5200 VS 7800: Which System has the Better Library?

[jetset]

7800 + 800XL = best of both worlds IMO. All of the flavor and none of the calories.

I think the joysticks are great if you don't follow the media hype (except for reliability). Games like Pac-Man were never uncontrollable; it was just a different feel that scared people into not even trying to use them.

 

Spot on.

It warms my heart seeing threads like this. Seemed like for the longest time the 5200 was the red-headed step child of the (Atari) family. There only seemed to be a few of us sticking up for old Pam, now it looks to be pretty darn well-liked by many.

...Yes I know as was pointed out this is a 5200 thread, but even at that there's usually not a helluva lot of love.

 

Not sure how or why though the Atari computer line constantly gets thrown in as a comparison to the 5200. Really if you're going to that extreme than just say get a modern pc with an emulator and you have everything. I just think back to the release(s) of both. The 5200 at launch was $269 (although that may have been msrp as I got mine at launch for $249. The 800 was a whopping $899 !!! (correct me if I'm off on that). In any event, it was within striking range of TRIPLE the price. Did people REALLY spend that much just to play games back then? I didn't know anybody that did.

 

Meh...off topic there. Sry.

[doctorclu]

Not sure how or why though the Atari computer line constantly gets thrown in as a comparison to the 5200. Really if you're going to that extreme than just say get a modern pc with an emulator and you have everything. I just think back to the release(s) of both. The 5200 at launch was $269 (although that may have been msrp as I got mine at launch for $249. The 800 was a whopping $899 !!! (correct me if I'm off on that). In any event, it was within striking range of TRIPLE the price. Did people REALLY spend that much just to play games back then? I didn't know anybody that did.

 

Meh...off topic there. Sry.

 

The Atari 800 was announced in 1979 and released closer to 1980.

The Atari 5200 as best I am seeing by the copyright dates of the games was more around 1982.

 

By the time the 5200 hit the market the introduction prices of the computers were already quite diminished as the XL series was already out. So my first Atari 400 when I bought it in 1982 from Best Products was $150 with a $50 rebate.

 

Believe me when I say that if the Atari 5200 came out in 1982 for $249 you could have gone down the isle, bought a Atari 400 for $150 and got a $50 rebate.

 

The Atari 400, as many of knew at the time (and I was 12 then) was the same machine in capibility as the 5200, had a larger cartridge and game selection, and could also load CASSETTES. We also knew that with a bit of work we could get the Atari 400 expanded to a Atari 800 in capibility (48K). (The Atari 800 was still quite costly in 1982, so the 400 was a cheap way to a 800) To date, no such upgrade has happened on the 5200.

 

1983 Wargames would come out, awaking many to the fact that you could call things with your computer. BBSing would take off as many wanna be hackers would start calling around. Simple fact, on the Atari 400/800 you could download games. On the 5200 you could not.

 

Get a Atari computer (or another computer) and be on BBSs talking to your friends, or get a 5200 (Coleco Vision, etc) and just play games. I was thinking of getting a Coleco Vision at the time, but seeing my friend's Atari 800 changed that. I could call numbers and talk to my friends, I could share games with my friends, who wouldn't want that?

So let's put this in today's terms.

 

Let's say they made a Wii and a Wii lite.

 

The Wii connects to the internet, plays all the games in the Wii library, and so forth. You can stream movies through the Wii, get on the internet, etc.

 

Then Nintendo releases a stripped down version of the Wii, called the Wii lite. It plays most of the games, though the memory is limited and not expandable. It does not connect to the internet. The controller is different. And the games BTW are specially packed for the Wii lite only.

 

Even though the Wii lite is less in capibility than a full Wii, it costs about as much or more.

 

Which would you choose?

[jetset]

I stand corrected. I thought the 5200 was more akin to the 800 than the 400 (out of the box w/o upgrades that is).

Edited April 13, 2011 by jetset

[+wood_jl]

Not sure how or why though the Atari computer line constantly gets thrown in as a comparison to the 5200.

Well, probably because they're almost the same thing, to the point that many of the games are identical, and for those that are not, 5200 games have been ported to Atari 8-bit computer, and of those for the 8-bit computer exclusively, some have been ported to 5200. That was easy, eh?

 

Really if you're going to that extreme than just say get a modern pc with an emulator and you have everything.

I don't know what that has to do with the comparison. ?????? See above.

 

I just think back to the release(s) of both. The 5200 at launch was $269 (although that may have been msrp as I got mine at launch for $249. The 800 was a whopping $899 !!! (correct me if I'm off on that). In any event, it was within striking range of TRIPLE the price. Did people REALLY spend that much just to play games back then? I didn't know anybody that did.

