Atari 7800 Forum Description

[Madaracs]

Simplified controllers!?!

 

I think the 7800 controllers are much worse than the...

 

J/K

 

Heheh. Too bad they didn't ship the thing with the CX78 joypads the Europeans all got.

 

 

 

I have a set of those and they aren't half bad.

[AtariNerd]

We now return to our regularily scheduled forumn description.

[CRV]

It had a limited test market in the New York area in Christmas '85, which did not go well. The reports on the test marketing from January '86 CES stated retailers in NY considered it a failure.

 

Sorry to drift off topic, but can you elaborate on this? What reports? This (the NY launch being a "failure") seems like an interesting tidbit that you're not going to see in any retrospectives.

[Retro Rogue]

It had a limited test market in the New York area in Christmas '85, which did not go well. The reports on the test marketing from January '86 CES stated retailers in NY considered it a failure.

 

Sorry to drift off topic, but can you elaborate on this? What reports? This (the NY launch being a "failure") seems like an interesting tidbit that you're not going to see in any retrospectives.

 

For example, there's this one from the Philadelphia Inquirer (Jan 14th, 1986) that also covers the relaunching of the 7800:

 

Strangely, Atari also showed a lineup of its old video games and announced that a new game machine, first shown two years ago but never shipped to stores, would be reincarnated in a sleeker unit with a smaller price - about $80.

 

Atari vice president Michael V. Katz, who formerly worked for Mattel and Coleco, two other fallen video-game giants, said that the machine, the Atari 7800, would be aimed at a new generation of 5-to-10-year-olds who were too young to participate in the nation's Pac-Man craze of several years ago.

 

Katz declined, however, to identify any retailers that would carry the 7800, or game cartridges for it.

 

Nintendo, a Japanese company that attempted to introduce a new video-game machine over Christmas, failed miserably, retailers say.

 

Video games may be a tenuous proposition in 1986, but in other segments of the electronics market, the feeling is bullish. ". . . Plummeting prices may be behind us," said Alan Schlosser, spokesman for the Electronic Industries Association, the show's sponsor.

 

In addition to press coverage, there's also Kent's direct talks with Arakawa and Lincoln of course, where they stated as such as well. The Feb '86 LA test launch was much better, and by the June '86 CES the media and retailers were looking at the NES very differently.

[Madaracs]

It had a limited test market in the New York area in Christmas '85, which did not go well. The reports on the test marketing from January '86 CES stated retailers in NY considered it a failure.

 

Sorry to drift off topic, but can you elaborate on this? What reports? This (the NY launch being a "failure") seems like an interesting tidbit that you're not going to see in any retrospectives.

 

For example, there's this one from the Philadelphia Inquirer (Jan 14th, 1986) that also covers the relaunching of the 7800:

 

Strangely, Atari also showed a lineup of its old video games and announced that a new game machine, first shown two years ago but never shipped to stores, would be reincarnated in a sleeker unit with a smaller price - about $80.

 

Atari vice president Michael V. Katz, who formerly worked for Mattel and Coleco, two other fallen video-game giants, said that the machine, the Atari 7800, would be aimed at a new generation of 5-to-10-year-olds who were too young to participate in the nation's Pac-Man craze of several years ago.

 

Katz declined, however, to identify any retailers that would carry the 7800, or game cartridges for it.

 

Nintendo, a Japanese company that attempted to introduce a new video-game machine over Christmas, failed miserably, retailers say.

 

Video games may be a tenuous proposition in 1986, but in other segments of the electronics market, the feeling is bullish. ". . . Plummeting prices may be behind us," said Alan Schlosser, spokesman for the Electronic Industries Association, the show's sponsor.

 

In addition to press coverage, there's also Kent's direct talks with Arakawa and Lincoln of course, where they stated as such as well. The Feb '86 LA test launch was much better, and by the June '86 CES the media and retailers were looking at the NES very differently.

 

You mentioned awhile back that you felt "The First Quarter" was a good resource full of lots of information about the entire industry but not entirely accurate. (I think, that was you.) Is there another book you might recommend with in-depth Atari history?

