what pack in game could compete with DK?

[zzip]

31 minutes ago, Bill Loguidice said:

Whether manufactured by the press at the time or not, there was a perception at the time that the reason why the 5200 didn't do better was because it was not backwards compatible, or could be made backwards compatible with the 2600. Of course, we know there were a lot of other factors at play, but certainly, that was one of them. At the same time, there was no proven playbook to go by, so there was really no way of knowing (outside of good market research) that the lack of backwards compatibility would be an issue. It was all still "throw anything and everything at the wall" pre-Crash, which is also why we saw, for example, such a big push for computer add-ons for consoles, a market that never really materialized.

After many generations, we now know the deciding factors are 1) having the right games and 2) not being too expensive.    Backwards compatibility really doesn't matter.   Yes people will always say they want it when asked, but few actually make purchasing decisions based on it.  Tech specs also don't matter anywhere as much as online console wars claim.   Many times a weaker system has been the winner of a generation.

 

I'm sure the press drummed up backward compatibility controversies back then to sell issues the same way the press stokes the console war flames today to get clicks.

 

I agree that the playbook was unknown during that generation and it showed!   I get the feeling that the hardware companies were copying each other rather doing real market research, that's why all the consoles ended up with "keypad" controllers with a short crappy joystick at the end (or disc) that games generally disliked,  and they had a peripheral arms race when it wasn't clear that consumers wanted all those peripherals.  Maybe it went like this?

"Do you want a trackball?

gamer: Sure!

"How about a keyboard?"

gamer: Sure!

"Steering Wheel?"

gamer: Sure!

"Voice Synthesis module?

gamer: Sure!

"Here you go!"

gamer: Wait, I have to buy all that?

parent:  Where are we going to put all that?

 

 

[space_dungeon]

On 3/4/2024 at 8:43 AM, zzip said:

Atari themselves expected to make profits on Pac-man.   Back then you simply didn't bundle your best game with a console,  people would pay extra for it.   Coleco pulled a coup by bundling DK and Atari was caught off-guard.

 

Why would anyone give up their 2600?  Especially to buy an "adapter" that cost almost as much as a 2600.   It's much cheaper to buy a TV switchbox and power strip that allowed both consoles to be connected to your TV.

 

A bigger issue was the 5200 was expensive,  cost $70-100 more than Colecovision.  I lost interest in owning a 5200 when I was able to get a 600XL (which is just as powerful) the next year for half the price of a 5200.

I had the 800xl in 1984.  I played a lot of 8bit for a decade.  I still played my 5200.  Today the 5200 gets way more playing time. 

[space_dungeon]

On 3/4/2024 at 7:42 AM, GaryH917 said:

In my case I was never interested in owning a 2600 (bland graphics) or the Atari line of computers which only a few people I knew owned a computer back in the day. We went to the local mall arcades to play games in the late 70's-early 80's. To me the only system to offer the at home arcade experience was the 5200. Go to the arcades, play your fav game, purchase same game for the 5200, play at home! That's what I wanted back then and the 5200 provided that and still does to this day! Pacman would've been a better pack-in game but it was already 2 years old by the time the 5200 was released.

I agree!

[+x=usr(1536)]

On 3/4/2024 at 10:25 AM, Bill Loguidice said:

Whether manufactured by the press at the time or not, there was a perception at the time that the reason why the 5200 didn't do better was because it was not backwards compatible, or could be made backwards compatible with the 2600. Of course, we know there were a lot of other factors at play, but certainly, that was one of them. At the same time, there was no proven playbook to go by, so there was really no way of knowing (outside of good market research) that the lack of backwards compatibility would be an issue. It was all still "throw anything and everything at the wall" pre-Crash, which is also why we saw, for example, such a big push for computer add-ons for consoles, a market that never really materialized.

 

On 3/4/2024 at 10:27 AM, Bill Loguidice said:

And I just want to add that this goes both ways. Consumers weren't exactly educated enough as of yet to understand that you didn't necessarily need backwards compatibility. That a new system was a new system. Most people at that point were only through one real console cycle. Consumers evolved along with the the various console generations and associated business practices.

 

Both good points.  A couple of things to add re: backwards compatibility: for someone buying their first game console, it's unlikely to factor into a purchasing decision.  They're not invested in the legacy system, and, after taking one look at the prior system's games and comparing them against the current one, will probably be very unlikely to add an expansion module so that they can play what they view as obsolete games.

 

With respect to upgrading owners, they already have the legacy system, so backwards compatibility likely isn't a factor for them, either.  Granted, there will be some who are interested in consolidating both machines under a single roof, so to speak, and will buy an expansion module that gives them that backwards compatibility.  But it's difficult to justify that expense when the previous console is sitting next to the new one.

