5200 underappreciated

[JagFan422]

Can anybody point me to some informational sites or something regarding the 5200 and why it failed? I picked up a ton of games over the weekend and was completely blown away by the quality of most of them that I want to find out more about this system and find out why it wasn't as popular as it should have been.

 

Thanks.

[Lord Helmet]

I would say the biggest reason it failed was the crash of the entire industry shortly after it was released...

[JagFan422]

the 5200 was released in 82 and the crash was in 84 right? It should've established itself within a couple years i would think before the crash?

[jetset]

Can anybody point me to some informational sites or something regarding the 5200 and why it failed?  I picked up a ton of games over the weekend and was completely blown away by the quality of most of them that I want to find out more about this system and find out why it wasn't as popular as it should have been.

 

Thanks.

1005230[/snapback]

 

This is likely the best site for info/opinions on this.

Speaking of opinions...most of what you will find for the reason it "failed" will be just that. Heres some of mine;

First and foremost...The Colecovision. Not to start a fanboy war here, since I love both systems but did and still do find the 5200 more fun to collect for and play. This said, back in the day the critics (videogaming mags and the like) ALL downplayed the 5200's capabilities while sticking thier tounges up the butt of Coleco and it's "superiority".

I think this mentality over-hyped the CV and left the 5200 behind in sales (that plus the CV was out first, and also people were still dishing out $$ on the 2600 as well)

Then there's the "crash" (which I STILL attribute to a huge amount of kids growing up and out of videogames alltogether, but thats another conversation!) The thinking behind the crash was that there was WAY too much crap software released at the expense of quality, saturating the market. The 5200 however, is the exception there. IMO, no other system has a better ratio of gems to dogs than the 5200 (meaning way MORE great games and WAY less crappy ones vs. it's competitors of the time)

 

Do yourself a favor...spend some time searching for "homebrew", "reproduction", "XL/800 conversion", etc...right here @ AA in the 5200 forum and you will find the 5200 has as loyal if not moreso of a following than most any other system from the early-mid 80's. It may have failed back in the day but is far succeeding other consoles (save the 2600) today.

[JagFan422]

yeah, its my favorite classic system out of all that i have, but as i buy more and more games, more and more i wonder why it failed.

 

I was hoping to find out info like how it was marketed. Did atari market it badly, stuff like that. I cannot find that kind of stuff on this site.

[phaxda]

...and don't forget the joysticks! One of the biggest problems is fiding useable joysticks without shelling out an arm and a leg for them. The refub kits are expensive, professionally refurbed sticks even more so, and an adapter that doesn't even work for all games costs $50. And this is in today's climate.

 

Back in the day, our family 5200 was shelved for almost a year after the controllers went bad. Boy did we celebrate when the Wicos came out... I think the Wico sticks are definitely the way to go--I have been playing my 5200 a lot more after picking up a set of these.

[NE146]

My mom bought us a 5200 literally at it's launch (I was a volunteer at the local computer shop when it came in).. it was slow getting it's legs and when it felt like it was really coming together and a string of good games started to come out, the industry just kind of faded away before my eyes. i.e.. slowly no games seemed to be coming out anymore.

 

As far as the Colecovision favortism, I dunno if that was really too apparent. I religiously read any videogame magazine I could buy then (and to this day I still have most all of those magazines). In general although I have a lot of "5200 vs. Colecovision" articles, most of them stay on the fence and give the old "It's up to you and your preferences" schpeel. Magazines were too friggin pussy to really take sides back then!

 

However I WILL say that rather than magazines, it was I who saw that the Colecovision seemed to be more arcade-like.. at least in the early days. I mean come on, anyone who was a 12 year old in that era KNOWS that Donkey Kong and Zaxxon which were the LAUNCH titles blew your friggin mind. I was in the 5200 camp but very very much wished I had a Colecovision as well.

 

The 5200 also had a frustration factor.. I've told this story a lot but one of my prime videogame memories was sitting there in front of the TV PRESSING THAT GAWDAMN BROKEN START BUTTON WITH ALL MY STRENGTH.. forlornely trying to start a game of Joust I went through over six 5200 Joysticks and one Wico before the 5200's era ended.

 

But yeah Lord Helmet's probably right. It was real real close to the crash when it launched, and by the time the 5200 really got going, the crash just took it down along with everything else.

 

By the way take a look at this scan.. whoah QUANTUM and Fast Food for the 5200?

j/k.

[DracIsBack]

They had a bit of a backlash:

 

The Coleco had the hip packin game of the day ... Donkey Kong.

 

The 5200 got bad pretty because of the joysticks and bad press because it wasn't backwards compatible with the Atari 2600.

 

Can't remember if it was also more expensive back then than the Coleco or not.

