Why did Atari ditch the 5200?

[opcode]

Marty,

 

First of all I suggest we leave our romantic views of the time aside for a moment...

 

Eduardo, you're actually comparing two different time periods here and playing loose with some of the facts. The 5200 was an '81-'82 (design and release) product. The tech was only a little under 2 years old on the market when they started.

 

IMHO that doesn't matter. It was a damn computer, it wasn't a video game, no matter if they created it to be a video game in the first place, it wasnt game optimized. It was also very expensive and not that easy to program. Not to say that it was already kind of outdated by 1982 standards IMHO.

The Famicom on the other hand was basically a DK board shrank to fit a couple of chips. Inexpensive ($150 in 1983) and very easy to program. Think about this, the Famicom used 4KB of RAM total. The 5200 had 16Kb. Do you know why? Because the Famicom was created to be a video game, it was highly optimized for that.

 

Likewise, Atari was not a 2 billion company until '82 had completed.

 

Wasn't it the biggest video game company in the world in 1981? Or the biggest arcade company in the world in 1981? Can we compare Atari x Nintendo revenues in 1981/1982?

Truth is, Atari couldn't put a descent engineering team together to create their next video game system OR even their new line of computers. Are you going to tell me that even a hobbyist electronic engineer with enough resources could have created in 1983 (or even today) a real successor for the Atari 800, with improved CPU, Antic, graphics, etc?

GCC, a garage company in Boston created the Maria chip!!

 

Additionally the 5200 was meant to compete against the Intellivision - not push the limits of technology and development - it was molded out of Kassar's whims and market viewpoints combined with lack of inter-dpartment cooperation and consumer research. It was simply meant to be a "deluxe" game system alternative to the conosles already on the market and actually had 2600 backwards compatability intended at it's launch.

 

Can we use lack of vision, naive administration and whatever other excuses to make their decisions look any more reasonable?

 

It wound up competing against the Colecovision - which came on surprising everyone and immediately raised the bar. Consequently only a year later they start the 7800.

 

No, "they" didn't start the 7800, GCC started the 7800. Video games were Ataris core business for god sake!! They couldn't put an internal team together to create their next machine. They were relying on 3rd parties, putting their core business in risk. They were immensely incompetents, lets be honest…

 

By the time of the Famicom ('83 through '84) Atari already had several non-rehashed consoles and technologies in the works including the 7800, the Rainbow set, the 16-bit Amiga based console, and more.

 

They seemed to have money to fund all those researches (how many different video games and computers were they planning to have in the market at the same time?), still they couldn't put together a team to design their next console...

 

The Famicom was designed for the (then) limited Japanese market, by a very successful (by Japanese standards) game company (remember they were around long before the Famicom) as their next step consumer console (previously they had done pong and breakout clones). When they first approached Atari and the US market, the Famicom was as of yet unreleased, untested, and would have been one of many many projects in development if they had picked it up. With a limited intended market, and no internally competing products or resource issues to scatter focus, the answer to your question is no different than why two college kids in a garage were able to outdo all the then giants at "search" in the late 90's.

 

Limited market? Are you calling Japan a limited market?

Even more incredible, Nintendo didn't have any competition in Japan when they started, yet they came with the Famicom. Atari had competition, and thought repurposing a computer was going to do the job...

 

Sometimes smaller companies with more limited resources and a need to focus everything on that one product can be a great advantage. Other times it can be a big detriment and cause the company to collapse and go bye bye like so many do. Nintendo was lucky.

 

Calling a company lucky just to make another company look better is simply a bad excuse... Atari was incompetent; they were making all the mistakes they could. Nintendo was part of the Japanese dominance in consumer electronics during the 80s. Are you going to call all Japanese companies lucky because they were offering better products than their US counterparts?

 

Nintendo was lucky because they focused on dominating their limited local market and thought to try the US market as an afterthought.

 

Lucky because they did the right thing? Are you saying me all companies are stupid by default and when they do something right they are lucky?

 

They knew they didn't have the resources to compete or market against the "big guys" at that time, nor outdo whatever those companies may have in development at that time, nor had they even had any proof their console was going to do anything on the local market to even begin supporting an international presence. Their best bet was to leverage the big guys and their international market to gain more income and support more possible dominance in Japan (their console had yet to be released yet at that time). Which is precisely why they first approached Atari with a very missproportioned OEM deal. The Atari management and such saw the specs, saw the early protos, etc. and didn't feel it anything above what they already had in development - which is why they were considering just burrying it.

 

I guess Atari just wasn't very lucky in this case...

 

You have to remember, the Famicom's (and later NES's) success as a console came more from their ability to lock down Japanese game developers and build it's popular game selection, rather than any tech prowess. It's cheif competitor on the market (The Mark III and later Master System) was considered by many to be more technologically advanced, which wound up not being the deciding factor.

 

The Mark III didn't show up until 1985, by then the Japanese market was already taken.

 

You know, this kind of discussing cant bring anything good to mankind. You called me here, you have my opinion in the matter, I wish I could go back in time, kill Kassar and give the new management a few hints about the future, but I can't.

So I think I better go do something more productive before people here start hating me more than they already do. Bye!

 

Eduardo

Edited October 30, 2009 by opcode

[Retro Rogue]

Marty,

 

First of all I suggest we leave our romantic views of the time aside for a moment...

