Could the 5200 have succeeded?

[Lord Innit]

On 10/4/2021 at 12:44 AM, NoBloodyXLOrE said:

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.

And yet so many programmers first started  coding on the Speccy.  It was the low price point that allowed them to start that journey towards their careers. Not a bad legacy for a "toy".

[NoBloodyXLOrE]

18 hours ago, Lord Innit said:

And yet so many programmers first started  coding on the Speccy.  It was the low price point that allowed them to start that journey towards their careers. Not a bad legacy for a "toy".

Many programmers did, just as they did on the VIC-20, which also sacrificed capabilities for a low price (though it still maintained basic essentials like a cartridge port, joystick ports, good arcade ports, and even had a real keyboard and a disk drive connector), but even still, just because it was accessible enough to jumpstart a lot of careers doesn't make it good. Besides, most major video games come out of Japan or the US anyway, the UK is hardly the forefront of game development.

[+x=usr(1536)]

On 10/3/2021 at 6:44 PM, NoBloodyXLOrE said:

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.

Genuinely curious: what was your experience (in any European country of the time) with the ZX Spectrum and others?

 

Speaking from mine, I can say that the Apple ][ was essentially irrelevant and the IBM PC held no real interest for the majority of home users until about the mid-1990s.  Even the A8 was in the minority compared to positions occupied by (usually) Sinclair, Amstrad, and Commodore.

 

Granted, market share situations were not 100% the same between individual countries, but in general this held true.

 

Moving back to the original question for the moment: in order for the 5200 to have succeeded, I'm of the opinion that three things would need to have happened:

1. A release in time for Christmas of 1980
2. Complete software compatibility with the A8 line
3. Backwards compatibility at launch with 2600 titles (either built-in or with an available add-on)

Warner would also need to have been 100% committed to it in the marketplace, which, IMHO, they weren't.  That's an entirely other discussion, however, and the rabbit hole goes deep on that one.

 

Taking the points in order:

 

A Christmas of 1980 release would have given the machine a full year on the market in 1981 with its nearest competition being the Intellivision.  The Colecovision wasn't on the market at that time, and the Odyssey² would have been non-competitive.

 

A8 software compatibility would have given it what it desperately needed, which was a large and ready-to-go software library.  In a way, the XEGS answered this question, but five years after the 5200 first hit the market - and by the time the XEGS was on the scene, not many people wanted an A8-based game console.

 

The lack of backwards compatibility with 2600 titles from launch was a mistake.  Car manufacturers figured this out a century ago: keep customers in the family, so to speak, by giving them an upgrade path.  But don't alienate them by making them regret their prior investment in the old system and software in light of the new one's capabilities.  The $269 purchase in 1981 is a lot easier to swallow when you're not going to also be rebuying your entire software library at potentially $50-plus per game.

[Jetboot Jack]

On 10/7/2021 at 1:31 AM, NoBloodyXLOrE said:

Besides, most major video games come out of Japan or the US anyway, the UK is hardly the forefront of game development.

Hahahahahaha - oh really, you best take a closer look.

 

The UK produces a HUGE amount of games, a huge amount of BIG global hits (you know little games like Grand Theft Auto)- and yes I do live and work in the UK, but have also worked in the US and with several major Japanese publishers so I do have both experience and actual knowledge of the industry...

 

sTeVE

Edited October 8, 2021 by Jetboot Jack

[mr_me]

13 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Genuinely curious: what was your experience (in any European country of the time) with the ZX Spectrum and others?

 

Speaking from mine, I can say that the Apple ][ was essentially irrelevant and the IBM PC held no real interest for the majority of home users until about the mid-1990s.  Even the A8 was in the minority compared to positions occupied by (usually) Sinclair, Amstrad, and Commodore.

 

Granted, market share situations were not 100% the same between individual countries, but in general this held true.

 

Moving back to the original question for the moment: in order for the 5200 to have succeeded, I'm of the opinion that three things would need to have happened:

1. A release in time for Christmas of 1980
2. Complete software compatibility with the A8 line
3. Backwards compatibility at launch with 2600 titles (either built-in or with an available add-on)

Warner would also need to have been 100% committed to it in the marketplace, which, IMHO, they weren't.  That's an entirely other discussion, however, and the rabbit hole goes deep on that one.

