deliberately omitted. The 7800 in 160 mode is a beast at displaying *many* *large* *multicolor* sprites and graphics with *4 bits per pixel* color depth.

 

The NES features a palette of only 48 colors and 6 grays, 8x8 or 16x16 tiles / 3 colors from 4 palettes, and 8x8 or 8x16 sprites / 3 colors from 4 palettes. The 7800 features a palette of 256 colors and, with the 160B mode, a single sprite / tiles can have 12 colors from 2 palettes + transparent / background and without limits of size (25 colors per zone).

 

In other words, the NES can only use 4 palettes 2bpp (13 colors available) for tiles and each NES tile is limited to 3 colors, instead the 7800 can use 2 palettes 4bpp (25 colors available) and use all 12 colors in a single tiles. The same rule applies to sprites, the NES can only use 4 palettes 2bpp (13 colors available) for sprites and each NES sprite is limited to 3 colors, instead the 7800 can use 2 palettes 4bpp (25 colors available) and use all 12 colors in a single sprite.

 

Basically a stock 7800 can display 4bpp graphics that a NES + MMC5 can't and in any case on NES you would still be stuck at 3 colors per sprite/tile, stuck at 8x8 or 16x16 pixels, instead no restriction on the size of the sprites / tiles on 7800. Not to mention the maximum number of sprites per scanline, only 8 sprites on NES, instead 30 sprites on 7800. And maximum number of sprites on screen, 64 sprites on NES, more than 200 sprites on 7800.

 

Therefore, although they are two different systems and with different strengths, reducing the graphic comparison to a mere comparison of resolutions, omitting all the other technical specs, is just the usual fanboy propaganda.

 

In all the following comparison images, the 7800 games use 160 resolution and gain a clear advantage in color depth compared to the NES which by using 256 resolution has to give up color depth. You can't have it both ways, if you increase the resolution you will get fewer colors and vice versa. Some comparison pictures are better than a thousand words (you can wear glasses in case you need them, since I already showed them to you).

 

 

 

 

Trade-offs of the NES 'stock' hardware (video starts directly at 11:33):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One more example, no sort of custom MMC needed for graphics, the 7800 is truly a sprite monster:

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

[Jaden (JRH)]

Man, I can't believe Atari screwed over the 7800. It totally would've outsold the NES had they released it in 1984! Anyway, what are your favorite 7800 games? Also, how can I mod my 7800 to support HDMI? And how was Atari allowed to port the three Nintendo games when the NES already existed? By the way, here's my super awesome game concept that will never get made.

[Defender_2600]

It's so sad that the guys at GCC didn't get the deserved credit for all their amazing work. The games of these guys are in our memories and yet we don't know all their names and what games they worked on. This project to find lost credits is truly a noble initiative that deserves to be supported.

 

Find Current GCC Credits list here:

https://intotheverticalblank.com/gcc-credits/

 

 

 

GCC Team Photo 1983

[leech]

On 10/17/2023 at 10:56 AM, zzip said:

Well yeah,  I'm sure Jack & Co would have screwed whatever console they inherited.   They weren't videogame focused, and it took them a long time to get there.   In the meantime Nintendo ate their lunch.

 

Part of my scenario assumes Atari was better managed and perhaps a panic sale to Jack wouldn't have been necessary.    I don't think the Tramiels could ever have beaten Nintendo, but I think Warner could have.

It doesn't help that Nintendo did sneaky crap (like their exclusivity licenses and how they got stores to have a minimum shelf space reserved for them).  The Sega Master System is superior to the NES in almost every way imaginable, except for their game library.  And most of that was due to most people having the NES would prefer Mario over Wonder Boy (for example). 

On 10/17/2023 at 10:56 AM, zzip said:

No my argument was always bringing the 7800 for 1984 release was a mistake.    Atari's most loyal fans just shelled out $270 for 5200 (a lot back then) on the promise of great games to come, only to have the system killed well before its 2nd birthday.   How many of those burned by that would have enthusiastically embraced a 7800?   Not many I would guess.   I cannot overstate how bad this move was, brand loyalty is crucial in this industry.

100% Agreed, killing the 5200 was a bad idea.  Especially since, in all likelihood, it could have had some sort of expansion to the memory to make it more inline with the capabilities of the 800.  I actually think one of the killing factors was not having a DB9 port (or two) included to allow games that needed digital controls to play better.  Like instead of doing the 4 port, realizing hardly any games supported that, then releasing the 2 port, they should have released a 2 port with 2 db9 ports.  Would have made SO much sense...

