Why is the ST being completely ignored by Atari in the 50th anniversary celebrations?

[zzip]

16 hours ago, Keatah said:

That was a huge part of the culture. But I always stuck to arcades with 20 or more cabs. Going to one was a big event.

Places that were minutes away on bike we'd just visit whenever we'd get few quarters.   The nearby convenience store had Defender and the local laundromat had Pac-man, Frogger, Asteroids Deluxe, Vanguard and Bump and Jump.   (Not all at the same time, the cabinets got rotated in and out)   I remember playing a lot of Defender and Vanguard became my favorite game for a time.   The supermarket had a Wizard of Wor that I'd play while my parents shopped.

 

There were two arcades in local strip malls, but they were maybe a 10-15 minute bike ride away, so we'd only visit them when we had more time and enough money to spend to make it worth the trip--  but that was still fairly often as I recall.

 

17 hours ago, Keatah said:

I thought that mall establishments were a big part of it too. An essential part even. The ones in the malls seemed to be better maintained.

The mall arcades were better maintained, and looked and smelled nicer     They also had the latest and hotest games, multiple cabinets of them.  However the smaller strip mall arcades were good for finding lesser known hidden gems.   I remember enjoying Elevator Action and Roc N Rope at the local arcade and I don't think I ever saw those games in the bigger arcades.

 

17 hours ago, Keatah said:

And I absolutely disliked playing them at amusement parts. I was there for the park! Not to hole up in the arcade.

nevertheless the park arcade was always full   

We lived close to a park, these were the days before you paid for admission and instead bought ride tickets (though that changed around this time).  Anyway we were there quite a lot, we rode all the rides to our hearts content so we didn't mind popping into the arcade for a few min   At a distant more expensive park, yeah I wouldn't waste time in the arcade

 

17 hours ago, Keatah said:

I rather kept up-to-date till the very end when fighting games swept through the industry. It's when arcades got boring. Other life events weren't compatible with arcading either.

I think Gauntlet was the last arcade game I got truly excited about.    After that,  I'd still visit mall arcades from time to time, there were a few newer games I liked, but nothing that gave me the "Wow!  I can't wait to play that game again" feeling

2 hours ago, GoldLeader said:

I also hate it when journalists (and wanna be journalists) thought Nintendo took off in 85-86*,  instead of 87-88**.

Yeah..  my memories of high school were that gaming had become rather uncool and nerdy, until senior year when suddenly everyone was getting NESes and played them incessantly.   That was around 88

 

[The Usotsuki]

FWIW, Namco actually owned Tengen at one point.  IIRC, it was Namco who set Tengen up to that skullduggery that led to the Rabbit chip.

[roots.genoa]

Indeed, Atari Games was partly owned by Namco.

[MrMaddog]

On 12/14/2022 at 9:38 AM, zzip said:

yeah It's not fair to paint all Nintendo fans with a broad brush,  however games journalists have been particularly bad about this,  the attitude that nothing much of note happened before NES- except that Atari released the ET game that destroyed the entire industry and Nintendo had to rush in and save it...     Even the revisionist idea that consoles released in 76/77 are of the same generation as consoles released in 82,  even though there was a huge leap in graphics, sound, memory, controller design, etc.   just reveals the indifference to pre-NES systems.

 

It wasn't my intention to do so and I apoligize, by "retrogamers" I was refering to most of the YouTubers and bloggers (on professional gaming sites) who only repeating what the gaming mags at the time verbaten...and even they were repeating that same narative from Nintendo.  "Oh we're nothing like Atari with those bad ET games, we sell Entertainment Systems."  And that was to get very skeptical retailers and buyers to purchase their NES's.  I even heard the same thing from Gail Tilden who worked at Nintendo of America in a recent video interview.

 

And yes the ColecoVision should have 'been' the next generation console had it not ben for the friggin' Crash.  Hell it was the basis of the MSX computers and even insipred Nintendo to make their Family Computer system.

