5200 and the arcade experience

[Keatah]

The innovative market-maker Atari I knew ended around 1984/1985. After that any product made for the home was lame and not impressive to me. And certainly nothing now is getting my attention beyond a look-see. Coin-op division seemed different because hits like RoadBlasters, Blasteroids, STUN Runner, Assault, and more, continued to be made.

[zzip]

18 hours ago, Keatah said:

The innovative market-maker Atari I knew ended around 1984/1985. After that any product made for the home was lame and not impressive to me. And certainly nothing now is getting my attention beyond a look-see. Coin-op division seemed different because hits like RoadBlasters, Blasteroids, STUN Runner, Assault, and more, continued to be made.

To be fair, they still did some innovative stuff into the late 80s.    ST was innovative for a time, like the Mac, but in color, on-board MIDI to make it a music production workhorse.   They produced the first palmtop PC (Atari Portfolio),  first color portable game system,  a laser printer that was not only one of that fastest, but also the most inexpensive.

 

But they were a much leaner company that tried to get into markets they had no business being in (Abaq Transputer, Federated Stores, Unix Workstations) while they were slow to update their core products and eventually fell behind the curve.

[Keatah]

2 hours ago, zzip said:

To be fair, they still did some innovative stuff into the late 80s.    ST was innovative for a time,

Yes of course, not to pee on the ST or anything. My sphere of awareness (and product wants) were mainly limited to cartridge gaming systems.

[+x=usr(1536)]

9 hours ago, zzip said:

But they were a much leaner company that tried to get into markets they had no business being in (Abaq Transputer, Federated Stores, Unix Workstations) while they were slow to update their core products and eventually fell behind the curve.

While I won't quibble over Atari getting into areas of business that didn't help the company, even if they had updated their core products they still would have been screwed by about 1993/4.

 

PCs were taking the market away from home computers, and their response to this was pathetic at best.

 

Arcade (meaning coin-op video games) gaming as it had been known previously was really on its way out, and they just did not seem to see this one coming.

 

Software sells systems, and the Jag badly needed good software.

 

The company was floundering by about 1991, but managed to hold it together for another five years.  For that, I will give them credit.

[zzip]

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

While I won't quibble over Atari getting into areas of business that didn't help the company, even if they had updated their core products they still would have been screwed by about 1993/4.

 

PCs were taking the market away from home computers, and their response to this was pathetic at best.

 

Arcade (meaning coin-op video games) gaming as it had been known previously was really on its way out, and they just did not seem to see this one coming.

 

Software sells systems, and the Jag badly needed good software.

 

The company was floundering by about 1991, but managed to hold it together for another five years.  For that, I will give them credit.

I agree that the computer space was ultimately doomed by PC

 

Atari Corp didn't own the arcade division any more, so that was somebody else's problem.

 

I think the only thing that could have saved them was the console side, but they would have had to gone heavy on that from 85 on,  not waste all that time rehashing old systems and old games.   Jaguar was too late, they needed to get their gaming house in order long before that.

 

But we know Jack wanted Atari for the computer side,  and consoles were mostly an afterthought at first.

 

 

 

[Flyindrew]

3 minutes ago, zzip said:

I agree that the computer space was ultimately doomed by PC

 

Atari Corp didn't own the arcade division any more, so that was somebody else's problem.

 

I think the only thing that could have saved them was the console side, but they would have had to gone heavy on that from 85 on,  not waste all that time rehashing old systems and old games.   Jaguar was too late, they needed to get their gaming house in order long before that.

 

But we know Jack wanted Atari for the computer side,  and consoles were mostly an afterthought at first.

 

 

 

In the early-mid 90s Atari's hardware and its capabilities could go toe to toe with anyone in the business. The problem was the software and lack of 3rd party support due to complexities with programing on systems like the Jaguar. The Lynx and Jaguar, with their capabilities should have been equal to or surpassed anything Nintendo or Sega released at the time. 

[zzip]

18 minutes ago, Flyindrew said:

In the early-mid 90s Atari's hardware and its capabilities could go toe to toe with anyone in the business. The problem was the software and lack of 3rd party support due to complexities with programing on systems like the Jaguar. The Lynx and Jaguar, with their capabilities should have been equal to or surpassed anything Nintendo or Sega released at the time. 