 

Sure, there will always be exceptions, but achieving backwards compatibility through add-on hardware has been shown to have limited appeal, and largely due to the reasons above.

 

Now if you'll pardon me, I'm going back to figuring out how best to cram a UAV into a CX-55 

[+MrFish]

On 3/2/2024 at 3:35 PM, space_dungeon said:

My 2600 was placed in the attic after we got our 5200. 

Well, that was dumb.

 

[space_dungeon]

3 hours ago, MrFish said:

Well, that was dumb.

 

 

Dumb?  How so?  Why play the 2600 when you a superior 5200? I took out the 2600 in the 90s. 

[+MrFish]

3 minutes ago, space_dungeon said:

Dumb?  How so?  Why play the 2600 when you a superior 5200? I took out the 2600 in the 90s. 

Well, you can play whatever you want; but I thought you were advocating a 2600 adapter being available from the beginning (5200 launch). Why lament no 2600 adapter being available when you have an actual 2600 already in your hands.

 

[space_dungeon]

Just now, MrFish said:

Well, you can play whatever you want; but I thought you were advocating a 2600 adapter being available from the beginning (5200 launch). Why lament no 2600 adapter being available when you have an actual 2600 already in your hands.

 

I'm not talking about me. I was explaining that there were people back in the day that didn't want to purchase a 5200 in 1982 because they were still playing their 2600 carts and buying a 5200 wouldn't play those 2600 games they liked.  Hooking up 2 consoles was a hassle for many people in that era.  

 

Atari actually listened and not only created the 2600 adapter for the 5200 (which was late) but created the 7800 which was able to play both 7800/2600 games. 

[+MrFish]

20 minutes ago, space_dungeon said:

I'm not talking about me.

OK, in that case it isn't dumb, unless your 2600 melts in the attic.

 

20 minutes ago, space_dungeon said:

I was explaining that there were people back in the day that didn't want to purchase a 5200 in 1982 because they were still playing their 2600 carts and buying a 5200 wouldn't play those 2600 games they liked.  Hooking up 2 consoles was a hassle for many people in that era.

Yeah, I can see some lack of convenience; but then you have to add the purchase price of the 2600 adapter on top of the cost of the 5200 itself, which wouldn't be so appealing to many people either. I think people were really looking for a 5200 that just played 2600 games too (which is the scenario we eventually saw with the 7800).

 

20 minutes ago, space_dungeon said:

Atari actually listened and not only created the 2600 adapter for the 5200 (which was late)...

So, yeah, I'm not really sure being late with the adapter was all the problem with it -- based on my comment preceeding this one.

 

[christo930]

On 3/6/2024 at 8:08 PM, space_dungeon said:

Why play the 2600 when you a superior 5200? I took out the 2600 in the 90s

Why play Atari 5200 games when you have a superior PS5 or Xbox or a Switch?

 

Lots of people still had 2600 games they liked and wanted to play.  The 2600 library was enormous, while Christmas time 1982 the 5200 had 9 games. Plus, it takes time to build a new game library at 30-40 Dollars per game, at least for my family.   Though things were starting change by 1982, a TV in every room still wasn't that common.  If you have a VCR on top of your main living room TV, adding 2 additional game systems both with their own spaghetti of wires and power cords and incompatible RF switch-boxes...  It's all a bit of a hassle.

 

On 3/5/2024 at 7:50 PM, x=usr(1536) said:

Sure, there will always be exceptions, but achieving backwards compatibility through add-on hardware has been shown to have limited appeal, and largely due to the reasons above.

Personally, I like the 7800/PS2 approach.  Your old games just work with the new system. No adapters. No extra expense. No plugging your old joysticks into the side of an adapter hanging out of the cartridge slot.   It just works.

 

As a whole, I would say the anti-backwards compatible people are right.   It just doesn't seem to really matter.  I think that sucks, but it is what it is.

 

On 3/4/2024 at 12:19 PM, zzip said:

Many times a weaker system has been the winner of a generation.

YEP. It's always about the games.  The Jaguar was vastly superior (though a bit late) to the Genesis and SNES and never was able to manage even a fraction of their sales.  The SMS is superior to the NES, the GG superior to the GB, the lynx superior to both, but again, it's all about the games and to a degree, recognition.

 

 

 

 

[Bill Loguidice]

15 hours ago, christo930 said:

YEP. It's always about the games.  The Jaguar was vastly superior (though a bit late) to the Genesis and SNES and never was able to manage even a fraction of their sales.  The SMS is superior to the NES, the GG superior to the GB, the lynx superior to both, but again, it's all about the games and to a degree, recognition.

