5200 underappreciated

[Paranoid]

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?

1006164[/snapback]

 

Seems that Activision had a Star Raiders type game out for the 2600 that I just loved. I can't remember the name of it... but I was actually playing it on my Playstation Activision compliation disk a couple of nights ago.

 

Granted, Star Raiders on the 5200 was a *blast*... but I agree, the VCS can do the basic concept of a Star Raiders type game justice.

 

I think an important distinction to make here is that GAMEPLAY is as important as graphics on these older games and machines... and that is what allows some games to translate so well to the 2600 despite it's lack of raw power.

 

At the same time... I also agree that towards the end, some of the arcade ports that were happening on the 2600 just shouldn't have been done. Kangaroo... Donkey Kong... the arcade hardware was too far beyond what the Atari 2600 could hope to pull off... I remember renting games for the 2600 that I had on the Coleco or 5200... just out of curiousity... I think this was probably around the time that I boxed the Atari 2600 up and lost track of it for good.

[JB]

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?

1006164[/snapback]

Mainly that the 2600 was heavily competing with Atari's "next-gen" system both for consumers in stores and for development resources internally.

The effort being expended on making even mediocre ports was draining resources that would have been better used in combating Mattel and Coleco, and the fact that it took more time and skill to generate a complex 2600 game than a similar 5200 game(assumption based on severe 2600 hardware limitations) further compounded this resource competition.

 

The 5200 might have fared just a TAD better had it been Atari's sole focus instead of playing second fiddle to the 2600.

 

 

 

And I know the 2600 can do a far better Star Raiders than what it got. I have a copy of Solaris, which is a far better Star Raiders than Star Raiders was(albeit greatly simplified).

[supercat]

Mainly that the 2600 was heavily competing with Atari's "next-gen" system both for consumers in stores and for development resources internally.

 

Perhaps, though Atari might have been better served to devote more internal resources to the 5200 CONTROLLERS. The idea of an analog stick wouldn't have necessarily been a bad one if Atari had built something that was self-centering and both felt rugged and lasted as such. Switchable self-centering would have been even better. But it's hard for people to have fun if they have to worry that too much enthusiasm will break something.

 

The effort being expended on making even mediocre ports was draining resources that would have been better used in combating Mattel and Coleco, and the fact that it took more time and skill to generate a complex 2600 game than a similar 5200 game(assumption based on severe 2600 hardware limitations) further compounded this resource competition.

 

If the ports turned a profit, that money would (or should have anyway) allowed Atari to spend more resources on other things. I don't think the gaming industry came anywhere close to gobbling up all the capable programmers.

 

The 5200 might have fared just a TAD better had it been Atari's sole focus instead of playing second fiddle to the 2600.

 

Atari's 5200 was having to compete with its own 2600, but the real competition wasn't from the 2600's and cartridges in the stores, but rather the 2600's and cartridges in people's homes. The difficulty was that for someone with twenty games for the 2600 to "really" upgrade to the 5200 would cost about $1,000; for them to buy a 5200 without replacing their games would mean either that they'd have to give up their old games or else that they'd spent $hundreds on a new system they didn't really need (since they were playing the old games just fine on the old one).

 

The one thing I can think of that Atari might have been able to do would have been to offer substantial trade-in allowances for people who bought a 5200 title, trading in the same 2600 title. That, after all, is something that Coleco et al. weren't doing.

 

And I know the 2600 can do a far better Star Raiders than what it got. I have a copy of Solaris, which is a far better Star Raiders than Star Raiders was(albeit greatly simplified).

1006223[/snapback]

 

I find myself particularly annoyed that the 2600 version of Star Raiders wasn't even as good as the third-party first-party-space-shooters that preceded it (e.g. Starmaster). Had the game at least tried to use the keypad as a real keypad (e.g. use 1-6 for speeds 1-5 and zero) I would have had a lot more respect for it.

[+Cafeman]

... oops ... I'm in the wrong thread! (post deleted)

Edited January 26, 2006 by Cafeman

[JB]

Mainly that the 2600 was heavily competing with Atari's "next-gen" system both for consumers in stores and for development resources internally.

