wgungfu, on Sat Aug 7, 2010 11:23 PM, said:
Where on earth did you get that idea? Completely unfactual, there was a full plethora of items in consoles and computers being worked on up to when the split occured, including the next gen 68000 Amiga based console they planned on putting out there by Christmas.
Wow, I hadn't realized plans had gotten so far along with the Amiga deal. Were there any related/competing plans to adapt any of Atari's in-house 16-bit hardware (Gaza/Sierra/etc) into consoles?
The Atarimuseum XL overview page mentions the AMiga chipset was supposed to be delivered by June 30 of '84 (so several days before the split) but that Amiga had already backed out of the contract and partnered with CBM. (granted the split likely would have confused things and acted as a smokescreen)
wgungfu, on Sat Aug 7, 2010 11:43 PM, said:
So much so that by '88 Sega was looking to pull the Master System and team up with Atari Corp. on a US release of their upcoming Megadrive. To bad that fell through.
Was that something that Katz was fully behind? (it would seem likely given his joining Sega the next year) And do you know if that's before or after Sega handed off SMS distribution to Tonka? (ie was Tonka an alternative after Atari declined)
I'd imagine a major supporting argument against supporting Sega was Atari's own significantly higher market share (albeit largely due to brand name and capable marketing with a limited budget -the latter seems to have been a major weakpoint of Sega in the mid 80s) but also the fact that the MD was still an untested product (somewhat like the Famicom had been in '83) and Atari's in-house plans for a 16-bit game system based on the ST. (later abandoned for the Panther which was canceled outright leaving no new home console up to the Jaguar's test market in late '93)
wgungfu, on Mon Aug 9, 2010 10:52 AM, said:
From what Katz told me, the release of the XEGS had nothing to do with the NES either - and of course he was totally against the release of it as well. Jack just wanted to do it to broaden the market by getting people who wanted a "beginning computer" and "sophisticated game console". I.E. a good value "2 in 1" system.
Were there already plans in the works for an ST derived game system at that point? (one more thing that the release of the XEGS would have skewed, especially if the ST based system had been aimed at '88... they would have had the 7800 then XEGS, then STGS only a year apart and a fairly confused line-up) There was the grass roots effort for an ST game system Curt mentioned before as well:
http://www.atariage....738#entry586738 (I assume he meant XEGS when he mentioned use of the XE case for Robin)
I wonder if they ever reconsidered GCC's proposed computer add-on for the 7800 to fill that "2 in 1" role. (should have meshed a lot better with their product lineup)
Madaracs, on Mon Aug 2, 2010 9:48 AM, said:
The 7800 was created in response to the very poor sales of the Atari 5200. The 5200 was indeed revolutionary in many ways--yet it suffered from just as many (if not more) shortcomings. Anyone at Atari would tell you the very same thing.
That's partially true, but not completely... It was created by GCC on their own initiative to correct their perception of the 5200's shortcomings. The 5200's problems were far more than just hardware but integral to Atari/Warner's own management problems and the 5200 was selling relatively well in the high-end sector of the market, but not dominating the Colecovision and Intellivision. (the 2600 was still the dominant force but Coleco and Mattel were both increasing in market share iirc)
There were specific complaints about the 5200 though many that could have been corrected with later revisions of the system itself (or controllers) and some totally software related. (the backwards compatibility issue was made much more significant by Coleco managing to come out with their VCS adapter, otherwise it might not have mattered as much in general -it hasn't consistently in later generations, though you could argue the confusion would have been greater at such an early stage of the industry -albeit many consumers were still confused over the NES/SNES in that respect) Indeed, there were ongoing plans for cost-reduced and bug-fixed 5200 hardware up to the point of the split in '84 from what I understand. (including a very nice spring-loaded pot module for the joystick, but unfortunately not corrected buttons -the main flaw of the 5200)
Quote
5200 Pros:
- Revolutionary controls design. No one had ever attempted a thin-film button/keypad design like this. It has been argued that the 5200 controller paved the way for the modern controllers you use today.
