[Bill_Loguidice]

mcjakeqcool, on Fri Jun 5, 2009 11:45 AM, said:

Anything would be a better competitor to the SNES and Mega Drive then the 7800 and XEGS, except the 2600 jr (which was a competitor aswell), Atari needed a big next gen console around '89, '90 why they waited until '93 is beyond me.

In theory the Lynx could have bridged the gap by allowing them to dominate in the nascent handheld space. Again, though, due to lack of software (Tetris), name (Nintendo) and other factors like battery life and arguably form factor/size, the Lynx could never be expected to even compete there. With that said, that would have been their best chance, moreso than competing with the SNES/Genesis.

[kool kitty89]

Crazyace, on Fri Jun 5, 2009 7:09 AM, said:

I think Atari actually did pretty well with the ST's They sold well, and had a lot of good software written for them. Maybe they could have succeeded with a console version as well. ( I just wish that h/w scrolling had been part of the original ST - rather than the STe, where it was just too late )
Even the Jaguar had quite a few good titles - they just arrived too late to save it, as the PSX and Saturn had raised the bar.

I think a lack of quality software in quantity is what killed the Jag, which of course, has something to do with its hardware shortcomings as well. Atari didn't have the money to compete with a powerhouse like Sony, at least in terms of marketing, and Sega and Nintendo were in much better shape here too (though Atari could have an opening with Sega screwing themselved in the US durring this gen), it could have been reasonably successful, maybe made it into 3rd ahead of the 3DO and Sega's mangled Saturn campiagn...

You're right about the STe not competing hardware wise eith the SNES and Genesis, there's the possibility of an '87 launch of a deriviative of the earlier models, but as you mention there's some disadvantages there too. (had they made a console version though, they could have enhance some of the graphical capabilities like scrolling, prior to the STe) And as mentioned, an FM synth chip could address the sound weaknesses. (or a POKEY or 2, though in the long run this might be expensive as there was never a cut-down sound only version of POKEY, so they'd all be the 40-pin DIP with i/o funtionality)

[oky2000]

Maybe an STE console would have been OK (great for us as it would have forced STE games to be designed first and then ported down to STFM specs rather than vice versa) I think the cost would have been way too much. Also what you have to remember is that Sega/Nintendo weren't really hardware companies unlike Atari computer division, and made their money by charging a fee on each cartridge they produced for 3rd party companies. From that angle they knew what they were doing. Also both Sega and Nintendo are no strangers to producing triple A titles too so even something like that the Saturn which didn't sell to well had games you wanted to play in abundance.

I think the Panther would have gone the same way as the Jag (superior hardware maybe, but inferior games on balance compared to the established market leaders). As far as the Jag goes it was just a bad time to be making console hardware. People wanted 3D and pretty 3D visuals at that...and to be honest Sony were the first company to deliver a simple to code machine that consistently produced arcade quality 3D games at home like Ridge Racer/Tekken on launch. Everyone else got stuffed because 2D or untextured polygons not running at 30FPS were last years news, and the Genesis and SNES already had the old skool console market sewn up tight as a drum until their time was over. Many consoles died a horrible death/were stillborn...it was like watching a re-run of the home computer wars of the early 80s where good machines just died a slow painful death. The Jag kind of suffered the same way as the Amiga 1200/4000/CD32....they just weren't capable of running (due to technical reasons) what was becoming the new era of game design into 3D...Doom killed Amiga and Ridge Racer killed Jag. Being first is no good if something radical happens in the games market and your console is stuck behind the new kids on the block (PSX/Saturn)

But you know what, Atari got hold of the Handy and did nothing with it, had they had the foresight to actually push the prototype to completion and get it out there they could have pre-empted Gameboy by 24 months and brought respect to the Atari logo on consoles. The 2600 was long in tooth and old news, the XEGS had all the faults of the A8 unimproved (since 1979 pretty much)like more colours on screen or better player/missile graphics, and the 7800 was just not going to do it at all. However of all the machines they ever rushed to market (ST/Jag) they didn't rush the Epyx Handy at all, and sat on the Handy prototype until it was too late and they were head to head with supreme marketing geniuses at Nintendo. An Amiga in your pocket, how can you argue with that? And with 18 months lead time and many many coders chomping at the bit to do something the games would be there before Gamegear/Gameboy launched. Simple.

