37 replies to this topic

[DracIsBack]

I notice in the 7800 Wikipedia entry, there has been debate about whether or not the XE Game System was the successor to the 7800. Would love to get Marty's insight into the history here. Personally, I've never really considered the XE as a 'successor' in the traditional sense, but more of an odd-offshoot. Just my opinion (and maybe not how Atari looked at things) but some considerations:

1. The 7800 was wide-introduced in 1986 and the XE was announced a scant year or so later

2. 7800 sales were rising, not falling ... which usually causes a successor to appear

3. Atari actively had the 7800 and XE in the market, along with 2600 jr and was making games across all three

4. The GTIA hardware was older than the MARIA hardware

5. Part of the reason for doing the XE was the restimulate flagging interest from retailers and developers in the Atari 8bit computer line and help move a pile of 8-bit peripherals, software and parts in the warehouse

6. Though they were both officially retired on January 1, 1992, I'm pretty sure that the 7800 had new releases and new ads after Atari stopped releasing new games and advertising the XEGS

To me, this is a bit different than - say - the GameCube being succeeded by the Wii. I never really got the sense that the Tramiels were phasing out the 7800 to replace it with the XE

Edited by DracIsBack, Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:07 AM.

[Rex Dart]

Nah, I figure it's the same as the 2600 & 5200. Just an extra for people wanting something extra. Also, they should've gone straight to the XE after the 2600.

[wood_jl]

I don't think it was related to the 7800 at all. Just like Proctor and Gamble sells 40 kinds of detergent soap, there's not relation between them. Just another product.

I suppose if anything, it was just a continuation of the 8-bit Computer line.

According to this old post.....

https://groups.googl...de=source&hl=en

Quote

Regarding the new XE Game System, which on the first glance is a slap in
the face to those who know how powerful the 8-bitters are -- this system is
purely a strategic move on our part. In order to keep the 8-bit line going,
we must do two things:

1. Get the computers available in more stores, and
2. Get new software developed for them.

Software is not being developed by and large because of problem #1. So
which stores do we go to? The mass merchants, who sold the bulk of the
hundreds of thousands (not, unfortunately, millions) of Atari 8-bit
computers out there, are currently retreating from the computer business.
K-Mart carries NO computers. Ditto for Montgomery Wards. And for J.C.
Penney's.

On the other hand, these same stores are doing a fabulous business in game
systems like Nintendo, Sega, and, of course, Atari.

The solution, from a business point of view, was to develop a product that
would be appealing to the mass merchants (and also to the public which buys
there), one that also accomplishes the corporate objective of revitalizing
the 8-bit line.

More there, from Atari's director of communications.

[Phredreeke]

By the same logic the Game Boy Advance was the successor to the Nintendo 64 and the Sega Nomad was the successor to the Sega Saturn.

[Checkered_Flagman]

Phredreeke, on Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:11 PM, said:

By the same logic the Game Boy Advance was the successor to the Nintendo 64 and the Sega Nomad was the successor to the Sega Saturn.

I think by the same logic 32x is the successor of the Sega Saturn

[Phredreeke]

Checkered_Flagman, on Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:39 PM, said:

Phredreeke, on Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:11 PM, said:

By the same logic the Game Boy Advance was the successor to the Nintendo 64 and the Sega Nomad was the successor to the Sega Saturn.

I think by the same logic 32x is the successor of the Sega Saturn

Well in Japan it did!

[spiffyone]

Rex Dart, on Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:19 AM, said:

Nah, I figure it's the same as the 2600 & 5200. Just an extra for people wanting something extra. Also, they should've gone straight to the XE after the 2600.

Eh, I never bought the whole "5200 wasn't really meant to succeed 2600" argument, and don't think the relationship between 2600 and 5200 is a mirror of that between 7800 and XE at all.

Regardless of what Atari execs may have stated to ONE news source (that gobblygook about 5200 being a "sports car" model), it's pretty apparent that 5200 was at the very least the intended successor to 2600.