You picked the most expensive model 8-bit computer to make the comparison. But it's not 1982 anymore, a *working* (meaning controllers work) 800XL is now significantly cheaper, and they're the almost the same thing and play the same games.

Edited April 13, 2011 by wood_jl

[jetset]

Meh. The topic had nothing to do with the 400/800 line anyway. Not sure why it even came up, so I shouldn't have entertained the comparison. My bad. I don't want this to turn into a 5200 vs 8-bit computer comparison, that's totally irrelevant to the topic.

Carry on.

[doctorclu]

Meh. The topic had nothing to do with the 400/800 line anyway. Not sure why it even came up, so I shouldn't have entertained the comparison. My bad. I don't want this to turn into a 5200 vs 8-bit computer comparison, that's totally irrelevant to the topic.

Carry on.

 

Very well. 1982 aside, when I had a 5200 handed to me years later, and I got a adapter to use regular 2600 joysticks, the 5200 has become one of my favorite game systems to play while I am on IRC chat with my Atari 800.

[toiletunes]

5200 looks like a better library, but I only played one once, and that was 22 years ago. I'd love to own a 5200 someday, but right now I live in a one-bedroom apartment and don't have room for the console

[Ransom]

5200 looks like a better library, but I only played one once, and that was 22 years ago. I'd love to own a 5200 someday, but right now I live in a one-bedroom apartment and don't have room for the console

 

The 5200 is the one console that justifies the purchase of a bigger house, all by itself.

[jetset]

5200 looks like a better library, but I only played one once, and that was 22 years ago. I'd love to own a 5200 someday, but right now I live in a one-bedroom apartment and don't have room for the console

 

The 5200 is the one console that justifies the purchase of a bigger house, all by itself.

 

+1

[DracIsBack]

Which console has the better library?

 

Back to this quesiton, it guess it also boils down to what kinds of games you like. :-)

 

If you want Arcade classics, pre-1984, 5200 just has more of 'em. There are good conversions on the 7800 for sure, but the selection is greater on 5200.

 

If you want NES style adventure games, the 7800 has more of those, simply by virtue of when it was alive. Probably has more C64 computer type titles too, though not always well done.

 

If you want sports games, I'd pass on the 7800. It has 'em, but I don't think they're very good. Real Sports Baseball on each shows me the difference between Warner led development and Tramiel led development. :-)

 

If you want homebrews, they both have a killer batch. 5200 has Adventure II which is one of the greatest homebrews ever IMO. On the 7800, Pacman Plus, Kenfused and GroovyBee have all done a terrific job on new homebews. 7800 has awesome hardware enhancements like the XM and Cuttle Cart. :-)

 

As for "worst console", I think most of the world sees Atari consoles like this:

 

2600 "Oh yeah, I loved that as a kid."

 

5200 "That was the one with the bad controllers, right?"

 

7800 "What is that? Never heard of it? Is it like the 2600?"

 

XEGS "Is that a computer or console?"

 

Lynx "Awesome system that never went anywhere"

 

Jaguar "That's not a 64-bit console - just 2 32-bit processors running in parallel and has crap games! No ... I haven't actually tried one ... snicker"

[bohoki]

my input

 

my life went from 2600 to nes to genesis

 

i got a used 5200(in 1988) after i had the nes and i griped that my start and firebuttons always let me down

 

i guess i would have went for the 7800 as it was backwards compatable with 2600 unlike the 5200 where one would have to buy what amounts to a 2600 to plug into the 5200

 

the 5200 was full of very close arcade games but at the time the 2600 was very much alive with loads new games coming out

 

so i probabbly would have went with the 7800 cause it had rampage and galaga and at the time they looked arcade spot on to me (i had fairly low standards if it looked less blocky and simple than the 2600 i thought that was arcade perfect) needless to say the genesis blew my mind(altered beast,golden axe,eswat,strider)

 

 

but as of right now i love the 5200 and it has plenty of good stuff (and good controller options)

Edited April 15, 2011 by bohoki

[atariron82]

The 5200 library wins..by a 1000 miles! It's collection of strong arcade titles, excellent 3rd party games, modern era Homebrews, and steady source of XL conversions, make it the most Fun of all Atari consoles to both play and collect.

 

The 7800 has always seemed like a half-hearted effort, with slightly finer graphics, but cheaper sound and overall less power. You might call it an amped-up 2600?! Oh-boy. Why Atari didn't agressively promote and refine/expand on the SuperSystem with most of its energy is any one's guess. Instead they chose to take one step forward and three steps backward, clutching onto their beloved 2600 and its New beefed up cousin until the last dying breath.

 

Xenophobe stands out as one of the best 7800 titles. But just wait until someone converts the A8-bit version for the AMax 5200 Ultimate-SD cart! That will be music to my ears...

