Jump to content
IGNORED

Could the 5200 have succeeded?


NoBloodyXLOrE

Recommended Posts

On 10/1/2021 at 10:16 PM, NoBloodyXLOrE said:

I don't see how it was an "uninspired" software library, with all of its near-arcade-perfect ports of awesome games like Galaxian, Centipede, and others, the best Star Wars port on an 8-bit machine, along with original games like Fractalus, Ballblazer, and Star Raiders. When I see some of the games on machines like the Spectrum (the early 80s arcade ports on almost all British computers pale in comparison to high-end Japanese and especially American machines), they generally look and sound like junk by comparison.

Problem was all the 5200 games were already available already on Atari video games (2600 so visually simpler) or Computers (400/800 visually equal, or even direct hack ports by people like Glenn) - so what was the compulsion to buy a 5200 back in the day? When I got mine I loved the industrial design and form factor, but the seen it all before software really did not inspire...

 

sTeVE

 

P.S. You didn't own a Speccy for Arcade ports, it was the original and often quirky games that made that system I always feel (not that I had one back in 1982)...

Edited by Jetboot Jack
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bohoki said:

the commodore 64game system flopped so did the amigacd32 those may be unfair because commodore management was inept

I sold 1 64gs when it came out!

 

I worked on a couple of CD32 games, but the hardware was flaky and CBM were floundering so it was not a place to invest too much time and effort...

 

sTeVE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jetboot Jack said:

Problem was all the 5200 games were already available already on Atari video games (2600 so visually simpler) or Computers (400/800 visually equal, or even direct hack ports by people like Glenn) - so what was the compulsion to buy a 5200 back in the day? When I got mine I loved the industrial design and form factor, but the seen it all before software really did not inspire...

 

sTeVE

 

P.S. You didn't own a Speccy for Arcade ports, it was the original and often quirky games that made that system I always feel (not that I had one back in 1982)...

True, the 5200 games were generally on other systems, but as you said, they were far more impressive on the 5200 than the 2600 in terms of graphics and sound, and the Atari computers were a "higher-end" option (even if the Atari 400 was in reality no more expensive than the 5200 in most cases), with the 5200 being a lower-end consumer option just for playing video games - it didn't quite pan out that way but it was the intention. I'm not sure where the 5200 was positioned in relation to the 600XL, with all the price drops happening in that era, but my point still stands.

 

P.S. Original and quirky are right, but most of the games look and sound awful, and I don't imagine they play too great on that rubber chiclet keyboard. Plus having to load off of tape (it's not a good 80's game machine without a cartridge slot or built-in joystick ports) and being locked to RF (and even worse - PAL) output is a hassle, not to mention the overly garish color palette (the C64's palette isn't great either, in fairness, but it's better than the Spectrum). Sinclair machines (with all due respect to the late Sir Clive), were the poor man's toy computer, not a "real computer" (Apple II or IBM PC) or real games machine like the Atari 8-bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2021 at 4:30 PM, BIGHMW said:

Emerson Arcadia 2001

Odyssey 2

Bally Astrocade

Fairchild Channel F

Intellivision/Intellivision II

ColecoVision

Coleco ADAM

Coleco Gemini

Vectrex

Atari 2600/VCS

Atari 5200

 

Let's be fair here,  the Arcadia/Odyssey 2/Astrocade/Channel F were not much competition for anybody at the time of the crash.   Most of those were 2nd gen systems comparable to 2600 in tech,  Gemini was a 2600 clone, not a unique platform.  Adam was a computer not a console.

 

The main competition was between Atari, Coleco and Mattel.  1982 was the birth of a new generation of console with Colecovision and Atari 5200 and to a lesser extent Vectrex.    There is always overlap between the new and the old when next gen arrives.    I don't think too much hardware was the problem-  Nobody was saying "I can't decide whether to get a Colecovision or a Channel F".   I think it was more that people grew tired of the same-old game formulas that most games of the early 80s arcade era were following.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zzip said:

I think it was more that people grew tired of the same-old game formulas that most games of the early 80s arcade era were following.

 

There's a lot of truth to this.  And there was a unique situation happening in the early 80's where lots of people (myself very much included) were thinking that the REAL next generation of video games wasn't the 5200 or the Colecovision... it was on home computers.  Clearly, you could play new unique games on those machines (AND perhaps learn to program/try an online service/do word processing/etc.)  So there was a move to get a computer instead of ANY new game console.  