 

Perhaps, though Atari might have been better served to devote more internal resources to the 5200 CONTROLLERS. The idea of an analog stick wouldn't have necessarily been a bad one if Atari had built something that was self-centering and both felt rugged and lasted as such. Switchable self-centering would have been even better. But it's hard for people to have fun if they have to worry that too much enthusiasm will break something.

Indeed. Some metal dome switches would've helped too, though I don't think they foresaw reliability problems until well after it had entered production.

 

But really, I think the fundamental problem with the 5200 controller wasn't that it was bad, it was just DIFFRENT.

People were used to digital sticks, and any analog stick would seem "mushy" by comparison whether it centered or not.

 

 

The effort being expended on making even mediocre ports was draining resources that would have been better used in combating Mattel and Coleco, and the fact that it took more time and skill to generate a complex 2600 game than a similar 5200 game(assumption based on severe 2600 hardware limitations) further compounded this resource competition.

 

If the ports turned a profit, that money would (or should have anyway) allowed Atari to spend more resources on other things. I don't think the gaming industry came anywhere close to gobbling up all the capable programmers.

And the pattern would've remained the same. Sink the majority of those funds into the 2600, and keep the 5200 tied down with sloppy ports so it can't hurt the flagship product.

 

 

The 5200 might have fared just a TAD better had it been Atari's sole focus instead of playing second fiddle to the 2600.

 

Atari's 5200 was having to compete with its own 2600, but the real competition wasn't from the 2600's and cartridges in the stores, but rather the 2600's and cartridges in people's homes. The difficulty was that for someone with twenty games for the 2600 to "really" upgrade to the 5200 would cost about $1,000; for them to buy a 5200 without replacing their games would mean either that they'd have to give up their old games or else that they'd spent $hundreds on a new system they didn't really need (since they were playing the old games just fine on the old one).

Just because the old games work fine on the old system doesn't mean you can't want new games on a new system.

It's possible to want more from future games without wanting to discard the old ones.

 

 

The one thing I can think of that Atari might have been able to do would have been to offer substantial trade-in allowances for people who bought a 5200 title, trading in the same 2600 title.  That, after all, is something that Coleco et al. weren't doing.

Why should they? Most of the games were new titles. The 2600 versions were released concurrently, and consumers had a choice as to which system they bought a game for.

Besides, both systems had adapters available to run 2600 games. Though the INTV's adapter came well after initial release and required a system mod for early adopters, much like the 5200's did.

 

 

Having multiple systems in the same market at once is almost always a bad idea. Store competition WAS relevant. Every 2600 game on the shelf was taking up space that could've been given to a 5200 title. Less 5200 stuff on shelves means less 5200 stuff being sold.

 

Every person that walked into a store intending on buying an Atari because it was the big name in the industry, and then walked out with a 2600 because it was the cheaper system was a person that WASN'T walking out with a 5200.

 

 

The 2600 wasn't faring well against the competition, it was a complete pain in the butt to develop for, and it SHOULD have been quietly laid to rest.

It's not a very nice thing to do for consumers that don't want to upgrade, and it seems cold to say a system many feel very fondly about should've been killed outright, but it was past it's prime, and was becoming a liability.

 

 

 

And I know the 2600 can do a far better Star Raiders than what it got. I have a copy of Solaris, which is a far better Star Raiders than Star Raiders was(albeit greatly simplified).

1006223[/snapback]

 

I find myself particularly annoyed that the 2600 version of Star Raiders wasn't even as good as the third-party first-party-space-shooters that preceded it (e.g. Starmaster). Had the game at least tried to use the keypad as a real keypad (e.g. use 1-6 for speeds 1-5 and zero) I would have had a lot more respect for it.

1006264[/snapback]

I've never messed with it much.

I gather the map doesn't even accurately display positions, making it impossible to win except by luck.

 

Anwyays... Star Raiders was at least partially laziness. Had they expended enough effort, they could have made a passable port.

But is it WORTH the effort to create a dumbed-down version of a game with known system-selling capacity for your old product? Star Raiders was a high-profile game that DID move hardware on the computer line, and it should have been preserved as an exclusive for the newer system, instead of ported to both systems simultaneously.

