Atari 50: The First Console War

[+jgkspsx]

3 hours ago, mr_me said:

Anteater was originally developed by Stern, so it might be okay to publish. Unlike the Intellivision version, Atari 2600 Deadly Discs doesn’t have any infringing graphics and should be okay to publish.

Anteater was developed by Tago Electronics. They were apparently bought by Stern but official ports of the game dried up after that. The game's creator Chris Oberth had to call his home computer port something else. I do wonder why they would have left it off Wider World if they owned it.

 

My understanding about all of the Tron games is that Disney co-owned the game rights separately from the branding. I would love to see these games but I won't believe it until I see it.

[+jgkspsx]

Oops, double post. So how about them Tigers?

 

[+jgkspsx]

The ColecoVision is a clone of the Spectravideo SV computers.
 

 

So were the MSX computer standard and the Sega SG-1000 (the core of the Mark III and Master System) and SC-3000 computer. They are all second generation systems.

 

The Famicom released in July 1983 so it is also a second generation console 👀

[+jeremiahjt]

26 minutes ago, JPF997 said:

The 5200 and the Coleco Vision were both second generation consoles, more powerful than what came before ( 2600, Intellivision, Magnavox Odyssey 2 etc ) but they  still belong to the second generation , it's only after the gaming crash that the third  generation of consoles begins (NES/Master System/7800 era).

The Colecovision, 5200, and Vectrex were a whole new generation separate from the 2600, Intellivision, et. al. I do not care that 20 years later Nintendo fanboys lumped everything pre-NES into one generation.

 

Heck, articles at the time called those systems a third wave in gaming.

[+DrVenkman]

32 minutes ago, JPF997 said:

Explain to me how Intellivision was a threat to Atari, 3.7 million units in four years (1979-1983) vs 2 million in a single year for Coleco Vision ( 1982-1983).

 

Also the 2600 sold over 10 million during the same period Intellivision was "relevant", like I said before it wasn't real competition.

Once again, you are completely, utterly missing the point. 

[mr_me]

3 hours ago, polyex said:

I suspect there might be problems with the licensing of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons name.

Not unless that text appears in the game, and even then it can be hacked out.

 

2 hours ago, JPF997 said:

 It doesn't matter that the Intellivision was out three years before the Coleco Vision, it was never real competition for Atari, in one year  (1982-1983 ) Coleco sold almost as many units as Intellivision in four years (1979-1983), the only console that was truly a threat to the 2600 during it's reign was the Coleco Vision.

In 1981, Atari sold about 3 million 2600 systems and Mattel sold more than one million Intellivisions. Considering that Intellivisions were near double the price, that's a huge chunk of the hardware console market. Atari responded by rushing the 5200 to market, gave it analog sticks to up the directions on the Intellivision controller.

 

In 1983 about 1.5 million Colecovisions were sold, compared with 1.8 million Intellivisions in 1982. Coleco was highly dependent on licensing arcade titles. Although the system was getting good third party support they needed to develop compelling games of their own to maintain their lead.

 

2 hours ago, jgkspsx said:

Anteater was developed by Tago Electronics. They were apparently bought by Stern but official ports of the game dried up after that. The game's creator Chris Oberth had to call his home computer port something else. I do wonder why they would have left it off Wider World if they owned it.

 

My understanding about all of the Tron games is that Disney co-owned the game rights separately from the branding. I would love to see these games but I won't believe it until I see it.

Wiki has Oberth developing the game for Stern. Tago Electronics did manufacture/publish the machines.

 

Technosource did publish a version of Deadly Discs under an Intellivision license without the Tron name.

Edited October 8 by mr_me

[JPF997]

8 minutes ago, DrVenkman said:

Once again, you are completely, utterly missing the point. 

I'm not missing the point I just don't agree with your premise.

 

The 7800 came out before  the Master System, however everyone knows that the only real competition that the NES had was the Master System.

 

The PC Engine was released a few years before the Megadrive, however the only real competition for the SNES was the Megadrive.

 

 

Saturn and the PSX came out roughly at the same time, however only the N64 was real competition for the PS1 (unfortunately so because the Saturn was better than both of them imo ).

Edited October 8 by JPF997

[atarifan88]

10 hours ago, jgkspsx said:

These are the M-Network games AtariAge lists:

Taking out the licensed games only leaves 13:

So maybe there are unknown prototypes included?

My original post shows the list of known prototypes. I can't imagine anything but those known prototypes to be the games in question. Plus I'm sure they will include most of the ones that were not prototypes as Atari had recently bought Intellivision which owned the M-Network rights.