Edited April 15, 2011 by atariron82

[Tubular Gearhead]

Xenophobe stands out as one of the best 7800 titles.

 

 

Wow, I can think of several that are much better (I thought Xenophobe was actually pretty bad). But hey, what is the saying- ...everybody's got one!

 

IMHO, everybody needs at least one of every Atari- 5200, 7800, etc.

[peedenmark7]

Most of the 7800 games Ive played are pretty lame... they all center around the same epyx looking graphics and game play..Most feel unfinished to me.. Yea there are some REALLY good games on the 78, but 5200 has by far and away the better arcad and originals title list......I like the graphics, and joystick better as well and the games play as they should.

 

Ive spent a good deal of time on desert falcon and xevious and still fight the damn games and get no further... It cant be just me ?

 

I'd even go so far as to say 2600 is better than 7800. if you cant find 50 great games on 2600 that keep up your interest, you certainly wont be wowed by even half that number on 7800

 

The 800 has some neat 3rd party games. I wish I had kept the 800Xl I recently sold as I had a sh!t house of NOS sealed games for it that would have kept me busy for a months..... This hobby was just getting out of control and something had to go. The 800 seemed the most logical choice as I already have a ton of commodore 64 games..... I'll probably regret the 800 sale, but right now, not a second thought given to it...

Edited April 15, 2011 by peedenmark7

[Greg2600]

5200 slight edge in actual released games. If you start looking at prototypes, homebrew, etc., big edge to the 5200. Sound on the 5200 is better, too.

[DracIsBack]

The 7800 has always seemed like a half-hearted effort, with slightly finer graphics, but cheaper sound and overall less power.

 

How do you figure "less power"?

 

Does the 5200's 6502 processor running at 1.79 Mhz have a bunch of extra processing power compared to the 7800's 6502 processor running at 1.79 Mhz? Or any other machine running the 6502?

 

Sorry but the "more powerful argument" used when comparing 8bit systems drives me nuts.

 

You might call it an amped-up 2600?!

 

Yes, if you're a person calling one 8bit system "more powerful" than another 8bit system, you might. Do you also think the NES is an "amped up 2600"? It has a lot of the same 'upgrades' .... slightly faster processor, totally different graphics architecture via a totally different GPU, more memory, ability to access cartridge data directly and ability to access game data in larger chunks. Many of the same things apply to the 5200 as well.

 

ONCE AGAIN: The 7800 has a completely and utterly different GPU and graphics architecture to the 2600. That's kind of a big deal. Most of the other 'amped up' improvements are the same types of things found in other 2600 successors (NES, 5200 etc) so you might as well call the lot of them 'amped up 2600s".

 

Xenophobe stands out as one of the best 7800 titles. But just wait until someone converts the A8-bit version for the AMax 5200 Ultimate-SD cart! That will be music to my ears...

 

Can that even be played on the 5200? I thought it required 64K?

Edited April 17, 2011 by DracIsBack

[DracIsBack]

If you start looking at prototypes, homebrew, etc., big edge to the 5200.

 

Prototypes I agree a little. Partly because a) Warner was working on a lot of games when the crash happened and b) People hoard 7800 prototypes like there's no tomorrow. There are good ones on both that have emerged though. But there are AWESOME 7800 prototypes that have appeared.

 

As for Homebrew stuff, I don't agree at all. 5200 has ADVENTURE II which *KICKS ASS* for sure and other great homebrews, but there are dozens of of awesome 7800 Homebrews, hacks and demos that have appeared in the last few years and also some great hardware projects as well.

[jetset]

If you start looking at prototypes, homebrew, etc., big edge to the 5200.

 

Prototypes I agree a little. Partly because a) Warner was working on a lot of games when the crash happened and b) People hoard 7800 prototypes like there's no tomorrow. There are good ones on both that have emerged though. But there are AWESOME 7800 prototypes that have appeared.

 

As for Homebrew stuff, I don't agree at all. 5200 has ADVENTURE II which *KICKS ASS* for sure and other great homebrews, but there are dozens of of awesome 7800 Homebrews, hacks and demos that have appeared in the last few years and also some great hardware projects as well.

 

I'd probably consider agreement on the homebrew part. The 7800 has gotten much more attention, at least lately. Still, there's nothing I can recall of 7800 homebrews that matched the fevered anticipation of when we were waiting on Adventure 2, and, for that matter Castle Crisis (still the best imo), or Beef Drop. Jeez I bet people who never had a 5200 bought one just for Adventure 2. The 7800 homebrews are sweet to be sure, but no..."killer apps" as the saying goes. Maybe if someone did a must have arcade conversion or original from scratch knockout (hint, hint) I'd give the edge to the 7800. Else I'd give that one a tie.