IIRC, the facts surrounding 5200 were that Atari had a planned successor model to 2600 that was kinda scrapped (the 3200...or was it 3600?) and then they went with somewhat heavily modified Atari 400/800 hardware for the 5200.
5200 also had a 2600 adapter planned (and released). Atari saw themselves as potentially losing out some marketshare to Mattel due to the older hardware of the 2600. They did not want then current or prospective Atari game console
owners swayed over to Mattel's side, so they prepped and released a next gen console which turned out to be 5200. They in fact wanted gamers who wanted to upgrade to upgrade to their new hardware. If that is not a successor, then what is?

There was a statement about 5200 not making 2600 obsolete, how it was a "companion" console, and how the latter would still be supported, but, really that was basically marketing speak for "don't stop buying 2600 or 2600 games if you're interested in them". The end game was "upgrade to our upgrade, but we'll still support older hardware". And, really, how is that any different than what Sony did with PSone after PS2 was released, and PS2 after PS3 was released? Or Nintendo with NES after its successor, SNES, was released, and with SNES after its successor, N64 was released (Nintendo supported NES with new releases right up to the mid '90s in the US, probably later in Japan, and supported SNES with new releases right into '97/'98, a couple of years after N64 had launched)? It isn't. At all.

The statement Atari reps gave to that paper in the Wiki source on 5200 was basically "hey, if you aren't planning to upgrade, or are looking to buy a 2600 now or in the future, don't fret, we'll still support it, but if you're looking to upgrade then buy our upgrade and not any other company's console". How is that really any different from any other successor console? The only clear difference is 5200 died a premature death, but that's mainly due to the Crash and the perceived and very real mistakes with 5200.

But shoe on other foot: if SNES had not been successful and died prematurely, would we not label it a successor to NES? It's clear what the real intention was behind 5200: to succeed 2600 as Atari's "go to" console if and when 2600 sales died off in the future while still giving some support to 2600 until that point. That's what makes for next gen successors typically. That's what SNES was to NES, what Genesis/MD was to SMS (which, btw was kept "alive" in Europe well into the MD run there), what PS2 was to PSone, and, yes, what 5200 was to 2600. "Wanna upgrade? Want more powerful tech? Then upgrade to our upgrade. Not ready? Still want a 2600? Don't worry, we're still gonna sell it and support it". Replace "5200" with "SNES, MD, or PS2" and 2600 with "NES, SMS or PSone" and it's plain as day.

Next gen successors aren't total "replacements" early on if the console they're succeeding is successful. The last gen console is typically kept alive long into the life span of its successor if it's still earning money. Again, I point to Sony and Nintendo.

Now, the difference between that an 7800 and XE's "relationship" is clear: XE was NEVER intended to succeed 7800; was NEVER intended for a "higher end" market; was NEVER intended as an upgrade path for then-current owners of 7800; and it was
NEVER intended to eventually, perhaps, "replace" 7800 in the future if and when 7800 stopped selling enough to merit manufacturing it. XE was just a 65XE (which itself was part of the venerable Atari 8-bit computer line) in a new shell intended to keep Atari's 8-bit computer sales going. That's it. It was Atari trying to prop up their 8-bit computer biz by dressing up that emperor in new clothes. It was a "companion" console at best, much, much more so than 5200 was to 2600.

Successor consoles aren't just those released "after", they're those released after with a specific purpose: as an upgrade path. That's clear to any gamer, IMHO.

[Schizophretard]

2600+2600=5200

5200+2600=7800

7800+2600=XE?

[8th lutz]

The XEGS was never a successor to the Atari 7800. Atari thought the XEGS would get a different market than the Atari 7800 would though.

Atari did market the XEGS as a game system by a commercial that has the XEGS being compared to the Nes. That commercial also proved that Atari thought the XEGS was supposed to be the competitor to the 7800.

proof

Edited by 8th lutz, Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:05 PM.

