What is it about the 5200?

[christo930]

1 hour ago, BassGuitari said:

Think of the 5200 as being the BluRay the 2600's DVD. Mostly the same releases, just in an upgraded format. 

Bluray and DVD have the same movie on them.  2600 and 5200 don't have the same game on them for the most part.  A tiered system, I guess that one can make sense.  But the comparison between bluray and DVD doesn't make any sense at all.

[+bent_pin]

9 minutes ago, christo930 said:

Bluray and DVD have the same movie on them.  2600 and 5200 don't have the same game on them for the most part.  A tiered system, I guess that one can make sense.  But the comparison between bluray and DVD doesn't make any sense at all.

I can see it make sense when the game is on both formats, which a large number were. Pacman and Missile Command were remarkably better on 5200 but generally the same game.

[Bill Loguidice]

2 minutes ago, christo930 said:

Bluray and DVD have the same movie on them.  2600 and 5200 don't have the same game on them for the most part.  A tiered system, I guess that one can make sense.  But the comparison between bluray and DVD doesn't make any sense at all.

I get the basic analogy, but would put it more at VHS to DVD (more depth to the interface, more options, etc.), because even though we didn't see that huge of a leap with many games from a depth standpoint, the potential for much more involved games was there, e.g., Rescue on Fractalus. I don't really think we need to do such a comparison, though. It should be pretty clear, especially looking at game lists, screenshots, and videos, what the differences are.

[BassGuitari]

37 minutes ago, christo930 said:

Bluray and DVD have the same movie on them.  2600 and 5200 don't have the same game on them for the most part.  A tiered system, I guess that one can make sense.  But the comparison between bluray and DVD doesn't make any sense at all.

I guess the HD vs. SD analogy was too on the nose. If "tiers" works for you, then okay, sure. 

 

How about this: The Atari 5200 is functionally a higher-end way to play a selection of games that also appeared on the Atari 2600. Does that make any sense at all?

 

 

[Bill Loguidice]

1 minute ago, BassGuitari said:

How about this: The Atari 5200 is functionally a higher-end way to play a selection of games that also appeared on the Atari 2600. Does that make any sense at all?

 

That was certainly its biggest albatross in the press, and general perception, back in the day. As we know, Atari did themselves no favors with initially bundling in Breakout (though the reasoning as a 4 player simultaneous game was somewhat sound, but not when you're competing against Donkey Kong) and having an early library filled with many of the same games as already on the Atari 2600, albeit generally notably better versions. It's always a shame what happened with the 5200, as the 1986 releases really were the next step up, but it really did have a lot working against it, not the least of which was timing around the Crash and those ill-implemented controllers.

[Flyindrew]

For those oldies who were kids at the time, nothing "screams" 1982/1983 more than the Atari 5200. From its console design which represents the era, quirky controllers, arcade quality ports. Of every Atari console I own (which is all of them), the 5200 is the only one that mentally transports me back to late 1982 when I play it. 

[CapitanClassic]

For me, the biggest thing holding back the 5200, was that by 1983 (1 year later) the PC price wars were in full swing. I would rather just get an Atari 800 / Commodore 64 for less than 2x the price.

 

Capability-wise, the computer offered much more features, and the console didn't really offer much with respect to games / graphics / audio that you couldn't get the equivalent on a home computer.

[christo930]

41 minutes ago, BassGuitari said:

How about this: The Atari 5200 is functionally a higher-end way to play a selection of games that also appeared on the Atari 2600. Does that make any sense at all?

The real reason the 2600 didn't get discontinued with the introduction of the 5200 was the 2600 was a cash-cow.  They would have been nuts to cancel the 2600 in 1982.  It was like printing money at that point.  I would think that the cost of producing the 2600 was greatly reduced by 1982.  Even though it sold for less, they probably made more with every sale.  The original ones had a giant hunk of cast iron in the middle of them. 6 vs 4 switches and a greatly simplified joystick.  There were other cost reductions in the machine too.

 

While Intellivision and later the Colecovision were taking some sales from Atari, Atari was still the vast majority of the home video game craze of the early 80s.  I'm pretty sure the 5200 was meant to stop this particular high end bleeding while maintaining the cash-cow 2600 sales.

 

I certainly don't think there was any grand strategy here other than milking the 2600 for all it worth while stemming the competition with a more advanced system, though it was really not able to compete on price with Coleco which at the time was cheaper than even the 2600.

 

 

[ledzep]

14 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

That was certainly its biggest albatross in the press, and general perception, back in the day. As we know, Atari did themselves no favors with initially bundling in Breakout (though the reasoning as a 4 player simultaneous game was somewhat sound, but not when you're competing against Donkey Kong) and having an early library filled with many of the same games as already on the Atari 2600, albeit generally notably better versions. It's always a shame what happened with the 5200, as the 1986 releases really were the next step up, but it really did have a lot working against it, not the least of which was timing around the Crash and those ill-implemented controllers.

 

It's almost a no-win situation.  If the 5200 had had mostly new games in order to avoid the "What's the big deal?  I already have that game on my 2600!" complaints, then you would have people applauding the appearance of the new games while complaining that their favorite games were only on the 2600, forcing them to maintain 2 systems which weren't exactly cheap back then when you usually had to pay full price for games.  On the other hand, the 5200 getting better/more accurate versions of popular games that were already on the 2600 such as Centipede and Missile Command gave game fans the proper versions of those games that they had to only imagine they were playing on the 2600 but now they were wondering when the 5200 would get some exclusive games to really take advantage of the better hardware.  I don't think Activision did the 5200 any favors by not improving their 2600 games at all beyond better graphics for the 5200.

 

What the 5200 needed was more unique games like 2600's Adventure and Superman carts that weren't just arcade ports or "classics" like chess.  And not releasing shitty versions on the 2600 as well, in order to wean people off that older system.  I love that Tempest finally came out for the 5200, that's the type of game that only really works on the 5200 because of the graphics and the controllers, there should have been more of those.  Xari Arena is another, Realsports Curling.  They should have utilized the keypad more the way Star Raiders did, that's another avenue that would have separated those 5200 games from simpler 2600 games.  Imagine an Adventure style game but with keyboard commands for carrying more things or swapping weapons.  Everyone says that the 5200 was basically just an 8-bit computer, I wish that had been more true in the sense of getting 5200 releases of games like Temple Of Apshai or some simpler SSI 8-bit games.  As a comparison, I loved playing many of the more "boring" Intellivision games at my friend's house because they were interesting, Utopia and the D&D games, not just more arcade ports, that system also used a keyboard controller.  But I wonder how much 2600 owners would have demanded the same games for their system.

 

Honestly, our only complaints about the 5200 back then were the mushy feel of the fire buttons on the controllers, the sticks themselves were fine.  Had those been hard plastic buttons with microswitches, everything would have been great.  Ok, maybe include little POT adjusters on the joysticks on the off chance that a game wouldn't center correctly but I don't remember ever complaining that a game wouldn't play right because of the centering.