 

Eduardo, there were no "romantic views" in my previous response, only facts about what was going on inside Atari at the time. You may be unfamiliar with it, but that doesn't preclude them as facts. On the other hand, your hypothesis is based on your personal opinion and your own "romanticism" of what you think was going on during that period.

 

IMHO that doesn't matter. It was a damn computer,

 

All programmable consoles are computers.

 

it wasn't a video game, no matter if they created it to be a video game in the first place, it wasn’t game optimized. It was also very expensive and not that easy to program. Not to say that it was already kind of outdated by 1982 standards IMHO.

 

That's the problem, it's all your opinion. The facts are that the tech was originally designed for use in both the arcade and consumer markets. This changed (only the Pokey portion wound up being used in the arcades because the ctia/gtia were synced to television frequency). The 400 was to be the game console (following Jay's idea for a console with a built in keyboard), Ray changed it to not undermine 2600 sales and instead pushed it as the lower end companion to the "serious computer" 800. When pressure from Intellivision and other systems began to mount, they repackaged the 400 as it's original intent minus the keyboard.

 

 

The Famicom on the other hand was basically a DK board shrank to fit a couple of chips. Inexpensive ($150 in 1983) and very easy to program. Think about this, the Famicom used 4KB of RAM total. The 5200 had 16Kb. Do you know why? Because the Famicom was created to be a video game, it was highly optimized for that.

 

That's just a ridiculous assumption regarding the 16k, and hardly factual. Atari Inc. was a game company, the chips were designed with gaming in mind as the forefront. There's a reason the 400 and 800 were designed with 4 joystick ports as well, and I'll take Joe Decuir's explination to me over your hypothesis any day.

 

 

Likewise, Atari was not a 2 billion company until '82 had completed.

 

Wasn't it the biggest video game company in the world in 1981? Or the biggest arcade company in the world in 1981? Can we compare Atari x Nintendo revenues in 1981/1982?

Truth is, Atari couldn't put a descent engineering team together to create their next video game system OR even their new line of computers. Are you going to tell me that even a hobbyist electronic engineer with enough resources could have created in 1983 (or even today) a real successor for the Atari 800, with improved CPU, Antic, graphics, etc?

 

You are mistaken. They were working on next generation material in '83 and '84. That includes next generation chips, next generation consoles, and next generation computers. Those are facts.

 

GCC, a garage company in Boston created the Maria chip!!

 

Which people complained was hard to program and very un-Atari.

 

 

Can we use lack of vision, naive administration and whatever other excuses to make their decisions look any more reasonable?

 

That's your opinion and certainly you're entitled to it. And I would certainly agree in a lot of cases. However as stated, it was created for a specific purpose in mind.

 

 

No, "they" didn't start the 7800, GCC started the 7800. Video games were Atari’s core business for god sake!! They couldn't put an internal team together to create their next machine.

 

No, *they* started it - i.e. came up with the project and specs, ran the focus groups, and oversaw GCC. I don't recall stating that GCC didn't then do the work via contract.

 

They were relying on 3rd parties, putting their core business in risk. They were immensely incompetents, lets be honest…

 

No, they used *a* 3rd party on *a* console. Being honest would be admitting that you're not familiar with all the design work going at the time - which is not a crime. Most people here are not, Curt and I had to do a lot of digging. The fact is they were working on next gen technology - chips, consoles, and computers.

 

 

 

They seemed to have money to fund all those researches (how many different video games and computers were they planning to have in the market at the same time?), still they couldn't put together a team to design their next console...

 

Huh? Did you even read through the paragraph you're responding to? They were working on several.

 

 

Limited market? Are you calling Japan a limited market?

 

Of course it was at that time. It was a closed and limited market during that time period, that's fact.

 

Even more incredible, Nintendo didn't have any competition in Japan when they started, yet they came with the Famicom. Atari had competition, and thought repurposing a computer was going to do the job...

 

Completely off base there. There was an entire console market there before the famicom, including Nintendo's own earlier consoles. Bandai and Epoch already had programmable consoles on the market there for several years before the Famicom. There's also the other asian companies such as Vtech with their programmable console on the Japanese market. Hell, even Sega's SG-1000 was released on the *same day* as the Famicom.

 

 

Calling a company lucky just to make another company look better is simply a bad excuse...

 

Accusing someone of doing that to raise your own position is worse.

 

Atari was incompetent; they were making all the mistakes they could. Nintendo was part of the Japanese dominance in consumer electronics during the 80s.

 

Completely infactual, Nintendo road no "wave". That's completely ignoring the long, arduous road Nintendo had to take to try and get in the American market, filled with many shut doors and false starts over several years.

 

Are you going to call all Japanese companies lucky because they were offering better products than their US counterparts?

 

That's just a grandstanding statement which has little to do with the discussion. It was not being inferred or stated. We are talking about Nintendo, who took several well documented gambles and it paid off.

 

Lucky because they did the right thing? Are you saying me all companies are stupid by default and when they do something right they are lucky?

 

Once again, more grandstanding statements that have nothing to do with the discussion. They were very lucky they didn't try and enter the US market on their own right away. Yes. They would have drowned in the sea of competitors at the time and been caught up in the US market crash. Their intial desire to enter the US market was an afterthough precluded by the need for Japanese market dominance first and foremost. That is well documented. The reason they approached Atari to sell their console is also well documented.

 

 

 

I guess Atari just wasn't very lucky in this case...