 

This isn't to say that there was no way Atari could have succeeded with a next generation console.  Perhaps with the right timing, the right machine, the right games, and the right marketing, they could have pulled it off.  But it was an enormously challenging market in 1982 and it would only get worse.  We really shouldn't assume that a tweaked 5200 with our preferred bells and whistles would have been much more successful than the one we got.

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, DamonicFury said:

There's a lot of truth to this.  And there was a unique situation happening in the early 80's where lots of people (myself very much included) were thinking that the REAL next generation of video games wasn't the 5200 or the Colecovision... it was on home computers.  Clearly, you could play new unique games on those machines (AND perhaps learn to program/try an online service/do word processing/etc.)  So there was a move to get a computer instead of ANY new game console.  

yes that's true,  but none of those innovative computer games made their way back to the 5200.   The 5200 library was almost all arcade and sports games--  like the 2600 library with better graphics.   By 84 that was stale. 

 

43 minutes ago, DamonicFury said:

This isn't to say that there was no way Atari could have succeeded with a next generation console.  Perhaps with the right timing, the right machine, the right games, and the right marketing, they could have pulled it off.  But it was an enormously challenging market in 1982 and it would only get worse.  We really shouldn't assume that a tweaked 5200 with our preferred bells and whistles would have been much more successful than the one we got.

The way Atari had handled it was abysmal:   Release it in 82, kill it after 18 months or so, and announcing the 7800, only to have that be delayed for 2 years.   And when the 7800 gets released, it's with the dated library from 84.    So not only did they screw over the 5200 early adopters who were among the biggest Atari fans, they ended up showing the world they fell behind on innovation.

 

So whether or not the 5200 ever became a runaway success, they certainly could have done better than the above timeline..

1)stick with it, 2)release better controllers,  3)release innovative games worth buying a 5200 for  4) replace it in 86/87 with a worthy successor (i.e.  NOT the 7800 or XEGS, something a little more current)

Edited by zzip
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, zzip said:

yes that's true,  but none of those innovative computer games made their way back to the 5200.   The 5200 library was almost all arcade and sports games--  like the 2600 library with better graphics.   By 84 that was stale.

Yep.  That was my point.  Arcade games from 1978-1981 already were losing their appeal, and that was all that was offered by both Atari (and Coleco, but they at least offered different arcade games.)  Even worse, in the 5200's earliest days, the games released were ones that everyone already had on the 2600 (Super Breakout, Missile Command, Space Invaders, Pac-Man, etc.)  Meanwhile, computers were offering all kinds of brand new game experiences.

 

41 minutes ago, zzip said:

The way Atari had handled it was abysmal:   Release it in 82, kill it after 18 months or so, and announcing the 7800, only to have that be delayed for 2 years.   And when the 7800 gets released, it's with the dated library from 84.    So not only did they screw over the 5200 early adopters who were among the biggest Atari fans, they ended up showing the world they fell behind on innovation.

No question that it was handled exceptionally poorly, but it's important to remember that by 1984, Atari was already a shell of what it was just a couple years before.  They were just looking for a buyer, and dumping the 5200 and proposing the 7800 were mostly likely emergency moves aimed at getting a buyer, not really at retaining or growing a customer base.  Basically, it was already too late for the 5200 and Atari, Inc. themselves.  Too many mistakes had already been made.  (Most of those having nothing to do with the 5200... things like failing to retain many of its most talented programmers, terrible marketing of its excellent computer line, bullying retailers into buying product they didn't want, bungling some of its high profile releases, creating an enormous amount of excess inventory it couldn't move, etc, etc, etc.)

 

44 minutes ago, zzip said:

So whether or not the 5200 ever became a runaway success, they certainly could have done better than the above timeline..