[Retro Rogue]

You mentioned awhile back that you felt "The First Quarter" was a good resource full of lots of information about the entire industry but not entirely accurate. (I think, that was you.) Is there another book you might recommend with in-depth Atari history?

 

 

Well, there's a lot of issues with not fact checking and crossreferencing on things. For example things like claiming that Atari Coin and Consumer were in connected buildings, or screwing the timeline of Syzygy/Atari and claiming Larry Bryant was involved when they went to file for the Atari name, different numbers and figures, etc. Lots of great quotes, and the book itself covers a very wide period - which I think was part of the issue. He spent so much time and resources on gathering up the material for that wide of a spectrum, and less on vetting all of it.

 

As far as with regards to Atari, no, not at the moment. That'd be the one on the market right now with the most info. Zap is Atari specific, but even worse in it's fact checking.

Edited October 11, 2010 by wgungfu

[Madaracs]

You mentioned awhile back that you felt "The First Quarter" was a good resource full of lots of information about the entire industry but not entirely accurate. (I think, that was you.) Is there another book you might recommend with in-depth Atari history?

 

 

Well, there's a lot of issues with not fact checking and crossreferencing on things. For example things like claiming that Atari Coin and Consumer were in connected buildings, or screwing the timeline of Syzygy/Atari and claiming Larry Bryant was involved when they went to file for the Atari name, different numbers and figures, etc. Lots of great quotes, and the book itself covers a very wide period - which I think was part of the issue. He spent so much time and resources on gathering up the material for that wide of a spectrum, and less on vetting all of it.

 

As far as with regards to Atari, no, not at the moment. That'd be the one on the market right now with the most info. Zap is Atari specific, but even worse in it's fact checking.

 

Cool. Thank you very much for the info.

[OldAtarian]

I don't know quite how to phrase it to make it sound elegant enough, but something along the lines about the 7800 was what the 5200 should have been. A logical progression of 2600 technology that plays advanced games while still retaining compatibility with the older system.

Edited October 12, 2010 by OldAtarian

[SoulBlazer]

Don't want to get too much off topic here, but another very good video game book that covers the Atari period, besides Kent's "Ultimate History of Video Games" is Herman's "Phoenix". It's more of a 'Just the facts' book and not as entertaining to read, but plenty of good info as well.

 

(Whoop! 1000 posts! Go me! )

[Madaracs]

Don't want to get too much off topic here, but another very good video game book that covers the Atari period, besides Kent's "Ultimate History of Video Games" is Herman's "Phoenix". It's more of a 'Just the facts' book and not as entertaining to read, but plenty of good info as well.

 

(Whoop! 1000 posts! Go me! )

 

Know where one can pick up "Phoenix?"

[WERY]

When people come in here wanting to argue Coleco or 5200 vs. 7800, we'd just point out that the 7800 came out AFTER the 5200 and, indeed, has a black case. End of argument. 7800 for the win.

 

Haha what about this for a forum description? That would really be funny I would like to see it

 

I thought the NES got test marketed in the US in 85, not 86. At leas that's what I seem to remember

 

NES was released 18 November 1985

[Retro Rogue]

NES was released 18 November 1985

 

The NY test marketing began on that date. That's when they began approaching NY area retailers to do limited demonstration and sales of the product that they (the limited NOA staff) themselves staffed.

 

That was followed by the LA test market in that February.

[kool kitty89]

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)

 

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)

 

 

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.com/forums/topic/47680-the-1984-cancellation/page__p__586738#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)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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)

 

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)
 

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)

 

[*]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)

 

[*]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)

 

[*]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)

 

 

 

 

Let me propose another revision of the new description:

 

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)

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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)

 

 

 

 

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)

 

 

 

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 October 25, 2010 by kool kitty89

[Retro Rogue]

Wow, I hadn't realized plans had gotten so far along with the Amiga deal.