Prototypes I can't agree. Blaster alone blows away any 7800 proto that's popped up. And if Tempest ever sees the light of day as far as a release...forget it!!!

[DracIsBack]

I'd probably consider agreement on the homebrew part. The 7800 has gotten much more attention, at least lately. Still, there's nothing I can recall of 7800 homebrews that matched the fevered anticipation of when we were waiting on Adventure 2, and, for that matter Castle Crisis (still the best imo), or Beef Drop. Jeez I bet people who never had a 5200 bought one just for Adventure 2.

 

Not in disagreement on ADVENTURE II. But then, has any hardware matched the fever over Cuttle Cart II or even the XM in 5200 land?

 

 

Prototypes I can't agree. Blaster alone blows away any 7800 proto that's popped up

 

Blaster is a great game. People were pretty impressed when Plutos and Sirius showed up on the 7800 front.

 

And if Tempest ever sees the light of day as far as a release...forget it!!!

 

Maybe 7800 Electrocop will show up at the same time ...

[BassGuitari]

In terms of original software libraries: ATARI 5200

I don't know of many other systems that have the game-for-game quality of the Atari 5200. You can pick up virtually any 5200 game, and odds are it's a great one. Even the worst 5200 games are still average...except maybe Congo Bongo, which is a terrible game on ANY system. The Atari 7800, on the other hand, is not a system I feel I could say that about. I don't dislike the 7800 -it's sleek-looking and does have a few great games that make it worth owning- but there's no way its library, on the whole, stacks up to the 5200's. It should tell you something when one of the most-hyped features of the Atari 7800 is that it can run Atari 2600 titles. Just sayin'.

 

(7800 Ms. Pac-Man smokes the 5200 version, though. I'll give it that.)

 

In terms of homebrews: ATARI 7800 (by a hair)

Homebrews are a game-changer, though (pun intended...sue me). The 5200 and 7800 both have terrific homebrews. But there are a lot of exciting things happening with the 7800 right now, most notably the 7800 Expansion Module. Frankly, the 7800 was generally never that interesting to me personally until I saw some of the homebrew things that were happening. The homebrews for both systems seem to be mostly arcade ports (in some cases, arcade-perfect), so "which system has the better library" here really depends on which games you'd rather play. Atari 7800 has Pac-Man Collection, Space Invaders (arcade), and Space Duel...but the 5200 has Adventure II, Sinistar, and Castle Crisis. I might have to give the 7800 the edge in the homebrew department because there seems to be slightly more titles available (sorry, 5200; 400/800 ports don't count), and with the upcoming XM, the sky's the limit as to the quality of software that could be developed for it. But as it is, in terms of the quality and playability of homebrews, it's a dead heat.

 

Overall:

Just get both. The Atari 5200 has one of the best original game libraries of any system. The 5200 and 7800 systems both have absolutely brilliant homebrews and will continue to have absolutely brilliant homebrews. But as far as the homebrew scene goes, I think the Atari 7800 is going to be the place to be, judging by what's currently available and by what's in development.

[Cobra Kai]

I prefer the 5200. From the moment I first played it, and still today, the whole package of hardware, games and peripherals on the 5200 just emit an air of higher quality over the 7800. Even if you didn't know the history of the Tramiels taking over the company, and their involvement with the 7800, as an objective observer, if you sat down and played both systems side by side, inspected all the equipment, a person could tell that there is something different, or even 'missing' from the standpoint of the 7800, especially involving quality control. You could certainly suspect there was a change in philosophy between the 2 consoles.

 

The 5200 Supersystem delivered on bringing the arcade experience home, as best as could be done. This to me, seemed to be the mission of the system, and it succeeded, even if most of the quality ports were from Atari themselves. They can't be blamed for the mess that was Activision 5200 titles. If you doubt that Atari had gamers best interests in mind for the Supersystem, I would put the 5200 trak-ball controller as evidence on Atari's side, just as one example.

 

I do like the 7800, however I think it's without a doubt that the homebrew community has increased its standard amongst fans. I was always let down with the console however, even though when I bought it brand new I was extremely excited to have a new Atari. The lower quality of the hardware and games stuck out to me soon after that exhilaration. The pro-line controllers were a major letdown, as I felt Atari simply removed options of the 5200 sticks without consideration for a totally new design with better functionality. It was a bare bones 5200 stick. And I was always annoyed that my cartridges would go in really tight on the 7800, thinking 'Man, I never have this kind of problem with the 5200'. It was just these things that stick out that I was getting a cheaper product than I was used to with Atari, and it was a let down.