 

21 hours ago, GoldLeader said:

 

Yeah,  that idea of putting, ColecoVision and Atari VCS into the same category is Ridiculous!  I also hate it when journalists (and wanna be journalists) thought Nintendo took off in 85-86*,  instead of 87-88**.

 

*It existed as a small niche product, with most people largely unaware.

**Now it's picking up momentum,  starting to get Big!

 

Source:  Me.  I was freakin' there.

 

1985 was the test run market only in New York City, '86 was when the national rollout but didn't become popular for another year or so.  And yes I was there too!

 

Dont' worry folks, I'm getting back to ST discussion next...

[MrMaddog]

Anyway, there was a time in the pre-Internet days where I too thought that Atari Games was still a part of the same Atari that made the computers & consoles.  I didn't even knew about the Big Split or any of the licesencing issues until I got into playing arcade game complilations for the Playstation back in the 90's...so it's nice to see the newcomers catch up!

 

Back to the OP I seriously would not hold my breath for any ST inclusion because as I said, the offical ST ports of Atari Corp (and even the ones from Atari Games) weren't that hot to begin with.  They were just new paint jobs for old games that don't really add anything special gameplay wise.  That's why I prefer the unoffical shareware remakes that improve things like powerups and faster action in addition to 16-bit graphics & sound.  And no I'm not apologizing for liking 16-bit computer games better since I got sick of playing 8-bit NES titles that are so...much...the...same....thing...  At least I got to play many upgraded arcade classics whice were way more fun than the limpid late 80's arcade ports orignally made for Amigas.

 

I would much prefer to see something like Amiga Forever or The C64 wth ST titles which would premary target the Eureopean market.  And it has to because outside of the UK & France, the Atari ST as a gaming machine was just not "a thing" at all.  In the States Atari focuses more on 8-bit consoles for gaming and computers were something that teens eventually graduated to.  But sadly video gaming was split between the NES for kids and PCs for grown-ups (with golf simulations in glorious CGA graphics).

[zzip]

12 minutes ago, MrMaddog said:

It wasn't my intention to do so and I apoligize, by "retrogamers"

no apologies necessary,  I was agreeing with your point

 

13 minutes ago, MrMaddog said:

And yes the ColecoVision should have 'been' the next generation console had it not ben for the friggin' Crash.  Hell it was the basis of the MSX computers and even insipred Nintendo to make their Family Computer system.

Yeah I just call it early 3rd gen (5200, CV, Vectrex)  and late 3rd gen (7800, NES, SMS).   The systems were very similar, same CPUs (6502 or Z80A), similar graphics resolutions, etc.   A lot of the NES advantages came from adding extra hardware to the carts.   

[Keatah]

On 12/14/2022 at 8:38 AM, zzip said:

yeah It's not fair to paint all Nintendo fans with a broad brush,  however games journalists have been particularly bad about this,  the attitude that nothing much of note happened before NES- except that Atari released the ET game that destroyed the entire industry and Nintendo had to rush in and save it...

I would tend to agree. It's a simplistic attitude toward pre-NES. It's insulting even - for what did we grow up with then? And in the future some arbitrarily chosen console will become 1st generation. And nothing before it existing or being "real" videogames. Cycle repeats.

 

On 12/14/2022 at 8:38 AM, zzip said:

Even the revisionist idea that consoles released in 76/77 are of the same generation as consoles released in 82,  even though there was a huge leap in graphics, sound, memory, controller design, etc.   just reveals the indifference to pre-NES systems.

I dislike revisionist history. Make no mistake.

 

However, wouldn't it make sense to start combining the 76/77 through 82/83 era of consoles into one generation? As time goes on, if we don't do that, we'll end up with 25+ generations. And that's too hard to keep track of. I say it's natural.

 

It's like saying 8086 through Pentium 1 is first generation, because Pentium Pro introduced Speculative Execution. Everything before P-Pro is 1st generation. But, back in the day, each x86 upgrade from 8086 to 286 to 386 to 486 was considered its own generation.

