5200's downfall: controllers or games?

[Snoopy]

-The bad controllers?

 

Well, I'm not sure if this was THE reason, but it certainly didn't help. I really think that if situations would have been different, and the 5200 had a chance to really shine, then more and better alternatives would have been available. Eventually, Atari may have done away with the original controllers altogether.

 

-The inability to play 2600 games?

I don't think this was an issue. If you look at the different video game systems released over the years, very few systems have been backwards compatible. I guess this could have been an issue at the time, however, considering that video games were still relatively new, and this may have been something that people wanted at the time. Any thoughts on this?

 

-The poor line of games?

Nope...not at all. This system had a very good line of games.

 

I would have to agree with alot of previous posts, that probably the biggest reason for the downfall of the 5200 was that it was released at a bad time.

 

All things considered, this is my favorite system

[Mister VCS]

5200 downfall? Was this system on the top one single time?

Simply it is a 400 computer without a keyboard. It was not a

new system for the videogamers in the eary 80ies. The

Colecovision was the better choice. You could live with the

CV-standard contollers- just play River Raid or Pitfall -

a good programmer could make them work right (and could

make good scrolling -River Raid).

 

Mister VCS

[Bryan]

The OS, BASIC and DOS for the Atari 8-bits were outsourced to Shepardson Microsystems (SMI). Later, members of SMI formed OSS which published languages and utilities for the Atari 8-bits.

 

The soon-to-be-Activision guys did the OS. I never claimed they did the DOS or the BASIC.

 

You're right. I had always assumed Shepardson had done the whole thing, but after rereading what Bill Wilkinson says about the system, he gives Atari credit for the (excellent) OS.

 

Well, it's interesting that Atari virtually halted VLSI development after the 400/800.  

 

Well, Jay Miner and the rest leaving Atari had something to do with that. The engineers who were left over did work on stuff like the 10-bit Sylvia system. Gives you an idea of the brain-drain going on at the time. Engineering of peripherals and enhancements went on at a good clip. It's just most of them were left unreleased (like the 1090XL or the 1450XLD).

 

I just think Atari lost their edge once Warner took over and brought the suits in. They started second-guessing everything, and they spent too much money on unfinished products. Jack Tramiel took it too far in the other direction, by not spending enough on development.

 

The thrifty C64 used a keyboard which was very similar to the one used in the 1200XL and late model 800's. I don't think returning to a membrane keyboard would have been worth the savings.

 

I don't think the C64 keyboard holds a candle to the 1200XL or 800 keyboards. Hard to tell how the economics would have worked out on the hardware. I think the Tramiels were very creative in how they were able to keep the cost of the C64 down and it took a while for the competition to figure out how to do the same. I remember when the Tramiels took over Atari and released the 130XE. I couldn't believe how chintzy that thing was with the mushy keyboard and you could practically wring the case like a dishrag it was so flimsy. Talk about a big change from the original tank 400 and 800!!! Atari was late to the party of cost-reducing at the case level.

 

The C64 keyboards I've seen are construced just like the 1200XL ones, but I like the feel of the 1200XL keyboard a little better too. The 64 keyboard felt fine compared to others out there, though. Of course, I think the layout of the 64's keyboard is atrocious.

 

Jack got the XE's down to the same basic assemblies as the 64: Top, Bottom, Keyboard, PCB & some shielding. I'm sure he saved a bunch of money, but they were quite a disappointment to me.

 

But if the underlying hardware is the same, there is no need to introduce artificial incompatibilities.

 

I don't think Atari wanted people to realize that the systems were so similar. I agree that there was little attempt made to keep compatibility, but once again, this was due to the internal organization of Atari.

 

Microsoft can afford to do that with the XBox because they enjoy a monopoly on the PC--and of course the threat of piracy on an open computing platform is more obvious than it was 20 years ago.

 

Microsoft can afford anything.

 

Atari just could not afford to split their 8-bit user and developer-base into two niches.

 

It's also true that the console demographic largely BECAME the home computer demographic after the crash.

 

Well, at the time of the 5200, consoles accounted for much more of Atari's income, and the home computer market was really the niche. I can see how Atari would want keep them separate to keep the perceived value of the computer line up.

 

-Bry

[Gargamel_of_oz]

OK - I am speaking as a consumer from a country where the 5200 was never released - we down under had our fair share of random consoles and computers and I think the Atari brand would have helped the 5200 if it were to have made its way here.