I don't think so. The flex circuit design wasn't really adopted in later systems and the rubber dome switches (and similar chicklet keys -or older membrane buttons) predated the 5200 by a good margin. Later systems all tended to use sold PCBs with overlaid pressure/dome switches for the joysticks/d-pads and buttons. (aside from analog stuff -which also expanded into mechano-optical and megnetic alternatives to potentiometer based analog control -though pots are still common for that use as well)
One argument for the use of analog was not only to compete with the intellivision's (unnecessary) 16-direction gimmick but also to reduce cost of the base unit by removing PIA. (albeit in that case they could have used POKEY to handle all the digital I/O in general rather than just the keypad and 2nd fire button or a simple resistor DAC for a pseudo digital 8-way stick as many early PC gamepads did)
Quote
Upgraded graphics and sound: Only Coleco would be able to come close to this baby's graphics! The main goal with the 5200 was to provide a better arcade experience! It did that... mostly.
4 controller ports!
All true for the 400 as well... had it been directly sold as a game system.
(I believe it was also in the same price range as the 5200 in '82)
Quote
[*]Controllers were often DOA or failed very shortly after.
Blown way out of proportion than was true in reality. It's quite true that most controllers haven't survived to reliable functionality short of refurbishing and repairs (dirty pots, damaged boots, worn buttons), but the 5200 controllers were generally acceptable when new. Analog wasn't perfect for 4/8-way control but worked acceptably well: the problems were that the early revisions had thin rubber boots that tended to shred on heavy use (both eliminating the modest self-centering and opening the unit to dirt/dust) and more significantly: problems with the fire buttons wearing out far too quickly and to a lesser extent the keys/function buttons wearing out. (there were also some ergonomic issues in general including the too small buttons mounted side by side rather than doing one larger button per side, though in general it was more comfortable than what Coleco and Mattel had)
Quote
[*]The game library. At the time the 5200 was released, the games were already becoming less popular. The other consoles offered more variety. (This was also a shortcoming of the 7800, BTW.)
That's something time would easily have cured, especially with cross-platform computer games, it's totally software related and not an issue with the system itself. (other than perhaps indicating the oversaturation problem of the 2600 vs pushing more for the 5200 -among broader market/management problems)
Quote
[*]The Monolith factor. This thing was HUGE. Some might say, "and rightly so!" but consumers then (and now) still wonder where to store the beast.
Purely an aesthetics issue, the 5200 was intentionally large with a lot of empty space inside. The 5200 Jr/5100 was a direct modification of the case which reduced the overall bulk by more than 1/2 and more in line with the 2600 in size. (removed the storage tray and controller port extensions). It could have gotten even smaller with further consolidation of the board. (ie smaller than the 600XL or previous 600 prototype and you had the later XE/XEGS as another example, with all of those having more hardware with the MMU/FREDDIE and PIA chips as well as more RAM -though later machines had higher density RAM chips)
With general consolidation of components (various discrete components, ROM, RAM, etc along with the custom chips -especially if CGIA had been used) it should have been down to 7800 size by the mid 80s.
The atari 400 itself is notably smaller than the 5200 (and not as wide as the VCS even) but far less consolidated (mult-board design and bulky aluminum castings inside necessary for late 70s FCC standards with a lack of the later class B, so had to comply to class C -the same reason early revision 2600s have thick aluminum cases around the small motherboard)
jaybird3rd, on Fri Aug 6, 2010 2:30 AM, said:
Let me propose another revision of the new description:
Quote
The Atari 7800 ProSystem is a contemporary of the Nintendo Entertainment System and the Sega Master System. Based on extensive feedback from Atari customers, the 7800 features a streamlined design, backward compatibility with the 2600, a powerful graphics processor, and simplified controllers.
That places it within its proper time period (as a
third-generation console) without going into which console was released first or what was done in response to what. It also removes any reference to the 5200.