 

Heck, today anything prior to Core might be 1st generation. And we're up to 13th gen at present.

 

So it all becomes a matter of scale as time goes on. And what defines a generation anyways? A label from the factory? Some fat kid on the internet? News media? A certain speed? Feature set? Bus width? It's relative. It's endless!

Edited December 15, 2022 by Keatah

[zzip]

18 minutes ago, Keatah said:

However, wouldn't it make sense to start combining the 76/77 through 82/83 era of consoles into one generation? As time goes on, if we don't do that, we'll end up with 25+ generations. And that's too hard to keep track of. I say it's natural.

If they're going to to be collapsing generations, why just this one?   They should be combining others as well.   But they did away with CV/5200 gen ages ago.   It wasn't a convenience thing it was something else.

 

Basically generations are usually defined by leaps in tech.   But for this generation, they decided to use the crash as the dividing line instead.   Back in the day CV and 5200 were labelled "3rd Gen" or "3rd Wave" in the press, but now someone decided they are basically the same as Channel F.     It also doesn't help that Atari released three different consoles during that generation (5200, 7800, XEGS).   Usually each manufacturer only releases one console per generation, that's what helps define where a gen begins and ends.

 

27 minutes ago, Keatah said:

It's like saying 8086 through Pentium 1 is first generation, because Pentium Pro introduced Speculative Execution. Everything before P-Pro is 1st generation. But, back in the day, each x86 upgrade from 8086 to 286 to 386 to 486 was considered its own generation.

 

Heck, today anything prior to Core might be 1st generation. And we're up to 13th gen at present.

It used to be easy to figure out in PCs,  286, 386, 486.   But then came all the named chips, and AMD and Intel started using different names.   Intel would use the same brand names for multiple generations too.    I lost track years ago, and wouldn't know we're on 13th gen without looking it up.

 

32 minutes ago, Keatah said:

So it all becomes a matter of scale as time goes on. And what defines a generation anyways? A label from the factory? Some fat kid on the internet? News media? A certain speed? Feature set? Bus width? It's relative. It's endless!

Each manufacturer will generally release one console and expect it to be viable on the market for 5-7 years before  tech advances enough make it obsolete, at which point they'll release a new console with a large increase in features.    That's what defines a generation.   Again, unless you're Atari and think you can get away with releasing 3 incompatible consoles based on the same CPU with only incremental iimprovements in other areas-  that's a terrible strategy.   You don't want to compete with yourself, developers don't want to develop for that many systems.  One single console with a large userbase is ideal for attracting developers.

 

So because new consoles release every 5-7 years, it's easy to spot the technical advances each generation brought:

 

Gen 1:  Home B&W Pong consoles (no carts, games variations selected from a knob)

Gen 2:  Cartridge support,  primitive color graphics, very limited storage and RAM.  

Gen 3:  Arcade-like graphics, much bigger storage and RAM than Gen 2, still 8-bit

Gen 4: 16-bit,  big increase in graphics and sound

Gen 5: Focus on 3D games, CD-ROMs become integral

Gen 6: Online gaming,  DVD-ROM

Gen 7: Motion controls, HD Graphics (720p)  BluRay,  first gen to require hard drives to install games to.

Gen 8: Large jump in memory and graphics (1080p now standard),  VR makes a return

Gen 9: 4K graphics, HDR, blazing fast SSDs, hardware ray tracing

 

These days Sony and Microsoft release new consoles within a month of each other and are based on similar tech.   Nintendo's consoles release on a different schedule to be a generation behind tech-wise-  but the popular Nintendo games don't need a PS5 level GPU so it's not a big deal.

 

[roots.genoa]

4 hours ago, Keatah said:

I dislike revisionist history.

