Do you 2600 peeps think the 7800/5200 were worthy of succeeding the 2600

[carmel_andrews]

I ask this as I noticed that whilst atari refined 2600 hardware (i.e making smaller or cost reduced systems/versions) they didn’t do anything to improve the capabilites or architecture or the 2600 (i.e an updated version of the 2600, like project ‘sara’ possibly)

 

I don’t really consider the 5200 as being a follow on from the 2600 as that had no relationship or connection with the 2600 (apart from being 650x compatible)

 

And the only things that connects the 7800 with the 2600 is the built in 2600 mode and 650x compatibility

And if you think about it the 5200/7800 shared more with the A8 series then the 2600 etc

 

Not only that, just as with the coleco expansion module 1, the 2600 mode on the 7800, didn’t help atari sell more 2600 cartridges, didn’t help get more software companies producing 2600 or 7800 games and did’nt help atari sell more 2600 or 7800

 

So would’nt it have been better for atari to have developed advanced 2600 hardware or architecture instead of developing completely new systems

 

What do you 2600 peeps think....

[Rybags]

The 2600 was ancient technology by 1982 and by rights should have been discontinued then.

 

Of course, that didn't happen because of the existing huge market and the fact people still bought it, and because of the lack of penetration by the competition.

 

The way I see it, an enhanced 2600 would have been a waste of time and resources. The 7800 was a worthy successor but too late.

 

If they had acted earlier (say 1982) and started developing an "intermediate", what would we have? Something roughly between the 8-bit computer line and the 7800 so far as graphics goes. Probably the same (ie, TIA only) for sound. So, bottom line, it might have enjoyed some level of initial success, but then would have been crushed by the NES and SMS.

[kroogur]

As much as I Like the system the 5200 should never have happened and the 7800 should have been the next logical step. Then the 7800 would have had a longer life and the graphics and games would have been much improved as time went on and developers got more out of the system by pushing it to it's limits much like what happened with the NES (look at Urban Champion compared to Battletoads) That coupled with the poor decision of game releases you really cripple your product by the time the 7800 happened the market was showing that platformers,shooters,and rpg's were where the money is so what did Atari do? Shoveled out the same old tired games (Asteroids,Ms.Pac-Man,Dig Dug etc...yaawwnn).

 

If they (Atari) would have came up with some fresh content then they would have been in a better position to have a next gen system to compete with SNES and Genesis and from there keep pace with the other companies and hopefully survive in the console market but sadly when you have idiots running the company things will always fail.

Edited July 10, 2009 by kroogur

[+Random Terrain]

Atari 7800 games don't look as crisp and clear as Atari 2600 games, so it was a disappointment. If it would have kept the crisp look while giving us more multicolored sprites and all that good stuff, I'd like it a lot more.

[mos6507]

All three systems are architecturally similar. They have a similar color palette, for instance. They have something like a display list (manually generated in the case of the 2600). So there is a clear evolution going on. The problem with the 5200 is that it came too late when the hardware was otherwise done in 1979 in the form of the Atari 8-bit home computers. So it was no longer bleeding edge. By the time the 7800 was coming out, Atari was on its way down.

 

If Atari had distributed the NES, now that system would have stood out like a sore thumb as not being "Atari-like". I guess I'm a purist to think an Atari-branded NES would have bothered me.

[Ransom]

IMO, the progression should have been:

 

1977: VCS/2600

1980: 5200 (w/ self-centering joysticks and reliable circuits)

1983: 7800 (w/ built-in dual Pokey chips for stereo sound)

 

I believe if they'd done that, and concentrated on gaming quality, Atari's competitors wouldn't have had a chance.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Ransom

[+DamonicFury]

Rather than releasing the 5200, perhaps Atari should have either promoted the Atari 400 as a game machine, or released a game console identical to the 400 with a keyboard sold separately. Releasing the 5200 as a non-expandable game machine, with games and controllers that were incompatible with the 400/800 line always seemed like a mistake to me. The Atari computers were incredible game machines, yet Atari seemed unwilling to market them as such, until it was way too late.

[Zoyx]

The Atari XE gaming system should of been released in 1980... instead of 1987... and not even mess with the 5200 and 7800.

[+Psionic]

Come on, the Jaguar should've been released in 1985...it would've crushed the NES.

