Was not releasing with CD at launch the biggest mistake Atari made with the Jaguar?

[roots.genoa]

6 hours ago, Zerosquare said:

I see. Say, what color is the sky in your world?

I don't know but in this world, Super Mario Bros. was only successful because it was bundled with the NES, apparently.

[agradeneu]

4 hours ago, philipj said:

Well... It had a 64bit programmable Blitter; not neccessarily a full fledged processor in the truest since, but can be controlled by any of the other 32bit processors... According to Atari, because of the Blitter being 64bit sitting on a 64bit BUS, "The Jaguar is 64bits when it needs to be and 32bits when it needs to be" with the "Motorola 68000" to give the programmer a "Warm and fuzzy feeling..." for those who are familiar with just programming with the M68K... One could just use the Motorola and the Object processor to just make 2D games thus it would directly compete with the SNES and Genesis that way.

The OP is also 64 bit.

[Keatah]

4 hours ago, philipj said:

Well... It had a 64bit programmable Blitter; not neccessarily a full fledged processor in the truest since, but can be controlled by any of the other 32bit processors... According to Atari, because of the Blitter being 64bit sitting on a 64bit BUS, "The Jaguar is 64bits when it needs to be and 32bits when it needs to be" with the "Motorola 68000" to give the programmer a "Warm and fuzzy feeling..." for those who are familiar with just programming with the M68K... One could just use the Motorola and the Object processor to just make 2D games thus it would directly compete with the SNES and Genesis that way.

Pretty sure Atari issued a directive to programmers not to use the 68000, because RISC was faster. RISC was everything.

 

[Leeroy ST]

7 hours ago, Zerosquare said:

 

I see. Say, what color is the sky in your world?

I know you're one of those people that thinks they're smart but no one sane is going to pretend that the PS3 wasn't a COMMERCIAL failure because IT WAS

 

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/amp/2012-05-10-sony-playstation-division-suffers-full-year-USD2-8bn-loss

 

 

Come back to reality anytime.

 

56 minutes ago, saboteur said:

Yeah 87.4 million units sold is a failure, 

Too egotistical to admit not knowing what the word "commercial" in commercial failure means.

 

Here is a simple example you may understand, Nintendo 64 only really did well in one country and lost badly to PS1 generally, yet we're able to bring in enough not to be a commercial failure unlike say, the Gamecube and Xbox later.

 

Definition in this context:

 

Quote

Commercial failure typically implies lack of either revenues or profits.

 

 

 

 

[Leeroy ST]

1 hour ago, roots.genoa said:

I don't know but in this world, Super Mario Bros. was only successful because it was bundled with the NES, apparently.

Well when you dont know history (like Nintendo's failed test launches) you can make ignorant comments without knowing about the events or terms discussed, as shown above with individuals who dont know what commercial failure means, but act like they do. Or you dismissing historical evidence for a failed jab.

 

12 minutes ago, Keatah said:

Pretty sure Atari issued a directive to programmers not to use the 68000, because RISC was faster. RISC was everything.

 

I also heard this. Especially when they were picking up on "chasing" the competition.

[Pete5125]

36 minutes ago, Keatah said:

Pretty sure Atari issued a directive to programmers not to use the 68000, because RISC was faster. RISC was everything.

 

True but when they could only get 11 games out in 94, they went for any fast ports they could get for 95, just so some games could get out on the system.

[agradeneu]

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

I know you're one of those people that thinks they're smart but no one sane is going to pretend that the PS3 wasn't a COMMERCIAL failure because IT WAS

 

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/amp/2012-05-10-sony-playstation-division-suffers-full-year-USD2-8bn-loss

 

 

Come back to reality anytime.

 

Too egotistical to admit not knowing what the word "commercial" in commercial failure means.

 

Here is a simple example you may understand, Nintendo 64 only really did well in one country and lost badly to PS1 generally, yet we're able to bring in enough not to be a commercial failure unlike say, the Gamecube and Xbox later.

 

Definition in this context:

 

 

 

 

 

It's still debatable. You narrow it down to profits, but by that logic, Xbox360 was a failure too.

An installment base of over 80 Million sold consoles can't be considered as a full commercial failure. 

The PS3 actually turned profitable in 2010, not enough to recoup all losses and investments. But, long term investments are future revenues and profits, and Sony invested a lot into PSN network and 1st party development. The PS3 was crucial for Sony becoming a powerhouse for 1st party development and IMO the PS3 paved the way for PS4 success. 

 

[roots.genoa]

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

Well when you dont know history (like Nintendo's failed test launches)

Failed test launches don't change the fact that Super Mario Bros. remains one of the most influential video games in history, whether you like it or not.