[Coleco]

8th lutz, on Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:59 PM, said:

The XEGS was never a successor to the Atari 7800. Atari thought the XEGS would get a different market than the Atari 7800 would though.

Atari did market the XEGS as a game system by a commercial that has the XEGS being compared to the Nes. That commercial also proved that Atari thought the XEGS was supposed to be the competitor to the 7800.

proof

Honestly -- and I'm a big 5200 fanboy -- the XEGS was what the 5200 should have been -- compatible with existing 8-bit software, and peripherals, expandable (relatively) to a computer. Would have been great with a 5200-style controller. In 82 it would have been groundbreaking. By the late 80s, it was an also-ran before it hit shelves.

[SpaceDice2010]

8th lutz, on Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:59 PM, said:

Atari did market the XEGS as a game system by a commercial that has the XEGS being compared to the Nes. That commercial also proved that Atari thought the XEGS was supposed to be the competitor to the 7800.

proof

One thing I could never figure out about Atari's marketing. What little money they spent on tv ads they did stuff like this; confuse the consumer as to whether they should buy a 7800 or XEGS.

[wood_jl]

8th lutz, on Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:59 PM, said:

The XEGS was never a successor to the Atari 7800. Atari thought the XEGS would get a different market than the Atari 7800 would though.

Atari did market the XEGS as a game system by a commercial that has the XEGS being compared to the Nes. That commercial also proved that Atari thought the XEGS was supposed to be the competitor to the 7800.

proof

Proof? That's just an advertisement. There's no proof. The commercial proves Atari thought the XEGS was a videogame system.

If there's anything that's remotely "proof" it's what I posted (and quoted) in post 3 of this thread - word from Atari themselves, where they said the XEGS was just an attempt to get the 8-bit computer line into stores that no longer carried computers. Sounds logical?

Here's the "proof" again
https://groups.googl...rce&hl=en&pli=1

[svenski]

I think this thread is more about sour grapes with a few thinking that the XES was responsible for Atari's handling of the 7800 and that without the XES existing the 7800 would have sold a lot better.

I don't think for a minute the XES was the successor to the 7800 - it was a different product and that is it.

[DracIsBack]

svenski, on Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:19 PM, said:

I think this thread is more about sour grapes with a few thinking that the XES was responsible for Atari's handling of the 7800 and that without the XES existing the 7800 would have sold a lot better.

As the person who started the thread, it was strictly started for the reasons as listed: The XEGS is listed on Wikipedia as the 7800s successor and I question whether Atari actually saw it as having that purpose. That's all. Don't make more than there is.

I do think the 7800 would have sold better without the XE there, because of one simple reason: focus. One fewer system equals more marketing dollars, retail dollars, software dollars, manufacturing dollars and less consumer confusion. To be fair, the XE would probably have sold better if the 7800 wasn't there for the exact same reasons.

Edited by DracIsBack, Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:54 PM.

[svenski]

DracIsBack, on Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:53 PM, said:

svenski, on Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:19 PM, said:

I think this thread is more about sour grapes with a few thinking that the XES was responsible for Atari's handling of the 7800 and that without the XES existing the 7800 would have sold a lot better.

As the person who started the thread, it was strictly started for the reasons as listed: The XEGS is listed on Wikipedia as the 7800s successor and I question whether Atari actually saw it as having that purpose. That's all. Don't make more than there is.

I do think the 7800 would have sold better without the XE there, because of one simple reason: focus. One fewer system equals more marketing dollars, retail dollars, software dollars, manufacturing dollars and less consumer confusion. To be fair, the XE would probably have sold better if the 7800 wasn't there for the exact same reasons.

I think we've gone over this before. Toyota (example) don't make one model car, they make several different cars for different markets. If they didn't, and you didn't want to buy the one car they sold, you'd go somewhere else.

