Was the 5200 considered a success?

[jbanes]

Is it cheaply made, or more a function of cheaply designed?

I'd say the former. After cracking a few of them open, I'd say the design itself is pretty sound. Save for the POTs (which needed to be secured better, as well as spring-loading the slats), the design is pretty similar to what controllers today look like. If they didn't use materials that oxidized so badly, then the controllers wouldn't have been even half as bad as they actually were.

[JB]

I always figured it was a matter of pursuing technology that wasn't ready for prime-time yet.

If the controllers had been made of more conventional circuit boards instead of the fancy flex circuits they DID use, they would've been far more reliable, regardless of how cheap Atari got.

 

Uncoincidentally, this is exactly what they did for the 7800.

[jbanes]

I always figured it was a matter of pursuing technology that wasn't ready for prime-time yet.

I generally agree with this. However...

 

Uncoincidentally, this is exactly what they did for the 7800.

The 7800 went back to REALLY traditional tech, using snap domes rather than graphite coated rubber switches. The result was about as basic of a membrane switch as you can get.

 

Of course, they inverted the board for some stupid reason, thus requiring that more torque be applied before the switch made contact. Ergo, the joysticks were extremely tiring to use. Also, the alignment between the buttons and the domes was always prone to problems.

 

It just amazes me. Atari had so many good ideas for joystick design. Yet post-2600, the final product out the door was junk more often than not.

[Brian R.]

Yeah, for all the flack the 5200 gets for its controllers, the 7800s aren't really any better when it comes down to it. They don't work well, and still require being held in an awkward way, with one hand twisted upside down to hold the controller.

[Paranoid]

The 5200 just makes a real convienient target because it came right on the heels of the 2600 and everyone expected Atari to continue with the slam-dunk success. There were a lot of expectations on the 5200 and the market didn't really know what was possible or what the limitations were... they weren't really saavy on the technology yet. I really think that the only people who DON'T appreciate the 5200 either weren't around when it was brand new, or just weren't ever really into it on any technical level back in the day. In the 8-Bit forum, someone recently said that the 5200 was redundant because of the 8-bit PCs. You just can't understand the 5200 to make a comment like that, IMO. There may be some surface similarities, and having an 8 Bit PC may get you a lot of the 5200 library... but the 5200 is still a unique machine that really stands apart from the entire rest of the Atari line.

[JB]

I always figured it was a matter of pursuing technology that wasn't ready for prime-time yet.

I generally agree with this. However...

 

Uncoincidentally, this is exactly what they did for the 7800.

The 7800 went back to REALLY traditional tech, using snap domes rather than graphite coated rubber switches. The result was about as basic of a membrane switch as you can get.

 

Of course, they inverted the board for some stupid reason, thus requiring that more torque be applied before the switch made contact. Ergo, the joysticks were extremely tiring to use. Also, the alignment between the buttons and the domes was always prone to problems.

 

It just amazes me. Atari had so many good ideas for joystick design. Yet post-2600, the final product out the door was junk more often than not.

POST-2600? Was there a good controller in there that I missed?

 

Yeah, for all the flack the 5200 gets for its controllers, the 7800s aren't really any better when it comes down to it. They don't work well, and still require being held in an awkward way, with one hand twisted upside down to hold the controller.

I've always been partial to the layout used on the 5200, 7800, and 99/4a.

Done right, it's a VERY nice controller.

 

IMO, the 4a and 5200 sticks are some of the most comfortable devices I've held, though the 5200 is a tad wide. When it comes down to playing, the mushy 4a sticks give the 5200 a massive lead.

I've not had any real experience with a 7800 stick(I've held a broken one...), but I can see where it could have faults. Especially with that long of a shaft.

 

 

As far as holding things awkwardly, the 2600 placing all the leverage of the joystick against extended fingers ranks really high up there, and is what vertical stick layouts were intended to fix.

 

The fact that the fixes were all flawed devices doesn't change the fact that the 2600 stick had serious faults of it's own. Being first doesn't make it right.

[accousticguitar]

I've always thought the 2600 joysticks were second to none. I attribute the 2600's early success to 2 factors: the low-priced console, and the best joysticks of all the video games out there.

[JB]

I've always thought the 2600 joysticks were second to none. I attribute the 2600's early success to 2 factors: the low-priced console, and the best joysticks of all the video games out there.