 

 

The 2600 got the lion's share of the new games, including some high-profile exclusives(Battlezone springs to mind). The 5200 got fewer games than the 2600, and the exclusives it recieved were ports of stuff lke Qix and Space Dungeon that no one really cared about(though they're amazing games).

 

Mainstays of the Atari library were left out of the 5200 collection while others recieved computer ports that were totally unacceptable for the 5200.

As examples... Asteroids never made it past the prototype stage due to control issues no one attempted to iron out(just kill the y-axis. Secondary fire is thrust, keypad is hyperspace). Missile Command had one missile turret on a controller with 17 buttons, because an arcade-accurate 3 turrets would have required them to write new code instead of a quick hack to make the computer game read analog sticks.

 

 

The competition was churning out graphically impressive games and making sure everyone knew they were vastly superior to the 2600 in every respect, and Atari was saying "Yeah, we have a new system, but you shouldn't get it. All our games are coming out on our old system except for some wierd games you don't like anyways."

[Zonie]

Too bad the 5200 wasn't more like the XEGS. If they had released it with VCS joysticks and 400/800 compatible cart port (like the XEGS) and then offered the keyboard as a separate item (remember, this was 1982) like a "controller" for use with games that required keyboard (like Star raiders) I think they would have had a better run. People would have been inclined to buy it if it had a pack-in game of it's own, like the video touch pad on the VCS.

 

The console could still have been the same sleek case. Just with a smaller slot on top, and Reset, Option, Select, and Start buttons on the case.

 

All the resources wasted in porting the existing 8-bit games to the 5200 format (cart port, controllers) could have been put to better use developing new and better games. Ditto for converting Disk games to Cartridge format like they did for the XEGS. Even if they had not done this, The SIO port would have been there for us to plug 850 and 1050 disk drives into it.

 

Of course, they should also have phased out the VCS.

 

Hell, they could have just changed the 400's case to black, and reduced it's price and simply marketed it as a game console, which it was intended to be in the first place. I love my 400. It is the best "console" I've got and it gets the most play. Then all the development time could have gone into the 2600 adapter, which would have just been a 2600 that gets it's power from and outputs its video through the mother console (ditto for the CV and Intelly ones)

 

If you think about it, the XEGS was just another 5200. It, unfortunately had to share shelf space with the stillborn 7800 and 2600jr's.

 

It's funny that Sony was successful releaseing the PSone after the PS2 and still fully supporting it.

Edited January 25, 2006 by Zonie

[DracIsBack]

The 2600 wasn't faring well against the competition, it was a complete pain in the butt to develop for, and it SHOULD have been quietly laid to rest.

 

Part of the problem was a classic one faced by the leader in the market. Even though it was out of date technically, it was still selling.

[DracIsBack]

If you think about it, the XEGS was just another 5200.  It, unfortunately had to share shelf space with the stillborn 7800 and 2600jr's.

 

The difference with the 5200 was that Atari and 3rd parties supported it, with some great conversions coming out at the time.

 

The XEGS had almost nothing in its library to compete against the likes of the NES. Atari was (as they did with the 7800) slapping new labels on very old games and hiring dirt cheap companies to port disks to cartridges. It was dead a year after release.

 

I tend to think it's unfortunate that the 7800 had to share shelf-space with the XEGS, myself. Had Atari focused on one system, not three, they might have had a better shot. And the 7800 was more capable of playing competitive games than the XEGS.

 

(For the record, I have and love my XEGS but I'd take a 7800 and 5200 over it ANY day)

Edited January 25, 2006 by DracIsBack

[Goochman]

If you think about it, the XEGS was just another 5200.  It, unfortunately had to share shelf space with the stillborn 7800 and 2600jr's.

 

The difference with the 5200 was that Atari and 3rd parties supported it, with some great conversions coming out at the time.

 

The XEGS had almost nothing in its library to compete against the likes of the NES. Atari was (as they did with the 7800) slapping new labels on very old games and hiring dirt cheap companies to port disks to cartridges. It was dead a year after release.