But that was too late,  Nintendo was already eating Atari's lunch by that point.   Atari needed to nip them in the bud in 85

 

Complex architecture almost always leads to this problem.  Not every coder has the skills to deal with it, and chances are companies won't pay extra to hire elite coders to do their ports.     Sony had this problem also with PS3 and its complex Cell architecture.    It's one reason the PS4 and PS5 are based on the well-understood Intel architecture.

[Keatah]

Complex architecture is costly to upgrade and advance to the next level. While a PC may have billions upon billions of transistors, they're all grouped together in modules that chip & mobo makers know how to handle. And have known for years.

 

And of course it all plays into and supports game development engines. As the hardware evolves so do the creation tools. More esoteric hardware has a chance of leaving those dev tools behind.

 

I do believe that PC hardware simplicity and familiarity were early catalysts. Soon the "BIOS" was everywhere.

 

But about NES. Simple. When NES hit the market it had fresh IP. Different from the same old same old Atari material. Gamers wanted that. After all there's only so many games of Defender, Centipede, and Crystal Castles one can play. And if you've played them before, like at home and the arcade, there was little incentive to get yet another version. Stagnation set in.

[Flyindrew]

2 hours ago, zzip said:

But that was too late,  Nintendo was already eating Atari's lunch by that point.   Atari needed to nip them in the bud in 85

 

 

Not necessarily. The Lynx could have easily dethroned the Game Boy if marketed properly and had more decent titles.

In 1994 the SNES was in its mid life phase and the Jaguar could have given it more in the way of competition. Same thing for Sega, though the big draw for Sega at the time was that they were more known for great ports of sports games (Madden, NHL, NBA etc). By 1994 Nintendo and Sega could be challenged with a great Atari system. It wasnt like, say, 1987 when the NES was truly unbeatable.    

[Keatah]

3 hours ago, Flyindrew said:

The problem was the software and lack of 3rd party support due to complexities with programing on systems like the Jaguar.

Why did the Jag turn out to be so complex?

[christo930]

4 minutes ago, Flyindrew said:

The Lynx could have easily dethroned the Game Boy if marketed properly and had more decent titles.

I don't think anything Atari made for the Lynx could have dethroned the Game Boy.  Kids of the era (I think portable game systems are for kids) wanted low battery consumption and small size.  If the better graphics and sound of the Atari could have beat the GB, surely the GG would have done so?  As bad as the green mess of the Game Boy was, both the Lynx and Game Gear were worse with extremely narrow viewing angles.  Anyone seriously playing with a Game Gear or Lynx today has replaced the screen and forgets just how bad these screes were and how power hungry they were.  6 Alkaline batteries got expensive for a kid with an allowance of 5 or 10 bucks (I don't know, I wasn't a kid at the time).

 

Atari might have been able to be number 2 with Game Gear a 3rd, but not number 1.

[zzip]

17 minutes ago, Flyindrew said:

Not necessarily. The Lynx could have easily dethroned the Game Boy if marketed properly and had more decent titles.

Where is this bigger marketing budget going to come from?   Nintendo being market leader gives them big advantages in marketing,  they could easily outspend whatever Atari spent on marketing.   I think even Sega was ahead of Atari by this point.   Producing better titles is also part of marketing.

 

They needed to take Nintendo on before they got big,  instead of trying to pull a come-from-behind win which is an uphill battle.

23 minutes ago, Flyindrew said:

In 1994 the SNES was in its mid life phase and the Jaguar could have given it more in the way of competition. Same thing for Sega, though the big draw for Sega at the time was that they were more known for great ports of sports games (Madden, NHL, NBA etc). By 1994 Nintendo and Sega could be challenged with a great Atari system. It wasnt like, say, 1987 when the NES was truly unbeatable.    

There is also mind-share and brand loyalty.   If you are in the Nintendo sphere, you are more likely to buy the next Nintendo console than jump ship to another console, even if the other console is more powerful.  Same with Sega.    In order for Atari to pull fans of those brands away, they'd need compelling games that were impossible to ignore.  They'd need to make enough noise to get noticed and create buzz.   Atari didn't have the resources anymore to pull that off.