Well, I'm sorry to say you were very mistaken.

[accousticguitar]

I've always thought the 2600 joysticks were second to none. I attribute the 2600's early success to 2 factors: the low-priced console, and the best joysticks of all the video games out there.

Well, I'm sorry to say you were very mistaken.

 

Wouldn't be the first time

[jbanes]

POST-2600? Was there a good controller in there that I missed?

The CX-10 and CX-40s were actually fairly good joysticks. They were tiring after a while, but considering that they were one of the first on the market, they were pretty darn good. Plus you could actually set them on a table or desk to better ground the controller. That's something you just can't do with the Proline.

[Brian R.]

POST-2600? Was there a good controller in there that I missed?

The CX-10 and CX-40s were actually fairly good joysticks. They were tiring after a while, but considering that they were one of the first on the market, they were pretty darn good. Plus you could actually set them on a table or desk to better ground the controller. That's something you just can't do with the Proline.

 

I can easily hold a 2600 controller in my hand, use my left thumb for the fire button, and my right hand for the stick. No discomfort at all.

 

Maybe if the 7800 stick was more responsive, it would work better. But because you have to turn a hand upside down to hold it - in my case, my left - it will get tiring a lot faster than a 2600 controller.

 

Think about modern controllers. How many, if any, require inverting a hand to hold it? None, that I can think of. Considering controllers like the Genesis, Jaguar and Dreamcast, they all are held with both hands, upright, with thumbs and fingers used on the controls.

 

But I'll always go back to the 2600 for comfort, function and simplicity. And ya know, it was in part because the NES had that funky "pad," and not a "joystick," that I never accepted Nintendo.

[Video]

The 2600 sticks ruled, and MOST computer sticks, followed that suit for that matter. Now the 5200 stick isn't really held all that much different, your hand is still under it, it's just narrow enough that your fingers wrap around the base, same with the 7800 controllers (why diss the 7800's cause of how you hold it, and then prais the 5200 when it's held exactly the same?)

 

The thing that sucked on the 5200 controllers is, the buttons keep going out. Mostly the keypad, but the fire buttons do to, then when your an imbezzle like me, you take the thing apart to clean it, and never can get all the crap lined back up, so the things useless after that.

 

I find it funny that people diss the stick so much, when it was probably the best, and most reliable working part on the controller. Now if they had actual circuit boards in the thing instead of the plastic piece of crap flex thing, then the shoe might have been on the other foot. The only time the stick is a problem, is if the game is written poorly to use it, but that's true of games on all systems.

 

BTW, Wii will have you hold your hand upside down again

[Video]

Woops wasn't aware I double posted. Sorry about that.

Edited September 21, 2006 by Video

[jetset]

The 2600 sticks ruled, and MOST computer sticks, followed that suit for that matter. Now the 5200 stick isn't really held all that much different, your hand is still under it, it's just narrow enough that your fingers wrap around the base, same with the 7800 controllers (why diss the 7800's cause of how you hold it, and then prais the 5200 when it's held exactly the same?)

 

 

Because with the 5200 controllers, the #1 & #2 fire buttons (though prone to breaking as you said) are positioned so that you can easily press one or the other when needed for 2 button games. The 7800's however have the #1 & #2 buttons on the opposite sides, making it near impossible to play games that require both fire buttons.

[JB]

I can easily hold a 2600 controller in my hand, use my left thumb for the fire button, and my right hand for the stick. No discomfort at all.

Maybe I'm more vigorous with my controllers, but 2600 sticks make my arm hurt.

 

Maybe if the 7800 stick was more responsive, it would work better. But because you have to turn a hand upside down to hold it - in my case, my left - it will get tiring a lot faster than a 2600 controller.

You don't HAVE to turn a hand upside-down. I tend to hold 5200 controllers sideways. The only time I have the stick pointing upwards is when I'm playing Space Dungeon, and that's a unique situation in many other regards as well.

 

Think about modern controllers. How many, if any, require inverting a hand to hold it? None, that I can think of. Considering controllers like the Genesis, Jaguar and Dreamcast, they all are held with both hands, upright, with thumbs and fingers used on the controls.

They have many other diffrences, too.

Rather than moving a lever, you press down on a button to control direction. Far less force that way due to the lack of an amplifying lever. Having 2 hands bearing the load further reduces things.