 

Taking the points in order:

 

A Christmas of 1980 release would have given the machine a full year on the market in 1981 with its nearest competition being the Intellivision.  The Colecovision wasn't on the market at that time, and the Odyssey² would have been non-competitive.

 

A8 software compatibility would have given it what it desperately needed, which was a large and ready-to-go software library.  In a way, the XEGS answered this question, but five years after the 5200 first hit the market - and by the time the XEGS was on the scene, not many people wanted an A8-based game console.

 

The lack of backwards compatibility with 2600 titles from launch was a mistake.  Car manufacturers figured this out a century ago: keep customers in the family, so to speak, by giving them an upgrade path.  But don't alienate them by making them regret their prior investment in the old system and software in light of the new one's capabilities.  The $269 purchase in 1981 is a lot easier to swallow when you're not going to also be rebuying your entire software library at potentially $50-plus per game.

Even in the US the computer market in the mid 1980s was Apple in the schools, PC in the office, and Commodore in the homes.

 

Atari engineers designed the 800 computer as a videogame machine with the 400 being the console version.  Someone at Atari decided computers are the way to go and put a keyboard on the 400.

 

Never understood the importance of backward compatibility.  If you have a library of old games I assume you have the hardware to play them.  If you don't have any games you might buy some older ones to play on your next generation console; maybe not.

[zzip]

12 minutes ago, mr_me said:

Never understood the importance of backward compatibility.  If you have a library of old games I assume you have the hardware to play them.  If you don't have any games you might buy some older ones to play on your next generation console; maybe not.

It's a feature everybody says they want, but in practice doesn't get used that much once the new games are out, and also lack of BC doesn't seem to hurt a console's sales.   Keeping old hardware is easy enough, although I think some people sell their old hardware to help pay for the new stuff.

 

I think the 5200 itself didn't need it.  But it was the fact that Colecovision released a module to play 2600 games created a PR disaster and panic within Atari.   Still I think releasing the 2600 adapter for those who wanted it was enough.   Cancelling the console outright and releasing a new one with bc was an overreaction.

[BIGHMW]

Big Sexy had a future, provided Atari marketed her right in which they didn't, I myself didn't mind any compatibility issues with the stock CX52 sticks as I acclimated myself to the way they operated, and having both a trak-ball and the (then) 5200-exclusive twin controller holder (actually I had 2 of them and I still have one) for games like Space Dungeon and Robotron was an absolute blast for me, and I felt I was in an elite class of gamers who owned one because of how superior our games were even to their original 8-bit versions they were derived from, especially Centipede.

 

I was shocked when I read in Electronic Games magazine in early 1984 that Atari pulled the plug on her, just as she was gaining momentum and closing in on Coleco in sales but then again the infamous Crash Of 1984 may have sealed her fate. But yes we today are still here, still have our 5200 units, and, most importantly, still play them, now with 400+ titles available for her and growing, mainly because of sites like AA,  and us.

[NoBloodyXLOrE]

16 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Genuinely curious: what was your experience (in any European country of the time) with the ZX Spectrum and others?

 

Speaking from mine, I can say that the Apple ][ was essentially irrelevant and the IBM PC held no real interest for the majority of home users until about the mid-1990s.  Even the A8 was in the minority compared to positions occupied by (usually) Sinclair, Amstrad, and Commodore.

 

Granted, market share situations were not 100% the same between individual countries, but in general this held true.

 

Moving back to the original question for the moment: in order for the 5200 to have succeeded, I'm of the opinion that three things would need to have happened:

1. A release in time for Christmas of 1980
2. Complete software compatibility with the A8 line
3. Backwards compatibility at launch with 2600 titles (either built-in or with an available add-on)

Warner would also need to have been 100% committed to it in the marketplace, which, IMHO, they weren't.  That's an entirely other discussion, however, and the rabbit hole goes deep on that one.