1)stick with it, 2)release better controllers,  3)release innovative games worth buying a 5200 for  4) replace it in 86/87 with a worthy successor (i.e.  NOT the 7800 or XEGS, something a little more current)

No argument that it could have all been handled better, from launch through end of life.  But, again, Atari was facing a deeply dismal market situation, with many problems of it's own making, and even a few that weren't.  As I said earlier, a more adept company just might have been able to steer its second generation console to a more successful launch to a much better supported mid-life period.  But that company sure wasn't the one that currently existed as Atari, Inc.  Sadly, they were already doomed by the time the 5200 launched.  Better decisions about the 5200 would have given the console a somewhat better fate than what it had, but it was never likely to be a smash hit given everything happening at the time.  It's not like the 5200 fell to a far more successful competitor, as had the Channel F, Odyssey 2, etc.  It was just another casualty of the big Crash that all but wiped out every console existing at the time.  (Yes, some of them did stay on the market for a few years after, but they never recaptured the popular interest... that wouldn't happen again until the NES.)  Atari Corp. perhaps could have made better lemonade of the by-then-quite-lemony 5200 if they wanted to, but their focus was clearly on launching a new line of home computers.  At least they issued a few games that had already been developed for the 5200 (Gremlins, Fractalus, BallBlazer) ... nowhere NEAR enough to revitalize the already-dead-in-the-public-eye system, but nice to give existing owners a few new things to play if they wanted to.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DamonicFury said:

Better decisions about the 5200 would have given the console a somewhat better fate than what it had, but it was never likely to be a smash hit given everything happening at the time.  It's not like the 5200 fell to a far more successful competitor,

I don't think the 5200 would have ever been a smash hit,  it probably would have fell short of 2600 sales figures in any case, but it certainly could have done better than it did.   

 

The main problem isn't the failure of the 5200 itself but the broken continuity in the Atari console line that started at this point.   Yes Atari was in a weakened position in 84,  but 85-87 were pivotal years in the future of consoles and Atari went from market leader to allowing Nintendo to take over the market without much of a fight.   Some people open threads arguing that Jaguar failed because it didn't come with CD,  I'd say the Jaguar failed because Atari botched everything during these crucial years.    Even Leonard Tramiel admitted that they were too focused on ST to be worried about "a little company named Nintendo"

 

27 minutes ago, DamonicFury said:

At least they issued a few games that had already been developed for the 5200 (Gremlins, Fractalus, BallBlazer) ... nowhere NEAR enough to revitalize the already-dead-in-the-public-eye system, but nice to give existing owners a few new things to play if they wanted to.

Ballblazer and Fractalus was one of the rare examples of Atari doing something right during that time.   They were developing these games with Lucasfilm,  and it would have been original games released on the 5200 a nice change from all the arcade ports.    But Atari killed the 5200 before they were released, and then the Lucasfilm deal fell apart and those games ended up being multi-platform games published by Epyx.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this would hold water, but do you guys think that maybe the 5200 would've bounced back both if they (at least) had released Tempest for Big Sexy back in 1984 as promoted by Atari themselves in their "Atari Presents" ads along with other games (like the unfinished Battlezone and Xevious) and had Jack Tramiel kept most of the R & D staff (like the great Keithen Hayenga) onboard to develop new titles and finish the ones that wound up not being finished???

 

You might figure that if Jack Tramiel had overruled Warner and brought back the 5200 after taking over the company and stayed the course with her if maybe she would've been a success under his ownership as opposed to what Warner did. Talk about comebacks!!!

Edited by BIGHMW
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BIGHMW said:

You might figure that if Jack Tramiel had overruled Warner and brought back the 5200 after taking over the company and stayed the course with her if maybe she would've been a success under his ownership as opposed to what Warner did. Talk about comebacks!!!

What you have to understand about Jack is he left Commodore early 84, took some staff with him, had them start designing a new computer to beat Commodore,  and bought Atari basically for the brand name-   as Leonard Tramiel says, it was the second most recognized brand in the world.

 

So ST was priority number one, everything else Atari was doing was secondary

 

As for games,  Jack pushed the "consoles are dead, buy a computer instead" line at Commodore, and he really seemed to believe it.    However he liked to make money too, so if games were selling, he'd continue to sell them.

 

He was also notoriously cheap--  make things as cheap as possible, and sell as cheap as possible.   So he wasn't going to retain any staff that wasn't necessary to get the ST project launched.  

 

So I can't see him reviving the 5200..  The only way I see it was if he inherited a warehouse full of unsold 5200s along with games that he wanted to get rid of.

 

When consoles started selling again, they did invest money there, but it was never enough.  For a long time they would rather repackage an older product like the 7800 or XEGS than develop a new console. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, zzip said:

What you have to understand about Jack is he left Commodore early 84, took some staff with him, had them start designing a new computer to beat Commodore,  and bought Atari basically for the brand name-   as Leonard Tramiel says, it was the second most recognized brand in the world.