[Godzilla]

I think stuff like the supercharger and the compumate let you know what 'architecture-pushing' 2600 hardware was like. I think an uber neptune-style 2600-superchager+ extras integrated would have been awesome back in the day. I definitely think the 7800 was a worthy successor. I don't know what you mean about the 7800 not being as 'crisp' ? because it had less-simple graphics that didn't have large color areas like the 2600?

[Zoyx]

Come on, the Jaguar should've been released in 1985...it would've crushed the NES.

The XEGS was basically an Atari 400/800. Get rid of the computer related stuff on a 400/800, build a sexy console case for it, concentrate more on building game carts for it, you have your 2600 successor. They did do this with the XEGS, just 7 years too late.

 

I don't think you could of built a Jaguar in 1985... hopefully you are being sarcastic.

[8th lutz]

Come on, the Jaguar should've been released in 1985...it would've crushed the NES.

I disagree with the Jaguar crushing the Nes in 1985. The system would've been too advanced for it's good in 1985. Processors didn't have 32 bit or 64 bit technology in 1985.

 

The problem would be a problem the price of the Atari Jaguar in 1985. I expect the Atari Jaguar in 1985 have a 3do or a Playstation 3 price because the system has 32 bit and 64 technology in it.

 

While the Atari Jaguar uses a Motorola 68000 CPU, it is not a true 16 bit game console. It is caused the fact the Motorola 6800 CPU is a General purpose 16/32-bit control processor for the Atari Jaguar.

 

The cost of the system is caused by "Tom and Jerry" chip is the following:

• GPU is 32-bit RISC architecture, 4 KB internal cache, provides wide array of graphic effects
  
• Object Processor is 64-bit RISC architecture
  
• Blitter Processor is 64-bit RISC architecture,high speed logic operations, z-buffering and Gouraud shading, with 64-bit internal registers
  
• Digital Signal Processor – 32-bit RISC architecture, 8 KB internal cache
  

I got it from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Jaguar .

Edited July 10, 2009 by 8th lutz

[BassGuitari]

Were the Ataris 5200 and 7800 worthy successors to the 2600? Absolutely. Great systems, both.

 

However, they were both victims of bad timing and puzzling software releases, with the 5200 and its near-carbon copies of 400/800 games (why get a 5200 if you already have a 400/800?) and the 7800 with its rehashed, previous-gen games. A more reliable 5200 controller would have been nice, too; I actually think it's a great controller as is...when it works.

 

Had the Atari 5200 come out a year or two earlier and had more exclusive titles, or at least games that were different enough from the 400/800 versions to make it worth owning, it would have been far more successful.

 

Had the Atari 7800 come out when originally slated, or at least had more innovative games that were at least comparable to the NES, even if inferior, it would have been far more successful. Not as successful as the NES, but still more or less successful in its fight with the Sega Master System for the #2 spot. But you know what they say about hindsight.

 

On the other hand, if Atari was more supportive of the hypothetically successful 5200 and 7800, we may have missed out on many of the amazing 2600 software that came out during system's twilight years (1985-1991), if not even earlier. In an alternate universe, we could be talking about how awesome the VCS could have been if Atari hadn't ditched it for the 5200 after only a couple of years.

[atari_envy]

The 7800 was a worthy successor but too late.

+1

 

This is a pretty charged topic and usually only appears on the 5200 and 7800 forums. I collect for all three. I really like the 7800, and I find the 5200 and interesting experiment. But neither had the same magic as the 2600.

[Herbarius]

Nintendo should've come to America and try to sell the NES in early 1984, without Super Mario Bros, right in the middle of the game crash... that would have almost guaranteed a complete failure and maybe Atari would have been able to rebuild the North American Video Game market...

[ATARIPITBULL]

the 5200/7800 had great games but the shape of the 5200 system and controllers was bad. The 7800 on the other hand was a great system and having the ability to play 2600 carts also was a great bounus.

 

[kool kitty89]

I don’t really consider the 5200 as being a follow on from the 2600 as that had no relationship or connection with the 2600 (apart from being 650x compatible)

 

Umm, the design of the 8-bit computers (of which the 5200 is a derivative) was largely an evolution of the 2600's hardware, in some whys TIA is rather like 1/2 of CTIA/GTIA and 1/2 of POKEY, of course there's no ANTIC chip to go along with TIA, so the CPU takes up the slack. (and is thus much more limited)

 

And the only things that connects the 7800 with the 2600 is the built in 2600 mode and 650x compatibility

And if you think about it the 5200/7800 shared more with the A8 series then the 2600 etc

 

While the 5200 is virtually identical to the 8-bit line in most ways, it's far closer to the 2600 than the 7800.