[zzip]

14 minutes ago, christo930 said:

I don't think anything Atari made for the Lynx could have dethroned the Game Boy.  Kids of the era (I think portable game systems are for kids) wanted low battery consumption and small size.  If the better graphics and sound of the Atari could have beat the GB, surely the GG would have done so?  As bad as the green mess of the Game Boy was, both the Lynx and Game Gear were worse with extremely narrow viewing angles.  Anyone seriously playing with a Game Gear or Lynx today has replaced the screen and forgets just how bad these screes were and how power hungry they were.  6 Alkaline batteries got expensive for a kid with an allowance of 5 or 10 bucks (I don't know, I wasn't a kid at the time).

Yeah all this too.  The Lynx ate batteries like candy, and it was large for a portable. couldn't fit in your pocket like a Gameboy

 

on the other hand though..  bad screen compared to what?   I remember how awful laptop screens were back then,  viewing angles were terrible.   It was just the state of LCD tech and Lynx had to go with what was available.   It was a small miracle to even have a portable with color LCD

Edited April 11, 2023 by zzip

[Keatah]

Both Sega and Nintendo seemed to have more marketing consistency than Atari did. The style of the boxes seemed less prone to cost-cutting redesigns throughout the years. Especially with SNES. This has impact on brand stability and presence.

 

I also wish that Atari had kept their gatefold boxes that the original first releases came in. Instead they transitioned to flap-tops. Then monochrome. And eventually the cheapest possible b/w - which were thinner too. Manuals followed the same progression. And I didn't like the D.C. Comics badges or anything that messed up viewing the artwork.

[christo930]

10 minutes ago, zzip said:

on the other hand though..  bad screen compared to what?   I remember how awful laptop screens were back then,  viewing angles were terrible.   It was just the state of LCD tech and Lynx had to go with what was available.   It was a small miracle to even have a portable with color LCD

Active matrix TFT screens on laptops looked great.  They were just expensive and tended to drive the cost of a laptop way up and consumed more energy.  Though I do believe all 3 preceded the active TFT laptops.  But all 3 could have released updated models. But price was going to be a problem.  The TFT based Turbo Express was 300 bucks in the late 80s.

 

Outside of color, the GB screen was just much easier on the eyes, though it did suffer from motion blur. With the Lynx and GG, anything but the perfect angle shows a very washed out image and if you get the angle worse, a blurry white blob.

Edited April 11, 2023 by christo930

[zzip]

1 hour ago, christo930 said:

Active matrix TFT screens on laptops looked great.  They were just expensive and tended to drive the cost of a laptop way up and consumed more energy.  Though I do believe all 3 preceded the active TFT laptops.  But all 3 could have released updated models. But price was going to be a problem.  The TFT based Turbo Express was 300 bucks in the late 80s.

Right but something like Lynx would be extremely cost and power sensitive so I don't think it was a realistic option unless the price and power requirements dropped before Lynx got discontinued?

[christo930]

56 minutes ago, zzip said:

Right but something like Lynx would be extremely cost and power sensitive so I don't think it was a realistic option unless the price and power requirements dropped before Lynx got discontinued?

Absolutely. I don't think the Lynx could have competed with a 300 Dollar price tag.  It was already not competing very well.  One of my Lynx consoles I purchased new in a store (I think it was EB) at the time it was being dropped for 69.99 plus 3 or 5 games.  Though my first Lynx was a Christmas present in 1990, IIRC.

[CommodoreDecker]

On 3/7/2023 at 1:13 PM, cjherr said:

While I enjoy exploring all older consoles, there’s something about the 5200 that brings be back time and again. It’s just a feel that epitomizes the joy of the times. 

 

Never had one as a kid due to the reputation of the controllers scaring people off, but got into collecting for it almost three decades later, and finding out about the replacement flexcircuits that cure the bulk of the problems. Centipede and Qix are amazing ports. Defender is a given. Space Invaders has a charm.  Donkey Kong... mmmm, not so much a great for gameplay due to the noncentering nature of the joystick - but any game needing the greater precision of potentiometers over pure binary button controls like the 2600 joystick definitely were amazing. 

 

Loved the voice synthesizer for Berzerk and Tennis as well, and both play decently...