[kool kitty89]

I just think back to the release(s) of both. The 5200 at launch was $269 (although that may have been msrp as I got mine at launch for $249. The 800 was a whopping $899 !!! (correct me if I'm off on that). In any event, it was within striking range of TRIPLE the price. Did people REALLY spend that much just to play games back then? I didn't know anybody that did.

You picked the most expensive model 8-bit computer to make the comparison. But it's not 1982 anymore, a *working* (meaning controllers work) 800XL is now significantly cheaper, and they're the almost the same thing and play the same games.

They were also discontinuing the 800 at that point and the price was a fair bit lower. Of course, the comparable Atari 400 (more features than the 5200) was significantly cheaper than the 5200 by the end of 1982, and the 600 might have been in that same price range if released. (they opted to only release the 1200XL for whatever reason, a pretty nasty mistake given the push the VIC-20 got in '82 and the C64 undercutting the 1200XL -while the 600 could have offered great middle ground between the VIC and 64, with better software than either at the time and totally better hardware than the VIC)

 

Also, by 1984, the 800 XL was significantly cheaper than the 5200 interestingly enough. (the 5200 was still well above $100 SRP iirc, but the 800XL had been dropped to $99 in late summer iirc -not sure if that was being sold at a loss though, or what the 600XL was priced at for that matter)

 

Of course, the 5200's design should have made it cheaper than the 400 or 600/XL in general, but they made many mistakes that compromised that. Even so, the fundamental design would have been cheaper than the 600XL if streamlined similarly. (the 5200 Jr was moving towards that, but way underkill for what they could have been pushing -if they'd consoldiated the board and case for a minimalistic/compact/low-cost overall design, it probably could have been cheaper to manufacture than the 7800, especially after CGIA was implemented)

 

 

 

 

 

The 7800 has always seemed like a half-hearted effort, with slightly finer graphics, but cheaper sound and overall less power.

 

How do you figure "less power"?

 

Does the 5200's 6502 processor running at 1.79 Mhz have a bunch of extra processing power compared to the 7800's 6502 processor running at 1.79 Mhz? Or any other machine running the 6502?

Yes, actually. MARIA is far more bus hungry than ANTIC/GTIA and, in certain cases, can even saturate the bus completely in active display (non vblank). Of course, you also need a bit more CPU grunt to attempt some things in general on the A8 (but now we're talking hardware graphics capabilities, not CPU power).

The way MARIA works also makes interrupt routines basically useless, so more programmer heavy software times routines would need to replace those (or certain things would be left out entirely).

 

If interrupts had been as useful as in the A8 (and RIOT IRQ had been enabled in 7800 mode), you could have had PCM/PWM modulation in-game like many A8 games pushed (especially homebrew stuff -some C64 games pushed that too). The lack of IRQ support also renders much of POKEY's flexibility useless (as most of that is interrupt dependent).

 

 

Sorry but the "more powerful argument" used when comparing 8bit systems drives me nuts.

Usually, people aren't talking about CPU resource, but sound/graphics hardware capabilities. "power" is rather ambiguous as such.

 

Though, in that sense, the 7800 definitely has an edge over the A8: MARIA can do a lot of things that ANTIC+GTIA can't, though the conventional bitmap/character modes of the A8 arguably make it more programmer friendly for the mass market of the time than the 7800 does -I thin scrolling also might be more "normal" to manage on the A8. (except MARIA could push a framebuffer too if it had enough RAM -I think the Epyx games do that) The A8 sprites are still the primitive VCS type ones though, also a major clash compared to the "normal" hardware sprites supported on mid/late 80s consoles and computers. (ie x/y position registers and -in some cases- hardware multiplexing -I think the TMS9918 may have been the first video chip to implement that type of sprites)

 

That's something significant to note: "difficult to program" often means "not like common standards" regardless of being difficult or easy in its own right. (of course, in some cases you certainly have more programming hassle in general . . . and if you get more market support in general for other reasons, you can end up forcing programmers to "get used to it" as was obviously the case with the VCS's hardware -programmers coming straight off the VCS probably wouldn't have found the 7800 "hard" at all, probably a joy to work with compared to the VCS )

 

ONCE AGAIN: The 7800 has a completely and utterly different GPU and graphics architecture to the 2600. That's kind of a big deal. Most of the other 'amped up' improvements are the same types of things found in other 2600 successors (NES, 5200 etc) so you might as well call the lot of them 'amped up 2600s".

You could also argue that the 2600 hardware is a general detriment to the system in performance and cost effectiveness. (ie take MARIA and the CPU and mate it with a POKEY for the primary I/O and sound -or an AY8910- and you'd have better sound and lower cost in general -investing in using DRAM instead of SRAM also could have been significant, more board space initially -due to DRAM refresh logic, but removing the VCS stuff would have freed that up some -and using DRAM would be cheaper in the long run by a good margin, maybe even right out of the gate)

Investing in a 2 bus design with the CPU and MARIA able to run in parallel (maybe contention for ROM if MARIA was allowed to jump into the main bus rather than the CPU feeding dedicated VRAM alone -or you could go the NES route with more expensive dual ROM, dual bus carts)

 

Can that even be played on the 5200? I thought it required 64K?