 

I generally agree with your point that it's ultimately the games, but I think there should be a little nuance to "superior." The Jaguar was "superior" in terms of raw specs, but arguably took a step back in terms of controls (3 main face buttons instead of the then standard 6), which was later corrected with the Pro Controller. The SMS generally had better color and sound than the NES, but with helper chips, the NES could certainly match the SMS and then some. The Game Gear was technically superior to the GameBoy, as was the Lynx to both, but both of those color handhelds fell down in terms of portability and battery life in comparison to the GameBoy, the latter often by as much 4x. So certainly there were other factors than just comparative game libraries, which again, I'd agree was definitely at the top.

Probably the ultimate native (non-add-on) backwards-compatible console at this point is the Xbox Series X/S, which spans four full iterations over more than 22 active years. I can't think of any others that went past two iterations (e.g., 7800, GBC, 3DS (maybe you could argue three for that one with DS, DSi, 3DS), PS2, PS3 (definitely 3, at least for the one launch model, but that was backtracked over subsequent releases to just 2), etc.).  

[space_dungeon]

16 hours ago, christo930 said:

Why play Atari 5200 games when you have a superior PS5 or Xbox or a Switch?

 

Lots of people still had 2600 games they liked and wanted to play.  The 2600 library was enormous, while Christmas time 1982 the 5200 had 9 games. Plus, it takes time to build a new game library at 30-40 Dollars per game, at least for my family.   Though things were starting change by 1982, a TV in every room still wasn't that common.  If you have a VCR on top of your main living room TV, adding 2 additional game systems both with their own spaghetti of wires and power cords and incompatible RF switch-boxes...  It's all a bit of a hassle.

 

Personally, I like the 7800/PS2 approach.  Your old games just work with the new system. No adapters. No extra expense. No plugging your old joysticks into the side of an adapter hanging out of the cartridge slot.   It just works.

 

As a whole, I would say the anti-backwards compatible people are right.   It just doesn't seem to really matter.  I think that sucks, but it is what it is.

 

YEP. It's always about the games.  The Jaguar was vastly superior (though a bit late) to the Genesis and SNES and never was able to manage even a fraction of their sales.  The SMS is superior to the NES, the GG superior to the GB, the lynx superior to both, but again, it's all about the games and to a degree, recognition.

 

 

 

 

The 9 games out on the 5200 was enough for many of us to leave our 2600 in the attic. Your point on the 7800 was already mentioned in many threads why people didn't make the jump to the 5200.  

 

As far as the Jaguar, that was one of the biggest Atari flops of all time. SNES and Genesis game list was so vast and superior. 

[christo930]

21 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

I generally agree with your point that it's ultimately the games, but I think there should be a little nuance to "superior."

I don't disagree with you here.  There is certainly nuance I didn't deal with and in the case of portables, other considerations matter too.

 

21 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

Probably the ultimate native (non-add-on) backwards-compatible console at this point is the Xbox Series X/S, which spans four full iterations over more than 22 active years

I didn't know the x-box was backwards compatible.  The newest consoles I own are an original X-Box and a PS2.   Maybe us backwards compatible guys are right after all.

 

21 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

The SMS generally had better color and sound than the NES, but with helper chips, the NES could certainly match the SMS and then some.

But early on, there really weren't any games outdoing the SMS.  The SMS simply could not compete with even the unexpanded NES, particularly with all the contracts Nintendo forced 3rd party developers into signing.  Before all those mappers started coming out, the plan was to force everyone to buy a disk drive for the games to get around the limitations of the NES's design.

 

21 hours ago, space_dungeon said:

The 9 games out on the 5200 was enough for many of us to leave our 2600 in the attic.

 

Fair enough. That worked for you.  But for many people, there were still games they enjoyed playing.  When I got my Commodore 64 for Christmas 85, I still had both a 2600 and an Odyssey 2, though the o2 got very, very little attention from me.  I got it very late in its life and finding games for it was basically impossible.  The 2600, OTOH, got plenty of attention from me even after the 64 acquisition.  I even bought a supercharger for it from one of those low end discount stores along with a couple of games for it. I want to say it was either Odd Lott or Odd Jobs. I also bought a bunch of other games at that same store.  So not only was I continuing to use my 2600's existing games, but I bought new ones to play.  I remember buying a lot of M-Network titles in that same store. They were all inexpensive, which is a big plus for a 15 year old kid.  While the graphics and sound were obviously not as good as the 64, many of the games I had and the new ones I acquired were still a lot of fun.

Edited March 17 by christo930