Personally I doubt the 7800 made much of a difference if any to the XE system sales.

[DracIsBack]

svenski, on Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:01 PM, said:

Toyota (example) don't make one model car, they make several different cars for different markets.

1. Totally different industry

2. Bigger company with substantially more clout, distribution and resources to dedicate to each line

3. Distinctly different market positioning for each vehicle. Always found Atari's positioning to be confusing ... which was the 'advanced' system in the product line? Is the XE a game system an over-complicated console or an under-powered computer? Why are there games marketing for "2600 and 7800" and then same titles marketed "for 7800"? Etc.


You're still missing the point entirely. The thread had nothing to do with how the 7800 would or wouldn't have sold (or otherwise). It isn't about sour grapes but s whether Atari actually considered it a successor. Don't make it something it's not.

Edited by DracIsBack, Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:12 PM.

[svenski]

You brought up the point about one fewer system meaning more focus etc. Not missing the point.

To coin a phrase , don't make it something it's not and lighten up.

[DracIsBack]

svenski, on Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:12 PM, said:

You brought up the point about one fewer system meaning more focus etc. Not missing the point.

In response to your assertion about sour grapes. Not the point of the thread though.

[svenski]

OK.

[svenski]

To clarify things a bit I should have worded my post better as it wasn't intended as an attack on the OP or anyone else. We're all entitled to debate and have our own opinions.

[wood_jl]

1. The 8-bit Atari Computer existed before the 7800, long before.

2. The XE Game System is an 8-bit Atari Computer. Does anybody want to dispute this fact? On what grounds, please, let's hear it.

3. Links have been provided (above) which **CLEARLY*** contain statements from Atari people, stating that the XEGS was merely to expand 8-bit Atari Computer distribution, through the retail chain, to establishments that had no interest in continuing sales of 8-bit Atari computers. That's as plain as the day is long. It makes perfect sense, too. If it does not make sense, please state what part of the above does not make sense, and we'll break it down further.

4. Like many companies, Atari was selling more than one line. Selling more than one line of something does not establish one as successor to the other. If it did, Proctor and Gamble would not have 30 brands of soap at retail. They do. Also, if something was a successor, it wouldn't be older technology.

It was a concurrent AND SEPARATE product, a re-marketing of a significantly-older product. This is not rocket science.

If none of the above makes sense to you, then go on believing what you will, but you might want to remain silent and be thought of as a fool, rather than remove all doubt. Doesn't make sense that older technology was a successor. Direct information from Atari was that it was NOT a successor. Nobody with any sense believes it was a sucessor. The facts do not support the assertion that it was a successor, but anyone is free to believe that it IS a successor and that the moon is made of cheese. Next topic?

[Tubular Gearhead]

wood_jl, on Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:49 PM, said:

1. The 8-bit Atari Computer existed before the 7800, long before.

2. The XE Game System is an 8-bit Atari Computer. Does anybody want to dispute this fact? On what grounds, please, let's hear it.

3. Links have been provided (above) which **CLEARLY*** contain statements from Atari people, stating that the XEGS was merely to expand 8-bit Atari Computer distribution, through the retail chain, to establishments that had no interest in continuing sales of 8-bit Atari computers. That's as plain as the day is long. It makes perfect sense, too. If it does not make sense, please state what part of the above does not make sense, and we'll break it down further.

4. Like many companies, Atari was selling more than one line. Selling more than one line of something does not establish one as successor to the other. If it did, Proctor and Gamble would not have 30 brands of soap at retail. They do. Also, if something was a successor, it wouldn't be older technology.

It was a concurrent AND SEPARATE product, a re-marketing of a significantly-older product. This is not rocket science.

If none of the above makes sense to you, then go on believing what you will, but you might want to remain silent and be thought of as a fool, rather than remove all doubt. Doesn't make sense that older technology was a successor. Direct information from Atari was that it was NOT a successor. Nobody with any sense believes it was a sucessor. The facts do not support the assertion that it was a successor, but anyone is free to believe that it IS a successor and that the moon is made of cheese. Next topic?