There's a bit of gray area in the range of the 3rg generation... specifically if the 5200 and CV are part of it and an international perspective. (the SG-1000 is listed as part of it -released the same day as the famicom- and is identical to the CV hardware wise save for a 2 kB vs 1 kB of main RAM on the CV)
The Master System is not a direct contemporary to the 7800 and NES in design timeline or general hardware. It was close to 2 years newer in hardware terms than either of the others (a little less than that compared to the 7800 specifically) but significantly newer in either case. (the VDP was the only real change, but that's pretty much the biggest part of a game console)
FujiSkunk, on Fri Aug 6, 2010 2:15 PM, said:
Sega initially developed the Sega Saturn as a 3DO-killer and a high-end (read: expensive) gaming platform compared to the more moderate upgrade of the 32X. But then Sony entered the market. Sega rushed the Saturn's roll-out as a result, particularly in the U.S., and also lowered the launch price for the States (though the $399 sticker was still higher than the PlayStation's). Those actions and their results are why the Saturn is now known mostly as Sega's "answer" to the PlayStation.
That's not totally clear and there's not a fully documented history of Sega as of yet (certainly nothing like what Curt and Marty have managed to do with Atari), but the high-end comment seems fairly accurate though a direct response to the 3DO probably not so much. (just a general next-gen system that likely had some influence in design from the presence of the 3DO and Jaguar in '93 and related hype) The 3DO itself would have been far more competitive as a mass market machine if not for the failed experimental market model implemented (fully licensed hardware production without the razor and blade model commonly used up to that point -let alone the much more extreme tactics employed by Sony with the PSX sold at a heavy loss -vs previously selling hardware at cost or razor thin profits, something that really hurt Sega and something Nintendo avoided in general by making sure hardware was cheap enough to support) It wouldn't have been cheap for sure (even with Sony-like subsidizing), but far less than what it was and certainly a good bit less than the Saturn and PSX when they launched. (at least if they used similar tactics and margins to those contemporaries)
And while the Saturn launched at $400, it was down to $300 by the time the PSX was released and Sega matched Sony's price continually thereafter with $200 in '96, $150 in '97, $100 in '98 (at considerable expense). In 1994 the Saturn launched at the rough equivalent of $450 US at the time compared to a little over $400 for the PSX.
carmel_andrews, on Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:39 PM, said:
I think the only other games system that had a keyboard component released for it after the XEGS was the Dreamcast (i believe i actually saw one) anyone care to remind me what happened to the DC (compared to the psx/ps2 etc)
All current-gen consoles have keyboards (and such accept generic USB keyboards -I know the Wii does), not sure about the Xbox, PS2, or GC.
DracIsBack, on Sun Sep 26, 2010 5:37 AM, said:
The problem with the Dreamcast was that Sega couldn't afford to be in the hardware console business anymore. The market had shifted. In previous generations, consoles broke even or made a small profit and games made money. During that era of consoles, the consoles bled money for a quite a while until they reached a certain critical mass. On top of that, games started to become blockbusters in terms of size and budget. This meant that many games also bled a pile of money and it took key hits to make up the difference.
Due to the debacles of the years before Dreamcast, Sega couldn't afford this model. Sony was a cash rich hype machine; Nintendo was bolstered by franchises and handhelds; and Microsoft was quite literally ready to spend four billion more than they earned with XBox to break into the space. The Dreamcast sold well enough but did not hit the critical mass in the new model fast enough.
That model had been introduced by Sony with the PSX (possibly in Japan in '94 but definitely in the US in '95) and it exacerbated the Saturn's already more expensive hardware and Sega's unfavorable economic position. (from what I understand they'd built up significant debt from a deficit spending market model used to compete against Nintendo and Sony rushed in before Sega had a chance to really recover from those losses with the potentially more profitable late-gen period of the Genesis with less intense marketing and higher profit margins -a general slump in the console industry starting in '93 -and of course general confolict of the 32x and Saturn exacerbating all that and complicating the position of the Genesis against the SNES in the late 4th gen market)
Mord, on Fri Oct 1, 2010 12:38 PM, said:
Madaracs, on Fri Oct 1, 2010 10:29 AM, said:
DracIsBack, on Sun Sep 26, 2010 5:37 AM, said:
During that era of consoles, the consoles bled money for a quite a while until they reached a certain critical mass. On top of that, games started to become blockbusters in terms of size and budget.
This is still echoed today. The Xbox 360 was not profitable when it was released. One could argue that it still might not be with amount of warranty repair work performed on a large percentage of units even today. They make their money on Xbox live and game sales.