The problem with revisionism is it works both ways. Some retrogamers try so hard to fight simplistic views of history that they exaggerate the other way: for instance people claiming the NES was a "complete failure" in the UK. It had a rough start in Europe but became strong starting 1990 (especially with the TMNT bundle), and eventually it beat the Master System almost in every country.

[+GoldLeader]

4 hours ago, Keatah said:

 

However, wouldn't it make sense to start combining the 76/77 through 82/83 era of consoles into one generation? As time goes on, if we don't do that, we'll end up with 25+ generations. And that's too hard to keep track of. I say it's natural.

 

 

 

I know meth is a hell of a drug,  but follow me here.   It doesn't matter if there's 25 generations or 125,  if you were there, you don't want to see the history you remember condensed (unless it's labeled as such...i.e. "80's video games").  I remember the HUGE difference ColecoVision was a when it came out, compared to 'Atari', not to mention it was the first time many of us 'upgraded' and had to talk our folks into letting us buy 'another' console*... so No I won't accept that it was all the same.

 

Otherwise you end up with something (over)simplified like:

 

1st Gen = Pre-Crash

2nd Gen = Happy Fun times

3rd Gen = PlayStation Plus

 

Now,  the above is fine if it's stated that you're condensing lots of history into a few broad strokes for some purpose or another,  such as I'm doing with this post...But don't replace actual history with it.

 

 

 

 

*Been a while, but remember when parents used to say things like,  "you'll put your eye out" or "You've already  got one of those!"?

 

**Sorry for all this butterfluffing off-topic rant business!  I'll let you guys get back to that ST stuff now and I'll be quiet.

[Shaggy the Atarian]

The IP confusion was a bit easier to manage back when Atari used to post the list of IP that they still own on their website but currently it's been scrubbed, I wonder why. It was pretty handy for stuff like this but maybe they didn't want a light being shined on all the stuff they don't own anymore.

 

As has been said, nothing released to arcades after June 1st 1984 (Paperboy through SF Rush 2049) belong to Warner; Atari SA has also sold IP off in recent years, BattleZone is now owned by Rebellion. IIRC, they were selling off lots of things piece meal back in 2012 (someone could have bought all the 70s arcade IP like Pong and Tank, plus the Atari brand logo for only $2 million - but the more valuable IPs were up for sale for a few hundred thousand each, like BattleZone, Yars Revenge, Centipede, etc. Only BZ sold before Atari changed their minds)

 

Last time the IP list was available though, it was obvious that 95% or more of the games on the ST/TT was not theirs. It was basically just existing ports of arcade and some 8-bit PC games (Asteroids Deluxe, Star Raiders, Missile Command, Crystal Castles, etc). Almost nothing on the 7800, Lynx or Jaguar is theirs too, which is why the 50th collection doesn't have a lot from those. From what I've played of those or seen on the ST though, you're much better off just focusing on the original versions of each game instead of focusing on the bad ports that are better left forgotten.

 

So the answer to this whole thread is that - anything you'd actually want to play from the ST, both Atari SA and Digital Eclipse would have to pay a licensing fee for and it probably wouldn't come cheap, hence the ST being ignored in the 50th Collection and other stuff (they probably don't want to highlight a bunch of Sega ports either).

 

Perhaps the Tramiels themselves will want to do an ST celebration of some kind in 2025 when the ST turns 40?  

[The Usotsuki]

Keep in mind the Famicom was released in Japan the exact same day (IIRC) as the SG-1000.

 

The SG-1000 had the exact same chipset as the ColecoVision.

 

The talk of "generations" is always a really muddy one and always really has been.

[roots.genoa]

Yes, and that's probably why some people tend to fuse the first two. The generation concept really solidified with the war between SEGA and Nintendo, since the Master System was similarly powerful as the NES and was released around the same time as the Western model, and the Super NES was released "only" two years after the Genesis (and actually the same year as the Mega Drive arrived in Europe for instance); then the PlayStation and the Saturn released almost at the same time, and it became the norm for most of the following generations.

