if the 5200 was released today..

[darklord1977]

my friends and i were talking about how poorly made the 5200 controllers are.. and then somebody started talking about what if the atari 5200 was released in 2006 how would it be recieved by gamers and critics alike (if sony, nintendo , and microsoft were not around that is) would it be the "supersystem" or just a dud? i think it would do well not record breaking though...any thoughts on this?

[Shawn]

an 8bit system released right now would suck goats plain and simple. I love the 5200 but lets be realistic.

[darklord1977]

excuse me?? read the thread ..its in the context of if there was no microsoft sony or nintendo...how about a little more detailed response

[jaybird3rd]

The only place an 8-bit game would be accepted now is within the impulse-buy TV-game market, as evidenced by the glut of low-cost NOAC-based toys from Jakks and the like. The FB3 was to be an Atari 800 clone within a 5200-looking case (here's hoping it gets finished and released!), and I think it would have been very successful in competition with the Jakks products, but not in competition with modern systems. That hardware was designed for a different era and a different generation of gamers. Even if Sony and Microsoft weren't around, there would still be consoles from other companies (not to mention PCs), and the FB3/5200 just wouldn't be enough to lure today's mainstream gamers away from them.

[Zonie]

With the quality of PC gaming today, It's really quite surprising that there is even a console market at all.

 

I left console gaming with my C-64, then gor my first PC in 1990. never played with a console again until I pulled my VCS out of mothballs, so to speak.

 

To answer the original post's question, No, It would not be anything more than a Jakks type novelty. gamers would have only the PC and MAC games to compare it to.

 

I hope the FB3 becomes a reality. I'd sure like an 800 that I can plug some sort of flash cart into.

[ZylonBane]

With the quality of PC gaming today, It's really quite surprising that there is even a console market at all.

You mean with droves of longtime PC developers abandoning or severely cutting back PC development in favor of console development? Umm.... yeah.

[JB]

With the quality of PC gaming today, It's really quite surprising that there is even a console market at all.

Not when you consider the historical complexity of PC gaming(DOS/Win95) or the modern COST of PC gaming.

When a new game console can be had for the price of a VIDEO CARD for a PC, and will have a longer viable life, there's a problem.

 

 

That's actually a major gripe I have with PC gaming. There's been an attitude for quite some time now that it's okay to force (expensive) upgrades to play your games.

I was really impressed with how compatible Doom3 was. They optimized the crap out of that so that it would run on a wide variety of hardware, and look good at all levels. IMO, that's how PC game releases SHOULD be.

 

I don't expect a game to look as nice on an average system from 2003 as it will on a top-end one in 2006. I DO expect it to run playably on one, though.

[jaybird3rd]

With the quality of PC gaming today, It's really quite surprising that there is even a console market at all.

 

I left console gaming with my C-64, then gor my first PC in 1990. never played with a console again until I pulled my VCS out of mothballs, so to speak.

It's interesting how the two markets have evolved. It was initially thought that video game consoles like the 2600 were merely stepping stones toward computer gaming, but after the NES, it was thought that consoles would become popular enough to overwhelm any opportunities for computer gaming and that PCs would never be popular game platforms. The two platforms have always complemented each other, though, and that continues today. Consoles (either set-top boxes or handhelds) seem to me to be the most popular platforms for conventional mainstream gaming, while the PC has become the platform of choice for hardcore high-end games that require video cards that are more expensive than any individual console (oops ... I just noticed that JB made the same point as I was writing this! )

[JB]

With the quality of PC gaming today, It's really quite surprising that there is even a console market at all.

 

I left console gaming with my C-64, then gor my first PC in 1990. never played with a console again until I pulled my VCS out of mothballs, so to speak.

It's interesting how the two markets have evolved. It was initially thought that video game consoles like the 2600 were merely stepping stones toward computer gaming, but after the NES, it was thought that consoles would become popular enough to overwhelm any opportunities for computer gaming and that PCs would never be popular game platforms. The two platforms have always complemented each other, though, and that continues today. Consoles (either set-top boxes or handhelds) seem to me to be the most popular platforms for conventional mainstream gaming, while the PC has become the platform of choice for hardcore high-end games that require video cards that are more expensive than any individual console (oops ... I just noticed that JB made the same point as I was writing this! )

Yes, but yours was more logical and less emotional.

