Could the 5200 have succeeded?

[phuzaxeman]

4 hours ago, NoBloodyXLOrE said:

@Lynxpro Yes, the 5200 was a reaction to the Intelivision; Atari saw the threat posed by a high-end game console so they built their own. When their custom STIA chipset failed to deliver, they repackaged the Atari 400. While the 8-bit machines were originally planned to be game machines, what ended up coming out was a set of computers, repackaged as game systems to become the 5200 and XEGS, though in different ways for each. However, it ended up competing with the ColecoVision because it and the 5200 had similar almost-arcade capabilities.

 

@phuzaxeman I'm not so sure about that; the price war had been going on since 1981/82, giving the VIC-20 price time to crater and for that to explode in sales, and while the C64 started out at $600 in 1982, it was down to $300 before the end of the year, and didn't stop getting cheaper. I think it had already gained a pretty decent place in the market before Christmas 1983, though of course that was when sales exploded for it, due to the low price, high capabilities, and low supply of Atari 800XL. You are definitely right that Atari not focusing on the 5200 and continuing to milk the 2600 did doom the high-end machine, though.

 

@zzip I will concede to you (and even said this to a degree) that the importance of arcade ports declined over time through the mid-80s into the 1990s, However, around 1982-84, you could still very much sell your game machine on arcade titles, as the ColecoVision and 5200 did to a certain extent, as did the Atari 8-bit home computers, while even pared-down arcade ports sold well on the 2600 because Atari had failed to push their new system as well as they should/could've. Original content on home machines was generally pretty dicey before the NES, and it arguably wasn't until Mario when that even became a major consideration.

 

If you look at the magazines that covered the C64, many of the games they started to cover launched in 83+ (mostly starting in 83).  Most of my C64 friends (I actually had 5 close buddies) started to play after 1984.  A lot of people pirated/bought those C64 (and 800xl games too).  The 82 competition between Coleco vs 5200 was evident and there were articles comparing the two.  Having owned the 800xl in 84, the XL didn't really have popularity until later 83. 

Edited October 30, 2021 by phuzaxeman

[Lynxpro]

On 10/28/2021 at 9:00 AM, x=usr(1536) said:

I think you'll find that I really don't care.

 

By all means carry on with swamping the thread, however.  This is important stuff, after all.  Very important stuff.  It needs long-winded replies to, well, everything.

 

If that's what it takes to correct the record here of bad info from the likes of you, then I will continue.

 

On 10/28/2021 at 7:11 AM, zzip said:

I didn't read it in the media, I experienced it first hand!   Lots of of the people I knew who were big into videogame 81-83 started to lose interest.   The kids/teens moved onto MTV as the next big thing.  The adults moved onto home video.   This was the era when video stores popped up on every corner and games were disappearing from retailers because that reflected what was selling.   Many arcades closed down.  Arcade machines at supermarkets and convenience stores disappeared.  Those of us still into gaming were considered 'nerds' by our peers and so we kept our interest quiet.

 

And so a few years later when everyone started getting NESes,  it was a surprise that games were 'cool' again.   So there was a loss of interest in games that was palpable.  It wasn't a media invention.

 

Obviously you need to plan for the future, but not every plan will pan out.    I don't see an Amiga console being practical for 85 even if the Amiga deal went in Atari's favor and Jack didn't buy the company.   Same with laserdisc-- Sure it's forward looking, but the price would never have made it practical.   It took until the 1990s for CD-ROM to be practical to consoles

 

Super Mario Bros was on NES first, and later ported to the arcade.   Yes hot arcade licenses were crucial to Atari and Coleco's strategy,  but it didn't really work out for them, did it?

 

The ST had a strong games library on floppy.  Much stronger than what the 7800 or XEGS had for late-80s gaming tastes.   So if Atari really couldn't convince the developers to port their existing ST games to cart, then how were they going to convince developers to develop for an Amiga-based console if they had produced one?

 

All I'm saying is that there was a shift in the mid-80s.   Before that you could sell your console on having the hottest arcade hits and original titles weren't all that important.   But after that point, strong original content became more important than just simply having a strong arcade portfolio

 

Arcades shifted to 16-bits in 84/85 and it became difficult for 8-bit home systems to properly port such titles, but the Genesis would obviously not have that problem.