[LianneJaguar64]

On 7/24/2021 at 4:00 AM, madman said:

The biggest mistake Atari made w/the Jaguar was spending money to develop and release the Jaguar. 

Sometimes I wonder if you even like the Jaguar at all xD

[pacman000]

On 7/26/2021 at 2:06 PM, zzip said:

They had money, but they didn't have money to do everything.  Most resources went to the ST.   Yes the ST had a good game selection eventually,  but that wasn't really in competition with Nintendo (too expensive for that).   They also never turned the ST into a console for the 16-bit era and capitalized on its game library.    So their console story jumped from XEGS/7800 to Jaguar,  effectively skipping the 16-bit generation.   That means a lot of the kids who might have been Atari fans were now minted into Nintendo/Sega/TG16 fans and Atari's next console would have a lot more to prove to win an audience.

 

 

They considered making an ST console, but they thought it wouldn't be powerful enough, so they started developing the Panther & Jaguar. The Jaguar was coming along quicker than expected, so they shelved the Panther in favor of the Jag. The Jag was supposed to one-up the SNES & Genesis; Atari was following, not leading. They were thinking of current consoles, not what was just around the corner. They didn't skip the 16-bit generation because they didn't understand the concept of console generations.

[zzip]

4 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

I know you're one of those people that thinks they're smart but no one sane is going to pretend that the PS3 wasn't a COMMERCIAL failure because IT WAS

 

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/amp/2012-05-10-sony-playstation-division-suffers-full-year-USD2-8bn-loss

 

 

Come back to reality anytime.

 

Too egotistical to admit not knowing what the word "commercial" in commercial failure means.

 

Here is a simple example you may understand, Nintendo 64 only really did well in one country and lost badly to PS1 generally, yet we're able to bring in enough not to be a commercial failure unlike say, the Gamecube and Xbox later.

 

Definition in this context:

 

Remember there was a format between HD-DVD and Bluray.   Bluray was a Sony-backed standard so they took the bold move of putting a bluray drive into PS3 to help drive adoption of that format.   It worked, and the PS3 was the cheapest Bluray player around.   But it was a very costly move...  They lost hundreds of dollars on each console sold.    They played it a lot safer with the PS4 design.

[zzip]

31 minutes ago, pacman000 said:

They considered making an ST console, but they thought it wouldn't be powerful enough, so they started developing the Panther & Jaguar. The Jaguar was coming along quicker than expected, so they shelved the Panther in favor of the Jag. The Jag was supposed to one-up the SNES & Genesis; Atari was following, not leading. They were thinking of current consoles, not what was just around the corner. They didn't skip the 16-bit generation because they didn't understand the concept of console generations.

yeah that's how things played out but there was recently some info on the Panther posted, and it sounds like it was a strange design and I'm not sure it would have been more flexible than an ST.

 

There is some irony in the fact that they thought the ST wasn't powerful enough  when they also thought the XEGS was a good idea in 87.

 

The definitely didn't grasp generations even before the Tramiels.   They had the 7800 on the heels of the 5200 and already had other consoles planned.

[pacman000]

XEGS was just a way to clear out their old 8-bit stuff.

 

But, yeah, I would've gone for an ST console if I was the head of Atari Corp in 1990.

[+madman]

1 hour ago, LianneJaguar64 said:

Sometimes I wonder if you even like the Jaguar at all xD

I get a kick out of the uniqueness of failed systems and appreciate them for what they are...but I also am not delusional about things like unharnessed 3d powah. I also like the Vectrex, Virtual Boy and 32x, just fun little footnotes in gaming history with some very fun titles. The Jag of course having the most interesting homebrew scene which keeps it top of mind.

[zzip]

21 minutes ago, pacman000 said:

But, yeah, I would've gone for an ST console if I was the head of Atari Corp in 1990.

I would think making a few hardware changes to the ST to make it a better game machine would be quicker and cheaper than designing a new console from scratch..  but what do I know? 

Edited July 29, 2021 by zzip

[JagChris]

Their biggest mistake was not having enough units available. And then if not through games from them, then at least development tools for third parties. 

[agradeneu]

1 hour ago, zzip said:

I would think making a few hardware changes to the ST to make it a better game machine would be quicker and cheaper than designing a new console from scratch..  but what do I know? 

A consolized ST would have been an outdated machine, compared to Turbo Grafx, Genesis and SNES. 

Hardware was not the problem, software support always was. Falcon, Lynx, Jaguar - there is a pattern.

The Jaguar was not developed from scratch by them, Atari bought a company named Flare to take over their research and chip design. They did the same with Epyx and their Handy project.