 

Which is a matter of opinion. Once again, you're applying hindsite and placing the NES's later market value and dominance on that time period. There was no proven market for the console, no library of games that outnumbered Atari's, no proven technology, no anything - it had yet to be released.

 

The Mark III didn't show up until 1985, by then the Japanese market was already taken.

 

Which has nothing to do with what I was stating.

 

 

You know, this kind of discussing can’t bring anything good to mankind. You called me here, you have my opinion in the matter, I wish I could go back in time, kill Kassar and give the new management a few hints about the future, but I can't.

So I think I better go do something more productive before people here start hating me more than they already do. Bye!

 

Eduardo

 

Nobody hates you Eduardo, it's two friends discussing. I might think you're a little missguided at times and not running on the right info, but other than that you're just fine.

[opcode]

I wish I could go back in time, kill Kassar and give the new management a few hints about the future, but I can't.

 

They should make a Star Trek episode about that, someone uses the Guardian of Forever to go back in time and kill Kassar, then history is changed and the Enterprise is suddenly full of Atari arcade machines... Spock kills Kirk when he decides to use the Guardian to fix things, considering the captain’s behavior most illogical...

Or Terminator: in the future Nintendo took control of the world. Mankind then sends a hero back in time to kill Kassar and make sure Atari destroy Nintendo before it becomes too powerful. Nintendo then sends their latest creation back in time, "Wii love Kassar", to protect the man...

In fact if we take the multiple universes theory seriously, then there should be a universe where Kassar died when he was still a kid and Atari eventually took control of the world, just like Microsoft in our own universe (Blade Runner probably took place in that universe. In 2019 they had those Atari neon things…)

Edited October 30, 2009 by opcode

[atariksi]

Taking the risk of getting killed or accused of being biased, let me just say this: how could a video game company with sales of $2 billions/year be unable to create a new video game system and repurpose their 4 years old computer instead? And then how could another company with a fraction of the first company revenue be able to create a completely new system that left the first company repurposed system in the dust (like the system were of different generations) just a year later? In case you didn't get it, I am talking about the 5200 x Famicom...

Bad joysticks were just the tip of the iceberg...

I dunno certainly mistakes and high payroll were to blame. I would say I always though and still do having owned both that the 5200 was the much superior system.

CV had some interesting knock off games that I enjoyed but god awful joysticks and the thing was so cheap it creaked!

 

Did you guys actually read what I wrote, or just the 1st paragraph and assumed the rest? How was talking about ColecoVision? I didn't...

 

You weren't talking about Colecovision but you mocked Atari (as you continue to do) without any evidence. Claiming controller problems are "tip of the iceberg" implied a whole slew of other bigger problems with the system which don't exist as the system was very good at the time. So for your mocking, returning with some factual information against Colecovision which you adore as a fair response.

[atariksi]

I don't think games are looking for exact values on the POTs so some jitter is tolerable and the buttons when working are fine except their size should be bigger like A2600 paddle buttons.

 

Having redundant buttons on both sides was really not the best idea, having one larger button on each side like the 7800 controllers (or coleco etc) could have been fine IMO.

 

As for Jitter, I mean this kind of Jitter:

Which is unacceptable, but who knows how much wear it took to get in that condition.

...

Exactly, all joysticks eventually break down. I haven't had any problems with the POTs on the A5200 sticks and that's without even cleaning or taking care of them. The other jitter of toggling between values also happens even on PC joysticks, Apple joysticks, etc. so no sense in using that as a negative for A5200.

 

One reason sited for using analog control at all was to one up Intellivision's 16-direction disc (which was similarly problematic and unnecessary over an 8-way one and lacked the real advantages analog does have), ...

Sometimes people think the "grass is greener on the other side of the fence." Atari had the best joystick and Paddles and keyboard controllers yet went for the analog route because no good reason other than other people doing it.

 

You're the only lunatic here. Coleco controllers are worse the A800/A400 controllers. Take your pill. I stay away from pills. You didn't even answer the point. How is it tip of the iceberg if you haven't even defined the iceberg yet. I can also get some children to call you names, but I have some intelligence to stay away from such childish nonsense that you are so used to.

 

The A8 joysticks are like 2600 joysticks, right? I would generally agree, though I don't think the CV controllers are horrible (better than Intellivision and in some ways 5200), but not better than the simple, classic 2600 stick. except possible for games that really play better with multiple buttons or where having a built in keypad is a significant advantage over having one in p2 port) But for most, simple, arcade-type game the good old atari joystick is great. (iirc the original CX-10 is supposed to be better than the CX-40 as well, maybe using microswitches rather than chicklet buttons, I'm not sure)

 

I agree mostly here but I think it's quite possible to build most games around digital Atari joystick and leave less used functionality to keyboard controllers and console keys. The stuff that requires immediate attention should be on the joystick and more buttons complicates things as in modern controllers. We don't need "oops you pressed R instead of A to kill the invader. Do you want to play again?"

[Bill Loguidice]

You weren't talking about Colecovision but you mocked Atari (as you continue to do) without any evidence. Claiming controller problems are "tip of the iceberg" implied a whole slew of other bigger problems with the system which don't exist as the system was very good at the time. So for your mocking, returning with some factual information against Colecovision which you adore as a fair response.