 

The backwards compatibility thing is kind of hit and miss, and is only really vaulable if it doesn't pot significant limits on the system and doesn't exxcessively add to cost. (the best case is a system specifically designed to encorporate compatibility in the new hardware, or include portions of the old hardware do facilitate this, and make some additional use of the old hardware other than just compatibility, like the TIA sound in the 7800 or Z80 sound CPU and PSG in the Genesis)

 

At the time though, having 2600 out of the box for their new system would have been significant due to the Coleco (and following Mattel) clone hardware adaptors (and Gemini), as well as possibly helping with consumer confidence in Atari.

 

 

There are several options for this, you could come out with something like the XEGS based on the Atari 400, and to minimize cost it could have used a single, consolidated board (or was the 400 already like this?), though I'm not sure how limiting 8 kB would be, going to the 5200's (and 600XL's) 16 kB may be necessary. (if few games required over 8 kB you might want to stick with that, but it would seem odd to put 16 kB in the 5200 otherwise) You'd still need the keyboard to provide compatibility with all the games. (or a keypad that features only the keys games actually used, or at least the ones most games used) Then possibly include a connection to provide expansion to a full Atari 8-bit computer via a plug-in module. (and a full keyboard replacing the keypad)

THis would still have the backwards compatibility issue, but for one, you could feature a module like Coleco or Mattel and the system is compatible with the existing 8-bit games and expandable to a full computer.

 

 

Alternatively they could have gone about the 5200 differently, made it more like the 7800, or planned 3200. Start with the 8-bit computer hardware (CTIA/GTIA, ANTIC, POKEY, 6502C), add TIA and RIOT for 2600 compatibility and allow the 6502C to drop down to 1.19 MHz. Use a cartridge connector similar to the 7800 and controller ports compatible with the 2600. (no keypad controllers, though you could still have something like the 7800's, or 3200's, with digital joystic and additional buttons -up to 3 using both pot lines and digital joystick, or you could have an analog joystic with up to 5 buttons). 2 controller ports is probably fine as well, particularly taking cost into account.

Make the circuit board as compact as possible and the case likewise (nothing wrong with using the 2700's sleek wedge shape though). (cheaper to produce, package, and transport, and more convienent for customers)

 

Another possible option is modifying and expanding the 2600 hardware itsself while maintaining compatibility, adding something like ANTIC to work in conjunction with TIA (along with more RAM) should have significantly improved things, particularly CPU time, though without modifying TIA you'd still be limited to 2 single color (without scanline palette swap) hardware sprites, not sure about backgrounds. (though you could modify TIA as well for more sprites, maybe more colors as well) Either modify TIA to include additional sound features, or add a POKEY as well, which could also handel I/O (either completely, or in addition to RIOT, handling analog/pot imputs instead of TIA -which only worked properly when in sync with video as in 2600 mode iirc, hence no paddles on 7800)

Then upgrade the CPU to a 6502 (or 6502C, not sure if it would be useful though) and use 7800-like cartridges with the additional address space. (with the ANTIC like chip, you'd now have far more CPU time as well, in addition to a 50% clock speed up)

New controllers are possible as well. (using the standard configuration, same as above, 3-buttons with digital stick, or up to 5 with analog)

 

Finally, you could design something that could be added on to the 2600, a lock on cartridge or similar, rather like the supercharger (though AFIK all that did was supply bankswitched RAM which could load data off cassettes), or more lime Sega's 32x (but without the power supply and around the size of a normal cart, more like a game genie or Sonic a& Knuckles cart). You could include additional RAM and integraded bankswitching (of course, you'd need more pins on the new connector/carts for them to support more than 4 kB without them also being bankswitched), finally (and most importantly) add an enhancement chip that improves graphics and sound capabilities. (David Crane's Video Display Chip used in Pitfall 2 is a great example, 3 additional tone channels plus 1 percussion, and additional graphics capabilities -don't know of the spcifics though)

 