 

So I can't see him reviving the 5200..  The only way I see it was if he inherited a warehouse full of unsold 5200s along with games that he wanted to get rid of.

 

When consoles started selling again, they did invest money there, but it was never enough.  For a long time they would rather repackage an older product like the 7800 or XEGS than develop a new console. 

But I would argue that maybe he should never have come out with the XEGS in 1987 knowing it was nothing more than a repackaged 65XE and instead of releasing the 600XL come up with a way to keep the 5200 relevant and I thought he would do that in 1984, as Atari (now under Jack's tenure-ship as owner) became one of the big TV sponsors of the 1984 Summer Olympics coverage on ABC, and there they appeared to have pushed the 5200 (at least) on their TV ads back then, even though we all knew that Warner had ceased putting it out themselves. Jack also could've perhaps seen the (unfulfilled) potential for Big Sexy, perhaps even to the point of offering an (then-never-before heard of) optional memory upgrade for her (like the one that the late Curt Vendel was thinking of), as well as a keyboard option (to keep it up with the ADAM module Coleco was pushing for ColecoVision and also what Intellivision II had as well) and also finishing up those titles that eventually wound up being finished on the 8-bit lineup but unfinished on the 5200 (more on that in a future thread here on the AA 5200 forums so look for it), at least Jack DID grace us with those two collaborations with Lucasfilm, Ballblazer and Rescue On Fractalus!, as well as Gremlins but not much else surfaced after that, even though 5200 units were sold until at least 1987, when Atari Corp did eventually release the XEGS (after releasing the 7800 the year before in 1986, in which I think would've been the right move and just simply not release the XEGS at all) instead of my ideas mentioned earlier.

 

Sad, The Atari 5200 SuperSystem a.k.a. Big Sexy truly could've lived up to her namesake had the marketing been better executed all-around, don't you think???

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're all talking as if industry politics and decisions determined what console sold big. And that is ok of course. Those activities are what brings systems to market anyways.

 

But I continue to believe the consumer has the final say-so. The consumer makes or breaks the market. In fact that's more than 100% true, because, if a product the consumer really really wants doesn't exist - the consumer will make it exist. Independent of any company and its embattled infighting politics. MAME (and emulation in general) is a laser-cut perfect example. We wanted exact arcade games at home. No company was delivering. And "somehow" MAME got started. And here we are today..having enjoyed the exact 80's for some 20 years now. Give or take.

 

So.. When I saw the ads for the 5200 SuperSystem I was excited. I was dreaming. I was anticipating. I wanted one. And I eventually got one. The marketing department had done its job. I said to myself that the 2600+2600=5200. And the 2600 was good. So this has gotta be even better! The system's sleek futuristic design meshed with the sci-fi books I was into. It really fired off a kid's imagination. It was from the future. Bought to me by Atari.

 

This was like my 5th system. I already had an Apple II, VCS, Intellivision, Atari 400/800, and maybe others like Astrocade and Vectrex. (Don't recall the precise timeline of acquisition.) I quickly discovered the software was basically a re-hash of 400/800 material. But I somehow convinced myself that the games really were better. Maybe faster, more and better sound and graphics, enhanced levels, and so on. Eventually I had to face it. None of that was true. I was left holding the bag! Digging for crumbs of differences at the bottom and finding few. I had already eaten the 400/800 sandwich.

 

Even my friends were nonplussed. After a few weeks we got bored of it and went outside to shoot off model rockets or do more BMX or look for trouble by antagonizing the bigger kids.

 

It was my first experience with rehashment. Same titles, same graphics, same style, same franchise. I was on the verge of losing faith in videogame makers. I was still too young to comprehend it all. But I was beginning to question each purchase more and more carefully. I absolutely positively didn't want to buy Pac-Man or Centipede for a 3rd time! And the decisions turned out in favor of the "home computer". Each one was guaranteed to have big enough differences. So I continued with the Apple II and Atari 800 as my mainstays. Eventually getting into a C64, Timex/Sinclair 1000, TI-994A, and CoCo 1. But my other computer adventures are for another discussion.