And you know if Nintendo's sickly pokemon-o-rama puke inducing lcd crap had been usurped by Lynx saturating the market 24-18 months earlier things would be very different, as the Gamecube and N64 disasters were bankrolled by the Pokemon and Tetris Gameboy cash cows, they were making massive losses with the GC and N64 (damned right too with their kiddy games and no-blood policy on Doom and MK!).

Atari originally made millions because Nolan had the foresight to market the 2600....he single handedly created the home console market as we know pretty much (odyssey doesn't count, the tech was too low to actual do anything useful with despite what others may tell you...it was a yawn fest two player only PoS)....had the Tramiels had the same kind of blue sky thinking in their company they would have jumped on the Handy and created the handheld console market as we know it today all by themselves too and been richly rewarded....instead we got the XEGS

[Curt Vendel]

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.


Curt

Rybags, on Sun May 10, 2009 6:37 AM, said:

I think the truth of the matter is Atari never understood the console market once Warner took control.

The 2600 rolled along on sheer momentum alone, really neither Warner or the Tramiels did anything worthwhile to improve it's standing.

Of the consoles that came later, the common problems were some/all of: insufficient RAM, too few release titles, poor support, poor marketing, and the number 1: Released too late.

[DracIsBack]

oky2000, on Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:20 PM, said:

And you know if Nintendo's sickly pokemon-o-rama puke inducing lcd crap had been usurped by Lynx saturating the market 24-18 months earlier things would be very different, as the Gamecube and N64 disasters were bankrolled by the Pokemon and Tetris Gameboy cash cows, they were making massive losses with the GC and N64 (damned right too with their kiddy games and no-blood policy on Doom and MK!).

Umm - bullshit. Where's your source for either the N64 (which sold over 30 million units and hundreds of millions of games) and GameCube (which sold 22 million and hundreds of millions of games) as being "massive money losers"?

I can appreciate the perspective that they weren't as successful as planned, but calling either a money loser let alone a "massive money loser" is not correct.

[atarian63]

Rybags, on Sun May 10, 2009 5:37 AM, said:

I think the truth of the matter is Atari never understood the console market once Warner took control.

The 2600 rolled along on sheer momentum alone, really neither Warner or the Tramiels did anything worthwhile to improve it's standing.

Of the consoles that came later, the common problems were some/all of: insufficient RAM, too few release titles, poor support, poor marketing, and the number 1: Released too late.

Warner was a good at marketing, that and cash seems to be what they brought to the table. Engineering project seem to have really been all over the place and some cool stuff. Too bad they couldn't link the two areas together. That always seems to be the problem.
Tramiels were cheap for sure, however they rode the train that Warner Atari messed up. They certainly did not understand marketing or the need for programming tools on consoles in order to get titles. Very sad nobody could get it all together.
I often wonder (foolishly) that if Warner had gone back and looked at what was really wrong even at the time of the crash they could have fixed it. I suppose they needed someone who knew the business and also be willing to give that person the autonomy they needed to get the job done. They had the money and lots of things already developed to partially developed. I still believe 7800 would have done very well during and post crash, those first 7800 units in 84 sold very well. Seems like it could have all been theirs again. I guess the shock of the bloated company size and the losses due to that and the crash spooked them too much to take the risk.
Not to mention with the deep pockets they had it would have been easy to eliminate or buy out competitors, buy up existing or proposed technology and have a good grip on chip fab in the process.
Drives me crazy!

This post has been edited by atarian63: Mon Nov 2, 2009 4:02 PM

[atarian63]

Curt Vendel, on Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:01 PM, said:

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.