 

Also arcades were huge in the early 80s.  Many shut down during the crash.   There was a resurgence in the late 80s, but arcade never hit the crazed levels of the early 80s--  so that's a factor in how important home arcade ports were as the decade moved on

 

I lived it too. You're confusing time periods. Atari Inc planned for the Amiga Lorraine based Mickey console. It was to have 128K RAM. They planned for a Christmas 1985 release. That was all pre-Tramiel. While Atari Inc still existed with Atari Coin remaining a part of the company. And before Nintendo even dreamed of being able to exclusively sign 3rd Party Developers up and restrict them from supporting competing consoles in North America and Europe. Arcade games were important, period. There wasn't a shift until the arcades died until the 1990s when the Street Fighter dweebs chased the few remaining girls out of the arcades. What you see as "practical" in hindsight was not what Atari Inc was taking into consideration at the time.

 

On 10/29/2021 at 6:56 AM, phuzaxeman said:

The commodore didn't really take off until late 83 and 84.  Atari held on to their 2600 and didn't properly focus on the 5200. 

 

Every sale of a Commodore 64 - starting in 1982 - was a potential Atari sale lost. That was true whether it was an Atari 8-bit computer, or a 2600 or a 5200. Their marketing campaign of encouraging parents to buy a cheap computer instead of a gaming console was also successful in the mindshare department. That's why every console manufacturer struggled to release keyboard upgrades for their consoles regardless of how practical or useful they'd end up. Commodore had been leveraging that going all the way back to the VIC-20 with William Shatner's commercials. It played a heavy factor in Coleco destroying themselves over the ADAM and the ADAM upgrade module for the Colecovision.

 

On 10/29/2021 at 12:44 AM, 5200Fanatic said:

Did you try to get one in 1987? I can tell you that I couldn't find any and had to buy a new console at Toys R Us just to get the controllers. 

 

Yes, I went to Toys R Us often back then. Usually about once every 2 or 3 weeks. And they had 5200 gear there all the way into 1987. The local Atari computer dealer also stocked 5200 joysticks.

[zzip]

8 hours ago, Lynxpro said:

I lived it too. You're confusing time periods. Atari Inc planned for the Amiga Lorraine based Mickey console. It was to have 128K RAM. They planned for a Christmas 1985 release. That was all pre-Tramiel. While Atari Inc still existed with Atari Coin remaining a part of the company.

I get that.   The time between when Atari loaned Amiga the money and when Commodore bought the company was about a month,  so any plans around an Amiga-based console were likely very fluid and subject to revisions and delays.   It just would have been way too expensive for 1985 and likely would not  gain mass adoption.   Remember mainstream consoles stayed 8-bit until about 89/90 and the average consumer was fine with that.  Remember it's hot games that sell consoles and not cutting-edge chipsets,  Atari seemed to lose sight of that after 82 or so.

 

Also if everything went according to play it also would have been the third incompatible console released in 4 years which would not be good for consumer trust in Atari.

 

 

[BIGHMW]

Not to distract everyone from why Big Sexy really failed, but we don't call her "Big Sexy" for nothing, her size also, along with the lack of compatibility with anything else, played (somewhat of) a role in her downfall, if either Warner or Jack Tramiel had actually followed through and put out "Little Pam" (a.k.a. the 5100 or "5200 Jr.") perhaps the fortune and fate of the 5200 platform might have been different.

 

Mattel saw their Intellivision II sell more units after introducing her in 1983 than the OG version did. She was the same technology, but just in a much smaller package that's all. Folks liked a more compact design and most bigger systems (like the 5200, ColecoVision, or the OG Intellivision and later the INTV System III) barely fit in those older a/v racks like I had with my old Sony 25" (Model KX-2501A) Trinitron component TV monitor I owned. But as time went by, the smaller designed NES, SMS, and Atari's (Tramiel-era) own 7800 and XEGS came out and they were immediate game changers, simply by being more compact to the point of fitting in smaller spaces as well as as powerful (all of 8-bit technology) as the 5200 and ColecoVision were for their time.

[Giles N]

Yes, the 5200 could have a massive success, if

- the controllers were much better and different, like a modern flight-stick with numerical pad beside.