 

And a person with a user name of "atariksi" is probably a little biased the other way too, no? The 5200 DID suffer from a variety of problems at launch, including a tepid launch line-up, unusual controllers, a high price, unexpected competition from Coleco, etc., added to the fact that because we're still talking early industry here and no one had ever released a successor system while the previous system was still active, getting a lot of crap about not being backwards compatible with the 2600, particularly in light of add-on offerings from Coleco and, to a lesser degree, Mattel. If there was no ColecoVision, the Atari 5200 would have been very attractive, but the ColecoVision threw a monkey wrench into everything when it came to that system, not to mention that reality or not, there seemed to be little apparent difference in capabilities. Also, the 5200, while sleek, was HUGE, and also, for the time, had a very unusual RF adapter. So I think the "tip fo the iceberg" comment was rather fair, but of course nearly every system had some type of issues going against it sooner or later.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Bill_Loguidice

[atariksi]

Sometimes smaller companies with more limited resources and a need to focus everything on that one product can be a great advantage. Other times it can be a big detriment and cause the company to collapse and go bye bye like so many do. Nintendo was lucky.

 

Calling a company lucky just to make another company look better is simply a bad excuse... Atari was incompetent; they were making all the mistakes they could. Nintendo was part of the Japanese dominance in consumer electronics during the 80s. Are you going to call all Japanese companies lucky because they were offering better products than their US counterparts?

...

Some of your opinions were already answered, but just want to point out that you are speculating about Atari being incompetent. Using the latest and greatest technology isn't the main factor in coming up with the computer at that time atleast. Marketing factors and other nontechnical reasons come into play. Atari was *PURPOSELY* taking the A400 and making a game console that was cheaper to produce than the A400. So no reason to claim incompetency especially given they were also working on 16-bit machines while the NES hitting the market in USA. Due to many cheap computers hitting the market in early 1980s, they had to make cheaper computer/game consoles. There was a PGA graphics card available with 4096 colors that cost thousands of dollars at the time so I can say Nintendo was incompetent to put up more than 48 colors!

[atariksi]

You weren't talking about Colecovision but you mocked Atari (as you continue to do) without any evidence. Claiming controller problems are "tip of the iceberg" implied a whole slew of other bigger problems with the system which don't exist as the system was very good at the time. So for your mocking, returning with some factual information against Colecovision which you adore as a fair response.

 

And a person with a user name of "atariksi" is probably a little biased the other way too, no? The 5200 DID suffer from a variety of problems at launch, including a tepid launch line-up, unusual controllers, a high price, unexpected competition from Coleco, etc., added to the fact that because we're still talking early industry here and no one had ever released a successor system while the previous system was still active, getting a lot of crap about not being backwards compatible with the 2600, particularly in light of add-on offerings from Coleco and, to a lesser degree, Mattel. If there was no ColecoVision, the Atari 5200 would have been very attractive, but the ColecoVision threw a monkey wrench into everything when it came to that system, not to mention that reality or not, there seemed to be little apparent difference in capabilities. Also, the 5200, while sleek, was HUGE, and also, for the time, had a very unusual RF adapter. So I think the "tip fo the iceberg" comment was rather fair, but of course nearly every system had some type of issues going against it sooner or later.

 

Nontechnical problems are different from technical issues. Technically, A5200 has only controller issues (due to removing PIA)-- otherwise it was excellent system at the time. Colecovision and other systems were cheaper which posed a problem not that they outdid the A8 chipset. As far as incompatibilities go, they did it on purpose to make more money from the software sales. The chipset is still the same and they are in essence register level compatible with A800/a400 since only the memory base address is different. Nontechnical issues don't matter in comparing which system is better.

[opcode]

You weren't talking about Colecovision but you mocked Atari (as you continue to do) without any evidence. Claiming controller problems are "tip of the iceberg" implied a whole slew of other bigger problems with the system which don't exist as the system was very good at the time. So for your mocking, returning with some factual information against Colecovision which you adore as a fair response.

 

Mom taught me I shouldn't make fun of mentally impaired people, so to the list of blocked people you go. I know you have problems, but you're annoying beyond belief pal...

[atariksi]

You weren't talking about Colecovision but you mocked Atari (as you continue to do) without any evidence. Claiming controller problems are "tip of the iceberg" implied a whole slew of other bigger problems with the system which don't exist as the system was very good at the time. So for your mocking, returning with some factual information against Colecovision which you adore as a fair response.

 

Mom taught me I shouldn't make fun of mentally impaired people, so to the list of blocked people you go. I know you have problems, but you're annoying beyond belief pal...

 

False accusations won't help your condition. Get a life. Speak some truth and keep your rubbish to yourself. You have contributed enough drivel to try to mislead people in this thread and in others. Go find something better to do you with your life.

[atariksi]

Taking the risk of getting killed or accused of being biased, let me just say this: how could a video game company with sales of $2 billions/year be unable to create a new video game system and repurpose their 4 years old computer instead? And then how could another company with a fraction of the first company revenue be able to create a completely new system that left the first company repurposed system in the dust (like the system were of different generations) just a year later? In case you didn't get it, I am talking about the 5200 x Famicom...

Bad joysticks were just the tip of the iceberg...

I dunno certainly mistakes and high payroll were to blame. I would say I always though and still do having owned both that the 5200 was the much superior system.

CV had some interesting knock off games that I enjoyed but god awful joysticks and the thing was so cheap it creaked!

 

And the CV technically is inferior to A8. All opcode does is speculate his brains out on how to mock Atari; he can't find anything factual to contribute except what many have already admitted-- the controller issues. Then he does straw-man arguments and personal attacks thinking that will somehow refute other people's arguments. The guy needs help and hypocritically things others need help.