 

Taking the points in order:

 

A Christmas of 1980 release would have given the machine a full year on the market in 1981 with its nearest competition being the Intellivision.  The Colecovision wasn't on the market at that time, and the Odyssey² would have been non-competitive.

 

A8 software compatibility would have given it what it desperately needed, which was a large and ready-to-go software library.  In a way, the XEGS answered this question, but five years after the 5200 first hit the market - and by the time the XEGS was on the scene, not many people wanted an A8-based game console.

 

The lack of backwards compatibility with 2600 titles from launch was a mistake.  Car manufacturers figured this out a century ago: keep customers in the family, so to speak, by giving them an upgrade path.  But don't alienate them by making them regret their prior investment in the old system and software in light of the new one's capabilities.  The $269 purchase in 1981 is a lot easier to swallow when you're not going to also be rebuying your entire software library at potentially $50-plus per game.

I pretty much agree with your appraisal of what the 5200 would have needed in order to succeed, save for a 1980 launch - there's no way the system could've been launched in 1980 at a competitive price. By 1981, maybe, and they certainly did it by 1982, with prices falling in 1983 and beyond. However, including 2600 compatibility would've increased the cost as they would have had to include all of the 2600's chips that weren't in the 5200 (could just be the RIOT and TIA but I'm not sure). Besides, I don't think backwards compatibility would've helped since I don't imagine people would get rid of their 2600 when they got their 5200.

 

To your earlier point, however, I do know that the IBM PC held little interest for home users. It didn't gain much traction for that over here in the US until the mid-80s, but I was simply saying that the Spectrum hardly fit into the category of a "real" (as in business/productivity) computer like the PC or the Apple II. And while I've never been to Europe, the Spectrum's hardware speaks for itself.

The Commodore 64 at least has sprites, joystick ports, and a (somewhat underused and awkwardly placed) cartridge slot, and even the Amstrad CPC had a 160x200 16 color mode with individually addressable colored pixels, even if it lacked sprites. Plus, the C64 has the SID chip, which is nice for music, even if not too good for sound effects. The AY-3 in the Amstrad isn't my favorite but it gets the job done, though the system is lacking in terms of storage, with a tape drive as standard and no cartridges. Plus they both have real typewriter-style keyboards, just like the Apple, IBM, and most Atari's.

The Atari, however, had the best graphics of the time with its wide 128/256 color palette provided by the CTIA/GTIA, sprites, joystick support, cartridges, and more, topped off with the amazing POKEY chip. And it shows in the quality of the arcade ports, which are almost always excellent on the Atari 8-bit, generally pretty good on the C64 (though some have sound effects or music that are kind of bad), but almost always bad on the Spectrum, with the Amstrad getting some good ports but sometimes getting shafted with Sinclair ports.

 

My point was that the only thing going for the Spectrum was its price. It wasn't a good business computer, with its 32 column screen, no disk drive support as standard, and a rubber keyboard, nor was it a good gaming machine, with no cartridges, built-in joystick ports, sprites, or proper sound chip.

[+x=usr(1536)]

3 hours ago, mr_me said:

Never understood the importance of backward compatibility.  If you have a library of old games I assume you have the hardware to play them.

Agreed.  However, there are two advantages to backwards compatibility:

• Customer goodwill.  Nobody feels left out who invested in the older products since they can upgrade at their leisure and know that even though they may no longer use the older console, their software is still usable.  Makes swallowing the pill of obsolescence easier.
• Encouraging repurchase of older games in new formats to take advantage of improvements in the new hardware.  2600 Defender was pretty dire, but give someone a taste of it on a demo kiosk on the notional 5200 we're talking about and they're going to be more likely to buy the title again.  It's kinda like jumping from tape to CD: some stuff stays on tape, some gets replaced by CDs of the same album.

Quote

If you don't have any games you might buy some older ones to play on your next generation console; maybe not.

My feeling on this one is probably not, with the possible exception of bargain-bin impulse purchases.  May as well fill out some of the library for the older machine while the software is dirt-cheap.

3 hours ago, zzip said:

It's a feature everybody says they want, but in practice doesn't get used that much once the new games are out, and also lack of BC doesn't seem to hurt a console's sales.