Curt

Rybags, on Sun May 10, 2009 6:37 AM, said:

I think the truth of the matter is Atari never understood the console market once Warner took control.

The 2600 rolled along on sheer momentum alone, really neither Warner or the Tramiels did anything worthwhile to improve it's standing.

Of the consoles that came later, the common problems were some/all of: insufficient RAM, too few release titles, poor support, poor marketing, and the number 1: Released too late.

seems like a kid who has all the toys in hand but can't make a decision which ones to go with..Whats funny is that since they were kind of being the marketing company and hired some really expensive talent.. shouldn't one of these talents have known what to market?
Sometimes I guess you just can't buy good talent it takes someone with a love of the business or someone who likes to win in marketing.

This post has been edited by atarian63: Mon Nov 2, 2009 4:06 PM

[Curt Vendel]

What might've been a more curious "marriage" would've been for Warner to have brought in Tramiel to only manage Atari and right all of Atari's existing products... that certainly would've made for a VERY interesting alternative timeline...

So with Atari's currently line up:

600XL/800XL (which we know Tramiel seriously cost reduced)
The 1450XL or something similar (again cost reduced)
a 3.5" disk drive
Getting one or more of Atari's internal 16bit systems (GAZA, Sierra, Rainbow) out the door
Maybe getting the 1600XL PC compatible out the door

All cost controlled, and having him restructure the company...

On the entertainment side - the 2600jr and 7800 both release in 1984 fully instead of 1986
Perhaps in 1986 a 16bit game system is released as the NES and SMS come out and it eclipses both systems

So, that might've been a very interesting turn of fate vs. Tramiel outright buying Atari, gutting the whole product line strategy.

Curt

[wgungfu]

Curt Vendel, on Tue Nov 3, 2009 11:17 AM, said:

What might've been a more curious "marriage" would've been for Warner to have brought in Tramiel to only manage Atari and right all of Atari's existing products... that certainly would've made for a VERY interesting alternative timeline...

I doubt that would have happened though, because that's exactly what they brought in Morgan for and never gave him a chance to do. They were running scared with the losses to their own stock from this, and I think that financial firm they brought in advised them this was the best thing to do for survival - sell a bulk of their assets.

[Rev. Rob]

I think it's also worth pointing out that Atari didn't really know how to make games anymore.

Super Mario Bros. was a game with 80 levels with varying difficulty, unique enemies, an objective, and an ending. Legend of Zelda told a story, had a large map, internal memory, and was an adventure. Atari never came close to making games like those on the 7800 or the Jaguar.

Updates of Defender and Tempest are cool, don't get me wrong, but that's not the games that people wanted to play anymore.

[S1500]

Atari really didn't want to get involved in RPGs, did they? But hey, why not buy our new system so you can play Pac Man again!

[Mitch]

Rev. Rob, on Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:12 AM, said:

I think it's also worth pointing out that Atari didn't really know how to make games anymore.

Super Mario Bros. was a game with 80 levels with varying difficulty, unique enemies, an objective, and an ending. Legend of Zelda told a story, had a large map, internal memory, and was an adventure. Atari never came close to making games like those on the 7800 or the Jaguar.

Updates of Defender and Tempest are cool, don't get me wrong, but that's not the games that people wanted to play anymore.

So Scrapyard Dog and Midnight Mutants for the 7800 don't count as trying? You could argue about how successful they were but I don't think you can say they didn't try.

Mitch

[Bill_Loguidice]

Mitch, on Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:02 PM, said:

Rev. Rob, on Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:12 AM, said:

I think it's also worth pointing out that Atari didn't really know how to make games anymore.

Super Mario Bros. was a game with 80 levels with varying difficulty, unique enemies, an objective, and an ending. Legend of Zelda told a story, had a large map, internal memory, and was an adventure. Atari never came close to making games like those on the 7800 or the Jaguar.

Updates of Defender and Tempest are cool, don't get me wrong, but that's not the games that people wanted to play anymore.