Exactly. Well stated. Fact.

Wikipedia, as usual, is not accurate.

[Retro Rogue]

spiffyone, on Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:04 PM, said:

Regardless of what Atari execs may have stated to ONE news source (that gobblygook about 5200 being a "sports car" model), it's pretty apparent that 5200 was at the very least the intended successor to 2600.

Liar, never stated it was just one source. I've continuously stated that's what internal emails, documentation, and direct interviews have stated. That "one source" is simply the one source that could be used on Wikipedia until all the rest is published.

Quote

IIRC, the facts surrounding 5200 were that Atari had a planned successor model to 2600 that was kinda scrapped (the 3200...or was it 3600?) and then they went with somewhat heavily modified Atari 400/800 hardware for the 5200.

The facts are there were two different models designated 3200, the latter one that also used it was not intended to replace the 2600. Kassar simply wouldn't allow it. The initial 3200 project was designed as an update to the 2600, with a new chip called the SuperTIA which would in effect simply produce a souped up 2600 (which is why the project was also codenamed Super Stella at one point). It was Bristow's project, and it was canned when the guys in HCD started complaining about the technology possibly marginalizing their PCS technology. Along with it's cancellation went the idea of updating the 2600. It was then later decided to restart the project (sometimes called System X in both versions) as a deluxe companion to the 2600, using PCS technlology. The move to PCS technology was not because of Mattel, as you try and allude to below, it was because of internal conflicts. And in fact when they moved to the PCS they had even more conflicts between the console team and the PCS guys that further effected the console design.

Quote

5200 also had a 2600 adapter planned (and released).

Yes, a holdover from the previous version of the console. They knew if they weren't doing a replacement console (which was to have built in backwards compatibility) that then backwards compatibility as an option was important to anyone wanting to purchase this higher end deluxe Atari console.

Quote

Atari saw themselves as potentially losing out some marketshare to Mattel due to the older hardware of the 2600.

Which of course was never a danger. It simply did not happen regardless, and the 2600 still remained the top selling console.

Quote

They did not want then current or prospective Atari game console, and
owners swayed over to Mattel's side, so they prepped and released a next gen console which turned out to be 5200. They in fact wanted gamers who wanted to upgrade to upgrade to their new hardware. If that is not a successor, then what is?

In these terms, no - a successor would be something intended to replace another console. The 5200 was not intended to replace it, it was designed as and released as and promoted as a higher end alternative. Now the 7800 is certainly the successor to the 5200. It was designed and intended to replace the 5200, which is also why 5200 was cancelled.

Don't confuse this with successor in Wikipedia's needs, which is what we previously discussed - their needs for the infobox is defined as in "next released product".

Quote

The statement Atari reps gave to that paper in the Wiki source on 5200 was basically ....

It was basically what I said it was. Once again, I've been going by multiple sources not just that one article used as a reference there. What that one article represents is simply a publicly available representation of what was also being stated behind the scenes. They were very very careful the entire time - since long before that article was written - that once SuperTIA was cancelled they were not going to be replacing their cash cow. That's not spin, and that's not a last minute thought in relation to Mattel.

Quote

The only clear difference is 5200 died a premature death, but that's mainly due to the Crash and the perceived and very real mistakes with 5200.

Nope. The 5200's death had nothing to do with the crash, it had to do with making way for the 7800 - which was to be the 5200's replacement as the high end alternative console to the 2600. And the 2600 itself was going to be further pigeoned as the low end console with it's parallel move to the cheaper Jr. format.