- the RAM was bigger or had a Mem.-card slot (making all atari-8-bit coukd work)

- new games came out steady pace

(Atari has for a long time been very bad at making sure there are many hi-quality games out there with their systems, - as Atari VCS iz out now, it seem to still be sort of a portal to Retro-games or portal to portals of retrogaming - this arcade-stream-thing and using it as a PC, and well, go for Mame… where is Star Raiders 2222, with planets to land on… and explore FPS-style, stations to dock with - and explore either as welcome or unwelcome guest (think alien or star wars resquing Leia), plethora of ships, shops, enemies, monsters, missions, galaxies, Boss-fights, and ways of playing the game (true open to set-story-line mode), … hmm, ok, many thoughts there…)

- producing and distributing widely 2600-5200 converter-pieces.

 

- - -

 

But they did nothing of this.

 

So now its the retro-gamers who can advance it.

[BIGHMW]

Yes @Giles N I agree, but don't forget there were about a dozen-15 titles that went unfinished, including heavy hitters like Tempest and Xevious and while those two (and an in-house original Atari title from then, Xari Arena, since finished by AtariAge) eventually got finished there were plenty of others that didn't. But, all of those prototypes are now all available as well as XL/XE-to-5200 conversions and many innovative original homebrew titles since then totaling from a mere 69 titles in 1987 to a whopping 400+ to date, thanks to guys like Paul Lay (@playsoft) @classics @Wrathchild and the great @Ryan Witmer with tons of both original games and conversions of 8-bit titles that have been made available to us, and that is in part why retro-gaming has become such a huge business and AtariAge is in part responsible for the surge of all-new titles for systems that were once written off for dead in the 90s. I can remember when thrift stores (yes even here in isolated Port Townsend, WA) having 2600 and 5200 units for about $15-20 a unit and games for about a buck back then, that, has since changed, and for the better. Thanks to both @Albert and to the above-mentioned too!!! I've been an Atarian since 1983 and proud of it even more than ever!!!

[Keatah]

Why was the 5200 designed differently enough from the 400/800 so as to not be directly compatible?

[Giles N]

@BIGHMW

Yeah, but for a console to succeed in its day, one needs (obviously) to sell really many console-units and get tons of good-top games fast out to buyers and not destroy their hands in doing that…?

 

If they’d provided better controllers and gotten loads of games out… that would’ve been able to make it happen.

 

Atari needs now with this VCS to learn from the past; get tons of games out there to be played. Many + fast.

Then new exclusives of triple A quality.

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Giles N

[Giles N]

As it is now, I find the 5200 to ve very cool ‘undiscovered & exotic’ retroconsole.

 

For people whi like to dive into the after the 2600 but before NES-era, it’s a cool thing: cool unit, many good games, uhm - many strange ways to play the games… (getting extras here help a lot… Y cables, new types of Joysticks or the Wico - much of my first initial headache was simply about getting around the controller issues).

The original batch of games is fine!

The later XL/XE conversions are very nice to add.

And good to see homebrews coming up now and again.

 

Its become a nice and exotic retro-console.

[8th lutz]

4 hours ago, Giles N said:

Yes, the 5200 could have a massive success, if

- the controllers were much better and different, like a modern flight-stick with numerical pad beside.

- the RAM was bigger or had a Mem.-card slot (making all atari-8-bit coukd work)

- new games came out steady pace

(Atari has for a long time been very bad at making sure there are many hi-quality games out there with their systems, - as Atari VCS iz out now, it seem to still be sort of a portal to Retro-games or portal to portals of retrogaming - this arcade-stream-thing and using it as a PC, and well, go for Mame… where is Star Raiders 2222, with planets to land on… and explore FPS-style, stations to dock with - and explore either as welcome or unwelcome guest (think alien or star wars resquing Leia), plethora of ships, shops, enemies, monsters, missions, galaxies, Boss-fights, and ways of playing the game (true open to set-story-line mode), … hmm, ok, many thoughts there…)

- producing and distributing widely 2600-5200 converter-pieces.

 

- - -

 

But they did nothing of this.

 

So now its the retro-gamers who can advance it.