 

 

And as gamepads have evolved, there've been serious construction variances.

From the original NES and SMS "buttons slapped on a box" design, to the rounded SNES and Genesis controllers(the first to really consider ergonomics), to the handles on the PlayStation(which was really first seen on the Jaguar, though Atari put number pad between the grips).

 

Once you add handles, my hands are in more or less the same positions they would be if I was gripping a pair of vertical-style joysticks. Except they're locked to the angle that Controller Manufacturer X thinks I want them at unless I take a sub-optimal grip. Worst-case=completely vertical Dreamcast grips, which leave me balancing the controller on my fingertips like the 2600.

 

 

Which is what we see in joysticks. The first generation designs were boxes with a lever strapped on, the second generation actually considered ergonomics, and the third generation... never appeared due to the crash.

If the evolution of PC sticks and aftermarket console controllers is an indicator, it's likely they would've moved to desktop/tabletop devices.

 

But that's an iffy assumption given the diffrent requirements for computer controllers and console controllers. Handheld seems to be a major requirement for console controller packins, since there's no guarantee you'll have a flat surface to set your controler on that's comfortable to play at.

Aftermarket controllers aren't held to the same restrictions as pack-in devices, which is why they get away with it.

 

 

 

But I'll always go back to the 2600 for comfort, function and simplicity. And ya know, it was in part because the NES had that funky "pad," and not a "joystick," that I never accepted Nintendo.

I use an Advantage on my NES. Go sticks.

I really need to find an ambidextrous controller, so I can get my fire buttons back on the left side where they belong.

 

That's my major gripe with the NES and later systems, for the record.

I'm not precise enough on the directionals with my left hand for anything beyond running left and right. So left-handed directionals are great for Mario and Megaman, but not so much for anything else.

 

 

The 2600 sticks ruled, and MOST computer sticks, followed that suit for that matter. Now the 5200 stick isn't really held all that much different, your hand is still under it, it's just narrow enough that your fingers wrap around the base, same with the 7800 controllers

That's a big diffrence, as much as you try to marginalize it.

On a 2600 stick, the palm of the hand runs down the left side. The fingertips wind up bearing the weight of the controller and the force from the stick. Aside from the fingers not being very strong to start with, they're also levers and thus further amplify the forces they are required to balance out.

End result: A 2600 stick is a good way to make your hand hurt.

 

On the 5200, your palm does NOT run down the side. It bears the load of the controller and leverage from the stick. Your fingertips are relegated the much easier task of keeping it in position and pressing fire.

 

 

The fact that all early joysticks are boxes with a stick poking out has more to do with it being a simple design than a sound one.

The fact that they have rubber feet when their bases are all too tall and narrow for comfortable tabletop play backs my point up fairly well. There's no real THOUGHT to the design.

 

(why diss the 7800's cause of how you hold it, and then prais the 5200 when it's held exactly the same?)

I've noted that it's not a device I've actually used. I just see possible problems.

The longer stick amplifies the forces the hand will be required to deal with.

The opposed fire buttons would also seem to make it impossible to comfortably play 2-button games.

 

Same story for the Colecovision. Only the CV controller goes too far in the opposite direction on stick height, which likely makes it more difficult to control. I don't even OWN a CV controller though, and haven't seen one in years, so I'm not even sure how it fits my hand.

 

 

The Intellivision's issues are purely mechanical. Size and layout are great, but the fire buttons are atrocious.

The gamepad was a diffrent solution to the leverage issue(probably needed given the directional control is below the supporting hand), and actually has some advantages over joysticks(as well as some drawbacks).

 

 

The thing that sucked on the 5200 controllers is, the buttons keep going out. Mostly the keypad, but the fire buttons do to, then when your an imbezzle like me, you take the thing apart to clean it, and never can get all the crap lined back up, so the things useless after that.

Definitely.

They're very unreliable, and difficult to open and close.

 

 

BTW, Wii will have you hold your hand upside down again

YAY!

 

And just think, the Wii Wand is the first generation of this new input device. Who knows what future generations will be like?

[Video]

The 2600 sticks ruled, and MOST computer sticks, followed that suit for that matter. Now the 5200 stick isn't really held all that much different, your hand is still under it, it's just narrow enough that your fingers wrap around the base, same with the 7800 controllers (why diss the 7800's cause of how you hold it, and then prais the 5200 when it's held exactly the same?)