 

I tend to think it's unfortunate that the 7800 had to share shelf-space with the XEGS, myself. Had Atari focused on one system, not three, they might have had a better shot. And the 7800 was more capable of playing competitive games than the XEGS.

 

(For the record, I have and love my XEGS but I'd take a 7800 and 5200 over it ANY day)

1006455[/snapback]

 

Curious why you would take a 5200 over an XEGS?

 

Agree with 7800 - Not enough titles on that one. The XEGS with all the computer add ons has so much more potential. USB carts have been created along with HD connectors and such.

 

The 5200 just doesnt cut it for me.

 

As for the person who mentioned that hearing the 5200 was like the 400 was a good thing - Atleast where I lived the 400 was not looked upon that well. 400 owers were mainly 800 wannabes (not that many folks had 800's where I was) - The 400 was the 'cartridge computer' with the 'McDonalds keyboard'.

 

I was hopeful the 5200 would spurn new 800/400 software titles, instead it generated a bunch of crossovers and little new stuff.

[Paranoid]

If you think about it, the XEGS was just another 5200.  It, unfortunately had to share shelf space with the stillborn 7800 and 2600jr's.

 

The difference with the 5200 was that Atari and 3rd parties supported it, with some great conversions coming out at the time.

 

The XEGS had almost nothing in its library to compete against the likes of the NES. Atari was (as they did with the 7800) slapping new labels on very old games and hiring dirt cheap companies to port disks to cartridges. It was dead a year after release.

 

I tend to think it's unfortunate that the 7800 had to share shelf-space with the XEGS, myself. Had Atari focused on one system, not three, they might have had a better shot. And the 7800 was more capable of playing competitive games than the XEGS.

 

(For the record, I have and love my XEGS but I'd take a 7800 and 5200 over it ANY day)

1006455[/snapback]

 

Curious why you would take a 5200 over an XEGS?

 

Agree with 7800 - Not enough titles on that one. The XEGS with all the computer add ons has so much more potential. USB carts have been created along with HD connectors and such.

 

The 5200 just doesnt cut it for me.

 

As for the person who mentioned that hearing the 5200 was like the 400 was a good thing - Atleast where I lived the 400 was not looked upon that well. 400 owers were mainly 800 wannabes (not that many folks had 800's where I was) - The 400 was the 'cartridge computer' with the 'McDonalds keyboard'.

 

I was hopeful the 5200 would spurn new 800/400 software titles, instead it generated a bunch of crossovers and little new stuff.

1006717[/snapback]

 

That was me... but, in my area, there were two kids with Atari computers... and I think that was it for computers, period. This would have been in the period between 78 and 80... I want to say one had a 400 and one had an 800. I mean, what was the cost for a full setup back then? $400 or more, or am I low? More like a grand? A grand in 1979 for a thing most adults saw as a fancy calculator was a LOT of dough...

 

The rest of us had 2600s if we were lucky... Even *they* were expensive in relative terms. I think I got my first, the 4 switcher, in 1980... so something that moved you closer to a "real" computer (albiet, a cartridge computer with a membrane keyboard)... was still a leap ahead of the 2600.

 

Just a matter of perspective, I guess.

[supercat]

That was me... but, in my area, there were two kids with Atari computers... and I think that was it for computers, period. This would have been in the period between 78 and 80... I want to say one had a 400 and one had an 800. I mean, what was the cost for a full setup back then? $400 or more, or am I low? More like a grand? A grand in 1979 for a thing most adults saw as a fancy calculator was a LOT of dough...

1006753[/snapback]

 

Speaking of calculators... I wonder how well a "scientific calculator" cart for the 2600 might have sold circa 1980? Standalone scientifics were pretty expensive, and I would think that a 2600 using the numeric keypads could have worked as a decent calculator. Maybe a little slow, but nothing outrageous.