[opcode]

And a person with a user name of "atariksi" is probably a little biased the other way too, no? The 5200 DID suffer from a variety of problems at launch, including a tepid launch line-up, unusual controllers, a high price, unexpected competition from Coleco, etc., added to the fact that because we're still talking early industry here and no one had ever released a successor system while the previous system was still active, getting a lot of crap about not being backwards compatible with the 2600, particularly in light of add-on offerings from Coleco and, to a lesser degree, Mattel. If there was no ColecoVision, the Atari 5200 would have been very attractive, but the ColecoVision threw a monkey wrench into everything when it came to that system, not to mention that reality or not, there seemed to be little apparent difference in capabilities. Also, the 5200, while sleek, was HUGE, and also, for the time, had a very unusual RF adapter. So I think the "tip fo the iceberg" comment was rather fair, but of course nearly every system had some type of issues going against it sooner or later.

 

Thanks Bill, I was starting to believe that I came from an alternate universe where things happened differently from how I remembered them...

[atariksi]

And a person with a user name of "atariksi" is probably a little biased the other way too, no? The 5200 DID suffer from a variety of problems at launch, including a tepid launch line-up, unusual controllers, a high price, unexpected competition from Coleco, etc., added to the fact that because we're still talking early industry here and no one had ever released a successor system while the previous system was still active, getting a lot of crap about not being backwards compatible with the 2600, particularly in light of add-on offerings from Coleco and, to a lesser degree, Mattel. If there was no ColecoVision, the Atari 5200 would have been very attractive, but the ColecoVision threw a monkey wrench into everything when it came to that system, not to mention that reality or not, there seemed to be little apparent difference in capabilities. Also, the 5200, while sleek, was HUGE, and also, for the time, had a very unusual RF adapter. So I think the "tip fo the iceberg" comment was rather fair, but of course nearly every system had some type of issues going against it sooner or later.

 

Thanks Bill, I was starting to believe that I came from an alternate universe where things happened differently from how I remembered them...

 

Ignoring things won't help you. He didn't even address any technical issues besides the controller problems which shows you yourself don't know what you are talking about by claiming "tip of the iceberg". There's some ostridge that when someone comes to chop of its head, it puts its head in the sand to avoid the reality. You can't prove your absurd claim so you basically want to ignore it. Hope no one follows your precedent.

[Retro Rogue]

Ok, this convo is going in a direction I really don't want to be a part of. Have fun guys.

[opcode]

Ok, since it seems I have derailed the thread, let me try to put it back on track...

I think Atari would have done a few things to save the 5200.

First of all they needed to cut costs. Shrink the design, perhaps integrate a couple of ICs together, like the Antic and GTIA. And of course new controllers. The 5200 joystick design isn't bad per se, actually I find it the most comfortable of all 3 next-gen systems (CV, INT, 5200). The problem was the non-centering joystick. I would prefer a digital joystick, but that is just my opinion, and probably too late for such change. I also think Atari needed a way to block 3rd party from releasing games for the 5200 without a license. They did that with the 7800 after all.

The second thing they needed: killer apps. They should have stopped releasing every arcade game they licensed for both 2600 and 5200 systems and kept them as 5200 exclusives. Games like Pole Position, Xevious, Moon Patrol should have been 5200 exclusives. They could have used some of their arcade designers to create some exclusive titles for the 5200. And as Japanese developers soon realized, home consoles users want more involving and complex games than the "quick fix" formula found in arcade games. Atari could also have done what most Japanese developers did later on, creating “franchises” around popular titles. For example, Battlezone could have become a strategy game, or a new Yar's Revenge with lots of screens, or a new Asteroids with more varied objectives, or a new Adventure (which actually happened recently). Atari didn't have a lot of character centric games, so they could have created a few too. Pitfall was a good example. I also think they needed a better 5200 development team from a technical point of view. People that knew the ins and outs of the machine in depth. Homebrewers today seems to be more technically capable than most people doing those games back then.

Yeah, pretty much that, redesigned console and controllers with more exclusive titles and more focus on quality. Quality was a big issue IMHO, forcing people to program games in 3 months or less was the formula for disaster. They needed to make sure every game was properly done and good games take time.

Oh, a last thing, by no means they should have released the same games for the 8-bit line. That was a bad, bad decision, putting the 5200 against the 8-bit line or vice versa. And Atarisoft was also a bad idea...

[kool kitty89]

The Famicom on the other hand was basically a DK board shrank to fit a couple of chips. Inexpensive ($150 in 1983) and very easy to program. Think about this, the Famicom used 4KB of RAM total. The 5200 had 16Kb. Do you know why? Because the Famicom was created to be a video game, it was highly optimized for that.

 

That's just a ridiculous assumption regarding the 16k, and hardly factual. Atari Inc. was a game company, the chips were designed with gaming in mind as the forefront. There's a reason the 400 and 800 were designed with 4 joystick ports as well, and I'll take Joe Decuir's explination to me over your hypothesis any day.

 

And don't forget there are other things to considder here, that 16 kB was DRAM, not SRAM like in the NES or 7800 (both of which have 4kB), which is MUCH cheaper than SRAM. (so that 16kB is probably somewhat cheaper than the other's 4kB, not to mention the additional cost of Nintendo's multi-bus design -and multi-bus cartridges- compared to the shared single-bus 7800/5200/2600) The cost issues with the 5200 come from large, unconsolidated board, and heavy, oversized case. They should have made it as compact as possible initially (at very least like the 5200 Jr/5100 prototype) and then, later further consolidated the machine. (smaller design would be cheaper to manufacture, package, transport, and distribute, not to mention more convienient for customers)

 

GCC, a garage company in Boston created the Maria chip!!