 

The 5200 could easily have been more, if it wasn't for mixing a forward-thinking controller design with games that weren't meant for it that was also made with cheap tin contacts that oxidied and became useless way too quickly.

[christo930]

On 4/10/2023 at 12:07 PM, zzip said:

To be fair, they still did some innovative stuff into the late 80s.    ST was innovative for a time, like the Mac, but in color, on-board MIDI to make it a music production workhorse.   They produced the first palmtop PC (Atari Portfolio),  first color portable game system,  a laser printer that was not only one of that fastest, but also the most inexpensive.

 

But they were a much leaner company that tried to get into markets they had no business being in (Abaq Transputer, Federated Stores, Unix Workstations) while they were slow to update their core products and eventually fell behind the curve.

 

The portfolio, like most radical new inventions in the revision 1 stage,  was a total dog.  It was not very useful.  Way too many trade-offs to get to the size.

 

Jack got some stuff right in that era, but he ran Atari into the ground.  While it may or may not have been obvious at the time (although I think it was), there was little Atari or Commodore could have done to save their respective platforms, so it is not really entirely Jack's fault.  The industry was consolidating around X86 and there was very little Atari could have brought to the PC market, something to make an Atari badge x86 machine a good idea.  If it were modified to the extent it became attractive, it probably wouldn't have retained compatibility.  Slapping the Atari logo on a generic low end PC was a bad idea too.  It didn't help that Atari was a video game company.  The Atari laser printer was a great idea though.  For as long as laser printers have been around, they are superior in every way to anything else in most applications.  Had the split happened earlier and he tackled it right away, perhaps he could have created something similar to the Tandy line of computers, but better.  But he probably never had the resources IBM had when they developed the JR, hence the Tandy specs.   Any custom Atari graphics board would have had to be backward compatible with CGA or EGA (itself backward compatible with CGA) while also being significantly better than the Tandy TGA.  The sound system would have been a lot easier.

 

Releasing a Unix workstation was probably the most harebrained things Atari could have ever done (I don't know if they ever released it or not).  To the extent Atari had a hope and prayer of remaining a viable brand in the computer market, it relied on small business and mostly the home market.  These 2 markets are just not a good fit for a unix workstation. 

[christo930]

On 4/23/2023 at 7:51 PM, CommodoreDecker said:

The 5200 could easily have been more, if it wasn't for mixing a forward-thinking controller design with games that weren't meant for it

 

I would love to be a fly on the wall the day they decided to make Super Breakout the pack-in game for the 5200.

 

"Guys, we really need to drive home the message about our new "Super System" and our amazing new controllers"

"I know!!!  Let's make Super Breakout the pack in game.  Marketing says people like that game"

"Uh, the controller is entirely unsuitable for the game and the game is from the 70s with very basic graphics and sound that looks and plays near perfectly on the old not-super system"

"So what?  Jenny over in marketing says her friend's daughter loves the game.  Make it the pack-in, it'll sell millions"

"Have you ever played the game?"

"No. I hate games."

[zzip]

10 hours ago, christo930 said:

Jack got some stuff right in that era, but he ran Atari into the ground.  While it may or may not have been obvious at the time (although I think it was), there was little Atari or Commodore could have done to save their respective platforms, so it is not really entirely Jack's fault.

I don't think it was obvious in 84, but it was pretty obvious by 86/87 after the clone explosion happened.

 

10 hours ago, christo930 said:

Jack got some stuff right in that era, but he ran Atari into the ground.  While it may or may not have been obvious at the time (although I think it was), there was little Atari or Commodore could have done to save their respective platforms, so it is not really entirely Jack's fault.  The industry was consolidating around X86 and there was very little Atari could have brought to the PC market, something to make an Atari badge x86 machine a good idea.  If it were modified to the extent it became attractive, it probably wouldn't have retained compatibility.  Slapping the Atari logo on a generic low end PC was a bad idea too.  It didn't help that Atari was a video game company.  The Atari laser printer was a great idea though.  For as long as laser printers have been around, they are superior in every way to anything else in most applications.  Had the split happened earlier and he tackled it right away, perhaps he could have created something similar to the Tandy line of computers, but better.  But he probably never had the resources IBM had when they developed the JR, hence the Tandy specs.   Any custom Atari graphics board would have had to be backward compatible with CGA or EGA (itself backward compatible with CGA) while also being significantly better than the Tandy TGA.  The sound system would have been a lot easier.