 

I can say that neither the games nor the controller in my opinion are a thing that detracts me from the 5200. The games are a treat (and I dont think you can compare 2600 game quality with the game quality of a 5200 game) and I agree with Curt on the Coleco's controller being far more painful than the 5200's.

 

The one thing I dont like in my 4 port console is the way the thing attaches to the TV and power. That thing is darn right useless and impractical. I didnt see this in the commentary above in this thread - but I woulda thought this little box would have been a significant cost and a cost to redesign too for the later versions of the 5200...

[JB]

The one thing I dont like in my 4 port console is the way the thing attaches to the TV and power. That thing is darn right useless and impractical.

How is an automatic switchbox useless and impractical? It's one of my favorite features.

[Charlie_]

I LOVE the four port switch box. Its great to have one wire coming from the system. Atari systems always needed to be pulled out to play. You need to have the system there in front of you. So having only one wire is a blessing.

 

Not like todays systems that stay in one place and have 10 ft controller cords. :-)

[JB]

I LOVE the four port switch box. Its great to have one wire coming from the system. Atari systems always needed to be pulled out to play. You need to have the system there in front of you. So having only one wire is a blessing.

 

Not like todays systems that stay in one place and have 10 ft controller cords. :-)

Funny you mention that, because I've had to buy extension cords for my modern systems.

Cord's a foot or 2 short for my current setup, so without an extension I wind up using them like an Atari anyways.

[Charlie_]

There are great wireless controllers now-a-days too. I have one for my xbox that cost only about $30 and the batteries last a very long time. It's styled right after the small xbox controller and I love the thing.

 

My brother has an excellent wireless controller for the game cube.

 

Now if you want to get 4 wireless controllers for each system, thats gonna cost ya. :-)

[mos6507]

The C64 keyboards I've seen are construced just like the 1200XL ones, but I like the feel of the 1200XL keyboard a little better too. The 64 keyboard felt fine compared to others out there, though. Of course, I think the layout of the 64's keyboard is atrocious.

 

Jack got the XE's down to the same basic assemblies as the 64: Top, Bottom, Keyboard, PCB & some shielding. I'm sure he saved a bunch of money, but they were quite a disappointment to me.

 

 

The case plastic of the 130XE itself is what struck me the most. The plastic is so thin that it's too easy to flex the board and this can't be good for long-term reliability. The C64 casing is much more sturdy.

 

 

 

Well, at the time of the 5200, consoles accounted for much more of Atari's income, and the home computer market was really the niche. I can see how Atari would want keep them separate to keep the perceived value of the computer line up.

 

 

But it's a chicken and the egg thing. The console business was humming in relation to the home computer business in part because Warner was screwing up in their handling of the home computer business.

 

Obviously C= made console-like bucks on the C64 in the mid 80s before and after the Tramiels. It was a highest selling 8-bit home computer. There is no reason the Atari couldn't have become that kind of seller if positioned properly. C= didn't have a console division at the time, whereas Atari did. This would have provided an extra way to gain exposure to the home computer line.

 

The way the 5200 was handled, it raided the home computer division of hardware which was only to the detriment of both sides. It did not complement the home computer division at all.

[Bryan]

The case plastic of the 130XE itself is what struck me the most.  The plastic is so thin that it's too easy to flex the board and this can't be good for long-term reliability.  The C64 casing is much more sturdy.

 

Yeah, As far as I can tell, they're both equally thin, but the tall shape of the 64 gives it rigidity.

 

But it's a chicken and the egg thing.  The console business was humming in relation to the home computer business in part because Warner was screwing up in their handling of the home computer business.

 

I think it was just too early for anyone to know exactly how to get rich in the computer market. The Apple II sold well at a ridiculous price point, and the C64 sold well as a budget machine. Atari probably felt their "cheaper than an Apple" machine was positioned well too.

 

Again, the main problem was that the developer docs were hard to get. As far as I can tell, the biggest consumer of home PCs in the late '70's was the technophile who wanted to learn about computing. Atari should have encouraged this to the max.

 

The best thing about the 5200 was that it would allow Atari to bring their 8-bit game catalog to another market. If they had had a few better launch titles, it probably would have done well. After all, people didn't buy Colecovisions for technical reasons. They bought them because of Donkey Kong.