Possibly, but a lack of backwards compatibility was a complaint that reviewers lodged about the 5200 when it hit the market; its inclusion in the 7800 may very well have been a reaction to that.

 

3 hours ago, zzip said:

Cancelling the console outright and releasing a new one with bc was an overreaction.

After how Atari's marketing bungled the 5200 from the start, it was the only realistic option.  The 7800 was essentially free, seeing as how GCC was obliged to design it as part of a legal settlement, and it moved the state-of-the-art ahead of the 5200's capabilities in many ways.  Keeping the 5200 going just didn't make sense.

[Keatah]

3 hours ago, mr_me said:

Never understood the importance of backward compatibility.  If you have a library of old games I assume you have the hardware to play them.  If you don't have any games you might buy some older ones to play on your next generation console; maybe not.

Backward compatibility is huge to me. In addition to the reasons already given, it reduced hardware sprawl and the need to constantly replace software. Consider an extreme example - having to get new software for every speed grade in the PC world.

 

It provides continuity and allows people to progress through an ecosphere's evolution at a self-chosen pace. A pace works and maintains a customer relationship.

 

So many advantages.

 

Edited October 8, 2021 by Keatah

[zzip]

16 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

A release in time for Christmas of 1980

This is way too early.   The 2600 hadn't even had its best days yet.   They would be in the position of having two competing architectures on the market and maybe it hurts 2600 adoption and by extension the popularity of the Atari brand, allowing Mattel or Magnavox more leeway.   I think 82 would have been good timing for the console if it weren't for the impending crash.  Maybe release it earlier in the year so that they could have benefitted from the home Pac-man hype at the same time the 2600 version was released. 

 

18 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

The 7800 was essentially free, seeing as how GCC was obliged to design it as part of a legal settlement, and it moved the state-of-the-art ahead of the 5200's capabilities in many ways.  Keeping the 5200 going just didn't make sense.

According to the GCC guys they were only obligated to make carts.   The 7800 was their idea and they took it to Atari.   It's not free when you consider how much damage this decision did to the brand.  The people who bought the 5200 early are among the biggest Atari loyalists.   And Atari pissed them off by cancelling the console after just over a year and telling them to buy a new one,  which ends up not even arriving on time.

[+x=usr(1536)]

13 minutes ago, NoBloodyXLOrE said:

To your earlier point, however, I do know that the IBM PC held little interest for home users. It didn't gain much traction for that over here in the US until the mid-80s, but I was simply saying that the Spectrum hardly fit into the category of a "real" (as in business/productivity) computer like the PC or the Apple II.

Perhaps, but that doesn't render the ZX Spectrum a 'toy'.  Built to a price, definitely, and its form factor (including the keyboard) certainly reflected that.  However, people wrote rather a lot of software for it on that keyboard, and add-on hardware was produced for it in significant numbers.

 

The other thing is that it's dangerous to attempt to define what a 'real' computer is.  There's a solid argument to be made in favour of a hydraulically-shifted automatic transmission being essentially a fluid-driven analogue computer; does that make it not a real computer as it has no keyboard, display, or storage?

 

Granted, that's an apples-and-oranges comparison, and I thoroughly admit that.  But it does serve to illustrate the point that a 'real' computer is what the users make of it more than its constituent components.  It's more than the sum of its parts, so to speak.

23 minutes ago, NoBloodyXLOrE said:

And while I've never been to Europe, the Spectrum's hardware speaks for itself.

And quite admirably so, I think.  Like any other machine, it has its strengths and weaknesses, but I believe (and I say this as someone whose closest ownership experience to a ZX Spectrum was that there were other people in the family who had them) that the strengths outweigh the weaknesses.  It's a clever example of shoestring design in the best possible way, and offered a tremendous amount of flexibility to its users.

 

27 minutes ago, NoBloodyXLOrE said:

My point was that the only thing going for the Spectrum was its price.