 

Releasing a Unix workstation was probably the most harebrained things Atari could have ever done (I don't know if they ever released it or not).  To the extent Atari had a hope and prayer of remaining a viable brand in the computer market, it relied on small business and mostly the home market.  These 2 markets are just not a good fit for a unix workstation. 

Yeah he thought he could dominate 16-bit computers using the same strategy he did with the C64,  But there was nobody with the influence of IBM in the 8-bit world.   But by the time it became obvious where the market was going, they were too heavily invested in computers while they had let the console side lapse and fall behind.

 

Even if they didn't release a Unix workstation, they sunk too much R&D time and money into it that could have been better spent  elsewhere.    I think the TT was supposed to run Unix, and they were working on a System V port,  and the Abaq Transputer workstation was a waste of time and money.   Really the best way forward was to invest in the gaming side,  they could have further stalled Nintendo's dominence, and who knows?  They could still be a big-3 player today,  though I doubt that would ever have happened under the "do everything on the cheap" Tramiel leadership, it would have to be a different buyer or Warner.

[phuzaxeman]

On 6/8/2023 at 8:30 PM, christo930 said:

 

 

"Uh, the controller is entirely unsuitable for the game and the game is from the 70s with very basic graphics and sound that looks and plays near perfectly on the old not-super system"

 

I get the humor. And Super Breakout wouldn't be my choice for a pack in game.

 

But the stock controls are perfect for Super Breakout. Better then the 2600 paddle for Breakout for me.

 

There is a difference between 2600 breakout and 5200 Super Breakout starting with the more detailed graphics even if it is minimal. The effect of the bricks disintegrating are cool. The sounds are also better too on the 5200. 2600 breakout is clunky and redundant compared to the 5200.

 

Super Breakout gets ridiculed because it was the pack in game but it's a great title and many hard core 5200 fans stand behind it. 

 

The controller had an issue with reliability. Today, that issue is not a problem with updates. The controls is what made the 5200 a cutting edge experience. If you don't know how to use them or didn't grow up with them, you don't understand.

 

[Flyindrew]

On 6/21/2023 at 4:26 AM, phuzaxeman said:

I get the humor. And Super Breakout wouldn't be my choice for a pack in game.

 

But the stock controls are perfect for Super Breakout. Better then the 2600 paddle for Breakout for me.

 

 

 

To start, aside from Neo Breakout on Atari 50, the 5200/8 bit version of Super Breakout is my favorite. But....I kinda have to disagree about the controller. I have Super Breakout both on my 5200 and 8 bit cartridge. The traditional paddle controller (on the 8 bit) is far superior than the 5200 controller. However, there are other 5200 games (looking at you Defender, Moon Patrol, Pole Position) where I love the traditional 5200 controller as opposed to a CX40 or 7800 controller.

[NE146]

I mean I grew up with the system, and I think whether Super Breakout is 'good' by any measure is pretty much up to you lol. I fully remember being "wowed' by the dissolving blocks when we first tried the game but as far as liking Breakout as a game itself.. at the end of the day in 1982 I wanted games that had space battles 

Edited June 22, 2023 by NE146

[phuzaxeman]

16 hours ago, Flyindrew said:

To start, aside from Neo Breakout on Atari 50, the 5200/8 bit version of Super Breakout is my favorite. But....I kinda have to disagree about the controller. I have Super Breakout both on my 5200 and 8 bit cartridge. The traditional paddle controller (on the 8 bit) is far superior than the 5200 controller. However, there are other 5200 games (looking at you Defender, Moon Patrol, Pole Position) where I love the traditional 5200 controller as opposed to a CX40 or 7800 controller.

I have the Atari Age scores to back up my claims the 5200 sticks are great for Super Breakout. And in 1982, 5200 Super Breakout was it's only version with this analog sticks. 

 

I get it. Most people like the traditional 2600 Breakout with paddle controllers. That's what people know.

 

But games like 5200 Super Breakout, Centipede, and Galaxian really make the 5200 controllers a unique experience and an advantage in my case.

 

Modern technology has fixed the reliability issues and given the 5200 different controller options too.