[Goochman]

From what I recollect the 5200 failed for a variety of reasons -

 

1. Lack of 2600 compatibility. Coleco exploited this when they came out with their 2600 adaptor first

2. Lack of new titles - Many of the 5200 titles were rehashes that folks already had on their 2600/800 computer

3. I remember folks talking about how it was a '400' computer - The 400 was not considered a great machine and having a game machine built on top of it was not a positive thing

4. Those damn sticks - Feedback on gameplay was not good due to the stick feel - then they started failing at a high rate

 

So,

The CV on the other hand had alot of different titles you couldnt readily find on the 5200 or 2600. The CV versions were really good and the joystick capability was better than the 5200. It had 2600 compatibility first.

 

The CV came out of the gate running (DK packin)

 

The 5200 came out of the gate flat on its face - it never recovered and Atari pretty much stopped 5200 development about 1 year after release correct?

[DracIsBack]

The 5200 came out of the gate flat on its face - it never recovered and Atari pretty much stopped 5200 development about 1 year after release correct?

1005418[/snapback]

 

Atari discontinued the 5200 after 2 years. The crash and the Tramiels didn't help. Didn't the Tramiels put out a couple of games early on? Was Gremlins one of 'em?

[Cobra Kai]

The 5200 failed, along with every other system of the era. We can give opinionable reasons for it's specific shortcomings, but there's nothing unique about the 5200's doom.

[Laner]

Speaking from personal experience - I asked for a 5200 for Christmas in 82, after getting a 2600 a couple of years prior. My parents didn't buy me the 5200, because they had no idea why they should be paying another $250 when I had a perfectly fine 2600 already.

 

I'm betting my parents weren't the only ones who followed that thought process, particularly back then when the console upgrade cycle we have today hadn't established itself yet.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Laner

[Paranoid]

I had both... and... even in the day, it was clear to me that the Atari 5200 was a superior system. And I didn't just have a Colecovision. I had the *Adam*...

 

The Conneticut Leather Company... right? CoLeCo. They made CABBAGE PATCH kids. There is a company in search of a core product.

 

Certainly not the first case in history of a technologically superior product doing worse than an inferior product that was had superior marketing.

 

Donkey Kong... came with the CV... Super Breakout, with the 5200. I *hated* Breakout, but I came to like Super Breakout on the 5200 because it was ALL I had to play for the first several months until the early releases made it to market.

 

And the 5200 joysticks take SUCH abuse... but the Colecovision joysticks sucked eggs, too. They were the most PAINFUL controller to use... *ever* before or since.

 

I mean... I see the same thing today in the XBox getting pushed around by the PS2. There are a number of reasons for this... consumers being SHEEP is just one factor. And you can talk about personal preference all you want... but the XBox is a superior hardware platform to the PS2. The Amiga was a superior hardware platform to the Atari ST... at every step of the evolution of those two machines. Macs have always technically been far ahead of the PC curve.

 

The best hardware doesn't always win. Very rarely does... actually. Hell, the Apple II+/e got trounced by the Commodore 64... If we look back at the history of consoles and PCs... the winners usually weren't the BEST machines...

[supercat]

3.  I remember folks talking about how it was a '400' computer - The 400 was not considered a great machine and having a game machine built on top of it was not a positive thing

1005418[/snapback]

 

I remember that aspect distinctly. When the 5200 came out, it was already old; the Colecovision, whether better or not, was new. Not sure what I would have thought if I'd realized the Colecovision was a warmed-over TI-99/4a?

[jetset]

I also have thoughts about the term "failure".

This topic comes up once in a while, particularly asking why the 5200 "failed". I'm sure based on pure sales numbers it wasn't what Atari wanted. I guess my friends and family were the odd ones...everyone I knew had a 5200. Only one person I knew had a CV, and one other had an Intellivision, both were cousins of mine, and both spent more time playing my 5200 when over my house than we did playing thier system when over thiers. As time wore on after the release, I remember more people were still buying 5200's and games.

What truly has me confused is the argument that "the 5200 just re-hashed old arcade games". That was the entire reason everyone wanted one! PacMan??? With MUSIC? INTERMISSIONS? COLORED GHOSTS? Are you KIDDING ME? To me, there was nothing better than popping in a game and seeing just how light years better games likeDefender, Centipede, Jungle Hunt, etc...were than the 2600 versions. That's also why I never got excited about the 7800. THAT would be where the "re-hashed arcade game" argument would come into play. Yeah the graphics were better...but not near as much a jump as it was from the 2600.

But I digress...

I agree with paranoids' comparison to the xbox. Better system...probably the best of its time, but the public tend to move like sheep and buy what there are told is better. I'd wager many people avoided buying a 5200 much like they avoid the xbox. Microsoft/Atari is the big, bad mega company and lets try the "other" system.

Still...I measure success not just by how the system sold originally. the loyalty/endurance factor weighs in just as much. By that measure, the 5200 was a huge success..