 

Next up was ColecoVision. All my buddies were hard up to get this. And I got it first! And it lived up to its expectation. Donkey Kong was a hit. And Zaxxon, SpaceFury, Cosmic Avenger, Turbo, TimePilot, Pepper II, and more. All of it was thrilling. All of it was different from the recycled Atari stuff. It was an adventure worth embarking on. Just like the original VCS, Intellivision, and Atari 400/800. Excitement was back. Sophistication in the air again. The arcade was really bought home.

 

Most importantly Coleco's controllers stayed working unlike the constant failure of the 5200's. It got to be a real tedious task testing and trying to fix those rubber pads. Soon it wasn't worth the time anymore. It could take 10 to 15 minutes to prep for a 2-player game.

 

Pretty sure ColecoVision was my last hurrah with Pre-NES cartridge systems.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding XEGS, would limiting their next gen system with one button controllers be the way to go.  Having said that, they put the keypad on there but then just focused on arcade conversions.

 

For those complaining about having the same games as their 2600; at the time the 5200 came out there were about 8M 2600 consoles out there.  So there were a lot of households that didn't have any videogames in the home.  There might have been a couple million people that bought a 2600 just to play pacman that year.  That could have been 5200s.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zylon said:

much as I love the 5200, the later XEGS, is what it should have been.

I have both and as an owner of both a 5200 (my third since my first I got for my 17th birthday back in 1983) and an XEGS (in which I picked up last year) I could hardly disagree, but how many of the improved 5200 ports have not yet been ported back to the XEGS or other Atari 8-bit computers, there are quite a few about 15-20 of them IIRC, like Keithen Hayenga's Tempest, the entire Mean Hamster Software lineup despite them being out of business for the past 5 years or so, and others as well, like Castle Blast by Ronen Habot from 2002, and more.

 

If everything 5200 was only ported to the 8-bit then everything would be fine considering the XEGS' onboard 64K of RAM compared to the 5200's 16K of RAM in which hampered things for it but I'll be more than glad to take my 400 of THE BEST TITLES of any one console as opposed to thousands of titles on the XEGS even though there are a few on her that Big Sexy could never play.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Keatah said:

I quickly discovered the software was basically a re-hash of 400/800 material. But I somehow convinced myself that the games really were better. Maybe faster, more and better sound and graphics, enhanced levels, and so on. Eventually I had to face it. None of that was true. I was left holding the bag! Digging for crumbs of differences at the bottom and finding few. I had already eaten the 400/800 sandwich

If you came at it from 400/800 then yeah, it wasn't anything new.   But the vast majority of us were still on 2600 and 5200 would be a significant upgrade.

 

14 hours ago, BIGHMW said:

But I would argue that maybe he should never have come out with the XEGS in 1987 knowing it was nothing more than a repackaged 65XE

I think it was designed for certain markets, like Europe, which had a stronger computer culture than console culture.    But perhaps it should only have been released in those markets and not directly compete against the 7800.

 

14 hours ago, BIGHMW said:

 in 1984, as Atari (now under Jack's tenure-ship as owner) became one of the big TV sponsors of the 1984 Summer Olympics coverage on ABC, and there they appeared to have pushed the 5200 (at least) on their TV ads back then, even though we all knew that Warner had ceased putting it out themselves.

That was surely a Warner thing.   Such an advertising deal would have been set up months in advance, which is why it would still have 5200 advertising.   They announced the Tramiel sale on July 3, but presumably that deal would close some time later.  (I've never seen the closing date on the Atari sale)

 

14 hours ago, BIGHMW said:

Jack also could've perhaps seen the (unfulfilled) potential for Big Sexy, perhaps even to the point of offering an (then-never-before heard of) optional memory upgrade for her (like the one that the late Curt Vendel was thinking of), as well as a keyboard option (to keep it up with the ADAM module Coleco was pushing for ColecoVision and also what Intellivision II had as well)

Console upgrades never do so well, because developers prefer to target the lowest spec to get the max possible audience, so if 5200 had a memory upgrade,  I doubt more than a few games would use it.   (Weirdly the 7800 has even less RAM than the 5200)

 

As for keyboard-   The Adam bombed,  everyone announced a keyboard peripheral in those days, none succeeded.   These console makers were wasting a lot of time and energy announcing a whole slew of peripherals when I think the public was getting bored and just looking for the next exciting big game after Pac Man and Donkey Kong. 