[darklord1977]

well, the 5200 really didnt fail..its a great system to this day..i just got mine a few days ago and it rocks

the only real problems that ,( i just got into some debates on this site) are the 5200 analog controllers..they always break down ..you want a good one that works..get it rebuilt it will save you time in the long run..one guy here told me that half the fun is repairing the sticks with pencil erasers, tin foil etc..that dont sound like fun to me..the fun should be in playing the games on this awesome system...

and the second thing about the 5200 is that on the console itself there are no start, reset, or pause buttons..just a big power button..you think atari could have put these Important buttons on the system itself..but instead they put these 3 inportant functions on the cheaply made controllers...so if the controller breaks your out of luck...for games like pac-man and others you have to hit the start button on the joystick and well, like i said u need this contoller to work right..its like the keys to start a car..its important...but once that is taken care of the 5200 is excellent:)

[Paranoid]

Actually, I think I'm in a unique place to comment on this. I've been pretty busy for the last few weeks, and during that period I got my first two *ever* 7800 systems and a CC2, which I've been going nuts with. I also picked up an Intellivision (first I've ever owned, but I did play on Intellivisions before back in the day... something I can't say about the 7800.) Oh... and I got a new Gee-Whiz LG cam-phone with Mp3 player and Mini-SD card...

 

So, during this whole period, the 5200 has been sitting largely unused and actually a little forgotten while I played with all these new toys.

 

Tonight, on a whim, I popped in my 5200 multi-cart (I was actually worried I might be at the point where I would be experiencing problems with the controllers due to neglect). I played Pengo, Pac Man Jr, Frisky Tom, and a couple other titles. The WORST game was pretty damn enjoyable, and the good ones held me for far longer than any 7800, 2600 or Intellivision title had. It was just night and day, how much more engaging and fun the 5200 titles are. I'm not sure exactly *what* the difference is, I suppose it is a bunch of subtle little things... but the 5200 games are just hands-down more *fun*.

 

I've used the car analogy, and specifically BMW, before, and I'm going to use it again. Time and time again BMW goes up against a bunch of would-be competitors that "beat" the BMW on paper. Better prices, better performance, better technology. And time and time again, the BMW walks away with editor's choice awards. Inevitably, what it always comes down to is an intangible "fun factor". I've seen head-to-head comparissons where the BMW 3 series gets trounced in almost *every* category against something like an IS300 or Audi and the staff all says, "While we know that in every way, this competitor buries the BMW, and it technically WON this head to head competition in points, we still found the BMW the more pleasurable vehicle to drive and would pick it over the competition". They can never describe exactly what it is, but it always wins them over.

 

This is the same thing. The controllers are part of that package, too. I was using both CX46 and CX78 joysticks tonight... and a 5200 controller. The 5200 controller was just *better*. All around. Better feel, better response, more comfortable. The games, the console... everything about it was a superior experience.

 

You don't have to agree with me. But you can't change my opinion on this. The 5200 is the MOST fun in a console you can find.

[jaybird3rd]

You don't have to agree with me. But you can't change my opinion on this. The 5200 is the MOST fun in a console you can find.

I'll grant that the 400/800 platform as a whole is vastly underappreciated. But when people talk about the 5200 in particular, the most frequent reasons they cite for loving the console (the games, its graphics and sound capabilities, etc) are not unique to the 5200; they all apply to the 400/800 systems equally well. It's like buying an off-the-shelf Dell computer and then saying that Dell computers are so great because they've got great versions of Windows XP and Microsoft Office. The exact same software can also be had on the 400/800, without all of the inherent problems of the 5200, so why not just use the 400/800?

 

It's interesting to me that a lot of Atari fans love the 5200 so much; after all, the 5200 is one of the things that drove Atari into the ground. It should never have been released without drastic changes; at the very least, Atari should have come up with better joysticks and should have addressed the backward-compatibility issue BEFORE it shipped (granted, hindsight is 20/20). The aura of failure around the 5200 has always kept me from getting into it; it's the only Atari console I've avoided buying despite the fact that I'm a huge fan of the 400/800 systems.

[JB]

But when people talk about the 5200 in particular, the most frequent reasons they cite for loving the console (the games, its graphics and sound capabilities, etc) are not unique to the 5200; they all apply to the 400/800 systems equally well.

Not all.

Qix requires 2 fire buttons. A single-button version is always lesser.

Space Dungeon was a 5200-exclusive.