More ram was not realistic at the time for the 5200 from a stock hardware standpoint. The 5200 had 16k of ram and the 5200 cost almost $270.00 in 1982.  You can make the argument of the size of the system playing a role of the cost, but the 5200 with 48k of ram or high in 1982 would cost over $270.00. Video game systems in North America were not exactly successful if they were launched at $300.00 or more dollars before the Playstation came out at $300.00

 

The cost of the 5200 was one of the reasons the 5200 was not a big success. My point having 48k of ram like the Atari 800 had was not affordable for price in 1982 even if the size of the 5200 itself was smaller.   A smaller 5200 being cheaper would not be less than $200.00 with 16k ram in 1982. The only possible solution I could think of for what you want is an adaptor/add-on device.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by 8th lutz

[Giles N]

2 minutes ago, 8th lutz said:

More ram was not realistic at the time for the 5200. The 5200 had 16k of ram and the 5200 cost almost $270.00 in 1982.  You can make the argument of the size of the system playing a role of the cost, but the 5200 with 32k of ram or high in 1982 would cost more than $269.00.

 

The cost of the 5200 was one of the reasons the 5200 was not a big success. My point having 48k of ram like the Atari 800 had was not affordable for price in 1982 even if the size of the 5200 itself was smaller.   A smaller 5200 being cheaper would not be less than $200.00 with 16k ram in 1982.

What you are asking for in terms of ram would be good for 1984, not 1982 for a video game system. The fact is people back in the 80s for North America were not going to spend over $300.00 for a video game system in the 1980s. People were willing to spend more for a computer than a video game system.

Ok, then they just had to make sure a whole bunch of games got out in time,

…developing ‘super-packs’ in 1985-88 (yeah I know it wasn’t, but this id what ‘d help out) where the Console came with converter-piece 2600/5200, three first gen. top games, while working deals really hard and tight with 3rd parties while also producing their own triple-A games.

 

Companies that succeed are game-pleasers; the hook the gamers at their weakest spot: top-notch games served at any price as long is it make the gamer droll.

 

Sega did it.

 

Nintendo did it.

 

Playstation did it.

 

Xbox original was a calculated loss just get into the market.

 

And I guess Atari did just this with the 2600 - from black and white games (of the 70ies - ping ping etc) with two available titles, to a homeconsole with lots of colors on screen, easy to use, arcade like sticks, tons of games, tons of types of games, many titles known from arcades, and just coming and coming and coming.

 

Such things really matters.

[Daniel Vaughn]

Atari was as on top of the world in 1981!  I cannot understate this enough! Never in my 52 years, on this earth, have I witnessed a company so beloved by the public! Everyone I knew, received an Atari VCS (2600) that Christmas.

Prior to 1981, I occasionaly heard of a family who owned the 2600. After Christmas '81, you were hard pressed to find a family who didn't own one! 

So, the question is; Could the 5200 have Succeeded? The answer is an astounding YES! But it needed to be introduced by Summer/early Fall of '81 - plenty of time before Christmas.

Atari needed to sway future 2600 owners toward the 5200 - which I believe they easily would've done. Especially if the console offered backwards compatibly.

Unfortunately, the 5200 is a classic case of "Day late, Dollar short"! Once "everyone" purchased a 2600, there was NO Way, an average family was going to turn around and buy a 5200 a year or two later. People weren't programmed like that, "back then"! Just purchasing a video game console in 1981, showed an incredible amount of progressive thinking - not so common at the time. 

To definitively ensure, the 5200 received the baton from it's predecessor, Atari should've included "Pac-Man". How do they say that in tennis: Game, set, match!!

I believe the lousy controller's would've prematurely killed off the console! A two button digital controller would've been perfect - basically a CX-40 with an additional button. I think 4 controller ports was a great idea, as 4 player games would've been a blast!

One last note. Many here talk about the Atari 400/800 and other computers, on the market. In addition, that the 5200 needed to be upgradable to a home computer. I have one thing to say about home computers, during the early 80's: MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T CARE. I knew one kid who owned an Atari 400. The real business was in the game consoles. But when game consoles failed to impress - especially the 2600 - most opted for a home computer, such as the Commodore 64 as a better was to play modern games. 

[phuzaxeman]

On 11/12/2021 at 12:18 AM, Lynxpro said:

 

Every sale of a Commodore 64 - starting in 1982 - was a potential Atari sale lost. That was true whether it was an Atari 8-bit computer, or a 2600 or a 5200. Their marketing campaign of encouraging parents to buy a cheap computer instead of a gaming console was also successful in the mindshare department. That's why every console manufacturer struggled to release keyboard upgrades for their consoles regardless of how practical or useful they'd end up. Commodore had been leveraging that going all the way back to the VIC-20 with William Shatner's commercials. It played a heavy factor in Coleco destroying themselves over the ADAM and the ADAM upgrade module for the Colecovision.