 

 

Because with the 5200 controllers, the #1 & #2 fire buttons (though prone to breaking as you said) are positioned so that you can easily press one or the other when needed for 2 button games. The 7800's however have the #1 & #2 buttons on the opposite sides, making it near impossible to play games that require both fire buttons.

 

There are games on the 7800 that require two buttons to play? But I do see what you mean though, the 5200, can be either handed, but the 7800 still wants a right handed person to use it for the primary fire button.

[JamesD]

In reference to the original topic of whether or not the 5200 was a success...

 

Given the time it was left on the market I don't think it did badly.

I do think a lot of people were waiting for more titles before they purchased one.

If it had stuck around even another year there would have been some unique titles that people would have been willing to buy it for. Just look at the prototypes that were in the works.

 

In the end I wouldn't call it a failure but not a hit by any means.

[rjchamp3]

Is it cheaply made, or more a function of cheaply designed? I'd say the later.

 

 

I have to agree, there is no excuse for the fault of those 5200 piece of shit controllers, when I was at a gaming expo I asked one of the jerks who was involved with them, Just like a typical politician he had no excuse and no answer for.

 

 

WTF

 

F... this Im making a custom PS2 5200 controller for myself, as far as Im concerned the 5200 should be buried and reborn NOW..............

Edited September 23, 2006 by rjchamp3

[JB]

I can tell you EXACTLY what went wrong, so you can avoid verbally abusing any more engineers(who, legend has it, weren't happy with the controller yet anyways, but corporate MADE them release it as-is).

 

Atari tried a new technology(flex circuits and carbon dot buttons) because it would let them make a more complicated controller design. And the technology failed to offer the long-term reliability they expected.

[SoundGammon]

No. Not really.

 

Atari threw the 5200 to the wolves with it's Super Breakout pack in against the Colecovision. From a consumer point of view, they never really got behind it. As parents were fond of saying "You can get all it's games on the 2600, so why bother?" And, Atari gave priority to the 2600 when they should have been making 5200 games.

 

Somewhere on the web there's an interview with the man who programmed Super Pac Man. It's an amazing conversion. But he tells how he was pretty much left alone when programming it and that no one at the company really cared about the development of the game. You're kind of left thinking about how amazing most of the games for the system are, and left wondering how many other programmers were just left alone because the executives didn't have any intention of supporting the console.

 

Many of us know that the original plan was to release a 10 bit game system (Video System X) instead of the 8 bit 5200. The 5200 came about because of programmers complaining about programming for the 10 bit system. In the end, the 5200 became what it was, not because of planning, but because the Atari 400 chipset could be converted quickly to compete with the Colecovision. Programmers were apparrently not well thought of at Atari, and the appropriation of the Atari 400 as a game system stepped on the computer division's toes a bit. Reading between the lines, it's hard to imagine that the 5200 wasn't the subject of intense interdepartmental rivalry and sabotage.

 

(In fact, the 400 had initially been conceived as a game system, but that same departmental rivalry had kept that from occurring.)

 

Atari was also dead set on running itself into the ground at this point. By focusing on the 2600 and ignoring the future they had introduced in the form of the 5200, they were practically admitting they viewed video games as a fad that they were trying to milk the last drops of cash from.

 

As for 5200 sales outstripping the Colecovision's as time went on, I can definitely believe that. The Colecovision was strong against the 5200's pathetic launch, but relatively rested on it's laurels. Atari caught up with some spectacular games. And then... nothing.

 

In the end, it was rendered a moot point because Tramiel was dead set on killing all videogames at the company. Even if he hadn't, Atari had already shown their utter lack of faith in the 5200 by way of the 7800 console.

 

Setting the record straight: The 5200 was planned to compete with the Intellivision, NOT Colecovision, Atari was caught off-guard when Coleco showed the system at a CES show, the same time Atari showcased the 5200. The Colecovision was the system that initiated the 7800!

[SoundGammon]

Is it cheaply made, or more a function of cheaply designed? I'd say the later.

 

 

I have to agree, there is no excuse for the fault of those 5200 piece of shit controllers, when I was at a gaming expo I asked one of the jerks who was involved with them, Just like a typical politician he had no excuse and no answer for.