There's a number of 32/48/64k games that were modified to work directly with the 5200 (like rescue on fractalus) by moving more into ROM. (some cart ports were "lazy" and directly converted the disk versions to ROM that needed to load into RAM rather than modifying the game to fully utilize ROM iirc -of course, that could technically allow games to be compressed in ROM too, but I'm not sure that was ever done)

[kool kitty89]

800xl, followed by 7800.

Don't get me wrong, there are some great games on the 5200, but most of them I prefer on the XL/XE computers.

The 7800 homebrews are awesome

Yeah, but if you couldn't have the 8-bit in there at all, which would be preferable?

 

 

 

I think GCC had lots of plans for the 7800 to have soul. Then came the Tramiels and their endless cost cutting on everything.

 

expansion port? Gone.

The expansion port was pretty pointless . . . laserdisc was a neat pipe dream, but a pipe dream nevertheless. (or if they HAD implemented it, I highly doubt it would have gone beyond a tiny niche market -maybe it would have attracted Digital Pictures after they lost support for their original plans -then Again, Zito never seemed to take interest in a laserdisc based console oddly enough; that would certainly have been the most viable option prior to CD based systems in the early 90s -he ended up waiting about 4 years to bring Night Trap and Sewer Shark to market because of that)

 

Peripherals like high score cart and keyboard?. Gone.

That's much more Warner's fault than Tramiels for putting Atari Corp at odds with GCC to the point where neather wanted much to do with the other by the time the 7800 ordeal was finally cleared up. (GCC was almost certainly fed up with dealing with those problems and Tramiel probably was frustrated enough about having to shell out more for something that should have been part of the original deal)

 

Besides, Atari Corp hardly needed GCC to manage the high score cart or a computer expansion (hell, they could have done a lot better than the joystick based keyboard interface GCC was suggesting), though losing GCC as a software developer probably hurt a bit (mainly due to Atari Corp's generally weak position for developer support in general, albeit that was largely due to Warner's mess of a transition that put them in a much worse position than Atari Inc had been immediately prior -or even TTL in some respects, and of course, also related to Ninteno blocking Japanese -and later many US- developers from publishing for Atari -or anyone else).

Atari Corp's general financial position and Nintendo's ability to pull off illegal policies are what really hurt Atari Corp on the US market. (in that sense, GCC might have been more important in being able to get more bank for the buck than some other developers -ie squeezing more out of the system within the tight budgets being pushed)

 

 

But, as for the computer add-on or high score cart concepts could have been done rather easily by Atari Corp themselves (either in-house or outsourcing). Same for the sound expansion for that matter. (with the exception that the save functionality might not have ended up directly compatible with the original high-score supporting games)

 

I wanted to start a separate topic on this (I still might at some point), but:

The cart slot was the REAL expansion port on the 7800, that's why the XM was possible, and something like that could have been very attractive (for Atari Corp, developers, and consumers if marketed right) back in the late 80s. In particular, I'm thinking of such hardware being implemented before any add-ons were introduced on carts (ie before the 1987/88 games with 32kx8 SRAM chips or POKEYs came around) and instead implement an add-on supporting similar features as a 1-time cost (perhaps releasing a "7800 Plus" console with that built-in). If they DID use SRAM like the Epyx games (and not gone with DRAM), they also could have included a battery and reserved a small chunk of the SRAM for save data.

With a POKEY and RAM onboard, you also have the makings for a nice computer add-on interface. (ie they could have an SIO port and keyboard interface port for a separate keyboard expansion and disk/tape drive -or bundled versions of the add-on/system with the keyboard -tape could be especially important for the European market, especially if they'd implemented a much faster FSK decoder)

If they REALLY wanted to make it cost effective, they could have made 4k of the 32k SRAM unused on the add-on side, and map that to the original 4k SRAM for the integrated models (doing away with the 2 2kx8-bit SRAMs)

 

Hell, they could even have made use of the POT lines for additional controller inputs. (you could wire it like a conventional VCS/A8 joytport with some of the analog lines wired to function as simple digital I/O ports, but that would only give 1 usable joyport -for 2 you'd have to rely more on analog and couldn't support all the normal digital lines . . . unless you had 2 different mapping schemes depending on whether analog or digital modes were enabled; then you could have 1 fully functional joystick/pad controller port or 2 paddle compatible ones)

 

