IGN ranks the Atari 7800 over the Sega Master System! Do you agree?

[Giles N]

Deciding upon full discontinuation may also be a problem, estranging users/customers/fans.

 

Given that they did release the 5200 (what can the unused expansion port do?) and 8-bit computers; they should’ve made it less mess. Perhaps just 2 systems, with expansion ports to build both into the others’ capacity. They should’ve gone with one single cartridge shape and plenty of expansion ports/gates.

 

Then make sure all Atari 8-bit titles got a cartridge-counterpart.

And both analog and digital joysticks of high quality and very userfriendly should be provided.

 

The 7800 should’ve been pro-actively supported with popular/quality non-NES-exclusive games - either popular titles from PC and home-computers, or novel originals made by partnering 3rd party Houses.

Edited June 10 by Giles N

[zzip]

15 hours ago, Trebor said:

The reasoning, "It doesn't matter" when utilizing hypotheticals such as could have or should have statements, the (non) points are all moot, such as, "the 5200 should have been more XEGS like in the first place."  The 7800 was the reality, and the 5200 discontinued.

That's not exactly what I said,  I said maybe it should be more XEGS-like because some argue that would have been better.  I'm not sure if that was doable since the 5200 was already expensive enough.     

 

I'm less concerned with what the 5200 should have been and more that they should have fully supported it for it's normal lifespan and not change horses midstream-  fix the controller issues,  build up a respectable library and actually plan out its successor.

 

16 hours ago, Trebor said:

My response to the numbering of generations is not my thing or even a Wiki-thing. I based it upon your placement and respective statement of the 7800 being in the third generation.  The 7800 is of the same generation/era of the NES and SMS.  You're placing the 5200 and ColecoVision in the third generation, then it places 7800, NES, SMS in the fourth.  Regardless, bringing up generations was your point, not mine.

In videogames, a generation refers to a leapfrog in technology, not simply counting consoles.   Remember that Atari had a few consoles before the 2600,  so if you simply count consoles, then 2600 would be 4th gen, 5200 5th, 7800 6th.   But that's not how it works.   All the 70s Atari consoles with built-in games and no cartridge slot are considered first-gen.   

 

5200/7800/XEGS would all be third generation consoles,  they all run the same CPU same speed, similar graphics resolutions,  the 7800 has a better sprite chip, the XEGS has more memory and flexibility.  But still, they have more in common with each other than they do with the super-primitive 2nd gen consoles or the 16-bit 4th generation consoles.

 

17 hours ago, Trebor said:

I'm not disputing the games make or break the console.  What was taken into exception is your statements that the 7800 shouldn't have been, and implying it was inadequate, due to it not having the ability to deliver even better looking and sounding titles, and more games overall.  You are 100% correct, there was a whole series of missteps.

The 7800 should not have happened the way it did.  If by some miracle, GCC got it to Atari earlier and they released it instead of the 5200, that would be fine.  The sound would be sore point still, but it would be better placed then.  The problem is the 7800 fell in Atari's lap shortly after the 5200 launch.  If Atari wasn't in panic mode, what they should have done is tell GCC that we can't release now, but it has promise, so go back to the drawing board, refine it further and maybe it can be the 5200 replacement one day.   

 

If you look at the Atari lineup,  there's a super popular 2nd gen console,  3 3rd gen consoles,  no 4th gen,  and a "comeback" 5th gen console.   They'd be in much better shape if they had a unified 3rd gen console,  an actual 4th gen console (that maybe GCC could have developed with some enhanced 7800 tech).   This + games library is why they went from king of gaming to falling behind Nintendo and Sega so quickly.

 

When I say the 7800 shouldn't have been released,   I'm talking as a business decision the way it was handled.   It should and could have been handled much better.

[Flyindrew]

Another factor was marketing in the pre-internet world of 1986. Most marketing among us teenagers back then was word of mouth. From January-fall 1986 my friends and I were into, and only aware of the Commodore 64 (with me having an Atari 130 XE as the anomaly of the group). It wasnt until late 1986 that we all got the buzz about the Nintendo Entertainment system. As far as the Atari 7800, we never even knew it existed back in '86.  And we lived in New York City, not like a small town with limited amount of stores to buy new hardware.

Edited June 11 by Flyindrew

[+Defender_2600]

9 hours ago, zzip said:

When I say the 7800 shouldn't have been released,   I'm talking as a business decision the way it was handled.   It should and could have been handled much better.