Release the add-on as well as a new, integrated console (like Sega's planned Neptune), possibly offer new controllers as well, I don't think there's anything keeping the 2600 from supporting 2 additional buttons via the pot lines (keypads used thes already in a similar manner), or a 2-axis analog joystick with up to 5 buttons. (someone already adapted a 5200 controller to use as 2 paddles on marble madness)

 

 

Then (particularly for this last option, which is rather limited compared to some others) put work into developing a true, successor console (which may or may not be backwards compatible) to come out in a few years. Maybe contract to GCC, come out with something using a MARIA like chip (maybe more advanced/enhanced), but with all it's own hardware otherwise, more RAM (possibly a dedicated bus for MARIA) and a more powerful CPU (a fast 65C02 with expanded addressing, maybe a 68000 or 65816), and maybe use a POKEY for sound and I/O. (or multiple pokeys, later replacing the additional ones with cut-down sound only versions, or integrating all of them onto one chip) Of possibly just the one POKEY and an additional sound chip, maybe a Yamaha FM synth chip. (the YM2413 is particularly small, cut down for low cost) Something to be released aroung '86/87.

 

 

 

Edit: Also, for any of the options, add a lockout mechanism o the system/add-on to give Atari more control over 3rd parties and make money through licencing deals.

Edited July 12, 2009 by kool kitty89

[GroovyBee]

Either modify TIA to include additional sound features, or add a POKEY as well, which could also handel I/O (either completely, or in addition to RIOT, handling analog/pot imputs instead of TIA -which only worked properly when in sync with video as in 2600 mode iirc, hence no paddles on 7800)

What continually amazes me is that people with no programming experience on the 7800 state what it can and can't do in software . See this post for Eric Ball's take on the matter. In short, if you want reduced accuracy you can do paddles without much impact to the game. If you want high accuracy it takes more CPU time. It all depends on the game and the trade-offs you want to make.

[Polybius]

All three systems are architecturally similar. They have a similar color palette, for instance. They have something like a display list (manually generated in the case of the 2600). So there is a clear evolution going on. The problem with the 5200 is that it came too late when the hardware was otherwise done in 1979 in the form of the Atari 8-bit home computers. So it was no longer bleeding edge. By the time the 7800 was coming out, Atari was on its way down.

 

If Atari had distributed the NES, now that system would have stood out like a sore thumb as not being "Atari-like". I guess I'm a purist to think an Atari-branded NES would have bothered me.

 

If they did though, the original company would be still around today, instead of a name used by infogrames.

 

But the Atari Wii would be kinda wierd sounding.

[kool kitty89]

What continually amazes me is that people with no programming experience on the 7800 state what it can and can't do in software . See this post for Eric Ball's take on the matter. In short, if you want reduced accuracy you can do paddles without much impact to the game. If you want high accuracy it takes more CPU time. It all depends on the game and the trade-offs you want to make.

 

Thanks for the information though.

 

I was basing my assumptions on statements made in a discussion in Curt's Expansion Module Thread:

This thread is seem to have what I'm talking about. It was about the lack of paddle games for the 7800.

 

More to the point, I'm talking about this post by Supercat.

 

To read paddles, one must poll them at precise spots on the frame. On the 2600, the code always knows where the beam is during the kernel. If it has enough cycles to read the pots mid-kernel it can do so. On the 7800, code generally does not chase the beam. An Atari 7800 game could be made to chase the beam, but it would add about a 10%-25% CPU load to read one paddle per frame, or a 75% CPU load to read more than one.

Edited July 12, 2009 by kool kitty89

[kool kitty89]

If they did though, the original company would be still around today, instead of a name used by infogrames.

 

But the Atari Wii would be kinda wierd sounding.

 

Maybe, or (assuming Warner made same mistakes) it would have gotten dragged into the crash, who knows? (or the crash hit befor it could come to market and then there's delays of Nintendo releasing it on thier own due to legal issues with Atari)

Also remember a huge reason for the NES's success was marketing and unique/fresh games. (something the Famicom lacked early on and was still somewhat weak on the NES even in 1985 with their test market -until SMB came out in '86 along with the full launch)

[+Nathan Strum]

All three systems are architecturally similar. They have a similar color palette, for instance. They have something like a display list (manually generated in the case of the 2600). So there is a clear evolution going on. The problem with the 5200 is that it came too late when the hardware was otherwise done in 1979 in the form of the Atari 8-bit home computers. So it was no longer bleeding edge. By the time the 7800 was coming out, Atari was on its way down.