Why single out the 360? The PS3 is similar. In fact just about every console between "that era" and the current gen are similar with the exception of Nintendo consoles. Nintendo prices them to make profit from the get go.
I think the 360 is a different case in general and perhaps the original Xbox as well given that n both cases MS very likely suffered a net loss that was only supported by profits in other divisions. (and PR being the primary factor for not dropping out entirely) From what I understand the Xbox did start turning net profits (via hardware/software/royalities) late in the generation but wasn't quite enough to fully break even on the venture, but the 360 has been considerably worse in that respect with all the repairs/returns on top of selling at a significant loss until recently. (both Sony and MS have been selling hardware at a profit for a fair while though) Sony of course has (and has always had) the advantage of vertical integration on their side of cost (and ownership of key CD/DVD/BD tech/format patents/licenses on top of that) so more expensive hardware for others is cheaper for them in general.
And as to the changed market model, not just that generation, but back to the 5th gen with the introduction of the PSX pushing that and forcing Sega to do likewise. (the alternative would be pushing the Saturn in a high-end niche only or abandoning it and delaying release in favor of a more consolidated/cost effective design -the Jaguar and N64 were both strong examples of that route and not mainly due to lack of CD drive but actual hardware design)
Madaracs, on Fri Oct 1, 2010 1:30 PM, said:
To add to your comment, Nintendo doesn't just price them right... they also designed the unit to make money off the bat. No DVD support means less work on the drive, no HD means they can stick with cheaper standard architecture for video, it also has a much smaller footprint. And with the Broadway CPU allegedly derived from the same architecture as the 'Cubes Gekko chip--the cost of the new CPU was probably less to create than both the PS3 and the 360. Nintendo was also smart to focus on game play and the family/everyone/casual gaming demographic.
Umm, DVD is only an issue for wearing out drives faster from constant use if you play movies more than games in general. (and doesn't so much matter now) I'm not sure why Nitnendo went with the mini DVD form factor exclusively for the GC either given full DVD would have been similar if not cheaper (wide availability of off the shelf components), though it could have been pure aesthetics. (and preference of the cube form vs something closer to the DreamCast) The only other issue is cost of the DVD video license, but that's separate in general and could have been passed on as an add-on like Microsoft did.
With the Wii in general it's little more than a GC with a new OS, a bit more RAM (in part due to the OS) and 50% higher clock speed plus the pack-in motion controls. Most stuff could have been done reasonably well on the GC itself from a hardware standpoint and the Wii must have a huge profit margin for hardware sales alone compared to many of Nintendo's previous systems. So it was really up to marketing and not hardware design so much (applying the new control system and aim at a market niche not heavily exploited by others).
Of course they also generally left out old GC owners with newer games in spite of most games being easily handled on the GC (and facilitated by the nearly identical architecture), something that did happen with the GB to GBC in some cases, but with the GC's smaller market share and Wii hype they probably felt that wasn't attractive to do. (especially if they could make more GC owners upgrade) All such games would obviously be better than similar PS2 ports.
As to HD, that's a non-issue too as all the last-gen systems should easily have been powerful enough to manage HD resolutions (as contemporary PCs had been supporting since the mid/late 90s), but HD resolution and "HD graphics" are different things at the consumer level.
(the PS3 and 360 still sport far more advanced graphics at SD resolutions and would even more so if they weren't so limited on the software side -ie actually supported specific detail/resolution/rendering options for the end user to select -with defaults of course- like PC games so you could have fully flexible performance with higher speed low-res rendering and/or lower/higher detail trade-offs as well, but no they just downscale the native resolution so choppy/limited detail 1080p will be jsut as choppy in 720p/480p/480i -unlike a PC where there would usually be a very noticeable performance jump)
But if the software side allowed it and the hardware was allowed to sync to higher display resolutions (which shouldn't be an issue) the hardware would be just as capable at HD as PC hardware was 8 years ago. (and for PC games it goes back a good bit further than that) They simply chose to optimize things for SD resolution only. (and not even fully for ED resolutions hence the lack of a 1st party VGA cable as not all games have 480p support, especially GC games)
Edited by kool kitty89, Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:59 PM.
6
)