"When I say the 7800 5200 shouldn't have been released,   I'm talking as a business decision the way it was handled.   It should and could have been handled much better."  (fixed)

 

On 6/10/2024 at 10:17 PM, zzip said:

The 7800 shouldn't have been a thing,  at least not for 1984 release.   Maybe they replace the 5200 by 1987

On 6/10/2024 at 10:56 PM, zzip said:

Moore's Law was in full effect back then.   Both the NES and 7800 were designed with 1983 tech.   SMS was designed with 1985 tech which is why it can outperform both.   Imagine if they gave the 5200 a full generation lifespan of 4 or 5 years and released a successor based on 1986 tech?

9 hours ago, zzip said:

5200/7800/XEGS would all be third generation consoles,  they all run the same CPU same speed, similar graphics resolutions,  the 7800 has a better sprite chip, the XEGS has more memory and flexibility.  But still, they have more in common with each other than they do with the super-primitive 2nd gen consoles or the 16-bit 4th generation consoles.

 

The same...? the same...? similar...?

This sort of "5200/7800/XEGS" technical comparison is a trivial generalization that seems to be made by a child. Comparing the 5200 with 7800 is night and day.

We have already seen that you have zero knowledge of the hardware of third generation consoles, and you don't have the knowledge and skills needed to do a serious comparison between two consoles and have a valid opinion.

 

Instead I could only agree about the comparison between 2600 and 5200, in fact the small 5200 library shares many titles with the 2600 that have similar graphics to each other and you might even prefer some 2600 version for the clean style, a more appropriate palette and more colors on screen (e.g. Activision). The 2600 had a huge library, and innovative games were still being released in 1984 as Pitfall II, H.E.R.O., Crystal Castles, Decathlon, Mr. Do!'s Castle, and other. Also, the 2600 had many controllers: CX40 joystick, paddle, driving controllers, Trak-Ball, keyboard, Video Touch Pad, Control Pad.. and they all worked very well. So, maybe Atari didn't need a *late* 1982 (1978 tech) 5200 console.

 

Imitating your old propaganda, we can say that the 5200 was two steps forward (background graphics and sound) and three steps back compared to 2600 (number of colors on screen, controllers, library). And again, the 5200 should be better in every way than the 2600 and it isn't. So the 5200, a repackaged Atari 400 (1978 tech), it couldn't have competed with the C64, NES, and even with the Sega Master System until 1986/1987. Your repeating over and over that the 5200 should have been produced until 1987, thinking that people would buy it, seems to me just a delusional idea.

 

Atari's crisis coincides with the release of the 5200, and there is 'no excuse' for releasing old 1978 hardware in *late* 1982, presenting it as a new SuperSystem. People quickly realized that it was pretty much a repackaged Atari 400, with some of the usual 2600 games, and with all the additional technical problems we know so well. And, there is no way to fix the 5200 controller, because even after the best efforts these controllers will still be *analog* and, with a few exceptions, the entire 5200 library is made up of games that were born and require *digital* controllers. You can't force users to play games like Pac-Man, HERO, Pitfall!, Joust, Popeye, Montezuma's Revenge, etc...with *analog* controllers...it was so absurd and really ruined the experience. And again, playing Super Breakout and Kaboom! without paddles? I can imagine the disappointment, a huge step back from the experience provided by the 2600 controllers.

 

Atari didn't kill the 5200 in 1984, they wouldn't kill the golden goose. The truth is much simpler, in 1984 the 5200 was obsolete, poorly designed, expensive, bulky, but above all the 5200 sales failure was killing Atari (along with all other financial issues), and in the end it wasn't a choice but a necessity. And I'm sorry to say it, since I have two 5200.

 

And thank you for derailing another 7800 discussion with your obsessive "The 7800 shouldn't have been a thing".

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

** same modern Homebrew game, same resolution, no excuses:

[Bakasama]

I was wondering if certain A8 games like Gremlins or Megamania would look like on a 7800. Fairly similar to 8-bit but with more colors?

Edited June 11 by Bakasama

[+Defender_2600]

On 6/10/2024 at 11:19 PM, zzip said:

And why should any Atari fan trust Atari with the 7800 after they got badly screwed over with the 5200?   This is a problem that everyone ignores.   But a 5200 in 82 cost $269 (over $800 in today's money),   You shell out that for a shiny new console, and you end up with a small library of games mostly rehashes of the last gen games,  before the manufacturer abandons it!   Are you REALLY going to buy the next console?    If Microsoft of Sony pulled this, it would be the videogame scandal of the century.   But consumers didn't have the internet to complains so I'm sure a lot of people quietly abandoned Atari instead.    This is why the 7800 was a huge blunder.