If only...

 

... the 5200 had been released in '79 (with proper joysticks), and the 2600 discontinued, then the 5200 hardware would have been the market leader, riding the crest of the arcade boom. That would have been something, with the full effort of Atari thrown behind it. The 2600 would be a footnote in history. But Atari was too stupid and tight-fisted to go ahead with it.

 

... that had happened, and if Atari wouldn't have disintegrated, the next console might have been based on the same hardware that became the Amiga. (This is mentioned in the Stella at 20 interviews, incidentally.) Imagine that powerful of a video game system coming out in the early-mid 80's. That would have changed everything.

 

... the 7800 hadn't been abandoned by the Tramiels; and the rest of the industry, resellers and developers hadn't been poisoned by the crash into believing video games were dead; and it was released in '84 with a good library of games, then maybe it could have succeeded. The gamers were out there, as Nintendo later proved. They just needed new games, and the 2600 wasn't going to cut it anymore.

 

I never bought a 5200 back in the day, in part because there weren't enough compelling games for it, but mostly because the controllers were awful. If you can't play the demo game in the store, you aren't going to want to take it home. The 5200 could have been a worthy successor, but it was mishandled, and it was several years too late.

 

The 7800 was never really a worthy successor (and I was looking forward to buying one in '84, and bought it as soon as they eventually came out), because of the anemic software library for it. Again, too little, too late. Woulda, shoulda, coulda...

 

If Atari had distributed the NES, now that system would have stood out like a sore thumb as not being "Atari-like". I guess I'm a purist to think an Atari-branded NES would have bothered me.

Perhaps, but Atari wasn't Atari anymore by then anyway. It's probably just as well they didn't license the NES, because Atari was so screwed-up by then, they probably would have found some way to make the NES a complete flop, too.

[kool kitty89]

... the 5200 had been released in '79 (with proper joysticks), and the 2600 discontinued, then the 5200 hardware would have been the market leader, riding the crest of the arcade boom. That would have been something, with the full effort of Atari thrown behind it. The 2600 would be a footnote in history. But Atari was too stupid and tight-fisted to go ahead with it.

 

Maybe, though in '79 such a system could have been pretty expensive and probably more limited (probably less RAM than the 400/800's original 8 kB, not to mention the 5200's 16)

 

Then again, they could have held back on releasing it for a while, fine tuning it and minimizing cost (compact, consolidated board and case, perhaps GTIA instead of CTIA from the stary, maybe even include backwards compatibility for the 2600 -without unnecessarily increasing cost -an add-on/modul would probably be more realistic)

Relaease it by mid 1981 at the latest. (christmas of 1980 might be a bit too early cost wise, though perhaps not)

 

Also, they could still have had their computer line derived from this chipset, though it would probably have been good to sit on releasing it for a while too, launch it with more RAM, a simpler deisgn, and without some of the problems of the 400/800 or the issues of the 1200XL. (smaller case and board, less RF sheilding, no membrade keyboard -chicklet probably wouldn't be good idea either, single cart slot, parallel port, and they probably didn't need 4 controller ports) Making it compatible with the game system's software might be a good idea too. (rather like the Adam, but without some of the other problems) Something like the 600/800XL would have been great as the original launch units. (or come out with someting like the 600 in ~80/81 and follow on with the 64 kB 800 by 1982, rather like the VIC20 and C64 except they'd be directly compatible)

Maybe offer an expansion module to convert the game system into a full computer as well.

 

If Atari had distributed the NES, now that system would have stood out like a sore thumb as not being "Atari-like". I guess I'm a purist to think an Atari-branded NES would have bothered me.

Perhaps, but Atari wasn't Atari anymore by then anyway. It's probably just as well they didn't license the NES, because Atari was so screwed-up by then, they probably would have found some way to make the NES a complete flop, too.

 

Negotiations with Nintendo were long dead by the time Tramiel acquired Atari. (and it apears Kassar was never serious about licencing the Famicom and was trying to screw Nintendo over, some mention a plan to get the exclusive licence to lock Nintendo out -though I highly doubt this would have worked and had it, a legal mess would have insued; so either this idea was abandoned or didn't go into place before Kassar left, either way they'd been trying to delay Nintendo as long as possible to avoid competition, and particularly, give the 7800 a head start)

Edited July 13, 2009 by kool kitty89