 

It's interesting to me that a lot of Atari fans love the 5200 so much; after all, the 5200 is one of the things that drove Atari into the ground. It should never have been released without drastic changes; at the very least, Atari should have come up with better joysticks and should have addressed the backward-compatibility issue BEFORE it shipped (granted, hindsight is 20/20). The aura of failure around the 5200 has always kept me from getting into it; it's the only Atari console I've avoided buying despite the fact that I'm a huge fan of the 400/800 systems.

Oh, it was definitely a major screwup.

I don't think backwards-compatibility was a big deal(everyone with 2600 carts had a 2600, just include a diagram on how to hook the 2600 switchbox up behind the 5200 one), but the hardware was dated and the controller was unloved and unreliable.

 

They were clearly having major issues with the flex circut, and while I can see them not knowing the ones they were shipping were bad(as I understand, they didn't show flaws for the first few months), once they knew they were still broken they should've set about retrofitting proven technologies into the controller.

And while I don't mind it, the average person wants a self-centering stick. Add springs.

 

There's really no fixing the hardware without chanigng everything. They should've had more modern parts available to drop in the 5200 case.

 

 

 

 

The 5200's problems were, in part, symptomatic of a larger problem... the 2600.

Atari under TimeWarner refused to give the 5200 the support it needed, just as they refused to introduce a next-gen system back when the hardware was first designed(remember, the Atari 400 was originally supposed to be the VCS 2) to avoid hurting the VCS.

 

1979 seems a little early to be ditching the VCS, but the technically superior Intellivision hit the shelves in 1980.

They could have had a new system on the shelves with supporting software and strong support from THE company before the INTV hit , and knocked the wind right out of Mattel's sails. Instead they dicked about for 2 years and finally released a system with minimal support while continuing to lavish affection onto a system that couldn't compete on the same level.

 

 

 

But the 5200 didn't really drive Atari into the ground. The entire industry crashed.

There was a 4-way brawl between the 2600, 5200, IntelliVision, and ColecoVision. With other systems peeking in and ducking out, and a dozen diffrent home computers vying for consumer dollars. Add unrealistic expectations of infinite market growth in a finite market, and you have a recipe for disaster.

 

The market was nearing saturation, it was getting very confusing, and any given system had very limited shelf space. One less box on the shelves wouldn't have made much diffrence.

 

And remember, Atari survived. They just retreated from the (now nonexistent) game console market.

[NE146]

The aura of failure around the 5200 has always kept me from getting into it; it's the only Atari console I've avoided buying despite the fact that I'm a huge fan of the 400/800 systems.

 

Come on man stop the nitpicking.. the A400/800 & the 5200; All of us here know they are the SAME thing.

 

If you think the A400 is great, you think the 5200 is great. They're the same. One just happens to be packaged differently.

 

Share the "Atari 8-bit family" love babeey

[ZylonBane]

No, they're not the same. The 8-bit computer line didn't have to suffer under those awful controllers. Even if they'd been auto-centering and perfectly reliable, they still would have been awful due to their ergonomics. This factor alone caused them to be subjected to much ridicule by Atari's own engineers.

[JB]

No, they're not the same. The 8-bit computer line didn't have to suffer under those awful controllers. Even if they'd been auto-centering and perfectly reliable, they still would have been awful due to their ergonomics.

And if we weren't comparing them to the freaking CX-40, you might have a point.

[ZylonBane]

Oh yeah, the CX-40. The single most duplicated controller design in the history of gaming. Well, before gamepads took over at least.

[NE146]

Now we're just talking hardware differences which we all know about. Bottom line, it's all Atari 8-bit. That can't be denied

[Paranoid]

You don't have to agree with me. But you can't change my opinion on this. The 5200 is the MOST fun in a console you can find.

I'll grant that the 400/800 platform as a whole is vastly underappreciated. But when people talk about the 5200 in particular, the most frequent reasons they cite for loving the console (the games, its graphics and sound capabilities, etc) are not unique to the 5200; they all apply to the 400/800 systems equally well. It's like buying an off-the-shelf Dell computer and then saying that Dell computers are so great because they've got great versions of Windows XP and Microsoft Office. The exact same software can also be had on the 400/800, without all of the inherent problems of the 5200, so why not just use the 400/800?