I agree, except for one necessary correction: "This is why the 7800 5200 was a huge blunder.". 

 

Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum. There comes a time when you have to abandon ship because it is sinking, you simply have no alternative. Microsoft in Japan discontinued the Xbox after only 3 years. Sega discontinued the SG-1000 after only one year, and did the same with the SG-1000 II. Nevertheless, the Xbox 360 and the Master System (and later the Genesis) were successful in sales.

 

11 hours ago, zzip said:

5200/7800/XEGS would all be third generation consoles,  they all run the same CPU same speed, similar graphics resolutions,  the 7800 has a better sprite chip, the XEGS has more memory and flexibility.  But still, they have more in common with each other than they do with the super-primitive 2nd gen consoles or the 16-bit 4th generation consoles.

The same... the same... similar...

What you write really means nothing (GPU?), but it's funny...

 

 

** same modern Homebrew game, same resolution, no excuses:

 

 

* Same round shape!

 

 

* 4 wheels for both and same red color!

 

 

* Similar DNA!

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

 

 

* But seriously, here it is: second, third, third, and fourth generation... same modern Homebrew game, no excuses :

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

[KrunchyTC]

I agree with Defender_2600. The A8 cannot compete with the capabilities of the 7800.

[+Defender_2600]

14 minutes ago, KrunchyTC said:

I agree with Defender_2600. The A8 cannot compete with the capabilities of the 7800.

It is not and does not want to be a competition. Each system/generation has its own charm and my admiration.

[+jgkspsx]

On 6/4/2024 at 2:37 PM, Pac-Lander said:

https://www.ign.com/videos/top-25-videogame-consoles-20-16

 

The 7800 comes in at #17 in their all time rankings, ahead of the Sega Master System, Neo Geo, and Sega Saturn.

I love, and I mean really love, the Atari 7800 but that sentence is not something my brain can even comprehend. The 7800 has a library of 59 games, with very few exclusives, not even in the same universe as platforms with hundreds or thousands of games.

[CapitanClassic]

Arguing if SMS or the 7800 deserves the 17# slot in best consoles of all time, is like arguing over which should rank higher, the Komani Picno or the VTech VSmile.

[phoenixdownita]

52 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said:

Arguing if SMS or the 7800 deserves the 17# slot in best consoles of all time, is like arguing over which should rank higher, the Komani Picno or the VTech VSmile.

By sales the sms without any Brazilian variant sits at ~10M vs 7800 at ~1M, sms US sales alone are ~2M.

 

In terms of games sms has >300 vs the 7800 at 59

 

So it is a little surprising the IGN ranking, to me it seems sms did more for Sega than the 7800 for Atari, neither really has titles that moved onto the next gen unlike Nintendo but that’s proven to be their forte (hindsight really).

 

So even if you are right that it makes no real difference we like to bicker about details.

Edited June 12 by phoenixdownita

[+jgkspsx]

42 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said:

Arguing if SMS or the 7800 deserves the 17# slot in best consoles of all time, is like arguing over which should rank higher, the Komani Picno or the VTech VSmile.

In all seriousness, the top 25 systems of all time is pretty prime real estate. There have been hundreds of video games systems, and dozens with substantial libraries.

[CapitanClassic]

4 minutes ago, jgkspsx said:

In all seriousness, the top 25 systems of all time is pretty prime real estate. There have been hundreds of video games systems, and dozens with substantial libraries.

I know, and I only meant it half jokingly. My overall point is that the difference between #17 and #20 isn't much in the grand scheme of things. I can basically agree with IGN's top 10, using their criteria, and I might move a couple systems up/down within 11-25, but their list wouldn't be much different than my own. It isn't as if they ranked the 7800 or SMS below the VSmile.

[Razzie.P]

55 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said:

Arguing if SMS or the 7800 deserves the 17# slot in best consoles of all time, is like arguing over which should rank higher, the Komani Picno or the VTech VSmile.

Yeah, we seem to be seeing a lot of dumbass arguments around here these days.  Bored and passionate, I reckon.