Quote

Now, the difference between that an 7800 and XE's "relationship" is clear: XE was NEVER intended to succeed 7800; was NEVER intended for a "higher end" market; was NEVER intended as an upgrade path for then-current owners of 7800; and it was
NEVER intended to eventually, perhaps, "replace" 7800 in the future if and when 7800 stopped selling enough to merit manufacturing it. XE was just a 65XE (which itself was part of the venerable Atari 8-bit computer line) in a new shell intended to keep Atari's 8-bit computer sales going.

You've got it wrong again. Per direct talks with Michael Katz (head of the Electronic Entertainment Division) and Leonard Tramiel, the XE Game System (it was not the "XE") was released in the same relationship as the 5200 was to the 2600. It was specifically planned and marketed as a higher end GAME CONSOLE to the mid level 7800. In fact Leonard's words verbatim are "We wanted to do the 5200 done right." They wanted to do a game console that could expand in to a legitimate computer, and in the process use up the 8-bit inventory. And yes, it was intended as an upgrade path for those who wanted to have a game console that could expand in to a computer - which is also why the computer expansion for the 7800 was never pursued further and the expansion port wiped out. It simply made more sense to leverage already in use tech instead of the expense of further developing the unreleased 7800 computer tech. Especially to someone like Jack, who had already went through enough expense having to pay for the MARIA development and 10 launch titles and wasn't looking to have to pay GCC even more on unproven (market wise) technology. Hence it was simply cheaper to recycle the 8-bit tech to do the same job. The only part you got right was "and it was NEVER intended to eventually, perhaps, "replace" 7800 in the future if and when 7800 stopped selling enough to merit manufacturing it." Which ironically is describing the exact same scenario for the 2600/5200 that you don't want to accept. In fact you could literally plug it in: "and it was NEVER intended to eventually, perhaps, "replace" 2600 in the future if and when 2600 stopped selling enough to merit manufacturing it."

Honestly, this "I'm going to believe and keep saying whatever I want even when told verbatim what the people who were there actually said" is getting silly already.

Edited by wgungfu, Fri Apr 1, 2011 2:41 AM.

[Retro Rogue]

wood_jl, on Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:26 PM, said:

Proof? That's just an advertisement. There's no proof. The commercial proves Atari thought the XEGS was a videogame system.

If there's anything that's remotely "proof" it's what I posted (and quoted) in post 3 of this thread - word from Atari themselves, where they said the XEGS was just an attempt to get the 8-bit computer line into stores that no longer carried computers. Sounds logical?

Here's the "proof" again
https://groups.googl...rce&hl=en&pli=1

Understand the context of that informal usenet message - that's their marketing/communications guy addressing a very specific crowd for a very specific reason - they were a lot of 8-bit users up in arms at the time accusing Atari Corp. of killing the 8-bit line and 8-bit support. He was not involved in any of the actual designs or decisions to do the console in the first place, nor did he have the need to address the 8-bit usenet group in relation to it being a game console - as the actual press and marketing did. He had very specific points to address to a very small subset of people (the Usenet news groups certainly were not a well known marketing outlet in '87, nor a standard one for Atari Corp. who mainly used their BBS and the zNet mag via compuserve/the source/ etc. at the time for those "digital marketing" purposes). Per my post above, those directly involved with it have very specifically stated what it was intended as. Mike Katz was even against releasing it because he didn't feel there were any hot game titles for it to effectively launch on the game console market - their verbatim stated (to me) intended market. Likewise, the console was initially sold in a game console only format with keyboard and light gun sold separately and then the fully bundled keyboard expansion version coming later.

Edited by wgungfu, Fri Apr 1, 2011 11:20 AM.

[DracIsBack]

wgungfu - thanks for addressing. Regarding successor, your comments on Wikipedia make sense. The semantics were what was throwing me off (next console in succession vs. console to replace) but it's clear now.

Do you have a sense for how many units the XE Game System actually sold? I once read an article in Compute! that claimed 2 million XE consoles sold "last year" but I always found that hard to believe. Even as far as Atari consoles went, it had the least distribution in my area and the stores that had it quickly liquidated it.