And that was exactly the point of its design: to be affordable.  One thing that needs to be understood is that the ZX Spectrum is very much a product of its time, and that time was one when discretionary income in the both the UK and Europe in general was much smaller than it was in the US (it still is, but the gap has narrowed somewhat).  Selling a $1300 Apple ][ just wasn't going to happen on a large scale in Europe: people simply didn't have the money to spend.  But a machine costing the equivalent of $200-$300 was a much more realistic proposition.

27 minutes ago, NoBloodyXLOrE said:

It wasn't a good business computer, with its 32 column screen, no disk drive support as standard, and a rubber keyboard, nor was it a good gaming machine, with no cartridges, built-in joystick ports, sprites, or proper sound chip.

Nor can I recall Sinclair ever aiming it at the business market.  It was aimed at families purchasing their first computer who didn't have a ton of money to spend but who could expand its capabilities over time.  Being a gaming console wasn't part of its design brief, so that's a largely-irrelevant consideration.

 

[JumbleJag]

1 hour ago, zzip said:

And Atari pissed them off by cancelling the console after just over a year and telling them to buy a new one,  which ends up not even arriving on time.

If I had bought a 5200 and they cancelled it just over a year later that would have lead me to not purchase another console from atari.

[zzip]

1 minute ago, JumbleJag said:

If I had bought a 5200 and they cancelled it just over a year later that would have lead me to not purchase another console from atari.

And you can find letters in old magazines too this effect.   If they had pulled this in the internet age, you could just imagine the backlash!

[+x=usr(1536)]

20 minutes ago, zzip said:

This is way too early.   The 2600 hadn't even had its best days yet.   They would be in the position of having two competing architectures on the market and maybe it hurts 2600 adoption and by extension the popularity of the Atari brand, allowing Mattel or Magnavox more leeway.

*shrug* True, but the 2600 had also been viewed as having a three- to five-year shelf life when it was released.  Christmas of 1980 would have slotted into that plan well, since it's effectively a 1981 release.  I do agree that the 5200 may have cannibalised 2600 sales somewhat, but, as you point out, the 2600 hadn't really even hit its stride by then so nobody could really tell where it was going.  Give it a year or two of sales alongside the 5200, then discontinue it.

Quote

I think 82 would have been good timing for the console if it weren't for the impending crash.  Maybe release it earlier in the year so that they could have benefitted from the home Pac-man hype at the same time the 2600 version was released. 

Completely agreed that the 5200 needed a better pack-in than Super Breakout.  To me, that one detail really shows how little understanding the marketing department had of what it was that they were sitting on as well as the market demands.

Quote

According to the GCC guys they were only obligated to make carts.   The 7800 was their idea and they took it to Atari.

Correct, and that was presented to Atari as a product in lieu of (IIRC) two cartridges that GCC was contractually-obligated to develop.  Atari greenlighted the change, and GCC got on with it.

Quote

It's not free when you consider how much damage this decision did to the brand.

Perhaps, and I don't necessarily disagree with where you're going with this.  However, the 7800's an entirely other saga.

Quote

The people who bought the 5200 early are among the biggest Atari loyalists.   And Atari pissed them off by cancelling the console after just over a year and telling them to buy a new one,  which ends up not even arriving on time.

See also: stupid marketing (and management) decisions.  It's also an example of what happens when there's no strategy in place for the product line.

 

Thinking about it, though, this is one area where backwards compatibility could have staved off a lot of that bad press and customer ill-will.  If nothing else, it would have bought time for people to simmer down over the thought of another hardware upgrade being eventually needed since they could have brought their existing software with them.

[zzip]

4 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

*shrug* True, but the 2600 had also been viewed as having a three- to five-year shelf life when it was released.  Christmas of 1980 would have slotted into that plan well, since it's effectively a 1981 release.  I do agree that the 5200 may have cannibalised 2600 sales somewhat, but, as you point out, the 2600 hadn't really even hit its stride by then so nobody could really tell where it was going.  Give it a year or two of sales alongside the 5200, then discontinue it.

Yes that's what Bushnell thought since the 2600 was basically designed to play Pong.  He didn't foresee how far coders could push the hardware or that it would take almost 3 years for the 2600 to have its first massive hit in Space Invaders.   And as a result maybe the replacement was ready too early?  Imagine how much better the 5200 and 8-bit line could be if they had another year to design the chipset.