 

Bro a few posts up got so triggered they wrote a mini book, grabbed a crapload of screenshots, took a short shit-break or something then came right and back tore into it again with a bunch more screenshots, quoting and arguing with some of the same stuff they already quoted and argued about.  😁   We some hardcore peoples when it comes to our toys.

[+Defender_2600]

2 hours ago, phoenixdownita said:

By sales the sms without any Brazilian variant sits at ~10Mv s 7800 at ~1M, sms US sales alone are ~2M.

 

In terms of games sms has >300 vs 59 for 7800.

 

So it is a little surprising the IGN ranking, to me it seems sms did more for Sega than the 7800 for Atari, neither really has titles to moved onto the next gen unlike Nintendo but that’s proven to be their forte (hindsight really).

 

So even if you are right that it makes no real difference we like to bicker about details.

 

About details:

 

Master System sales by region:

• Japan: 1 million (as of 1986)^[11]
• United States: 2 million (as of 1993)^[12]
• Western Europe: 6.8 million (as of 1993)^[13]
• South Korea: 720,000 (as of 1993)^[14]
• Australia: 650,000 (as of 1994)^[15]
• Brazil: 8 million (Tectoy variants)^[16]

 

About games:

 

There are 317^[a] game titles for the Master System:

• 20 were released only in Japan
• 4 were released only in North America
• 158 were released only in PAL regions
• 22 were released only in Brazil.

So 117 Master System games were released in the United States.

 

"In 2009, the Master System was named the 20th best console of all time by IGN, behind the Atari 7800 (17th) and the NES (1st). IGN cited the Master System's small and uneven NTSC library as the major problems: "Months could go by between major releases and that made a dud on the Master System feel even more painful."^[109]   

 

^* source Wikipedia

 

 

[phoenixdownita]

17 minutes ago, Defender_2600 said:

 

About details:
….

I missed the point, yes I read the page not sure the breakdown helps.

[+Defender_2600]

3 hours ago, Razzie.P said:

Yeah, we seem to be seeing a lot of dumbass arguments around here these days.  Bored and passionate, I reckon.

 

Bro a few posts up got so triggered they wrote a mini book, grabbed a crapload of screenshots, took a short shit-break or something then came right and back tore into it again with a bunch more screenshots, quoting and arguing with some of the same stuff they already quoted and argued about.  😁   We some hardcore peoples when it comes to our toys.

If you are involved in homebrew development, which really costs your time, and also support new users who are interested in the system, then at some point you will also find yourself replying to someone who repeatedly continues with his "Disinformation activity". But the text you read above took less time than you think, replying to the same broken record I just had to copy and paste my old text. I think some of the latest comparison screenshots are funny, at least for people who have followed the old episodes of the drama.

[zzip]

14 hours ago, Defender_2600 said:

The same...? the same...? similar...?

This sort of "5200/7800/XEGS" technical comparison is a trivial generalization that seems to be made by a child. Comparing the 5200 with 7800 is night and day.

We have already seen that you have zero knowledge of the hardware of third generation consoles, and you don't have the knowledge and skills needed to do a serious comparison between two consoles and have a valid opinion.

I said exactly what the difference is, but you're a 7800 fanboy who always twists my words into something else so it's not even worth discussing with you anymore..

[zzip]

13 hours ago, Defender_2600 said:

agree, except for one necessary correction: "This is why the 7800 5200 was a huge blunder.". 

And if you actually read my posts instead of putting words into my mouth you would have noticed I said the 7800 would have been acceptable if it was released instead of the 5200.   Replacing the 5200 with the 7800 was the huge blunder.

 

22 hours ago, zzip said:

The 7800 should not have happened the way it did.  If by some miracle, GCC got it to Atari earlier and they released it instead of the 5200, that would be fine.

 

[+MattelAquarius]

It's so tough to sort this out decades later, but if I were to pick a turning point for Atari's slide, it would be the release of the 5200.

 

It failed to capitalize on any of the momentum of the 2600.  I had one friend with a 5200 (1983ish).  When he introduced it to me, I struggled with a single game of 5200 PacMan, then we promptly put in the 2600 adapter.   

 

Not to beat a dead horse, but the games were just cosmetic rehashes of the same games with worse control.

 

Perhaps if it released in 79 (instead of being turned into the 400/800), it could have worked.