 

 

Yes, I went to Toys R Us often back then. Usually about once every 2 or 3 weeks. And they had 5200 gear there all the way into 1987. The local Atari computer dealer also stocked 5200 joysticks.

In 82, the computer owners (8bit/Vic20/C64/Apple) were still separate consumers from the video game console only owners.  I still have video game magazines from 82 and the advertisements of consoles were huge.  It started to change in 83-84.  People like me didn't know about atari computers.

 

It wasn't just C64 sales in 82 that was a potential Atari sale lost, but it was Odyssey2, Astrocade, Vextrex, Colecovision, and Intellivision.  You add in the 2600 and 5200 and you have 7 video game consoles saturated in the 82 market.  As opposed to 86 when it was NES, Sega Master, and 7800?  Or today, PS5, Xbox, Switch? 

 

That was the big problem with the success of the 5200.  And atari was to scared to let go of the 2600 when they should have stopped in 82.

[Keatah]

 

2 hours ago, phuzaxeman said:

In 82, the computer owners (8bit/Vic20/C64/Apple) were still separate consumers from the video game console only owners.  I still have video game magazines from 82 and the advertisements of consoles were huge.  It started to change in 83-84.  People like me didn't know about atari computers.

I can only partly agree. I knew many folks with both a computer and console. And the ones that didn't have both would be on the up'n'up about what was available.

 

2 hours ago, phuzaxeman said:

It wasn't just C64 sales in 82 that was a potential Atari sale lost, but it was Odyssey2, Astrocade, Vextrex, Colecovision, and Intellivision.  You add in the 2600 and 5200 and you have 7 video game consoles saturated in the 82 market.  As opposed to 86 when it was NES, Sega Master, and 7800?  Or today, PS5, Xbox, Switch?

True enough. Of the early consoles I'd say the 2600 and Intellivision were the most important. Right on target.

 

Or put another way, Atari 2600+5200, Intellivision, and Colecovision combined together offered the most varied library.

 

2 hours ago, phuzaxeman said:

That was the big problem with the success of the 5200.  And atari was to scared to let go of the 2600 when they should have stopped in 82.

I would've liked to've seen the 5200 be compatible with the 2600 right out of the box. Like they did with the 7800. Sure the architectures were different, but I bet with thoughtful engineering the 6502 could've been shared between both sides. Similar to the IIgs which is really 2 different computers on one board.

 

Stopped in '82? I'm glad they didn't. Might not have seen Robot Tank or H.E.R.O. or Solaris or the many other awesome games that came after 1982!

[Keatah]

9 hours ago, Daniel Vaughn said:

Atari was as on top of the world in 1981!  I cannot understate this enough! Never in my 52 years, on this earth, have I witnessed a company so beloved by the public! Everyone I knew, received an Atari VCS (2600) that Christmas.

Right. We loved Atari so much that we adopted the blanket term, "Let's play Atari", to mean anything and everything electronic at home. A typical day or evening would entail some Apple II, pot pie dinner of some sort, reading science fiction (or real science like the Voyager and Pioneer space probe stuff), Omni, Intellivision, RedLED handhelds, and whatever else. Of course it all centered around the 2600. We'd start and stop with that console mostly.

 

And a snow day off from school was like making a hi-score or finding a hidden bonus. Great times!

 

9 hours ago, Daniel Vaughn said:

One last note. Many here talk about the Atari 400/800 and other computers, on the market. In addition, that the 5200 needed to be upgradable to a home computer. I have one thing to say about home computers, during the early 80's: MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T CARE. I knew one kid who owned an Atari 400. The real business was in the game consoles. But when game consoles failed to impress - especially the 2600 - most opted for a home computer, such as the Commodore 64 as a better was to play modern games. 

Right again.

 

I had a short but keen interest in reading about upgrading the Intellivision Master Component with the Keyboard Component. Reading only because this never became available in my area. And I soon lost interest. One of my first experiences with vaporware too.