[atarifan88]

57 minutes ago, jgkspsx said:

Oops, double post. So how about them Tigers?

 

Yeah they won barely, but I would say they are doing a better job doing the pee pee dance like you show in your video! 😄

GO GUARDIANS!!!

Edited October 8 by atarifan88

[atarifan88]

26 minutes ago, DrVenkman said:

Once again, you are completely, utterly missing the point. 

Yes, and he is hijacking this thread with utter nonsense. This is about the soon to be released Atari 50 compilation add-on, not the one year miracle of the ColecoVision.

[+DrVenkman]

26 minutes ago, JPF997 said:

I'm not missing the point I just don't agree with your premise.

It’s not my premise - it’s the premise of everyone who lived through and experienced the first real console war (you know,  the subject of this thread): Atari versus the newcomer Intellivision. It’s obvious you’re a big fan of creative, fantastical and revisionist interpretations of historical fact, but maybe just maybe let this one go. Those of us who lived this history are tired of your nonsense about this stuff. 

[atarifan88]

29 minutes ago, JPF997 said:

I'm not missing the point I just don't agree with your premise.

 

The 7800 came out before  the Master System, however everyone knows that the only real competition that the NES had was the Master System.

 

The PC Engine was released a few years before the Megadrive, however the only real competition for the SNES was the Megadrive.

 

 

Saturn and the PSX came out roughly at the same time, however only the N64 was real competition for the PS1 (unfortunately so because the Saturn was better than both of them imo ).

 

For the record, we are not discussing the history of consoles in this thread, fact or opinion. This is about the Atari 50 compilation add-on. If you don't have anything to contribute to the topic directly, take it somewhere else or start a new thread.

[+jeremiahjt]

I mean technically, the first console war was between the Video Computer System and the Video Entertainment System. That war was over so quick that the loser had to change their name.

[zzip]

2 hours ago, JPF997 said:

The 5200 and the Coleco Vision were both second generation consoles, more powerful than what came before ( 2600, Intellivision, Magnavox Odyssey 2 etc ) but they  still belong to the second generation , it's only after the gaming crash that the third  generation of consoles begins (NES/Master System/7800 era).

That is revisionist history since they were widely called 3rd generation at the time,  and they 5200/Colecovision have more in common with NES/SG1000 technology-wise than they do with 2600, Channel F and RCA Studio II.  And the 5200 (Colleen  Project) was literally designed to be the replacement of the 2600, making it "next generation" by definition.

 

Seems that at some point Wikipedia and/or later videogame journalists had an attitude that not much significant happened before NES and lumped all previous cartridge systems into the 2nd Gen category.

[Razzie.P]

1 hour ago, jeremiahjt said:

 That war was over so quick that the loser had to change their name.

That needs to be a thing in the real world too.  Someone be like - I live in the beautiful country of "We Done Got Our Ass Whooped Real Good"

[JPF997]

1 hour ago, zzip said:

That is revisionist history since they were widely called 3rd generation at the time,  and they 5200/Colecovision have more in common with NES/SG1000 technology-wise than they do with 2600, Channel F and RCA Studio II.  And the 5200 (Colleen  Project) was literally designed to be the replacement of the 2600, making it "next generation" by definition.

 

Seems that at some point Wikipedia and/or later videogame journalists had an attitude that not much significant happened before NES and lumped all previous cartridge systems into the 2nd Gen category.

Guess we should call it the 2.5 generation then (5200/Coleco Vision/SG1000 etc ).

Edited October 8 by JPF997

[JPF997]

2 hours ago, atarifan88 said:

Yes, and he is hijacking this thread with utter nonsense. This is about the soon to be released Atari 50 compilation add-on, not the one year miracle of the ColecoVision.

Having an opinion is the same as hijacking a thread now... 

 

In any event I simply disagree with this idea that the first console war was just about Atari vs Intellivision, in reality it was Atari vs everyone else ( in distant second).

 

People are treating this like it's a SNES vs Genesis  situation when in reality Intellivision was more like the GameCube going up against the PS2.

Edited October 8 by JPF997

[MateusSolo]

Given the inclusion of 500 versions of Berzerk in the first DLC (which was a GREAT decision, by the way), I suppose Digital Eclipse will include both M-Network's 2600 games and their respective original Intellivision versions?

Edited October 8 by MateusSolo

[atarifan88]

1 hour ago, JPF997 said:

Having an opinion is the same as hijacking a thread now... 