 

In summary, it seems Atari's demise started with the botched successor to the VCS. This was a new industry, so Atari was basically winging it.  Lots of companies suddenly believed they were supposed to become computer companies in order to survive, so I can understand why the 400/800 happened, but hindsight tells us it was ultimately a fool's errand.  

 

I don't pretend to know how things would have panned out if the A8 didn't happen, and instead they had rolled out the 5200 in 1979. If it still came with the terrible controllers and rehashed games, they perhaps still would've been ill prepared for the Japanese arrival on the scene. (Assuming this new timeline also didn't have Atari agreeing to rebadge the NES).

 

 

[Zoyous]

The Master System has a flow chart featured prominently on it. That bumps it up into the top 5 for me.

[zzip]

2 minutes ago, MattelAquarius said:

It failed to capitalize on any of the momentum of the 2600.  I had one friend with a 5200 (1983ish).  When he introduced it to me, I struggled with a single game of 5200 PacMan, then we promptly put in the 2600 adapter.   

 

Not to beat a dead horse, but the games were just cosmetic rehashes of the same games with worse control.

 

Perhaps if it released in 79 (instead of being turned into the 400/800), it could have worked.

Keep in mind the 2600 wasn't an instant success either, it took about 3 years to get its killer app "Space Invaders".    NES was designed in 83, but it took until around 88 before it was super popular.

 

The 5200 wasn't even allowed two years on the market before it was killed.

 

Yes it's early library was a rehash of the 2600 library.  But that could have been fixed with time.   Atari could have revised the controllers instead of an entirely new replacement console.  The other problem was the price $269 in 82 was quite pricey.   But that would come down with time.   The 2600 was very expensive for 1977 too.    Releasing the 5200 in 79 would be far too expensive, and the 2600 had not even peaked yet.

 

The 5200 also sold into the crash when consumer interest in videogames dropped, so that didn't help.

 

But hardware doesn't matter as much as games,  Atari needed to build out the 5200 library with must-play games.   What did they do instead?  Announce a new console with yet more rehashes of the same games..

[RevEng]

15 hours ago, Razzie.P said:

Bro a few posts up got so triggered they wrote a mini book, grabbed a crapload of screenshots, took a short shit-break or something then came right and back tore into it again with a bunch more screenshots, quoting and arguing with some of the same stuff they already quoted and argued about.  😁   We some hardcore peoples when it comes to our toys.

Yeah, it's not the story you imagine. He has the screenshots handy as a sort of FAQ, because fanboys from a bunch of other communities regularly come into the 7800 forums and make untrue disparaging claims about the 7800 tech. They even argue with seasoned 7800 developers about what the tech can and can't do.

[RevEng]

I find the arguments about which of the 5200, 7800, and xegs consoles should or shouldn't have been released to be missing the point. Even if Atari would have not faffed around later console releases, it still wouldn't have stopped Nintendo and the newer style of gaming.

 

If you want to quarterback history, Atari's biggest misstep for Atari was not releasing Candy as a console follow-up to the 2600, as they originally planned. They were in the right time and place then, and this could have been an industry winning move.

[zzip]

4 minutes ago, RevEng said:

I find the arguments about which of the 5200, 7800, and xegs consoles should or shouldn't have been released to be missing the point. Even if Atari would have not faffed around later console releases, it still wouldn't have stopped Nintendo and the newer style of gaming.

That's exactly the problem,  Warner Atari was too busy focusing on the hardware peripheral arms race and Tramiel Atari was just dumping their old inherited inventory on the market instead of focusing on the next gaming paradigm once the "We Have The Hottest Arcade Ports" strategy stopped working.

 

9 minutes ago, RevEng said:

If you want to quarterback history, Atari's biggest misstep for Atari was not releasing Candy as a console follow-up to the 2600, as they originally planned. They were in the right time and place then, and this could have been an industry winning move.

It was far too early and expensive in 79.   That would have replaced the 2600 before it had a chance to become the biggest thing around.   It might have even lead to Atari becoming a footnote in the home gaming market as developers and consumers rallied around something other than the 2600.   Odyssey 2 and even Intellivision would have been much more affordable than a Candy console.

 

 Generations matter for a reason, it takes several years for a console to build up a library worth owning.  If you release incompatible consoles too soon, you will split your fan base, make it harder to attract 3rd parties. and split 1st party developers to develop games for multiple systems instead of focusing on one.   It's no surprise that Atari consoles post-2600 had such small, weak commercial libraries since Atari didn't understand this.