 

Surprisingly this was right after I had an Apple II and Atari 2600 already. I was upgrading my Apple II a-left and a-right. Memory, clock card, modems, graphics tablet, HDD, printer, and more. And after some thought I couldn't imagine a console-to-computer upgrade would have even 1/10^th the expansion capability.

 

Since then, no console-to-computer conversion was interesting at all. Too many limitations. And I would also guess too much bulk and intermittent reliability. All these pieces! The sprawl. And who would make software for such a conflagration. I was surprised Coleco even bothered with the ADAM, a desperate me-too also-ran sorta thing. Just go straight for the computer.

 

I was pretty dumb and blew a lot of allowance and summer job and extra chores "income" on videogames and computers back then, but never on one of those bastardized Frankenstein hybrid expansions.

 

As a side note I began to feel the clutter. There were too many versions of BASIC, too many DOS'es on the market. Too many commands to learn for too many systems. I'm talking the timeframe from 1978 through about 1984'ish.

 

Thankfully I was able to stick with 1 system and learn it in detail throughout the 70's, 80's, and into the very early 1990's.

[BIGHMW]

I also, at one time, was a 5200-only guy, I wouldn't even bother touching another unit, no matter the model. But, as time grew by, I also picked up an Intellivision II, back in 1985, as the end result of a trade for a pair of Sony MDR headphones, and owned (and suppported) that system too, and then I found plenty of 2600 units at the (now-defunct) Community Thrift Store here in Port Townsend (I moved from L.A. to PT back in '87) as well as a ColecoVision and an OG NES (and a vintage 1980s Technics SL-Q200 direct-drive turntable in nice condition for only $10!), and also shopped around all of the second-hand and thrift stores in the Port Townsend/Port Hadlock/Chimacum area and found tons of games (and also LPs and 8-tracks) for all of them.

 

But, when it came time to unload the consoles all but one, THAT ONE, wound up being Big Sexy, she was my first, and she is still here to this day. ......and then came the pandemic (in which would lead to The Atari Report, with more new episodes BTW, commemorating "Asteroids Week", in about an hour from now, I just have to make them public first) and the acquisition of a Flashback 9 from the year before as a result of finding out about the brilliant Pac-Man 4K from Dennis Debro, and even though I also now own a 2600, 7800, and XEGS (also featured on TAR) if it had to go back to being only one unit again, yes, THAT ONE, would also, be the 5200, and I would still keep my Harmony Encore for the VCS adapter I own with her too.

 

The Atari 5200, truly IS a SuperSystem, time-tested, with over 400+ titles for her, tons of controller options (in both digital and analog form) and she's even sexier than ever, even 40 years later!!!

[phuzaxeman]

On 11/13/2021 at 4:45 PM, Keatah said:

 

I can only partly agree. I knew many folks with both a computer and console. And the ones that didn't have both would be on the up'n'up about what was available.

 

True enough. Of the early consoles I'd say the 2600 and Intellivision were the most important. Right on target.

 

Or put another way, Atari 2600+5200, Intellivision, and Colecovision combined together offered the most varied library.

 

I would've liked to've seen the 5200 be compatible with the 2600 right out of the box. Like they did with the 7800. Sure the architectures were different, but I bet with thoughtful engineering the 6502 could've been shared between both sides. Similar to the IIgs which is really 2 different computers on one board.

 

Stopped in '82? I'm glad they didn't. Might not have seen Robot Tank or H.E.R.O. or Solaris or the many other awesome games that came after 1982!

In 82, Atari still marketed the 2600.  You had games like Centipede that was marketed both Atari system when the 5200 version was a big deal especially with the trackball. 

 

None of my childhood friends (I had 3 other friends that owned 5200s, a couple neighbors with Coleco) owned both console and computer in 82.  I got my XL in 1984 when the 5200 was discontinued. 

[Keatah]

Back then as a kid my only sources of information (that I could comprehend) would've been schoolyard recess discussions, Saturday Morning Cartoon ads, EGM, and catalogs/brochures. And none of that talked about the internal politics and motivations of the companies making these games.

 

All I knew is after 1983-1985 I was getting burned out with all the choices and options and continual changes in the marketplace. Flashes in the pan. I yearned for a certain stability. That wouldn't come till well after NES revived the market.

[zzip]

On 11/12/2021 at 8:50 PM, Keatah said:

Why was the 5200 designed differently enough from the 400/800 so as to not be directly compatible?