[zzip]

16 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

 

So the answer to this whole thread is that - anything you'd actually want to play from the ST, both Atari SA and Digital Eclipse would have to pay a licensing fee for and it probably wouldn't come cheap, hence the ST being ignored in the 50th Collection and other stuff (they probably don't want to highlight a bunch of Sega ports either).

It depends,  some old IPs became big or the rights transferred to big companies that would maybe ask too much.

 

But there's also a lot of classic IPs that fizzled out and didn't end up in the hands of big companies and sit idle.   The fact that Atari got Miner 2049er and Bounty Bob for this release at least shows a willingness to obtain these IPs.   They are probably much cheaper to obtain if you can track down the IP holder

 

But then there's another issue-  control scheme.   Say you are able to obtain classics like Dungeon Master and Defender of the Crown.   They are mouse/keyboard controlled,  how are console players going to play these, unless you reengineer your ST emulator to map mouse and keyboard presses to the controller or add an onscreen keyboard.   That's extra development cost that may not bring enough sales to be worth the cost.

 

8 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

The generation concept really solidified with the war between SEGA and Nintendo, since the Master System was similarly powerful as the NES and was released around the same time as the Western model, and the Super NES was released "only" two years after the Genesis (and actually the same year as the Mega Drive arrived in Europe for instance); then the PlayStation and the Saturn released almost at the same time, and it became the norm for most of the following generations.

True, in the early days companies were trying to figure out how the videogame market would work.   So you'd see all kinds of crazy things. 

I think Atari was the worst offender in not getting the idea of generations...      Well, Bushnell had the foresight to know they needed to start working on a VCS replacement because it would be obsolete in a few years,  but under Warner.   They released the 5200 and then started talking to GCC about the 7800, and talking to Nintendo about releasing the NES and drawing up plans to release an Amiga-based console in 1985.      If all had gone to plan, that would have been 4 consoles in 4 years.   They really did seem to think they could sell new hardware every year, and keep on releasing the same titles on each.

 

Consumers hate rebuying their media in a new format.   They complain about remastered games today, they complained when they had to replace their LPs with cassettes and CDs.   They also expect expensive hardware to last a few years.  So that kind of forces there to be generations

[Flyindrew]

What is very frustrating about Atari is that from 1982-1996 they actually had hardware that was either equal to or superior to their competitors. 

 

1982-5200 superior to Colecovision

1983/4-8 bit computers superior to Commodore 64

1985-Atari ST superior to Amiga

1987-XEGS could have been a challenge for NES

1989-Lynx superior to Game Boy

1994-Jaguar superior to Genesis/SNES

 

Atari's # 1 problem and worst enemy was itself.  If managed properly the company would have been relevant into the 1990s and might have even been a factor during the Windows period and the dawn of the internet.  

[zzip]

30 minutes ago, Flyindrew said:

1982-5200 superior to Colecovision

1983/4-8 bit computers superior to Commodore 64

1985-Atari ST superior to Amiga

1987-XEGS could have been a challenge for NES

1989-Lynx superior to Game Boy

1994-Jaguar superior to Genesis/SNES

 

Well Lynx was superior to Game Boy

Jaguar was superior to Genesis/SNES--  unfortunately the Jag's release date put it into competition with the 3DO, Sega Saturn and PS1, and it fell short

 

The rest of the list is bound to be contentious

 

34 minutes ago, Flyindrew said:

Atari's # 1 problem and worst enemy was itself.  If managed properly the company would have been relevant into the 1990s and might have even been a factor during the Windows period and the dawn of the internet.  

yeah, their console strategy was questionable through the 80s and their software game post-84 was terrible.   It's the games that make a console a hit, not the specs

 

[doctorclu]

11 minutes ago, zzip said:

yeah, their console strategy was questionable through the 80s and their software game post-84 was terrible.   It's the games that make a console a hit, not the specs

 

Huh, maybe THAT's another good reason why I didn't like the 16-bit era games.   Did seem to be about graphics and what not, but the game aspect was a lot of the time sidelined.