So Scrapyard Dog and Midnight Mutants for the 7800 don't count as trying? You could argue about how successful they were but I don't think you can say they didn't try.

Mitch

True enough, but two late-life tries don't really count when you're talking the relative embarrassment of such games available for both the NES and SMS. Among Atari's many failings in regards to the 7800 (to limit it to that for a moment) was the lack of investment in both games of a particular scope/depth and the cartridge capacities to enable it. Obviously the 7800 could have been competitive in most ways with both the NES and SMS - particularly with a POKEY in the cartridge - but it was never given that chance. Atari certainly did better in that regard with the Jaguar, but Atari was still too small-time in many ways to even see that through properly in comparison to what the competition was able to pull off (even the 3DO).

[108 Stars]

They did try, that´s true. But maybe the saying "too little ,too late" is appropriate here?
Scrapyard Dog turned out okay, but against Super Mario Bros it looks like a single person´s homebrew-minigame.
I think it is true that Atari focused on the same games that made the VCS 2600 so successful for too long. The days of the NES and homecomputers had established new kinds of games...more complex concepts than the simplistic single-screen Highscore-hunts in increasing difficulty had bacome popular.

Once they missed the train, it was too hard for them to catch up; especially with the Tramiels being so cheap until the very end, wanting an absolute minimum of designers to do the work, partially with only shareware software to work with.

Looking at the Jaguar library, games like Fight for Life, Kasumi Ninja, Doom or Cybermorph they tried to have something for modern gamers; but it failed more often than it worked out, with small teams and low budget the developers there were not up to the tasks.

[wgungfu]

Rev. Rob, on Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:12 AM, said:

I think it's also worth pointing out that Atari didn't really know how to make games anymore.

Atari who? There's this constant missleading thought that there's this one "Atari" in the period. The Atari that "did know how to make games" was gone. Atari Corp. was a new company, with no track record in game design and without many of the game designers that Consumer and Coin had. They outsourced a lot of the 7800 game library design, and it was all managed by a single person (i.e. he had no staff) - Mike Katz (who later moved on to head Sega of America during the Genesis years). Remember, most of Atari Inc.'s actual game design took place in Coin (and in fact a lot of the early 2600 developers were from coin), and those talented people went with coin (Atari Games) when the assets were split. They were the ones developing games like Marble Madness, Gauntlet, Paperboy, 720, Roadblasters, etc. and coding for the NES as Tengen during that mid through late 80's time period.

Atari Corp. brought a few people in, like Tom Sloper. As he describes it:

"Much of this "scramble" (for 7800 games) occurred before I joined Atari Corp. in 86 to replace the previous guy, whose name I have forgotten. Some development projects had been begun, and I worked with those developers to finish what had been begun. In addition, I worked with Mike Katz (my boss) to identify and license existing titles (usually arcade or home computer games) to the 7800 and 2600, or otherwise create some games on those systems. For example, I hired Bob Polaro (who had programmed some of the original 2600 games) to do some new games for us.

After my time at Atari Corp., a lawsuit was set into motion by Atari Corp. against Nintendo, because Nintendo's exclusivity policy harmed Atari Corp. by limiting the titles available for the Atari systems. To explain, Nintendo's policy of accepting ports of existing games to their hardware was that the port had to be "exclusive" - if a game publisher wanted a license to put an existing arcade game on the Nintendo Entertainment System, then Nintendo's policy was that the license would be granted only on the contingency that that same arcade game would not also be ported to the Sega or Atari Corp. systems. So when we would go to the owner of an arcade game to acquire rights, they would often refuse since they wanted instead to have the game go on the Nintendo system, where it would make more money. I think Atari Corp. lost the lawsuit. "

This post has been edited by wgungfu: Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:56 PM

[CRV]

Curt Vendel, on Tue Nov 3, 2009 11:17 AM, said:

So, that might've been a very interesting turn of fate vs. Tramiel outright buying Atari, gutting the whole product line strategy.

That's assuming that Tramiel would have wanted to do that instead of essentially having his own company to make computers.