 

Which people complained was hard to program and very un-Atari.

Wasn't the 2600 (and 400/800 for that matter) designed by a relatively small team of engineers as well, and in the 2600s case at least, under a relatively small company with limited funding?

 

Anyway, in a previous discussion with Kskunk, he expressed that the 7800 (MARIA) would probably have been fine as a direct followon to the 2600 (instead of the 5200) had it been available around that time, with any issues due to its unique nature being rather accepted by developers at the time given the nature of developing for the 2600.

 

No, "they" didn't start the 7800, GCC started the 7800. Video games were Atari’s core business for god sake!! They couldn't put an internal team together to create their next machine.

 

No, *they* started it - i.e. came up with the project and specs, ran the focus groups, and oversaw GCC. I don't recall stating that GCC didn't then do the work via contract.

Huh, I though that GCC had started designing the 7800 as an independent progect of their own initiative and then proposed it to Atari after they'd already started the preliminary design.

 

They were relying on 3rd parties, putting their core business in risk. They were immensely incompetents, lets be honest…

 

No, they used *a* 3rd party on *a* console. Being honest would be admitting that you're not familiar with all the design work going at the time - which is not a crime. Most people here are not, Curt and I had to do a lot of digging. The fact is they were working on next gen technology - chips, consoles, and computers.

 

GCC wasn't even a 3rd party at that time though, more of what's often referred to as a 2nd party relationship with Atari due to the way that Super Missile attack case ended. (so they were already on pretty close terms with Atari)

 

Even more incredible, Nintendo didn't have any competition in Japan when they started, yet they came with the Famicom. Atari had competition, and thought repurposing a computer was going to do the job...

Completely off base there. There was an entire console market there before the famicom, including Nintendo's own earlier consoles. Bandai and Epoch already had programmable consoles on the market there for several years before the Famicom. There's also the other asian companies such as Vtech with their programmable console on the Japanese market. Hell, even Sega's SG-1000 was released on the *same day* as the Famicom.

 

Yeah, but I think a big part of his point if poorly expressed) was that the NES had no real competition in terms of hardware at the time, western companies hadn't released any of their systems to a significant degree (the Atari 2800 wasn't even released until 1983 too), the Famicom easily beats the SG-1000 hardware wise (which was really noting but a Colecovision with a bit more main RAM), the NES was a big jump ahead of that (and the 2800). When the Mark III came around that was along a similar timetable as the Intellivision to the 2600, and similar to that, it has some technical advantages, but also was weaker in some areas (though unlike the IV, lacked the issue of an uncommon/unfreindly architecture), and in both cases the earlier system had already been established to a fair degree already.

[kool kitty89]

No, "they" didn't start the 7800, GCC started the 7800. Video games were Atari’s core business for god sake!! They couldn't put an internal team together to create their next machine.

 

No, *they* started it - i.e. came up with the project and specs, ran the focus groups, and oversaw GCC. I don't recall stating that GCC didn't then do the work via contract.

Huh, I though that GCC had started designing the 7800 as an independent progect of their own initiative and then proposed it to Atari after they'd already started the preliminary design.

 

Ah, here's the interview with what I was thinking of, at ~30:00. http://beemp3.com/download.php?file=1198507&song=Atari+7800+Panel

 

And I was a bit off when I referred to GCC being "2nd party" to Atari as their association with with Warner, not directly with Atari Inc.

[atariksi]

an old thread returns to life

 

It seems like someone had to think about the answer for a year+ before he replied.

[Curt Vendel]

I just posted this in another topic, but is applies here:

 

 

Warner understood entertainment. However they pushed that mandate too sternly at Atari, everything had to be entertainment based. This is why the computer systems were held down and stifled. Everytime R&D came with a new system or idea that would make the computers more in line with business class systems, it was shot down as not being in line with an entertainment based company.

 

The other side was, that since Warner would not allow Atari to advance its systems in major ways, they continually mandated cost reductions to the designs, so engineering was in a perpetual loop of burning immense amounts of resources to find ways to take the same 1977 VCS design and cost reduce it, the same 1979 computer design and cost reduce it. They were going after Commodore instead of shooting towards Apple and IBM -- Atari had the engineering know-how to have made far superior high end computers - they just weren't giving the ability. This lead to defections of key and vital personnel who ran off, formed Mindset, Amiga and other computer companies with next generation designs which - had Warner permitted the computer division the ability to have done these very designs in-house in the first place, Atari would've had them years earlier.

 

Same with the console side, cost reductions and the continued use and re-use of the same chipsets which were well past their prime. The 5200 should've come out in 1981, not in 1982 and it should've been just a repackaged 400 computer less the keyboard with different shaped and pinned carts and perhaps the use of the 2700 controllers (combo joystick/paddle, but hardwired versions. Instead, due to bitter rivalry between the computer and games divisions, the games division was forced to mutate the 400 design into what really became a nightmare with a mish-mosh memory map to make it software incompatible, a redesign the reuse of ports to make it hardware incompatible with everything from the computer side.