 

The 7800 probably would have gotten a lot more support if it actually had gotten more support from the Tramiels..., also if it'd had a full release in '84 instead of '86, when the NES already had a huge market.

[leech]

22 hours ago, Defender_2600 said:

 

 

I'm not interested in your opinion but, for people who don't know the technical specs of the 7800, I'll add some considerations to avoid that someone can get confused between an example of bad programming/bad pixel art and the real potential of the system.

 

Again, first of all the usual omission, the 7800 has a maximum resolution of 320×240, thus higher than the NES resolution of 256×240. In this mode, the 7800 can display 9 colors per scanline/zone (4 colors + background & transparent from 2 palettes) and we have examples with 25 colors on screen like in Froggie. At the time, Tower Toppler and One on One Basketball used 320 mode, and many games used this mode for text and score numbers. The 7800 had a small library, otherwise we would certainly have had more games in 320 mode, this mode works very well for arcade games (and not only).

 

For interested people, here is the list of 7800 games made in 320 modes:

 

Asteroids Deluxe

AstroBlaster

Astro Fighter

Baby Pac-Man (maze)

CrazyBrix

Death Merchant

Defender (WIP)

Dungeon Stalker

Frenzy/Berzerk

Froggie

Galaxian

Graze Suit Alpha

Jacks or Better

Kiloparsec

Moon Cresta

Ms. Pac-Man 320

One on One Basketball

Pac-Man 320

Pac-Man Collection - 40th Anniversary Edition

Pac-Man Plus 320

Plink

Plumb Luck DX

Rikki & Vikki

Rip-Off

Scramble

Space Invaders

Tower Toppler

UniWarS

 

 

Speaking of high resolution, the 7800 320 mode (320×240) shows square pixels (pixel aspect ratio: 0.9 NTSC and 1.0 PAL) and can replicate the correct aspect ratio of the arcade graphics. For example, the NES with 256 horizontal pixels by 240 vertical pixels display wide pixels and therefore wide sprites/tiles compared to arcade graphics / 7800 320 mode (same goes for ColecoVision, Sega Master System, CoCo 3, SNES, etc., for these systems the pixel aspect ratio is approximately 1.2 NTSC and 1.4 PAL). Also, when you have only 240 vertical pixels it may be useful to place a extra display (scores, status, etc.) on the right side of the main game but in this case the play field will be compromised if you have only 256 horizontal pixels rather than 320 horizontal pixels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, "256 resolution is higher than 160 resolution, therefore 256 is better", this is a fairy tale for the kids. Again, all other technical specs are deliberately omitted. The 7800 in 160 mode is a beast at displaying *many* *large* *multicolor* sprites and graphics with *4 bits per pixel* color depth.

 

The NES features a palette of only 48 colors and 6 grays, 8x8 or 16x16 tiles / 3 colors from 4 palettes, and 8x8 or 8x16 sprites / 3 colors from 4 palettes. The 7800 features a palette of 256 colors and, with the 160B mode, a single sprite / tiles can have 12 colors from 2 palettes + transparent / background and without limits of size (25 colors per zone).

 

In other words, the NES can only use 4 palettes 2bpp (13 colors available) for tiles and each NES tile is limited to 3 colors, instead the 7800 can use 2 palettes 4bpp (25 colors available) and use all 12 colors in a single tiles. The same rule applies to sprites, the NES can only use 4 palettes 2bpp (13 colors available) for sprites and each NES sprite is limited to 3 colors, instead the 7800 can use 2 palettes 4bpp (25 colors available) and use all 12 colors in a single sprite.

 

Basically a stock 7800 can display 4bpp graphics that a NES + MMC5 can't and in any case on NES you would still be stuck at 3 colors per sprite/tile, stuck at 8x8 or 16x16 pixels, instead no restriction on the size of the sprites / tiles on 7800. Not to mention the maximum number of sprites per scanline, only 8 sprites on NES, instead 30 sprites on 7800. And maximum number of sprites on screen, 64 sprites on NES, more than 200 sprites on 7800.

 

Therefore, although they are two different systems and with different strengths, reducing the graphic comparison to a mere comparison of resolutions, omitting all the other technical specs, is just the usual fanboy propaganda.