Edited January 24, 2006 by jetset

[NE146]

What truly has me confused is the argument that "the 5200 just re-hashed old arcade games". That was the entire reason everyone wanted one! PacMan???  With MUSIC? INTERMISSIONS? COLORED GHOSTS? Are you KIDDING ME? To me, there was nothing better than popping in a game and seeing just how light years better games likeDefender, Centipede, Jungle Hunt, etc...were than the 2600 versions.

 

Yeah that definitely was not the thought on the 5200. Not at all. Hell the 5200 had CURRENT arcade games if anything.

 

The "old rehashed arcade games" was the thought on the 7800 though

[Goochman]

The 5200 arcade games were available on the Atari 800 computer line a few years before the 5200 showed up.

 

Parents also didnt know 2600 Pac Man from 5200 Pac Man when it came time to open their wallets.

[Paranoid]

Which is why, even then... it was up to YOU as the kid to be smarter than your parents and make sure they knew what to buy for you.

 

I realized I was going to have to be FAR more proactive about influencing that when I got a Vic-20 for Christmas one year and quickly realized that beyond "Hello World" loops, an Atari 2600 was a better game playing platform.

 

Although, the Atari 400 thing, to me... was a BENEFIT of the Atari 5200. I had really hoped that they would release a keyboard/disk drive interface for the 5200 to make it effectively an Atari 400. I had friends with Atari 400s and I knew that they had been enjoying "real" PacMan for quite awhile before the 5200 was released... plus other games that only a PC and Keyboard could provide. So I had high hopes for the long term of the Atari 5200.

 

Also agree that the 7800 never impressed me... partly BECAUSE of it's close relationship to the 2600... it seemed cheaper to me from the start... The 5200 would have looked at home in the entertainment center of some early 80s yuppie... next to his hi-fi stereo with fancy turntable and dual-dubbing casettes.

 

The Atari 7800 would look at home hooked up to a kid's beat-up, sticker-covered 13" TV in his bedroom.

[jetset]

The 5200 arcade games were available on  the Atari 800 computer line a few years before the 5200 showed up.

 

1005902[/snapback]

 

True, but I would say that had much to do with where you lived, and who you knew. I did not know one person who had a 400 or an 800. Ever. Not until I visited Atari Age did I even know the similarity to the Atari computer line.

In retrospect, I would have loved to have had an 800 rather than a 5200, but back then having a computer wasn't the thing. Having a game console was.

 

Parents also didnt know 2600 Pac Man from 5200 Pac Man when it came time to open their wallets.

1005902[/snapback]

 

Mine did. They had no choice. I made sure they were properly educated.

And also...making the "re-hashed arcade game" argument, that would also have caused the Colecovision to have "failed". Donkey Kong, Zaxxon, Gorf, in fact most of thier arcade titles were either already available for the 2600, or released at the same time as the CV titles. The arcade titles that weren't already available for the 2600 were just arcade games that were unpopular mostly due to thier being copies of other games to begin with....Mouse Trap, Ladybug, Space Fury, Slither. Granted those are all fun games, but far from original either.

[DracIsBack]

The "old rehashed arcade games" was the thought on the 7800 though

1005882[/snapback]

 

More penis envy from 5200 owners.

 

Seriously though ... I think that was a fault of both systems. They didn't adapt their games to fit with the times the way they probably should have when the systems were competiting.

 

It's easy to go back now and say "Damn -- you need a 5200 to play Centipede" or "a 7800 to play Robotron 2084" when you want classics.

 

But against the Colecovision and NES, consumers wanted Donkey Kong and Super Mario. Not Super Breakout and Pole Position II

[NE146]

The "old rehashed arcade games" was the thought on the 7800 though

1005882[/snapback]

 

More penis envy from 5200 owners.

 

Nah the 7800 wasn't even around until YEARS later. The 5200 stored under our beds was barely a blip on our mind's radar.. we were thinking about NES/SMS craze by then

 

By the time the 7800 DID come out, old rehashed arcade games was indeed the thought about it. Come on putting magazine ads for Centipede in 1988(!) was pretty sad (or at least felt like it then). It was no secret at launch that the 7800 was behind the times.. although we now know it wasn't really their fault.

 

Anyway, my library of 7800 games gets along quite well with my original 5200. They're brothers

 

The 5200 arcade games were available on the Atari 800 computer line a few years before the 5200 showed up.

 

I don't understand the need to differentiate between the A400/800 & the 5200. Come on they are the SAME thing. The very criticism of some within the Atari groups is the very thing that makes it great. If you think the A400 is great, you think the 5200 is great. They're the same. One just happens to be packaged differently. When I hear 5200. I hear "Atari 8-bit" more or less.