 

And in earlier times gameplay and imagination was all you had.

 

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

 

Anyway, I think Atari 50th needs a downloadable game patch to add ST Star Raiders.   There you go.  Atari ST represented.

 

To matter the fact, I think "Atari" should just send over patches with other games every now and then.

[Flyindrew]

1985-1989 was my personal "golden age" of Atari as I got a new 130 XE and subscribed to Antic magazine. I remember seeing ads for the 520 ST at the time, but it kind of seemed to operate in its own little universe, separate from the rest of the 8 bit line.  Aside from Antic magazine, I cant seem to recall hearing about the ST computers anywhere (and I lived in NYC at the time) and the only game I seem to recall being advertised for it was the WWF Micro League Wrestling.

[Keatah]

On 12/15/2022 at 12:56 PM, zzip said:

If they're going to to be collapsing generations, why just this one?

Point taken.  I don't know. The generation question is inherently nebulous and this is something to latch on to?

 

1 hour ago, zzip said:

yeah, their console strategy was questionable through the 80s and their software game post-84 was terrible.   It's the games that make a console a hit, not the specs

When Colecovision hit my town we were all excited for newer more capable hardware. Having been bummed out by the 5200's duplicitous rehashment of the 400/800 library we were more than ready to move up to the next generation.

 

Coleco had real (and different) arcade titles right from the start. Stuff we hadn't seen before at home. And bringing the arcades home was still a big thing in my circle. Thankfully with MAME we now have it exactly as it was. And in that context I still fondly recall the days we were bringing the arcade home one cartridge at a time.

 

If my infantile self had fully understood that my cartridge collecting days would been very different.

 

And when it came to consoles we didn't care too much about specs. If it came out later than console-x it was going to be better. And that was that.

 

1 hour ago, doctorclu said:

Huh, maybe THAT's another good reason why I didn't like the 16-bit era games.   Did seem to be about graphics and what not, but the game aspect was a lot of the time sidelined.

 

And in earlier times gameplay and imagination was all you had.

I didn't understand at the time what was going on with 16-bit. All I knew was they were very "spritey" and gameplay was just ho-hum. And soon the market was diluting itself all over again. 10x more than immediately pre-crash. This state of affairs was a more-than-surprising amount of force pushing me away from collecting so early on.

 

It would have been better if I hadn't even tried 16-bit computing in 84-87.

 

[zzip]

8 minutes ago, Keatah said:

When Colecovision hit my town we were all excited for newer more capable hardware. Having been bummed out by the 5200's duplicitous rehashment of the 400/800 library we were more than ready to move up to the next generation.

right there were very few titles on the 5200 that didn't exist on the 2600.   Not exactly giving people a reason to upgrade.    The 2600 had many more exclusive titles.

[Keatah]

When it came to uniqueness value, or originality value, Atari was pretty good early on. The curve started trending downward as soon as the 400/800 successors came out. This means 5200, and the XL/XE series. Might as well throw the ST in there too.

 

I mean to say the 2600 was very original and groundbreaking. It became a cultural icon. The 400/800 were also groundbreaking - marrying a rich chipset with a vast memory array (48K RAM). Not much else changed after that.

 

The 5200 was a cut-down version. And XL/XE were incremental improvements only. Not even sure where the 7800 fits because it wasn't popular enough to be on my radar. 7800 also came at a time when the swith from consoles to computers was getting underway and therefore it was viewed as inferior by default. Too little too late. Seems to be a common theme with later Atari products.. Too little too late. I suppose that's what happens when you race to the bottom with ruthless cost cutting as your business guide.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Keatah

[zzip]

11 minutes ago, Keatah said:

When it came to uniqueness value, or originality value, Atari was pretty good early on. The curve started trending downward as soon as the 400/800 successors came out. This means 5200, and the XL/XE series. Might as well throw the ST in there too.