I have a computer in front of me that isn't 6 months old and it needs 200$ of upgrades to run FEAR, based on the demo version's performance. Stupid GeForce 5(was given to me free, and was required to meet my target pricepoint).

 

I miss the days of DOS gaming. I could almost always run those at a reasonable quality, even though I was never top-end. Hell, Quake 1 "required" a Pentium and it ran GOOD on my 486.

[jaybird3rd]

Yes, but yours was more logical and less emotional.

I have a computer in front of me that isn't 6 months old and it needs 200$ of upgrades to run FEAR, based on the demo version's performance. Stupid GeForce 5(was given to me free, and was required to meet my target pricepoint).

 

I miss the days of DOS gaming. I could almost always run those at a reasonable quality, even though I was never top-end. Hell, Quake 1 "required" a Pentium and it ran GOOD on my 486.

I miss DOS too. You could code much closer to the hardware, and so the system requirements were so much lighter than they are today. I can run games like Doom and Wolf3D very well on my 40MHz 386, which still amazes me. Then again, freeing up enough conventional memory, EMS vs. XMS, and IRQ conflicts could be a bit of a headache, just as DirectX problems and buggy video card drivers are a headache today. That's one major advantage of consoles: computers have always been a pain in the neck as game platforms, and as you say, most people don't want to spend the money to get a state-of-the-art system.

[ZylonBane]

I miss the days of DOS gaming. I could almost always run those at a reasonable quality, even though I was never top-end.

That's nothing to do with DOS, that's to do with you being lucky in your selection of hardware and software combinations. Even back then, there were games that didn't run well unless you had a fast rig-- generally stuff that did a lot of 3D rendering.

 

Also, nostalgia is good at obscuring the memory of the sheer hell of configuring IRQs and memory just right so the game would even run.

[Vic George 2K3]

Hopefully NOT designed like it was the "X-Box of the early 1980s".

[JB]

I miss the days of DOS gaming. I could almost always run those at a reasonable quality, even though I was never top-end.

That's nothing to do with DOS, that's to do with you being lucky in your selection of hardware and software combinations. Even back then, there were games that didn't run well unless you had a fast rig-- generally stuff that did a lot of 3D rendering.

It wasn't near as common. You're right that it's got nothing to do with DOS, though. It just has to do with mroe rational developers that actually considered what the hardware out there was capable of.

 

Also, nostalgia is good at obscuring the memory of the sheer hell of configuring IRQs and memory just right so the game would even run.

Was a one-time event in both cases.

 

IRQs are worked out at install. You shouldn't ever be mucking with those after adding hardware.

 

Memory is a bit more of a nuisance, but once you know what you need, it's not that hard.

I just swapped autoexec.bats and config.syses out depending on what game I wanted. Had 4 diffrent sets, I believe. My big problem was my generic soundcard had memory hog drivers, so it was very difficult to get enough conventional memory free for some games.

[Zonie]

With the quality of PC gaming today, It's really quite surprising that there is even a console market at all.

You mean with droves of longtime PC developers abandoning or severely cutting back PC development in favor of console development? Umm.... yeah.

I guess the point I meant to make was that the PC's are more than capable of top notch stuff. If the console market wasn't around, what do you think they would be coding for? And not needing to endlessly replace the console with the next great thing. Sure, maybe a new video card or mem upgrade from time to time, but we upgrade our PC's anyway.

 

As for DOS, yeah I miss those days too. Try fixing a peice of automated machinery that has seven PC's networked with the syscon running Win 98 and the 6 slave PC's running Win 3.1. Machine control and windows don't go well together. On the DOS based systems that I deal with, I spend little time with computer problems and more time fixing real problems like mechanical stuff.

 

Gaming in the DOS days, All I ever had issues with were Extended and Expanded memory, but games like Wing commander were pretty good at configuring themselves to what your hardware had.

 

Lastly, I can take my laptop on the plane with me. Try that with a console.

Edited March 26, 2006 by Zonie

[darklord1977]

i prefer the console over the pc gaming wise because with a console..you just plug it in(or insert the cd) and your good to go ..where with the pc you need to sometimes get a new driver, and do adjustments etc or a patch and them you might have to purchase a new sound or video card(remember doom 3 for the pc?) where that can cost mucho dinero

[Shawn]

My big problem was my generic soundcard had memory hog drivers, so it was very difficult to get enough conventional memory free for some games.