 

I'm pretty sure that was already mentioned in one of the other threads on it by Curt and I. The plan was for the Christmas release console, and they had the full test PCB for the console ready to go for the chips - they were literally taking delivery of a set of them at the same time. Amiga kept stalling and pushing back the IC delivery while secretely negotiating with Commodore. The plan was supposed to be for them to settle on the final terms and licensing (Atari was only licensing the technology and due to pay royalties) on the delivery of the chips. They had hashed out the initial contract early March of that year (which is how we know about the details). That's why the entire thing with the 7800 would have been up in the air IMHO as you would have had the cost reduced 2600, the 7800 console they were already positioning as their "high end" console, and then this.

 

Were there any related/competing plans to adapt any of Atari's in-house 16-bit hardware (Gaza/Sierra/etc) into consoles?

 

I believe some of the RAINBOW stuff was being looked at, at one point. I'd have to go through my notes.

 

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)

 

They were backing out on June 28th (Thursday), the 30th was a Saturday. Jack entered in to the secret negotiations with Warner that Friday.

 

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)

 

1) Katz was interested.

2) His joining Sega had nothing to do with that. He actually planned on taking time off after leaving Atari Corp., and came out of it to help Sega shortly after the Genesis launch.

3) They only discussed the Genesis with Atari Corp., nothing about the SMS.

 

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)

 

The only argument against it and the only reason that it fell apart that was given, was that Jack wanted worldwide distribution rights. Not just the US. Sega didn't want to do it.

 

Were there already plans in the works for an ST derived game system at that point?

 

Yes, there were some ideas being knocked around and laid out.

 

(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)

 

I don't see how that would have effected an ST based console. 1) It wouldn't have come out until '89. 2) The XEGS was already positioned as a low end entry computing device as previously mentioned.

 

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)

 

No. That would have meant yet more negotiations and payments to GCC, and there's a reason they phased out the expansion port. Anything 8-bit expanding in to a computer is what the XEGS was meant to cover.

Edited October 26, 2010 by wgungfu

[OldAtarian]

"Nintendo, a Japanese company that attempted to introduce a new video-game machine over Christmas, failed miserably, retailers say."

 

 

:rolling:

 

Nintendo failed miserably! That's the best joke I've heard in a long time.

Edited October 26, 2010 by OldAtarian

[The_Laird]

The first test launch did fail miserably, thats fact. Maybe you should read up on it properly

[WERY]

The first test launch did fail miserably, thats fact. Maybe you should read up on it properly

 

But as far as I know it should be the launch in Japan 1983 that failed miserably since there were a lot of scepsis to the Famicom.

 

The interesting thing is that is was released at the same time as Sega released the SC-3000

[jaybird3rd]

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).

When I use the term "contemporary" in this context, I simply mean that the 7800, NES, and SMS were being sold and supported by their respective manufacturers during the same time period, not that the designs or the hardware in the consoles were all the same age. In other words, somebody walking into a video game store in 1988 could have bought either an NES, an SMS, or a 7800 new off the shelf, and all three of them were still getting new games.

 

As I said earlier, my purpose was only to give the reader a general idea of where the 7800 appears in the video game time line, relative to other popular consoles. I didn't want to get into the other complexities of the situation because there isn't room for that in a one-paragraph forum description, and because everyone seems to have different views on the subject (as evidenced by the fact that this discussion is still continuing even after the forum description issue has been resolved).

[kool kitty89]

The first test launch did fail miserably, thats fact. Maybe you should read up on it properly

 

But as far as I know it should be the launch in Japan 1983 that failed miserably since there were a lot of scepsis to the Famicom.

 

The interesting thing is that is was released at the same time as Sega released the SC-3000

SG-1000, the SC-3000 came in '84 and was the standalone computer counterpart to the SG-1000 Mk.II released the same year (which had provisions to expand to SC-3000 spec).