[agradeneu]

2 hours ago, zzip said:

yeah that's how things played out but there was recently some info on the Panther posted, and it sounds like it was a strange design and I'm not sure it would have been more flexible than an ST.

 

There is some irony in the fact that they thought the ST wasn't powerful enough  when they also thought the XEGS was a good idea in 87.

 

The definitely didn't grasp generations even before the Tramiels.   They had the 7800 on the heels of the 5200 and already had other consoles planned.

They were right, it is a bad idea. The ST was not good with scrolly games and only 16 colors for graphics. It was ok for a 80s home computer (most users were pirating the games anyway) but it was way outdated for a console hardware which should include customized chips for handling games. The Panther would have been at the level of the SNES, maybe even better.

 

[agradeneu]

2 hours ago, zzip said:

Remember there was a format between HD-DVD and Bluray.   Bluray was a Sony-backed standard so they took the bold move of putting a bluray drive into PS3 to help drive adoption of that format.   It worked, and the PS3 was the cheapest Bluray player around.   But it was a very costly move...  They lost hundreds of dollars on each console sold.    They played it a lot safer with the PS4 design.

Sony developed the PS3 as their technology carrier, not only to bring Blue Ray to the mass market but also to push their new CELL chip technology. Although the concept failed, the avantgardist, overengineered design makes the PS3 one of the last unique console hardware. (PS4 and PS5 are more like customized PCs)

[zzip]

44 minutes ago, agradeneu said:

A consolized ST would have been an outdated machine, compared to Turbo Grafx, Genesis and SNES. 

Hardware was not the problem, software support always was. Falcon, Lynx, Jaguar - there is a pattern.

The Jaguar was not developed from scratch by them, Atari bought a company named Flare to take over their research and chip design. They did the same with Epyx and their Handy project.

That's why I said improve the hardware.   STe was a good start,  but it needed more colors on screen, and perhaps an improved blitter/ hw sprites.

 

The ST has a huge game library.  They could have taken a lot of the preexisting ST games and put them on carts with enhancements to take advantage of any hw enhancements they made.  Similar to what they did with XEGS.   Unlike XEGS though, the ST game library was much more modern.  They wouldn't have to resort to 5-year old titles like Choplifter.

 

Handy kind of just fell in their lap.  Flare took too long to get a viable design out the door and Atari did not have a viable 16-bit console, that meant losing more mindshare to Nintendo/Sega/Turbo Graphics.   One of the reasons Jaguar failed is Atari lost so much of their mindshare due to their moves in the 80s of not having a good answer to what the competition was doing.  Recycling old designs like 7800 and XEGS and not being there for 16-bit all contributed to that.

[pacman000]

Keep in mind, the 7800 was no older a design than the NES/Famicom. Old-style games are what hurt the 7800. (And the reasons behind that are best discussed on the 7800 forum. )

[zzip]

10 minutes ago, pacman000 said:

Keep in mind, the 7800 was no older a design than the NES/Famicom. Old-style games are what hurt the 7800. (And the reasons behind that are best discussed on the 7800 forum. )

True,  a lot of the problems were software problems and that's where I get super critical of the Tramiel-era games strategy or lack thereof.   They were pushing two new but incompatible 8-bit systems simultaneously, releasing mostly older titles for them, and showing little desire to innovate.

 

but I do think the 7800 had a couple of Achilles heels that put it at a disadvantage.  1) graphics-  it's 320 mode is apparently hard to use, so most games use 160w which looks bad next to NES's  256 width.   2) Sound, obviously.   I suppose talented game designers could work around these things like the miracles they pulled off with the 2600,  and you could include better sound chips on the carts, but that wasn't done often enough

 

 

 

[LianneJaguar64]

5 hours ago, madman said:

I get a kick out of the uniqueness of failed systems and appreciate them for what they are...but I also am not delusional about things like unharnessed 3d powah. I also like the Vectrex, Virtual Boy and 32x, just fun little footnotes in gaming history with some very fun titles. The Jag of course having the most interesting homebrew scene which keeps it top of mind.

Yeah but Quake could totally run on a Jaguar tho

[+Stephen]

2 minutes ago, LianneJaguar64 said:

Yeah but Quake could totally run on a Jaguar tho

Of course - just don't use the 68000 and run GPU in main

[JagChris]

3 hours ago, pacman000 said:

Keep in mind, the 7800 was no older a design than the NES/Famicom. Old-style games are what hurt the 7800. (And the reasons behind that are best discussed on the 7800 forum. )

I believe this also hurt the Jag. Atari was still putting out arcade style games. 2-3 different screens etc. Damn near ten years after the success of Mario World,  Castlevania etc. 

 

The only thing the Jag got like that was Rayman. And it wasn't their doing.