 

-Bry

[Gargamel_of_oz]

Well from my point of view it's just another piece of plastic that's gonna be lost and/or break.

 

The idea of having one cable is a bit confusing to me since you still need a power cable going into the RF Switchbox and another cable going out to the display.

 

Sure you guys can agree with me or not (and I can see a few who disagree) - but if it was such a great thing that consumers wanted why did it no last and why did Atari get rid of it?

[Henry Lee]

 

Sure you guys can agree with me or not (and I can see a few who disagree) - but if it was such a great thing that consumers wanted why did it no last and why did Atari get rid of it?

 

The A5200 was put to market in 1982. The market crash was in 1985.

The marketing of all the dated game machines died together.

Computers where getting in. Atari Corp sold the A2600 and A7800 for economic purposes without much support.

But in general, game machines lasted 4-5 years.

 

Now, one of features of Atari 5200 was the ability to bring the arcade quality home by making the actual playing closer to the experience of the arcades.

 

Did not last? i don't think so!

There was game & controllers released in 1987.

Two decades later we have a basket of prototypes.

Lets not forget that the A5200 has the best hombrew library if we think to Intell and Coleco.

[Ferris]

I think one of the greatest mistakes of the 5200 was not affording it the ability to interface with the XL line. The 5200 was based off of 400/800 archetecture so it shouldnt have been too hard to make a keyboard accessory etc and attempt to tie it all together. ColecoVision was able to tout the hype of "You can turn your ColecoVision into your VERY OWN COMPUTER!" which had to sell a few systems based on the ADAM alone. This would have been so easy.

 

Could say the same thing about the 7800 as well.

[Gargamel_of_oz]

 

Sure you guys can agree with me or not (and I can see a few who disagree) - but if it was such a great thing that consumers wanted why did it no last and why did Atari get rid of it?

 

Did not last? i don't think so!

There was game & controllers released in 1987.

Two decades later we have a basket of prototypes.

Lets not forget that the A5200 has the best hombrew library if we think to Intell and Coleco.

 

Ummmm - I *think* you've taken what I've said out of context. I was referring to the RF modulator not lasting (marketwise) - I was saying Atari replaced the RF modulator with alternative hardware in later models of the 5200....

 

Sorry for the confusion...

[Charlie_]

I would think it was replaced because of cost.

 

It would be much cheaper to throw a generic switch box in with the system and move the power to the main board.

 

They also stripped the system of 2 joystick ports. Again, I would guess cost.

[NovaXpress]

The A5200 was put to market in 1982. The market crash was in 1985.

The crash happened Xmas season of 1983 and was complete by summer 84. The 5200 and Colecovision lasted only two years as actively marketed systems.

 

Those of you who weren't there don't understand how serious that crash was. Picture every game being removed from the shelves, and this was before all the video game stores. By 1985 all carts had been liquidated and home video gaming was in a coma until we started to hear about this thing called the NES.

 

The Colecovision outsold the 5200 by a large margin for the first year, then Coleco focused on the Adam and new CV games by Coleco became a rarity.

 

For those who keep trying to say that the revisions of 2600 games didn't matter, you just don't get it. Most system buyers are parents, and because they didn't play the games they just saw that the same damn Defender game they bought in June was being sold again at full price in the fall for another system. Many felt that the 2600 was a ripoff because it didn't play 2600 games. Coleco's immediate release of a 2600 adapter was a big system seller that shouldn't be overlooked. It was inexcusable for Atari to deleay the release of their own adapter.

 

The 5200 was based off of 400/800 archetecture so it shouldnt have been too hard to make a keyboard accessory etc and attempt to tie it all together.

Add a keyboard and you have a 400. At this time, 400s didn't cost much more than a 5200 so why not just get a PC? Atari couldn;t do this because they'd then be admitting that they just tore the keyboard off an old computer and called it a game system.

[NovaXpress]

The A5200 was put to market in 1982. The market crash was in 1985.

On second though, I think I see what you were trying to say.

 

The crash itself happened in Xmas 83 when the retailers panicked after being swamped with games that they couldn't unload. Total sales were high, but all the excess inventory made it unprofitable overall.

 

Over the course of 1984, many stores removed all games. The toy stores and Sears sold their inventory as well as those few new games until Xmas of 84.

 

In 1985, games were simply unavailable other than through mail order or remaining inventory at places like Toys R Us.