 

Even with using "LOADHIGH" fpr your drivers run in autoexec and "DEVICEHIGH" in config.sys? I found a really big help was using"DOS=HIGH,UMB" and "STACKS=9,256" using the stacks was just like almost using a manager of sorts.

[JB]

My big problem was my generic soundcard had memory hog drivers, so it was very difficult to get enough conventional memory free for some games.

 

Even with using "LOADHIGH" fpr your drivers run in autoexec and "DEVICEHIGH" in config.sys? I found a really big help was using"DOS=HIGH,UMB" and "STACKS=9,256" using the stacks was just like almost using a manager of sorts.

Yeah. This card was a BIG hog.

 

I don't recall if it would even WORK in the high memory area anymore.

[jaybird3rd]

IRQs are worked out at install. You shouldn't ever be mucking with those after adding hardware.

Memory is a bit more of a nuisance, but once you know what you need, it's not that hard.

I just swapped autoexec.bats and config.syses out depending on what game I wanted. Had 4 diffrent sets, I believe. My big problem was my generic soundcard had memory hog drivers, so it was very difficult to get enough conventional memory free for some games.

I still do that. I use System Commander to manage a couple of sets of startup files (one with EMS emulation support, one with a minimum set of drivers for maximum conventional memory, etc) on my 386, which is where most of my old games live. QEMM was the best in the world for memory management; that and DESQView made for a very cool system during the DOS days.

 

I never had too much trouble with IRQs after I built my machines, but they could be a little tricky during upgrades. I just built my 386 with everything I could need to begin with (four serial ports, two parallel ports, sound, network, two IDE controllers, etc) and got everything to work together without conflicts, so I shouldn't have to mess with it anymore.

Edited March 27, 2006 by jaybird3rd

[JB]

IRQs are worked out at install. You shouldn't ever be mucking with those after adding hardware.

Memory is a bit more of a nuisance, but once you know what you need, it's not that hard.

I just swapped autoexec.bats and config.syses out depending on what game I wanted. Had 4 diffrent sets, I believe. My big problem was my generic soundcard had memory hog drivers, so it was very difficult to get enough conventional memory free for some games.

I still do that. I use System Commander to manage a couple of sets of startup files (one with EMS emulation support, one with a minimum set of drivers for maximum conventional memory, etc) on my 386, which is where most of my old games live. QEMM was the best in the world for memory management; that and DESQView made for a very cool system during the DOS days.

I've got a 486 for DOS games and a K6-2 for DOS and "hates NT" stuff.

The sad fact is that I don't play many games lately, though. Neither one's seen any action for a while.

 

I never had too much trouble with IRQs after I built my machines, but they could be a little tricky during upgrades. I just built my 386 with everything I could need to begin with (four serial ports, two parallel ports, sound, network, two IDE controllers, etc) and got everything to work together without conflicts, so I shouldn't have to mess with it anymore.

I used to recommend that people building their first PC add a bottle of asprin to the parts list.

It's not that it's hard to do right, but it's easy to do wrong.

[Paranoid]

For my time and effort, PC platforming lost its allure for me quite awhile ago. The problem is in the I/O interface. I've never found a reliable PC joystick or d-pad. Even when you do, you run into the fact that PC games are designed to accomodate such a wide range of possible control schemes they generally end up being "Jack of all Trades, Master of None" solutions.

 

GTA:SA would be a great example of this. Sure it *looks* better on my PC than on my xBox. But the gameplay when mapped to my fairly nice Thrustmaster d-pad just can't compare to the gameplay on an XBox. Being able to design the control method around a KNOWN controller with static mappings gives a console game tremendous advantage over a PC version of the same, generally. If the control scheme is simple enough, it might not matter. But how many modern games are "simple enough"? And what STARTED this thread was complaints about the 5200 controllers? Hell... 30 years and 2 different major interface schemes (Joyport and USB)... and they still haven't gotten all the bugs worked out of PC controllers. It can be done, the Xbox, which is a PC with USB controllers, establishes that. It just *hasn't* been done for the PC.