Such an add-on/upgrade probably would have made a lot more sense for Atari Corp given their market position and low-end cost aim for games. (having support for cassettes could have been very significant in Europe as well, especially with fast load times)

That sort of add-on also could have addressed the primary goals of the XEGS without undermining the 7800 and confusing the market. (albeit it would lack some of the "bonuses" of the XEGS of using up stockpiled resources -other than POKEYs and existing SIO compatible accessories)

 

 

Sound chips in cartridges? Gone. (GCC intended this from the start to be more commonplace)

Which was a bad engineering move and generally bad trade-off. Supporting sound expansion was good, but mainly if you're thinking of doing it years later when things become far cheaper. As it was, it would have been far more cost effective to slap a POKEY or (short of that) an SN76489 (maybe an AY PSG) on the 7800 in the first place; even more so if they'd been proactive and collaborated with Atari Inc engineers for areas they were having troubles with.

 

Even better would have been plans for a standard add-on rather than embedded cart hardware. (one time payment, more attractive all around, though a bit tougher to market)

 

As it was though, I wonder why Atari Corp didn't push POKEY more since they seemed to have a considerable stock of them . . . and after that started to dry up, they could switch to cheaper off the shelf alternatives like the basic SN76489 or the(better) Yamaha/AY PSGs available. (especially the cut-down 16 pin Yamaha versions becoming available in the mid/late 80s -or the full YM2149 if they wanted to add 2 more controller ports on cart a la Codemasters)

 

3rd parties also would have been fully free to do as they liked for expansion, it's just that the system got virtually no 3rd party support back then, let alone developers who wanted to invest in added hardware on-cart.

 

Colour labels on carts (initially)? Gone.

A short term problem that was resolved almost immediately. Atari Corp was in a very tight position financially up to 1987 at the very least, but they managed to pull through in spite of the mess Warner created. (you can fault Jack for some things, but it's really hard to tell just how things could have turned out if a proper transition had been organized -it's obvious Atari Inc under Morgan could have been much better off, but that was Warner's fault, not Tramiel's -as it was, Tramiel and Co were lucky to salvage the mess Warner forced them into)

 

Bigger games? Gone.

No, they just took longer to arrive.

Also, I'm not sure any Ninteno or Sega games of that era ever pushed 32 kB of SRAM on cart, pretty significant for those epyx games.

 

Battery backups? Gone.

Except that was an extreme rarity even on contemporary consoles. Even the Genesis was extremely sparing on battery saves.

 

A-Plus developers? Gone. (though that was more Nintendo's doing)

And the fact that most A plus developers (as far as the mass market was concerned) were in Japan anyway. Albeit, Europe had a LOT of untapped potential Atari could have taken advantage of; that's something I really wonder about. (ie if Katz ever seriously considered pushing hard for European computer developers rather than the limited US computer developers they largely ended up with -especially given the number of compelling budget games being produced, ideal for the low-cost angle they were pushing)

 

And aside from Nintendo, there was Atari Corp's general funding limitations and the hefty delays that Warner had induced. (again, Atari Corp probably wouldn't have directly followed what Morgan had been planning either way, but there's absolutely no doubt that Warner's complete and utter mismanagement of the split/transition/sale weakened Atari Corp's position far more than any management changes Trameil made)

 

Big game dev budgets? Gone.

Again, that would have been limited by their funding . . . and the lack of 3rd party support to go above and beyond what Atari Corp was pushing out of pocket.

However, can you think of any pre-crash Atari games that pushed anywhere near the budgets of the higher-end examples seen in the late 80s? (not talking about stupid management decisions paying exorbitant licensing fees or marketing/special competition costs, but actual R&D/programming/development investment)

 

Ads? Mostly gone.

Again, a funding issue, and by the time they were in a real position to push hard (in terms of cash flow and investment interest from creditors -to allow deficit spending for some heavy hitting invesments -risky, but the best chance to really push things, and something Jack had been willing to push at CBM), Jack had stepped down and been succeeded by his (apparently) far less capable son, Sam, and they also lost Michael Katz shortly thereafter.

 

In spite of their weak software support, funding issues, etc, etc, Atari Corp had managed to outsell Sega in the US by a considerable margin (much more so if you included 2600 sales), and had also managed to successfully establish a new 16-bit computer system on the market (somewhat niche in the US, but the dominant 16-bit computer in Europe until the very end of the 80s -and if you go by aggregate sales rather than market share, probably a fair bit longer than that).

 

 

Now, it's not like Atari Corp was free from their own mistakes prior to Sam taking over, but overall they'd managed to get enough right to pull through.