 

11 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Completely agreed that the 5200 needed a better pack-in than Super Breakout.  To me, that one detail really shows how little understanding the marketing department had of what it was that they were sitting on as well as the market demands.

At the time, Pack-in games were typically not super impressive..     But when their competition was pulling a coup by giving away "Donkey Kong", they definitely need to do better than Super Breakout!

[NoBloodyXLOrE]

1 hour ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Perhaps, but that doesn't render the ZX Spectrum a 'toy'.  Built to a price, definitely, and its form factor (including the keyboard) certainly reflected that.  However, people wrote rather a lot of software for it on that keyboard, and add-on hardware was produced for it in significant numbers.

 

The other thing is that it's dangerous to attempt to define what a 'real' computer is.  There's a solid argument to be made in favour of a hydraulically-shifted automatic transmission being essentially a fluid-driven analogue computer; does that make it not a real computer as it has no keyboard, display, or storage?

 

Granted, that's an apples-and-oranges comparison, and I thoroughly admit that.  But it does serve to illustrate the point that a 'real' computer is what the users make of it more than its constituent components.  It's more than the sum of its parts, so to speak.

And quite admirably so, I think.  Like any other machine, it has its strengths and weaknesses, but I believe (and I say this as someone whose closest ownership experience to a ZX Spectrum was that there were other people in the family who had them) that the strengths outweigh the weaknesses.  It's a clever example of shoestring design in the best possible way, and offered a tremendous amount of flexibility to its users.

 

And that was exactly the point of its design: to be affordable.  One thing that needs to be understood is that the ZX Spectrum is very much a product of its time, and that time was one when discretionary income in the both the UK and Europe in general was much smaller than it was in the US (it still is, but the gap has narrowed somewhat).  Selling a $1300 Apple ][ just wasn't going to happen on a large scale in Europe: people simply didn't have the money to spend.  But a machine costing the equivalent of $200-$300 was a much more realistic proposition.

Nor can I recall Sinclair ever aiming it at the business market.  It was aimed at families purchasing their first computer who didn't have a ton of money to spend but who could expand its capabilities over time.  Being a gaming console wasn't part of its design brief, so that's a largely-irrelevant consideration.

 

When I say "real" computer, I do mean somewhat in the early-mid 80's colloquial definition (at least what seems to have been used in the US), which generally applies only to business machines with 80 column displays. While I'm aware that Sinclair never aimed the Spectrum at the business market, I simply made the PC/Apple II comparison to illustrate that it didn't have much of a place anywhere as more than the budget toylike option - not as the advanced home computer / game console replacement (C64 or Atari) or business machinee.

But for the two primary purposes people used home computers for in that time period - programming and playing games, I can't imagine it was very good at either. The "shortcut" system for BASIC commands was innovative and clever, and I'm sure could be learned, but it still wouldn't be as good as something with a true typewriter-style keyboard, and I already went over its limitations for playing games. The comparable Oric-1 which sold for a similar price, had much smaller color cells and a true sound chip. And while you're correct that being a game console wasn't part of the design, computers were always at their best when they behaved like game consoles when you went to play a game - the 800XL is just like a traditional cartridge-based system, which is why the XEGS transition was such a painless one from a technical standpoint.

I don't think the strengths outweigh the weaknesses when in 1984, an Atari 800XL was only $100 (not sure about European prices) for far better capabilities. The point about incomes in Europe being lower is fair, but I still maintain that the Spectrum just wasn't a great machine. This is off-topic, I know, but I strongly hold that belief.

 

To me, the Spectrum is in the same class of machines as the Mattel Aquarius or Tandy MC-10 - a machine that eschewed features for cost, and while that evidently worked in the UK, consumers in the US took advantage of dropping prices on older but better machines - the TI-99/4A and Commodore VIC-20, which had great arcade ports, joystick and cartridge ports, and real keyboards. Even the (admittedly late) attempt to launch the Sinclair Spectrum in the US as the TS2068 failed for precisely this reason.