It seems like Atari Corp. getting into video games heavily was not part of the original plan. The old 2600 stock sold well, so they brought out the 7800.

Bill_Loguidice, on Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:38 PM, said:

Obviously the 7800 could have been competitive in most ways with both the NES and SMS - particularly with a POKEY in the cartridge - but it was never given that chance.

Between the numbers Curt put out and articles I've been reading, it looks like the 7800 outsold the SMS in the US (I don't have any final SMS numbers, though.). I don't know how much POKEY chips would have really changed the outcome.

wgungfu, on Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:04 PM, said:

Remember, most of Atari Inc.'s actual game design took place in Coin (and in fact a lot of the early 2600 developers were from coin), and those talented people went with coin (Atari Games) when the assets were split.

Didn't Atari Corp. only keep some people to work on computer stuff?

Atari Corp. just didn't have the money or manpower to put out epic Mario and Zelda-like games on the 7800.

This post has been edited by CRV: Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:31 AM

[Bill_Loguidice]

Frankly, I find it impossible to believe that the 7800 outsold the SMS in any territory, let alone the US. The SMS was in tons of stores and had a bigger national sales campaign, including plenty of television commercials, as well as several iterations and at least two generations of hardware. The 7800 also had far fewer games and far less third party support, even if Sega only got Nintendo's scraps for the SMS.

[108 Stars]

Being from Europe were the SMS did very well while most people did not even know the 7800 existed, I find it hard to believe that even in the US were the SMS was not very successful the 7800 could have outsold it. For the most part its games looked too dated even compared to NES-games, let alone SMS-games; I find it very unlikely that people who did not buy the NES would do so in order to pick the even less attractive alternative.
It´s not like 7800-games that actually would have met the taste of the time were finished and released; Missing in Action, Sirius or Plutos had hit-potential, but never surfaced. Double Dragon was released, but quite frankly it just looked very bad compared to the versions for the other systems.

The only ways the Atari 7800 could have outsold the SMS would have been a remarkebly lower price and/or a much better marketing/public exposure. Looking through old US magazines it seems to me like the SMS did in fact get more attention, so I don´t really believe the 7800 could have beaten it.

[wgungfu]

Bill_Loguidice, on Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:43 AM, said:

Frankly, I find it impossible to believe that the 7800 outsold the SMS in any territory, let alone the US.

108 Stars, on Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:04 AM, said:

Being from Europe were the SMS did very well while most people did not even know the 7800 existed, I find it hard to believe that even in the US were the SMS was not very successful the 7800 could have outsold it.

Well guys, actually this is from the March 8th, 1988 Wall Street Journal article on the revival of the industry, enitled Video Games Revive -- and Makers Hope This Time the Fad Will Last:

Quote

Nowadays, marketers are working to prevent a glut by pulling older lines off the shelf as more games are introduced. Nintendo, for instance, is withdrawing 18 of its 36 games to make room for new offerings. Nintendo dominates the U.S. market with an estimated 70% share, followed by Atari Corp., with 16%, and Sega with 10%.

In an AP article later that year (November 17th) we have:

Quote

Nintendo spokesman Robert Lindner said the Redmond, Wash.-based company and its licensees anticipate garnering $1.7 billion of the total. Lindner said Nintendo estimates its current market share at 77.4 percent, with Atari at 13.3 percent and Tonka's Sega at 4.1 percent.

This post has been edited by wgungfu: Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:46 AM

[Bill_Loguidice]

wgungfu, on Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:34 AM, said:

Well guys, actually this is from the March 8th, 1988 Wall Street Journal article on the revival of the industry, enitled Video Games Revive -- and Makers Hope This Time the Fad Will Last:

Quote

Nowadays, marketers are working to prevent a glut by pulling older lines off the shelf as more games are introduced. Nintendo, for instance, is withdrawing 18 of its 36 games to make room for new offerings. Nintendo dominates the U.S. market with an estimated 70% share, followed by Atari Corp., with 16%, and Sega with 10%.