Some things are pure hindsight, but others seem odd even when trying to consider the perspective at the time. Things like hesitating when offered the Megadrive in mid 1988 is rather understandable for example, targeting the low-cost market sector to differentiate from the competition also made sense, but things like making the same mistake of missing expansion on the ST (-as with the A8- even in terms of a simple/compact/cheap general purpose expansion port), pushing desktop models of the ST from the start or ASAP, pushing faster CPU options (or maybe even FPUs or workstation class big-box models), pushing the XEGS in 1987, etc, etc all seem rather odd. If they'd decided to ditch the 7800 and push a direct 600/800XL based console back in '84, that would have made sense, but in '87 it was neither here nor there for bolstering the computer line or offering a "high end" game console -if they wanted either of those, the ST, especially with the Blitter and maybe a sound upgrade (especially if cut back in other areas with provisions to expansion to full ST spec), would have made a lot more sense. (or, alternatively, an upgraded computer expandable 7800 derivative/add-on as mentioned above)

[DracIsBack]

Again, I have the same feedback ... I started to read and reply, but got tired of trying make sense of the sentence fragments smashed together in the novela length post.

[atariron82]

Relax Drac,

Did I press a tender 7800 button? I think you got a thing for MARIA , but I've got it bad for PAM

 

You want to talk about power? He-Man had the "POWER" back then!! But seriously, Kool Kitty's implication is right on. I wasn't speaking in technical terms. I just said it seemed less powerful. As a gamer, it's all about perception of graphics together with sound and packaging. Unfortunately the 7800's presentation was just weak as a successor to the SuperSystem. The 5200 was a bold statement by Atari. The 7800 felt like a retreat. It was really the Atari 3600.

A78 Mario Bros. is a good looking game with finer graphics, nicer colors, and smoother gameplay than the 5200 version. Then I hear the sound, and it reminds of marbles swirling in an empty paint can?! It should have been waay better than that...and what about the missing animations? I'll go with the 5200, and the turtles in their underwear

They did it right with BallBlazer and Commando, thanks to built in POKEY enhancement. External POKEY? Why not on the motherboard? Its like having a removable Turbo Charger on a V-8. So both 8-bit consoles have the same amt of Cubic Inches under the hood. Who's got the power? The Supersystem is like a custom '68 Fury III, with a big-block 400, 4 barrel carburetor and chrome package. Lots of stock power right up front. The 7800, is more like a '75 Valiant with a small-block 360, bored out to 400 with 2 barrel carb, cumbersome emissions package, but with MARIA inside and optional Turbo Charger

 

Do I think the "NES is an amped-up 2600"? Ridiculous. Those two are on opposite ends of the 8-bit spectrum. I don't put the NES in the same room with Atari. I have one though, for games like Elevator Action & Donkey Kong 3, which should have been released by Atari but weren't. When I alluded to the 7800 being an "amped-up 2600", it was just a dig. I do however consider the 7800 to be the logical successor to the 2600. The 5200 has little to do with either, but is more closely related to the A8-bit computer line. The true successor to the 5200 (IMO) would be the XEGS, with 64K RAM and bigger games. The cartridges aren't as big as 8-Track tapes anymore though...darn.

 

Can Xenophobe be "played on the 5200"? M.U.L.E plays just fine and is 64K. Bounty Bob is 40K. With bank switching it may be possible to run a 128K game. We'll have to see what the future has in store...

 

 

P.S.: There are some exciting things going on now in the 7800 world. The New X-Module will make the console like it should have been all along. That with some impressive New hombrews make it worth adding to the collection.

 

The 7800 has always seemed like a half-hearted effort, with slightly finer graphics, but cheaper sound and overall less power.

 

How do you figure "less power"?

 

Does the 5200's 6502 processor running at 1.79 Mhz have a bunch of extra processing power compared to the 7800's 6502 processor running at 1.79 Mhz? Or any other machine running the 6502?

 

Sorry but the "more powerful argument" used when comparing 8bit systems drives me nuts.

 

You might call it an amped-up 2600?!

 

Yes, if you're a person calling one 8bit system "more powerful" than another 8bit system, you might. Do you also think the NES is an "amped up 2600"? It has a lot of the same 'upgrades' .... slightly faster processor, totally different graphics architecture via a totally different GPU, more memory, ability to access cartridge data directly and ability to access game data in larger chunks. Many of the same things apply to the 5200 as well.

 

ONCE AGAIN: The 7800 has a completely and utterly different GPU and graphics architecture to the 2600. That's kind of a big deal. Most of the other 'amped up' improvements are the same types of things found in other 2600 successors (NES, 5200 etc) so you might as well call the lot of them 'amped up 2600s".

 

Xenophobe stands out as one of the best 7800 titles. But just wait until someone converts the A8-bit version for the AMax 5200 Ultimate-SD cart! That will be music to my ears...

 

Can that even be played on the 5200? I thought it required 64K?