 

 

WTF

 

F... this Im making a custom PS2 5200 controller for myself, as far as Im concerned the 5200 should be buried and reborn NOW..............

 

 

I wired a Jaguar controller to a 5200 controller cable, works GREAT! One problem, the controller cable has only 14 wires, no ground that I need. So I ran a jumper wire to the controller along the outside of the cable. Good news: I found a company that sells 5200 extension cables that have all 15 wires. Games that don't work so great are Centipede, Missile Command & Super Breakout.

[Gabriel]

Setting the record straight: The 5200 was planned to compete with the Intellivision, NOT Colecovision, Atari was caught off-guard when Coleco showed the system at a CES show, the same time Atari showcased the 5200. The Colecovision was the system that initiated the 7800!

 

I've always read that the 10 bit Video System X was the answer to the Intellivision. But it was far behind and apparrently not going anywhere. When Atari learned of the Colecovision they went with the Atari 400 in the Video System X shell because it was the plan that could be brought to market the quickest.

[JB]

Setting the record straight: The 5200 was planned to compete with the Intellivision, NOT Colecovision, Atari was caught off-guard when Coleco showed the system at a CES show, the same time Atari showcased the 5200. The Colecovision was the system that initiated the 7800!

 

I've always read that the 10 bit Video System X was the answer to the Intellivision. But it was far behind and apparrently not going anywhere. When Atari learned of the Colecovision they went with the Atari 400 in the Video System X shell because it was the plan that could be brought to market the quickest.

That's sort of kind of accurate.

 

Originally, Bushnell wanted to make a new game machine to replace the VCS, which was starting to age.

TimeWarner told him "No, I don't think so... the VCS is making us oodles of cash, no way we're messing with it." This would be a serious long-term issue, but that's another thread.

They proceeded to hijack the hardware for use in a pair of computers, the 400 and 800. No need to waste perfectly good development work, and TimeWarner wanted into the computer business anyways.

I gather this was part of why Bushnell "left" the company.

 

Then the Intellivision hit, and started hurting the VCS. TimeWarner was caught with their pants down, having just killed the INTV's competition.

So they started development on new hardware. I gather this was partly because the computer division didn't want to give the hardware back because they viewed themselves in competition with Atari's game division(Yay petty interdivision bickering!).

 

Anyways, programmers threw a fit about the 10-bit processor and basically boycotted it.

 

Now the company was in REAL trouble, since they were back at square 1. They'd just pissed away all that time developing new hardware, and abandoned it because no one would code for it.

 

So they went back to the computers and repurposed the chipset to it's original calling as a game machine, after promising the computer division that they would change things enough to make the system fundamentally incompatible with the computer line.

And thus the 5200 was born, about 3 years late.

[Flojomojo]

Originally, Bushnell wanted to make a new game machine to replace the VCS, which was starting to age.

TimeWarner told him "No, I don't think so... the VCS is making us oodles of cash, no way we're messing with it." This would be a serious long-term issue, but that's another thread.

They proceeded to hijack the hardware for use in a pair of computers, the 400 and 800. No need to waste perfectly good development work, and TimeWarner wanted into the computer business anyways.

I gather this was part of why Bushnell "left" the company.

That's an interesting take on the situation -- and probably close to the truth.

 

My opinion, for what it's worth: I have no idea about sales numbers, and I was 12 when the thing launched, so my perspective was mostly looking longingly at the Sears Catalog. It was more of the same, didn't have a lot of unique games, was insanely expensive, and I only knew one or two kids who had one. The Colecovision had a mess of unique games, elegant and innovative (at the time) expansion modules, and was much more popular in my circle. Supposedly 6 million Colecovisions were sold. I don't know how many 5200's were sold, but there were fewer games produced for the 5200.

 

I guess it depends on your definition of "failure." Personally, I think the 5200 is big, ugly, and slow. I'd rather play something else.

[DracIsBack]

Setting the record straight: The 5200 was planned to compete with the Intellivision, NOT Colecovision, Atari was caught off-guard when Coleco showed the system at a CES show, the same time Atari showcased the 5200. The Colecovision was the system that initiated the 7800!

 

Well, the Colecovision and those pesky Commodore computers initiated the 7800.

 

What really caught Atari off-guard I'm sure was the fact that the Coleco had Donkey Kong and a 2600 adapter. "The" hot game and backwards compatibility with their own system before they had it!