 

In all the following comparison images, the 7800 games use 160 resolution and gain a clear advantage in color depth compared to the NES which by using 256 resolution has to give up color depth. You can't have it both ways, if you increase the resolution you will get fewer colors and vice versa. Some comparison pictures are better than a thousand words (you can wear glasses in case you need them, since I already showed them to you).

 

 

 

 

Trade-offs of the NES 'stock' hardware (video starts directly at 11:33):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One more example, no sort of custom MMC needed for graphics, the 7800 is truly a sprite monster:

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

This post makes me think that my 7800 is very much underused....

[zzip]

1 hour ago, leech said:

This post makes me think that my 7800 is very much underused....

I think it's like so many Atari systems where if you have the time and skills you can make it do amazing things.   But the average programmer hired to do a port BITD didn't necessarily have those skills and had a deadline, so you got games that looked inferior to the competition.   The reason for that is on the other systems it's easier to get better results.

Edited October 18, 2023 by zzip

[RevEng]

3 hours ago, zzip said:

I think it's like so many Atari systems where if you have the time and skills you can make it do amazing things.   But the average programmer hired to do a port BITD didn't necessarily have those skills and had a deadline, so you got games that looked inferior to the competition.   The reason for that is on the other systems it's easier to get better results.

Maybe that's true of the 5200, I don't know. It doesn't match any of my experience on the 7800. Many of the impressive looking games coming out on the 7800 are using 7800basic, which manages the display in a very generic way. There is no arcane months-long tinkering involved, just a small bit of system knowledge, some great game mechanic coding, and some kick-ass art.

 

mksmith got the 7800 Petscii Robots port up and running in petscii character mode, and it was my job to juice up the display for the 7800. That uplift work on the tile engine - which is most of the visual impact - took me less than a week of dev time. The rest of the dev time we spent on more mundane stuff - hooking up the rest of engine fully, adding controls, creating menus, QA and fixes, etc - all very pedestrian stuff and totally comparable to what you'd do on any non-Atari systems.

 

What allowed the game to look so good was the fact that the 7800's strengths aligned with the amazing c128 pixel art, in addition to having Defender_2600 and TiX creating beautiful sprite art. The art makes the difference, and programming on the other consoles doesn't eliminate the need for pixel artists.

[Defender_2600]

7 hours ago, zzip said:

I think it's like so many Atari systems where if you have the time and skills you can make it do amazing things.   But the average programmer hired to do a port BITD didn't necessarily have those skills and had a deadline, so you got games that looked inferior to the competition.   The reason for that is on the other systems it's easier to get better results.

 

Except Petscii Robot and the demo video, all the images I shared above show graphics made by me so I can tell you that getting good graphics on the 7800 can be easier than on many other 8-bit consoles which instead require contortionist tricks to get acceptable graphics. You have no idea how powerful and versatile the 7800 is, you don't need wizard tricks, overlapping sprites, complex two-tone tile mosaics, etc... with the 7800 you have none of these limitations, all you need is a pencil or an old Paint, and enjoy making a difference.

 

As I said, don't confuse bad pixel art with real system performance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

7800 full 4bpp graphics, impossible to do on NES:

 

Yes, 7800 giant sprites exactly means giant sprites!

[JagChris]

Waaiit a minute... where what what's going on with these last few 7800 screenshots? These works in progress?

[Bakasama]

7 minutes ago, JagChris said:

Waaiit a minute... where what what's going on with these last few 7800 screenshots? These works in progress?

Well many of them are mock-ups based on how the 7800 draws graphics.

[Defender_2600]

55 minutes ago, JagChris said:

Waaiit a minute... where what what's going on with these last few 7800 screenshots? These works in progress?

 

My 7800 graphics, which I showed above in the last post, are not currently used in any 7800 WIP, however these are 'real' 7800 graphics showing the capabilities of the system.

 

Instead, the comparative images, which I shared in the previous post, show real 7800 games/WIP/demos, with the exception of the SMB3 sprites which are only demonstrative.

[DavidD]

Dumb question... not to sidetrack things too much, but if Atari had gone ahead and released Nintendo's Famicom in the USA... based on the timeframes we know about, wouldn't that have been AFTER the 7800?

 

That is, we'd have 2600 -> 5200 -> 7800 -> "Atari/Nintendo Famicom"

 

Am I getting the dates wrong?  I mean, releasing the NES instead of the 7800 would be different... but I do wonder how well the NES would have done if it was seen as "the latest in a series of failed Atari systems."