 

It's interesting to me that a lot of Atari fans love the 5200 so much; after all, the 5200 is one of the things that drove Atari into the ground. It should never have been released without drastic changes; at the very least, Atari should have come up with better joysticks and should have addressed the backward-compatibility issue BEFORE it shipped (granted, hindsight is 20/20). The aura of failure around the 5200 has always kept me from getting into it; it's the only Atari console I've avoided buying despite the fact that I'm a huge fan of the 400/800 systems.

 

 

The fact is that the 400 or 800 is a small home computer. By definition, you're talking a lot more real estate for this than for a console. It isn't suitable for plugging into a television (even with a 40 column display). It is more complex, there are more things to fail on it, and, by virtue of it's nature in that space and time, it is rarer, with rarer components, and not as easy to support, maintain and replace. It only supports a CX40 style joystick, so while you can argue that virtually every 5200 game has been *ported* back to the 400/800 line, not every game is supported in a completely *native* mode on those PCs. Countermeasure is an example of why the 5200 is a *must* have, in my opinion. I don't want to reach up to the numeric keypad on my PC or to whatever keys are mapped on a 400/800 version to type in LEO once I hit the silo.

 

I can emulate an A400/800 and a 5200 perfectly on a modern PC and run the exact same software without all the inheirent problems, so why own ANY of these at all? I understand *why* people own original 400 and 800 systems rather than emulate, because I own an original 5200 rather than emulate... which is the same reason why I own a 5200 rather than a 400 or 800. It *isn't* the *same*. It might be *close*, but the differences are important enough to draw a distinction. As far as lying the blame for the death of Atari on the 5200... no... the death of the 5200 is Atari's fault, but the death of Atari is *not* the fault of the 5200. The logic is not a two way street in this case.

[NovaXpress]

The fact is that the 400 or 800 is a small home computer. By definition, you're talking a lot more real estate for this than for a console. It isn't suitable for plugging into a television (even with a 40 column display). It is more complex, there are more things to fail on it, and, by virtue of it's nature in that space and time, it is rarer, with rarer components, and not as easy to support, maintain and replace. It only supports a CX40 style joystick, so while you can argue that virtually every 5200 game has been *ported* back to the 400/800 line, not every game is supported in a completely *native* mode on those PCs. Countermeasure is an example of why the 5200 is a *must* have, in my opinion. I don't want to reach up to the numeric keypad on my PC or to whatever keys are mapped on a 400/800 version to type in LEO once I hit the silo.

You've spent little or no time owning a classic Atari computer.

 

More real estate? The 800 isn't any bigger than the 5200. The 400 is a LOT smaller. So much for that.

Not suitable for a television? It looks quite good on a television

More things to fail? I've been through three 5200 units over the years. My original 800, which was once a store display, still works.

Only supports a CX40? No, it supports whatver contoller one might design for it. Why not just make those 5200 controllers for the PC? No reason why they couldn't have if that's what people wanted.

 

You're not able to see this from the proper perspective. Those of us who were the money-paying, new system-buying l33t gamers of the time did play the computer games and did see that the 5200 was just a 400 without a keyboard. Those l33t gamers were just as important for driving early sales back then and they crapped on the 5200 because they saw right through it.

[Nukey Shay]

Speaking of calculators... I wonder how well a "scientific calculator" cart for the 2600 might have sold circa 1980? Standalone scientifics were pretty expensive, and I would think that a 2600 using the numeric keypads could have worked as a decent calculator. Maybe a little slow, but nothing outrageous.

I dunno...the display is not really suited for text. And having to hook it up to a television would be a considerable drawback.

[NovaXpress]

Who the hell would want a scientific calculator which required a console and TV, as well as a special controller because the keypads wouldn't cut it?

 

I like how we have three threads going in this forum right now which are all beating the same horse.

[Nukey Shay]

On the plus side, it sure would have been cheaper than one of those 'pocket' calculators. Tho I dunno how well you could count on it to be reliable (I mean, it cheats at chess, right?)