 

In any event I simply disagree with this idea that the first console war was just about Atari vs Intellivision, in reality it was Atari vs everyone else ( in distant second).

 

People are treating this like it's a SNES vs Genesis  situation when in reality Intellivision was more like the GameCube going up against the PS2.

No, going off topic and spewing an opinion is hijacking a thread. There's a big difference. I haven't followed much of what you post, but from what I have read, it sounds like you just like putting your opinion out there for everyone to read even if it has nothing to do with the thread topic. It's the equivalent of hearing yourself talk.

 

To give you an example of staying on topic for this thread, I'll give you an example because you obviously need it:

 

"I would like to see Atari release the M-Network games for Astroblast, Dark Cavern, Frogs and Flies, Space Attack, and Star Strike along with the two AD&D prototypes."

 

Not only is this an opinion, but it's relevant to the topic question and gives other posters a chance to respond. If you had posted something like this instead of "It doesn't matter that the Intellivision was out three years before the Coleco Vision, it was never real competition for Atari" maybe you wouldn't have so many people banging their heads against the wall asking themselves "what the hell does this have to do with the selection of games for the next Atari DLC?!" Or better yet you wouldn't have so many people laughing at your "out of left field" responses.

Edited October 8 by atarifan88

[zzip]

1 hour ago, JPF997 said:

Guess we should call it the 2.5 generation then (5200/Coleco Vision/SG1000 etc ).

2.5 Gen better describes Intellivision.   A noticeable upgrade over 2600, but weak next to 5200/CV

 

NES originally launched in 1983, less than a year after 5200/CV,  just because it took several years to become popular in North America doesn't really make it a generational leap.    They are all 3rd Gen in my book, the tech is similar,  the 5200/CV are failed consoles of the 3rd Gen,  NES was the breakout hit (and C64 could be seen as a 3rd gen success too, but it's not considered a console)

[+jgkspsx]

5 hours ago, jeremiahjt said:

I mean technically, the first console war was between the Video Computer System and the Video Entertainment System. That war was over so quick that the loser had to change their name.

And that's why it's the Atari 2600 🤪

 

6 hours ago, atarifan88 said:

My original post shows the list of known prototypes. I can't imagine anything but those known prototypes to be the games in question. Plus I'm sure they will include most of the ones that were not prototypes as Atari had recently bought Intellivision which owned the M-Network rights.

Yeah, the numbers just don't really add up unless they're including a paltry number of Intellivision versions. Atari doesn't own Astrosmash or Shark Shark anymore, not sure about AstroBlast. I guess we don't have long to wait!

[polyex]

6 hours ago, DrVenkman said:

It’s not my premise - it’s the premise of everyone who lived through and experienced the first real console war

Speak for yourself , I am old enough to have lived through all of that and I don't agree with what your writing/doing in this thread. I think JPF997 is making some good points.

Edited October 8 by polyex

[+jgkspsx]

2 hours ago, zzip said:

2.5 Gen better describes Intellivision.   A noticeable upgrade over 2600, but weak next to 5200/CV

 

NES originally launched in 1983, less than a year after 5200/CV,  just because it took several years to become popular in North America doesn't really make it a generational leap.    They are all 3rd Gen in my book, the tech is similar,  the 5200/CV are failed consoles of the 3rd Gen,  NES was the breakout hit (and C64 could be seen as a 3rd gen success too, but it's not considered a console)

Plus the NES hardware was built to play a decent game of Donkey Kong, just as the 2600 was designed to play Pong and Breakout. The real advantage it had over everything else was an open architecture that let its capabilities be expanded with auxiliary chips in cartridges or in expansion modules. Which is now reaching an insane extent with a new homebrew game: 

 

[Atariboy]

7 hours ago, JPF997 said:

The 5200 and the Coleco Vision were both second generation consoles, more powerful than what came before ( 2600, Intellivision, Magnavox Odyssey 2 etc ) but they  still belong to the second generation , it's only after the gaming crash that the third  generation of consoles begins (NES/Master System/7800 era).

Nonsense

 

1st generation were dedicated Pong units and the like. 2nd was the 2600, Intellivision, and Odyssey 2. Third was the Colecovision, Intellivision, and so on.

[JPF997]

8 minutes ago, Atariboy said:

Nonsense

 

1st generation were dedicated Pong units and the like. 2nd was the 2600, Intellivision, and Odyssey 2. Third was the Colecovision, Intellivision, and so on.

Most  gaming historians disagree with this assessment, here's Adam Koraliks take on the 5200

 

 

Edited October 8 by JPF997