Yeah they had one of the best selection of arcade IPs in the industry to pick from and the clout to license the most popular arcade games they didn't own.

Coleco managed to snag Donkey Kong and Zaxxon, but a lot of their arcade ports were less popular titles because Atari snagged the Pacmans, the Defenders, Joust, Galaxian, Space Invaders.

 

Hardware-wise the 400/800 were supposed to be the "next gen" console.   They sat on the tech for 3 years before they did the 5200 and never improved it much

 

after 84, they lost all their newer arcade IPs and the ability to license them.

 

ST has a pretty good software library, but it's mostly because of 3rd party software.   Atari ported old standbys like Crystal Castles, Joust, Battlezone and Star Raiders, but those felt like old dinosaur games in the 16-bit era.

 

19 minutes ago, Keatah said:

7800 also came at a time when the swith from consoles to computers was getting underway and therefore it was viewed as inferior by default. Too little too late. Seems to be a common theme with later Atari products.. Too little too late. I suppose that's what happens when you race to the bottom with ruthless cost cutting as your business guide.

7800 seemed like a panic move "OMG, Coleco's killing us because of 2600 compatibility, our shitty 5200 controllers, their better sprite capabilities and better price   Let's kill off the 5200 and replace it with this cheap thing designed by some hacker group we tried to sue earlier..."

 

7800 has an amazing sprite chip compared to everything else..   But it kept the 2600 sound chip.   So playing it is like one step forward graphics wise, but two steps back on sound.   I think they really needed to develop it more for another year or two to make it special.

[+GoldLeader]

2 minutes ago, zzip said:

 

7800 seemed like a panic move "OMG, Coleco's killing us because of 2600 compatibility, our shitty 5200 controllers, their better sprite capabilities and better price   Let's kill off the 5200 and replace it with this cheap thing designed by some hacker group we tried to sue earlier..."

 

7800 has an amazing sprite chip compared to everything else..   But it kept the 2600 sound chip.   So playing it is like one step forward graphics wise, but two steps back on sound.   I think they really needed to develop it more for another year or two to make it special.

IF they had a strategy for 7800 it SHOULD have included releasing the thing on time AND including a POKEY chip...Even then,  IF that had worked, Nintendo would have won the war by making the kind of games people wanted to play (Deeper experiences for the home not JUST arcade ports)...

 

However if Atari Also released the type of games people wanted, they may have stood a chance...

[roots.genoa]

3 hours ago, Flyindrew said:

1985-Atari ST superior to Amiga

I never had an Amiga and the Atari ST was my first video game system, but this is completely untrue. The Amiga is better on every level (graphics, sound, etc.).

[zzip]

15 minutes ago, GoldLeader said:

IF they had a strategy for 7800 it SHOULD have included releasing the thing on time AND including a POKEY chip...Even then,  IF that had worked, Nintendo would have won the war by making the kind of games people wanted to play (Deeper experiences for the home not JUST arcade ports)...

Pokey at minimum.  Ideally something better than Pokey.

 

Atari had the upper hand over Nintendo at one point.   Nintendo was negotiating with Atari to release NES under Atari's name.   Atari could have taken that deal and NES, or drawn out negotiations to make it harder for Nintendo to release it in north america and do other things as market leader to frustrate Nintendo.   But because of the sale and near sole focus on ST,   Nintendo was able to capture the market without a fight.

 

So half the battle was Nintendo releasing games like SMB and Zelda, and implementing anti-competitive practices that made it  difficult for everyone else,  the other half was Atari completely dropping the ball.   Things could have turned out very different.

 

25 minutes ago, roots.genoa said:

I never had an Amiga and the Atari ST was my first video game system, but this is completely untrue. The Amiga is better on every level (graphics, sound, etc.).

Amiga wins hands-down on graphics and sound which is what gamers care about.   ST gets a few points for music production and the ST high-res monochorome monitor is more pleasant for app usage than the Amiga monitor.  Also slightly faster.