That's probably all of Atari's systems (2600jr, XEGS, 7800), though, versus Sega's one, plus, that's 1988. I believe the Master System was on the market through the early 90's at least a year or two after the 7800 petered off. In any case, I bet a large portion of the Atari figure was the 2600jr, followed in a distant second by the 7800, followed in a barely there third by the XEGS.

[108 Stars]

I believe so too. Guessing that the parents were not very different in Europe and the US I think that the Atari 2600 must have made a large portion of the Atari-share. It was a very cheap first system, perfect for the small, less demanding kids of in early elementary school. Damn sure a lot of younger kids (including myself) had a 2600, and the more advanced systems were for somewhat older kids.

[Bill_Loguidice]

108 Stars, on Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:05 PM, said:

I believe so too. Guessing that the parents were not very different in Europe and the US I think that the Atari 2600 must have made a large portion of the Atari-share. It was a very cheap first system, perfect for the small, less demanding kids of in early elementary school. Damn sure a lot of younger kids (including myself) had a 2600, and the more advanced systems were for somewhat older kids.

I also wonder what "share" means in this case. Are we talking system sales from such-and-such a date to such-and-such a date? Are we talking total active owners? Etc. I ask because I wonder if Atari 2600 owners who never gave up their systems are counted in that 1988 figure, or it's just new Jr. sales from 1986 onward? I also wonder what the INTV System III rated in the remaining 4% of the market unaccounted for by those 1988 figures.

[wgungfu]

Bill_Loguidice, on Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:12 PM, said:

I also wonder what "share" means in this case. Are we talking system sales from such-and-such a date to such-and-such a date?

Normally when they're talking about current market share, they're talking about share at that moment.

Quote

Are we talking total active owners? Etc. I ask because I wonder if Atari 2600 owners who never gave up their systems are counted in that 1988 figure, or it's just new Jr. sales from 1986 onward?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Normally current market share refers to active products on the current market. If they were counting 2600 sales since inception ("owners who never gave up their systems") the actual Atari market share would be a lot higher. If anything the figures may include 7800, 2600Jr and XEGS.

Regardless, it may be fair to say that judging from these and the 7800 sales figures released by Curt that at least through '88 the 7800 could have been winning against the SMS in the US. Did that continue? That's certainly up in the air, as by '89 Sega was clearly pulling a head besides releasing the Genesis. Plus NEC's system was released to a big splash, adding another competitor. Interestingly, Atari Corp. didn't even bother showing up at the Summer '89 CES and started moving attention to the Lynx while working on a 16-bit console in the background, eventually abandoning it for the Panther.

This post has been edited by wgungfu: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:37 AM

[CRV]

I guess the LA Times archives are down. Google cache to the rescue!

According to the article (from 1988), Sega had only sold 500,000 systems. Atari Corp. sold two million, which probably includes the 2600jr+7800+XEGS (with XEGS probably not being a big portion of that). The 2600 was Atari's best-selling model. It's very likely that the 2600 and/or the 7800 were outselling the SMS at this point. Curt's numbers for the 7800 add up to over three million systems sold in the US.

Bill_Loguidice, on Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:38 AM, said:

That's probably all of Atari's systems (2600jr, XEGS, 7800), though, versus Sega's one, plus, that's 1988. I believe the Master System was on the market through the early 90's at least a year or two after the 7800 petered off.

The last US SMS release from Sega was Sonic the Hedgehog in 1991. The last US 7800 release from Atari Corp. was Sentinel, also in 1991.

[DracIsBack]

Bill_Loguidice, on Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:43 AM, said:

Frankly, I find it impossible to believe that the 7800 outsold the SMS in any territory, let alone the US. The SMS was in tons of stores and had a bigger national sales campaign, including plenty of television commercials, as well as several iterations and at least two generations of hardware. The 7800 also had far fewer games and far less third party support, even if Sega only got Nintendo's scraps for the SMS.

You're comparing your personal subjective opinion to data that Curt provided?