 

The computer division felt that the games division would eat into its sales - this was foolish all around. What should've happened was Atari should've discontinued the 400 all together, maintained the 800, did a different "1200" design with 80 columns and more memory and then that would've been the highend system, the 800 would've been the low end system. The "new 5200 - aka: 400 repackaged) would be an entry level "My first computer" type system - a video game console that was limited to 16k, TV only and could have a keyboard attached and maybe redid the SIO port to only accept a cassette player. That would allowed Atari to make one set of software for 2 different area's of the company, and save tons on programmer costs and time, they could've staggered releases for the 5200 and home computers and the home computers could've had better versions with the more memory that they had. Lastly, the system new 5200 system could've been marketed right off the bat as advanced video game that can be a computer and they could've included Atariwriter or Basic with the keyboard, it would've been a win-win for Atari. They just were so worried about the overlap, that they didn't think of the bigger picture and could've moved the computers upward in price and features and stayed out of the low end where the video game console were and there never would've been the need for rivalry, worrying about eating into each others sales or the like.

 

So in the end, Atari's internal bickering is what lead to the 5200 going from a beautiful concept to a miserable production design, also Glenn is right, very few games took advantage of the analog sticks, those should've been made available as after market options, not pack-in controllers. Lastly - the disasterous selection of Super Breakout at a pack-in!?!?! What the hell was marketing thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Curt

 

 

 

Curt

[kool kitty89]

Warner understood entertainment. However they pushed that mandate too sternly at Atari, everything had to be entertainment based. This is why the computer systems were held down and stifled. Everytime R&D came with a new system or idea that would make the computers more in line with business class systems, it was shot down as not being in line with an entertainment based company.

 

Funny how Tramiel Atari is critisized for the opposite, not being "fun" (entertainment oriented) enough, with them shifteg focus specifically towards computers. (granted they tended to be focused on low cost as well, so that would have been limiting, and they also seem to have lingered on older technology for too long -ST without a major upgrade by the late '80s to compete with developments of PCs -granted Jack wasn't at the helm by then either and they did come out with some particularly high-end systems, like th eTransputer -not that that was necessarily a good example)

 

The other side was, that since Warner would not allow Atari to advance its systems in major ways, they continually mandated cost reductions to the designs, so engineering was in a perpetual loop of burning immense amounts of resources to find ways to take the same 1977 VCS design and cost reduce it, the same 1979 computer design and cost reduce it. They were going after Commodore instead of shooting towards Apple and IBM -- Atari had the engineering know-how to have made far superior high end computers - they just weren't giving the ability. This lead to defections of key and vital personnel who ran off, formed Mindset, Amiga and other computer companies with next generation designs which - had Warner permitted the computer division the ability to have done these very designs in-house in the first place, Atari would've had them years earlier.

 

Going after Commodore at least made sense though, they were huge at the time, the Vic-20 was the first computer to sell over a million and the C64 was huge up to th elate 80s (later in Europe). Still, they didn't need to put the kind of resourses they did into reducing costs of the 2600 and 8-bitters quite so rigerously, the 2600 was rather low-cost to begin with and they probably would have been fine sticking with the 6-switch model longer. In any case, looser FCC regulations would facilitate cheaper designs, especially with the computers, allowing much less RF sheilding, no more heavy aluminum castings, and ficilitating a more consolidated design. (along with declining RAM prices)

Even with entertainment as a primary focus, puting work into developments like th eAmiga could have fed into this quite well, in addition to expanding to higher-end markets. (the amaiga chipset of course being very gaming oriented)

 

Same with the console side, cost reductions and the continued use and re-use of the same chipsets which were well past their prime. The 5200 should've come out in 1981, not in 1982 and it should've been just a repackaged 400 computer less the keyboard with different shaped and pinned carts and perhaps the use of the 2700 controllers (combo joystick/paddle, but hardwired versions.

Hadn't Warner/Atari planned on releasing a new console in 1981 (the "3200"), which was even supposed to be 2600 compatible, but they ran into problems and had to abandon it? (which probably contributed to the rushed nature of the 5200)

And by "hardwired" controllers, you just mean non-wireless, right. (still detacable and interchangeable, not like the Intellivision) Maybe they could have used controllers with 1-2 additional buttons (via the pot lines), with a fair number of games starting to required more than a single button. (wouldn't be useful for direct conversions from th e8-bitters though, unless the'd been designed to use the keyboard originally, but certainly useful for improved ports or original games for th esystem)

 

Along with using different cartridge pinouts, instituting some kind of lockout mechanism (like the 7800 has) would be important to address the lack of control over releases that was problematic with the 2600. (and Computers in the sense they weren't making mony off 3rd party games, but not the "glut" of games issue the 2600 had)

 

The computer division felt that the games division would eat into its sales - this was foolish all around. What should've happened was Atari should've discontinued the 400 all together, maintained the 800, did a different "1200" design with 80 columns and more memory and then that would've been the highend system, the 800 would've been the low end system. The "new 5200 - aka: 400 repackaged) would be an entry level "My first computer" type system - a video game console that was limited to 16k, TV only and could have a keyboard attached and maybe redid the SIO port to only accept a cassette player. That would allowed Atari to make one set of software for 2 different area's of the company, and save tons on programmer costs and time, they could've staggered releases for the 5200 and home computers and the home computers could've had better versions with the more memory that they had. Lastly, the system new 5200 system could've been marketed right off the bat as advanced video game that can be a computer and they could've included Atariwriter or Basic with the keyboard, it would've been a win-win for Atari. They just were so worried about the overlap, that they didn't think of the bigger picture and could've moved the computers upward in price and features and stayed out of the low end where the video game console were and there never would've been the need for rivalry, worrying about eating into each others sales or the like.