 

10 hours ago, mr_me said:

For those complaining about having the same games as their 2600; at the time the 5200 came out there were about 8M 2600 consoles out there.  So there were a lot of households that didn't have any videogames in the home.  There might have been a couple million people that bought a 2600 just to play pacman that year.  That could have been 5200s.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have those games.   The problem is that's pretty much all they had for the first year.   The 2600 had unique experiences like Adventure and Yar's Revenge, but 5200 had very little like that.   If you want people to upgrade from their 2600s, then give them something special they can't play on the 2600.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just my opinion but Defender, Missile Command, Asteroids are not the same games on the 2600.  Then you have Star Raiders and Countermeasure.  And like I said the video game market in 1982 was a lot bigger than upgrading 2600 owners.  A new console is always a little slow with it's library, but the 5200 was never given a chance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mr_me said:

This is just my opinion but Defender, Missile Command, Asteroids are not the same games on the 2600.  Then you have Star Raiders and Countermeasure.  And like I said the video game market in 1982 was a lot bigger than upgrading 2600 owner

I agree that 2600 Defender is sub-par,  but many argue that the 2600 Asteroids is better,  anyway, out of those game only Countermeasure isn't on the 2600, and I still don't think most people upgrading would want to re-buy their entire library, while they might buy a couple of games that are significantly improved, they want enough content they can't play on their current console to justify the expense.

 

10 minutes ago, mr_me said:

A new console is always a little slow with it's library, but the 5200 was never given a chance.

I agree it was killed off too fast before it found its killer app.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zzip said:

but many argue that the 2600 Asteroids is better,

It absolutely IS better. The 400/800/5200 versions are slow and sluggish in comparison to the crisp and snappy VCS iteration. The thrust sound is somewhat scratchy. And the scrolling/movement of the shots seems low-res. Not a smooth traverse. Discrete steps it seems.

 

I prefer the original Arcade or VCS for my fix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Keatah said:

It absolutely IS better. The 400/800/5200 versions are slow and sluggish in comparison to the crisp and snappy VCS iteration. The thrust sound is somewhat scratchy. And the scrolling/movement of the shots seems low-res. Not a smooth traverse. Discrete steps it seems.

 

I prefer the original Arcade or VCS for my fix.

 

1 hour ago, mr_me said:

Asteroids is one of my favourite games but the 2600 version is not the same game.  I much prefer playing the Atari 800 version.

Heh well I'll take the middle ground here :)  I don't particularly care for either port!  These days I'd rather go for the "Asteroids Emulator" which is the arcade code running on Atari 8-bit with simulated vector graphics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mr_me said:

This is just my opinion but Defender, Missile Command, Asteroids are not the same games on the 2600.  Then you have Star Raiders and Countermeasure.  And like I said the video game market in 1982 was a lot bigger than upgrading 2600 owners.  A new console is always a little slow with it's library, but the 5200 was never given a chance.

I completely agree. While I share some of the others' distaste for Asteroids on the 5200/400/800, I find Defender and Missile Command to be at their best (other than the arcade) on the 5200/400/800, and as you said, Star Raiders is a big plus. If the 5200 had survived to the latter half of the 1980s, it might have lived to see Star Raiders II on a bank-switched cart.

Also, I'd hardly say that the 5200 library was lacking, since it received plenty of classics from Atari (and their licensees such as Nintendo, Namco, etc.), Activision, and others. It definitely could have used some more software, but I don't think the library was what killed the system, so much as business ineptitude.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, zzip said:

 

Heh well I'll take the middle ground here :) I don't particularly care for either port!  These days I'd rather go for the "Asteroids Emulator" which is the arcade code running on Atari 8-bit with simulated vector graphics.

....and I also did a feature on it (and i also enjoyed it as well) in which I will be debuting soon during my "Asteroids Week" series of episodes (featuring all 4 systems' versions of this timeless arcade classic) on The Atari Report so look for it on the 8-Bit Edition of TAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the 5200, the games looked like they should have looked on the 2600. The graphical upgrade was enormous. The arcade games on the 5200 looked like the arcade games where on the 2600, the games sorta kinda looked like the arcade. The death knell was the controller - it broke rather quickly and replacements became very hard to find. Eventually, I had to buy a whole new system just to get working controllers. Its a shame because it could have been great.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...