[Paranoid]

The Colecovision did have some real Off-The-Beaten-Track arcade conversions. Venture was an example. Always wanted to play that game... every time I ever found it in an Arcade the hardware was faulty... Played the heck out of it on my Colecovision...

 

Donkey Kong was the best going conversion at the time (although in retrospect, next to MAME, CV Donkey Kong looks pretty weak). But... for home play at the time, CV was *it* if you wanted to play Donkey Kong... and *everyone* wanted to play Donkey Kong... They also had those cool Superjoysticks with the four color coded triggers... the cool steering wheel that came with... um... Turbo?... I had all the CV accessories... On Coleco, Miner 2049er, Gateway to Apshi, Buck Rogers, Donkey Kong... Smurfs, surprisingly enough... Venture...

 

Oddly, I had some of these titles on both consoles, too. Gateway to Apshi and Miner 2049er... I think.

 

I just always felt that the Atari 5200 felt more responsive... quicker... and the graphics were more vibrant... like the Atari logo at the start with the scrolling colors... The Coleco looked washed out... Donkey Kong, etc... I liked it better back then... and still do... despite some of the advantages that the Coleco had.

 

But both systems were really casualties... and then the 7800 was retro at release. Geared toward the previous generation of gamer. Heh. I remember my nieces and nephews had NES systems before me and I didn't like them at all at first... until I got hooked on Super Mario Land. My Nephew and Nieces were just *enough* younger than me (6-10 years) that they really fell into a different generation of gamer than I was... and NES was *their* childhood console. By that time... I was into the C=128, Amiga, Atari ST and emerging IBM PC gaming potential. I still bought most of the consoles through that time period (I had the Lynx... I had the Sega handheld... I had the NeoGeo16... The Sega... not the master system... the one after that had Sonic...). When I look back... there were so many consoles that I'm sure I can't clearly remember them all. Heh. And of them all... the Atari 2600 and 5200 are the only ones that I have any considerable nostalgia for... even with PCs. I'd like to have a C=64... but Atari ST and Amiga... eh... I look at those emulation sites and there aren't many things I miss. At least, not enough to devote the time necessary. I'd like to have a Colecovision, too... but... again... time and money being limited resources, I'll invest in the Atari 2600 and 5200... again.

Edited January 24, 2006 by Paranoid

[JB]

The "old rehashed arcade games" was the thought on the 7800 though

1005882[/snapback]

 

More penis envy from 5200 owners.

Why envy? We're bigger.

 

Seriously though ... I think that was a fault of both systems. They didn't adapt their games to fit with the times the way they probably should have when the systems were competiting.

 

It's easy to go back now and say "Damn -- you need a 5200 to play Centipede" or "a 7800 to play Robotron 2084"  when you want classics.

 

But against the Colecovision and NES, consumers wanted Donkey Kong and Super Mario. Not Super Breakout and Pole Position II

1005931[/snapback]

Part of the 5200's problem was Atari refused to reduce 2600 support.

Games like Tempest, Battlezone, and Star Raiders never should have been CONSIDERED for VCS ports, much less actually have work done(hell, 2 of them even made it to release).

 

While I'm impressed at how much programmers managed to get out of the VCS, the later games should have been 5200-exclusive.

The 2600 should've been quietly laid to rest, rather than competing with the 5200 for company resources and retail shelf space.

[DracIsBack]

By the time the 7800 DID come out, old rehashed arcade games was indeed the thought about it. Come on putting magazine ads for Centipede in 1988(!) was pretty sad (or at least felt like it then). It was no secret at launch that the 7800 was behind the times.. although we now know it wasn't really their fault.

 

Agree. It was almost like you could read the Tramiel's thought process at times:

 

"What's the fastest, easiest, cheapest way to get a couple of bucks? Let's dust off some old games and throw 'em to market. Skip the colour labels, skip the colour manuals. Super Mario killer on a 7800? Ha ... that costs money! Let's get a cheapie house to quickly port Choplifter"

 

The XEGS had the same issue. I was in awe of them including Missile Command © 1979 in that system at that time.

 

The point with the Coleco was that it had a lot of the hit arcade games of 1983 on their system in 1983 and looking a lot like the arcade. Yeah, Donkey Kong was on the 2600, but it was on the Colecovision first and better on the Colecovision.

[supercat]

Games like Tempest, Battlezone, and Star Raiders never should have been CONSIDERED for VCS ports, much less actually have work done(hell, 2 of them even made it to release).

1006067[/snapback]

 

I agree the 2600 version of Star Raiders is rather lacking, but is there any reason the 2600 shouldn't be able to do a good version of Star Raiders? What is there that the game requires that the 2600 wouldn't be able to do with a SARA chip? The map screen would probably to be somewhat simplified or else flicker, blinds, or flickerblinds, but I don't see that as a big problem. The scanner view should be workable, along with the side and aft views. So what would be the objection, if Atari wanted to really do the game right on the 2600?