 

This is a great overview, probably th ebest single statemtn in this thread. Not much else to say on that.

 

So in the end, Atari's internal bickering is what lead to the 5200 going from a beautiful concept to a miserable production design, also Glenn is right, very few games took advantage of the analog sticks, those should've been made available as after market options, not pack-in controllers. Lastly - the disasterous selection of Super Breakout at a pack-in!?!?! What the hell was marketing thinking!

 

Yeah, really, analog joysticks could have been a good accessory (particularly as a cheaper, more compact alternative to a tracball, as well as best fitting for games like Star Wars). Pac Man really would have been th eobvious choice, particulary given the poor quality of the 2600 version, granted (in context of the real 5200) it would have pointed out problems with the analog stick, but stil a way better option. (and with new controllers it would still have probably played well, with proper, digital joysticks it would have been the ideal choice)

Edited October 31, 2009 by kool kitty89

[Thorsten Günther]

I would like to disagree on some of your proposals:

 

IMHO it would have made no sense to change the cartridge port or to entirely leave out the keyboard when the Odyssey had one to fake "educational" value. I would have simply aimed at a cost-cut 600XL with a 400-like membrane (if it were identical, upgrades would already have been available - so that'd be a plus) or chiclet keyboard. 16 KB RAM is OK, but I'd have kept the PBI and SIO bus to advertise it as "able to grow to a full 64K computer - fully compatible with all the peripherals".

 

And - heck - why no orange case?

 

Analog joysticks would have been nice for some games - considering the fact that the original joystick port already has two analog inputs (for the paddles) and five digital ones, it would have been a no-brainer to develop one similar to that of the Vectrex.

 

 

Thorsten

[Curt Vendel]

You have to balance this from a marketing and consumer standpoint... you need to keep the cost of the unit down to get consumers to buy it. You also want to dangle carrots in front of buyers to get them to buy and upgrade - hence selling a separate keyboard and cassette option. If you include the keyboard then its more of an entry level computer - we are trying from the company standpoint to deliver a high end game console system to the public which could be upgraded to a computer by consumers, not to just directly sell an entry level computer - that defeats the purpose of the conversation...

 

So, lets see the "re-evolution" of the 400 into the new "5200-Phase II" design...

 

Stage 1: Remove top cartridge door, cpu/ram card and go with single board design

 

Stage 2: Remove keyboard from design

 

Stage 3: Add 5200 cartridge port, venting style and silver label

 

Stage 4: Adjust color to console black

 

Stage 5: Remove original SIO port, here is our new 5200 Design...

 

 

 

Curt

 

 

 

I would like to disagree on some of your proposals:

 

IMHO it would have made no sense to change the cartridge port or to entirely leave out the keyboard when the Odyssey had one to fake "educational" value. I would have simply aimed at a cost-cut 600XL with a 400-like membrane (if it were identical, upgrades would already have been available - so that'd be a plus) or chiclet keyboard. 16 KB RAM is OK, but I'd have kept the PBI and SIO bus to advertise it as "able to grow to a full 64K computer - fully compatible with all the peripherals".

 

And - heck - why no orange case?

 

Analog joysticks would have been nice for some games - considering the fact that the original joystick port already has two analog inputs (for the paddles) and five digital ones, it would have been a no-brainer to develop one similar to that of the Vectrex.

 

 

Thorsten

Edited November 1, 2009 by Curt Vendel

[Retro Rogue]

Stage 5: Remove original SIO port, here is our new 5200 Design...

 

 

*que sound of crickets*

[opcode]

Stage 5: Remove original SIO port, here is our new 5200 Design...

 

 

*que sound of crickets*

 

Ok, I'm kind of afraid to ask but... what do you mean by "our" new 5200 design? Or "new "5200-Phase II" design"? Please, please, tell us...

Edited November 1, 2009 by opcode

[Curt Vendel]

I meant it as a descriptive - meaning "in review, here is the idea of the simplest way to take the Atari 400 and literally redo the case design into a console design... hence here we have our new 5200 design as discussed in theory of looking back at how it should've been done in the most straight forward way."

 

Atari could've literally have done this entire re-engineering in Jan 1981 and had the system ready to ship in fall 1981 for the holidays with an entire line up of games, educational titles and a detachable keyboard "upgrade" all for 1981, well ahead of the Colecovision, it would've had the keyboard feature that Intellivision was promising for years before the Intellivision and using hardwired combo controllers based around what the 2700 controllers looked like, perhaps with a Reset and Pause/Start button and maybe 4-6 buttons (there was never a need to have a 12 key keypad on the system) --- What no one realized until years later --- unless the keys are needed for actual gameplay - there was never a need for digits 0-9 and *# on a controller... They did it for game selection - hello --- do it in software, not hardware, too many buttons on a controller... Atari Corp would make this very same mistake with the Jag controller... what game(s) need 12 buttons ontop of the A, B, C buttons ?!?!?

 

 

Curt

 

Stage 5: Remove original SIO port, here is our new 5200 Design...

 

 

*que sound of crickets*

 

Ok, I'm kind of afraid to ask but... what do you mean by "our" new 5200 design? Or "new "5200-Phase II" design"? Please, please, tell us...