 

With online gaming, cheating became *so* rampant and things like PunkBuster such a nuisance that it wasn't worth it. You could *see* the negative impact of aimbots and wallhacks just destroying the Quake 3 Arena community. Traffic just died, little by little, and the people who were around weren't having any fun.

 

I can't see myself investing much in gaming on the PC in the future, unless something really revolutionary changes the face of PC gaming. I've got a P4-HT 3.4ghz with a PCI-E Nvidia 6600GT video card, SATA drive, 1gb of super fast RAM... and I use it mostly to post here and read e-mail. I'm not sure what the state of the industry is right now.. but when I got this sytem, it was the top of the line and very expensive. It played Doom3 good enough, and while the environmental graphics were extraordinary, (on par with what I'm seeing from the XBox 360 demos at Toys R Us), it hasn't made me feel very compelled to go out and buy any of the other latest generation games for the PC. I've bought several XBox titles and probably 20 pounds of retro-games since, though.

[Artlover]

Is it just me or this this thread get really sidetracked?

 

If I have it right, the original question is very conceptual. Asking what the 5200 would be like today, if today was still the same 8bit period like it was then, but with todays knowledge of design, longevity, maintenance as seen from modern systems. Or if today was today, only still 8bit, but with the same 20+ years of history.

 

I think the original 5200 as designed would flop today. Physical design (to 80's), size (to big), controllers (maintenance nightmare).

 

If it were to be redesigned to what would be acceptable, it would be smaller, probably more boxy & rounded. The controllers I can see as either being mostly the same only with circuit boards instead of flexi circuits and a single dual axis pot for the stick, or else being more jag like. I suspect they would probably go with being more jag like.

 

Anyone want to try and photoshop such a bastardization?

 

Now, as far as system specs go. Well, assuming no one but atari existed, and the 5200 comes as the next console after the 2600.. It would still be a general flop. While technicly, the leap would be quite signifigant, relatively speaking, it wouldn't reflect well of whats happened during the gap of the last 25+ years. I'd be expecting a NeoGeo by this point at the very least.

[JB]

For my time and effort, PC platforming lost its allure for me quite awhile ago. The problem is in the I/O interface. I've never found a reliable PC joystick or d-pad. Even when you do, you run into the fact that PC games are designed to accomodate such a wide range of possible control schemes they generally end up being "Jack of all Trades, Master of None" solutions.

 

GTA:SA would be a great example of this. Sure it *looks* better on my PC than on my xBox. But the gameplay when mapped to my fairly nice Thrustmaster d-pad just can't compare to the gameplay on an XBox. Being able to design the control method around a KNOWN controller with static mappings gives a console game tremendous advantage over a PC version of the same, generally. If the control scheme is simple enough, it might not matter. But how many modern games are "simple enough"? And what STARTED this thread was complaints about the 5200 controllers? Hell... 30 years and 2 different major interface schemes (Joyport and USB)... and they still haven't gotten all the bugs worked out of PC controllers. It can be done, the Xbox, which is a PC with USB controllers, establishes that. It just *hasn't* been done for the PC.

Actually, PC gaming DID standardize on one interface. The keyboard/mouse combo. All others are to be supoported in a half-assed manner, ignored, or actively derided.

 

The XBox, while still IBM PC-based, is also a proprietary unit with no standard input connections.

All XBoxes come with one device, and one device only. The XBox gamepad. While there are alterations to the design, the actual capabilities are identical in both revisions.

There are no alternatives available.

 

 

In the PC world, the QWERTY keyboard and scroll mouse is the standard. While there ARE alternatives, that is the interface everyone has. To add to that, there's a very vocal PC gaming component that insists it's the only true gaming option and that any alternative, however mild it's diffrences, is blasphemy and will doom you to rot in Hell.

 

 

 

 

 

It's a sucky paradigm, but it's what happened.

[NovaXpress]

It's a ridiculous question. The original 5200 would be laughably underpowered in the 21st century. The damn thing is almost a quarter-century old. This topic deserved to be sidetracked.

[Artlover]

It's a ridiculous question. This topic deserved to be sidetracked.

You're being unusualy pissy tonight. Anything wrong?

[NovaXpress]

Maybe I just need a hug.