 

I though the Famicom launched rather successfully in spite of some significant bumps like the hardware flaws leading to recalls of early units. (vs the SG-1000 which had no such issues but was met with a more lukewarm response at the time -the hardware was obviously weaker but it wouldn't have shown that substantially on early games and was on par with the contemporary MSX -sound was moderately weaker- so I'm not sure what gave Nintendo the big edge)

[kool kitty89]

The only argument against it and the only reason that it fell apart that was given, was that Jack wanted worldwide distribution rights. Not just the US. Sega didn't want to do it.

Including Japan/Asia, or just the western markets?

 

I don't see how that would have effected an ST based console. 1) It wouldn't have come out until '89. 2) The XEGS was already positioned as a low end entry computing device as previously mentioned.

So the market positioning wasn't in direct conflict with the game consoles, OK.

 

No. That would have meant yet more negotiations and payments to GCC, and there's a reason they phased out the expansion port. Anything 8-bit expanding in to a computer is what the XEGS was meant to cover.

Ah, OK, so the XEGS was the cheaper option. (one additional attraction to increasing popularity of the A8 line was pre-existing stockpiles of A8 software, right?)

[Retro Rogue]

Including Japan/Asia, or just the western markets?

 

All of Atari Corp.'s major markets and distributions channels outside of Japan.

 

I don't see how that would have effected an ST based console. 1) It wouldn't have come out until '89. 2) The XEGS was already positioned as a low end entry computing device as previously mentioned.

So the market positioning wasn't in direct conflict with the game consoles, OK.

 

Ah, OK, so the XEGS was the cheaper option. (one additional attraction to increasing popularity of the A8 line was pre-existing stockpiles of A8 software, right?)

 

Advantage, yes. But I think we already chatted about whether or not that actualy was the driving force behind it or not.

Edited October 27, 2010 by wgungfu

[ApolloBoy]

The first test launch did fail miserably, thats fact. Maybe you should read up on it properly

 

But as far as I know it should be the launch in Japan 1983 that failed miserably since there were a lot of scepsis to the Famicom.

 

The interesting thing is that is was released at the same time as Sega released the SC-3000

SG-1000, the SC-3000 came in '84 and was the standalone computer counterpart to the SG-1000 Mk.II released the same year (which had provisions to expand to SC-3000 spec).

The SC-3000 was released in 1983 alongside the SG-1000. You might be thinking of the SK-1100 keyboard, which was released with the SG-1000 II in 1984.

[Retro Rogue]

Including Japan/Asia, or just the western markets?

 

All of Atari Corp.'s major markets and distributions channels outside of Japan.

 

 

Just to add to this - just found the figure that by 1987, 66% of Atari Corporation's sales were abroad (i.e. outside the US). So you can imagine why Jack wanted (and one could say needed) more than just US rights for the Genesis.

[kool kitty89]

Including Japan/Asia, or just the western markets?

All of Atari Corp.'s major markets and distributions channels outside of Japan.

Just to add to this - just found the figure that by 1987, 66% of Atari Corporation's sales were abroad (i.e. outside the US). So you can imagine why Jack wanted (and one could say needed) more than just US rights for the Genesis.

Hmm, 66% for just the entertainment division, or all products?

 

With the SMS doing best in Europe at the time, it would have been a hard sell for Sega to hand over that market. (especially is Sega was worried about damaging relations with the existing successful distributors handling the SMS in UK/Europe) For all of North America it might have been another story. (but that still would have limited Atari from their major EU markets)

 

 

The SC-3000 was released in 1983 alongside the SG-1000. You might be thinking of the SK-1100 keyboard, which was released with the SG-1000 II in 1984.

Ah, good catch, for some reason I was thinking the SC-3000 and Mk.II were released in parallel. (so it was out only a little after the MSX, though obviously not directly compatible)

Edited October 27, 2010 by kool kitty89

[Retro Rogue]

Just to add to this - just found the figure that by 1987, 66% of Atari Corporation's sales were abroad (i.e. outside the US). So you can imagine why Jack wanted (and one could say needed) more than just US rights for the Genesis.

Hmm, 66% for just the entertainment division, or all products?

 

As stated Atari Corporations entire sales, the company as a whole.