My theory is due to licensing.   Some games licensed out home rights separately to console and home computer,  notably Donkey Kong.   Atari had the Computer rights,  Coleco had the console rights.    So a 5200 that could play the 400/800 Donkey Kong cart would be inviting a lawsuit.    When Atari execs found out Coleco was running Donkey Kong on the Adam they got very upset and used it as an excuse to terminate the NES contract with Nintendo.

 

Another reason might be that some carts had keyboard input and therefore wouldn't be playable on the 5200.  Of course you can always map the common keys to the 5200 keypad, but there might always be that odd game that uses uncommon keys.

[zzip]

On 11/13/2021 at 2:14 PM, phuzaxeman said:

That was the big problem with the success of the 5200.  And atari was to scared to let go of the 2600 when they should have stopped in 82.

Why should they stop in 82?  That was the 2600's best year.   And there are plenty of people who hold onto the old console generation for awhile.

 

Killing the 2600 so that people will buy 5200s would not make the 5200 successful, it would more likely annoy people who don't want to constantly buy new hardware and rebuild their libraries from scratch.   Atari needed to give people reasons to upgrade.  Problem was too much of the 5200 library was available on the 2600 (although with much better graphics),  but it didn't have the killer app needed to get people to upgrade in droves.

[Giles N]

On 11/14/2021 at 8:37 PM, BIGHMW said:

Atari 5200, truly IS a SuperSystem, time-tested, with over 400+ titles

400+ ?

Do you have a complete list?

[BIGHMW]

4 hours ago, Giles N said:

400+ ?

Do you have a complete list?

YES! I can list them in a PM, they are all the downloads I bought in 2018 and if you also include the ROMS put out since then I think it would total about 400 (at least 350) titles.

[Giles N]

27 minutes ago, BIGHMW said:

YES! I can list them in a PM, they are all the downloads I bought in 2018 and if you also include the ROMS put out since then I think it would total about 400 (at least 350) titles.

Ok, please PM me ?

[Lynxpro]

On 11/12/2021 at 9:37 PM, 8th lutz said:

More ram was not realistic at the time for the 5200 from a stock hardware standpoint. The 5200 had 16k of ram and the 5200 cost almost $270.00 in 1982.  You can make the argument of the size of the system playing a role of the cost, but the 5200 with 48k of ram or high in 1982 would cost over $270.00. Video game systems in North America were not exactly successful if they were launched at $300.00 or more dollars before the Playstation came out at $300.00

 

The cost of the 5200 was one of the reasons the 5200 was not a big success. My point having 48k of ram like the Atari 800 had was not affordable for price in 1982 even if the size of the 5200 itself was smaller.   A smaller 5200 being cheaper would not be less than $200.00 with 16k ram in 1982. The only possible solution I could think of for what you want is an adaptor/add-on device.

 

 

 

MSRP isn't the true cost of the system. The Colecovision was a "screwdriver shop" [derogatory term for mom & pop storefront assembled PC compatibles] console made of completely standard parts. Its TI Graphics Chip had its own dedicated external 16K RAM yet Coleco managed to sell the system for $100 cheaper than the 5200 despite the fact that Coleco was paying a lot more than cost to TI for their graphics chips. And their sound chip. 

 

There's not a lot of difference in pricing of chips other than certain manufacturers trying to recoup their initial R&D costs. After all, Atari Inc estimated the cost of the AMY sound chip to be around the $4 mark for 1984 which meant it wouldn't have cost much more than producing the POKEY despite it being newer and far more capable. A Motorola 68000 cost around $4-8 per 1,000 unit orders in circa 1985-86.

 

Had they hammered out their production cost issues, Atari Inc could've sold the 800 for far less than $1,000 in 1979 just as the later Atari Inc could've easily sold the Amiga Lorraine based console codenamed "Mickey" for under $300 with 128K RAM for Christmas 1985 had the company remained intact despite armchair assertions to the contrary in this very forum thread. The problem for the most part was due to Warner previously refusing to embrace the razor blade business model and them demanding a profit be made off each console sold until Jack Tramiel's price war killed the profit margins on consoles and home computers alike.

[Keatah]

It would seem with the exception of Atari stuff, TIA/Antic/GTIA, that other early micros' graphics chips were initially meant for industrial panel usage. The VIC was such an example. And I'm certain many from TI were also.