Edited October 8, 2021 by NoBloodyXLOrE

[mr_me]

3 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

After how Atari's marketing bungled the 5200 from the start, it was the only realistic option.  The 7800 was essentially free, seeing as how GCC was obliged to design it as part of a legal settlement, and it moved the state-of-the-art ahead of the 5200's capabilities in many ways.  Keeping the 5200 going just didn't make sense.

Developing the 7800 wasn't free.  Atari just didn't pay what they owed; they just quit the home market instead.

 

3 hours ago, Keatah said:

Backward compatibility is huge to me. In addition to the reasons already given, it reduced hardware sprawl and the need to constantly replace software. Consider an extreme example - having to get new software for every speed grade in the PC world.

 

It provides continuity and allows people to progress through an ecosphere's evolution at a self-chosen pace. A pace works and maintains a customer relationship.

 

So many advantages.

 

If game consoles only upgraded speed, than building in backward compatibility wouldn't be that big a deal.  The computer that I'm typing on now has had three operating systems go obsolete (actually two because I skipped one).  Software seems to get updated on a regular basis.

[+x=usr(1536)]

4 minutes ago, mr_me said:

Developing the 7800 wasn't free.  Atari just didn't pay what they owed; they just quit the home market instead.

Not following you on this.  Would you mind clarifying?

[mr_me]

8 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Not following you on this.  Would you mind clarifying?

Maybe it was a straight royalty deal between GCC and Atari Inc., I don't know.  But we do know that in 1984 Atari Inc closed their consumer products divisions, sold off their inventory and wanted nothing to do with it.  The guy that bought that inventory couldn't sell it until he came to some agreement with GCC.

[zzip]

13 hours ago, mr_me said:

Maybe it was a straight royalty deal between GCC and Atari Inc., I don't know.  But we do know that in 1984 Atari Inc closed their consumer products divisions, sold off their inventory and wanted nothing to do with it.  The guy that bought that inventory couldn't sell it until he came to some agreement with GCC.

According to this talk it was a royalty deal.   The sticking point was Jack wanted to sell the 7800 for $50 instead of $150 but GCC wanted to get paid

 

Go to the 58 minute mark for the Jack T stuff

 

[mr_me]

Could be payment plus royalty like they had for the 2600 cartridges.  He does say the issue with Tramiel was royalties, they negotiated, were paid off, went their separate ways.  That's 1984 according to the video.

[NE146]

I 100% agree that the 2600 ports (e.g. Kaboom, River Raid) were unexciting at the very least to us 13 year olds at the time. If you already had them in 2600 form, why would you buy another? 

 

I didn't have access to or care about Atari 8-bit computers back then, but of course we sometimes forget in 1982, the arcade was king of the video game world. So to me controller issues aside, the 5200 was all about the promise of getting more advanced arcade games to home than you could with a VCS. And with games like Joust, Robotron, and Space Dungeon the 5200 delivered the goods. But I banked on more games promised in magazines like Tempest, Super-Pac, Fast Food, Xevious, etc. but they never materialized. And that to me was the tragedy since as we know, most all of them were in the pipeline. I can only imagine back then if I got my hands on a Blaster, or Millipede cart, etc... there would have been ZERO doubt in my mind that the 5200 was tops. But the Colecovision stole that title in my eyes especially with it's colorful arcade ports, which sucked since I didn't have one.

[schuwalker]

Never realized Atari's Quantum was on the queue for the 5200.

[+x=usr(1536)]

On 10/9/2021 at 7:30 AM, zzip said:

According to this talk it was a royalty deal.   The sticking point was Jack wanted to sell the 7800 for $50 instead of $150 but GCC wanted to get paid

 

Go to the 58 minute mark for the Jack T stuff

Watched the specific segment you were referring to, and had to go back through it a couple of times to get the full gist of what Golson seemed to be saying.  To my ear, it sounded as though the only payments GCC were slated to receive for their work on the 7800 were royalties once it was on sale.

 

This gels with what I've always understood to be the case: the 7800 was developed on GCC's dime in lieu of two cartridges.  Putting the royalty scheme in place makes sense, since it's a safeguard against delivering a crap but contract-satisfying piece of hardware.