What was Atari thinking?

[BillyHW]

Why would Atari (initially) release the 7800 in 1984, less than 2 years after the 5200? Why would it be inferior in some ways to the older system (i.e. sound?) Why, after re-releasing the 7800 in 1986, would Atari release the XEGS less than a year later? Why would Atari want to compete with itself in the console market like that? Is the XEGS even technically superior to the 7800?

 

It all boggles my mind.

Edited March 5, 2012 by BillyHW

[8th lutz]

The Atari 5200 was being replaced for the fact it did not meet the sales Atari expected out of the 5200 for a number of reasons. The Atari 5200 was more expensive than the colecovision. The Atari 5200 also had complains about its controllers besides not able to play games from its 8 bit computer line. Atari 5200 also not backwards compatible with the 2600 and had a weak launch title lineup. The Atari 7800 was supposed to answer the problems the 5200 had.

 

Atari 7800's sound was inferior to the Atari 5200 because Atari wanted the price of the 7800 to be as cheap as possible. The plan with the Atari 7800 sound was adding sound chips to Atari 7800 game Cartridges including the sound chip the Atari 5200 has.

 

I can not really answer about the XEGS from a graphical standpoint. What I know is the XEGS has better sound chip and more ram than the Atari 7800.

 

I can't talk about graphics of it since I never owned one despite seeing it in stores back in the late 1980's as a kid. It was expansive in 1988.

 

What I gather about the XEGS was Atari was trying to improve the sales of the Atari 8 bit computer line.

Edited March 5, 2012 by 8th lutz

[Rev]

Corporate greed.

[+swlovinist]

From what I have read,The company just really did not know what direction to go in. Between all the corporate cuts, direction of the company going into more home computers and less into console videogames, Things were a mess and it showed with some of the half hazard things that were done.

 

1. The 5200 was a mess of a system. It should not have been released the way it was, which was a large hulking blunder. The 7800 was to be something of a compromise, which was to appeal to the strength of the 2600 but with better graphics.

 

2. The XEGS was supposed to be something of a hybrid console computer, and it failed on both ends.

 

Lets just say that when people remember the highlights of Atari, they dont usually think about the time period of 1984-1987.

[DracIsBack]

Why would Atari (initially) release the 7800 in 1984, less than 2 years after the 5200?

 

As other's said, the 5200 did not meet expecations. They also got a lot of feedback that the 5200's lack of 2600 compatibility was a non-starter. Also, they had a glut of 2600 games.

 

in the case of the sound, the 7800 is technically two systems on one motherboard in order to be 'backwards' compatible. This made the system expensive and the motherboard packed. Atari/GCC's plan was to include sound on the cartridges ... POKEY initially, with a low cost, high performance successor, GUMBY to follow. When the Tramiels took over, GUMBY was cancelled, and almost no games used POKEY.

 

 

I also never understood the XEGS decision in terms of dividing their scant resources, distribution space and causing market confusion, but this was their rationale:

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/76735-atari-xegs/page__st__25

[jaybird3rd]

I also never understood the XEGS decision in terms of dividing their scant resources, distribution space and causing market confusion, but this was their rationale:

 

http://www.atariage....gs/page__st__25

I always figured that the XEGS was an attempt to cash in on the 8-bit computer technology before it was too far past its sell date. I had never heard the particular explanation that was offered in the other thread, but it makes its own kind of sense: if you have a rich library of games for the 8-bit computer line, and if you have relationships with distributors who want to sell game consoles but not computers, it seems logical to repackage the 8-bit computer as a game console so you can get those assets on the market while it's still possible to make some money with them. Personally, I always liked the XEGS; my only complaint is that they didn't go with more of a Mega ST style "pizza box" design, which would have saved lots of desk space by allowing you to put your TV on top of the console itself.

 

As for the 7800, I agree with the preceding posts: the 5200 was a poorly-executed system, and the 7800 was designed by GCC to fix the mistakes of the 5200 while being cheaper and backward-compatible with the 2600. The 7800 was originally going to include better sound, but that was dropped from the design early on, so they kept their options open by adding an audio pin to the cartridge slot and POKEY chips inside those cartridges that needed it.

[BillyHW]

Does it really make economic sense to plan on putting the sound chip in every cartridge, rather than on the console itself? Then you're making people pay for the chip over and over again every time they buy a game.

 

By abandoning the 5200 so soon, Atari totally blew its reputation. And backwards compatibility was such a bad idea. The 2600 games sucked royally (:ducks:). By extending the life of the 2600 for so long, Atari came to be associated with obsolete technology and bad games. They needed to deprecate the 2600 and get people playing higher quality games ASAP.

 

What Atari should have done is redesign the 5200 controller to something simple and decent and drop the price to compete with Coleco. Focus on making technically superior games, market themselves as the technically superior system. Sure, they would have still lost the 1982-1986 generation, but they could have still managed a decent 2nd place showing, while maintaining their reputation.

 

Then in 1987 Handy would have been ready and could have easily been modified into a home console, as well as a portable. They could have had the PC Engine of North America on their hands.

 

Sega was also usually quick to abandon systems. See 32x, Saturn, Dreamcast and to some extent the Master System as well (Genesis released only 3 years into life of SMS). Where are they now?

 

Look at Nintendo on the other hand. They came 2nd place with N64, and a solid 3rd with Gamecube. But they managed to maintain their reputation during these eras and re-emerged with the Wii and reclaimed the #1 spot in the market.

 

The biggest mistake Atari made in the mid 80's was not giving a damn about their reputation.

[GroovyBee]

What Atari should have done is redesign the 5200 controller to something simple and decent and drop the price to compete with Coleco. Focus on making technically superior games, market themselves as the technically superior system. Sure, they would have still lost the 1982-1986 generation, but they could have still managed a decent 2nd place showing, while maintaining their reputation.

 

If you want a technical comparison of the 7800 vs the 5200/Coleco look at any of the recent "vs" threads (there have been several over the years). However, I have yet to see a 5200 game match the graphical quality of any the three homebrew games (developed by me) in this post :-

 

http://www.atariage....ost__p__2216869

 

Then in 1987 Handy would have been ready and could have easily been modified into a home console, as well as a portable. They could have had the PC Engine of North America on their hands.

 

A home console and a portable are worlds apart in design ethos.

[DracIsBack]

Does it really make economic sense to plan on putting the sound chip in every cartridge, rather than on the console itself?

 

Not in disagreement. That's partially why GUMBY was intended to replace POKEY ... better sound, lower costs, given the constraints.

 

 

And backwards compatibility was such a bad idea.

 

I'm sure they have open positions if you'd like to go back in time and apply as head of product strategy.

 

Seriously though, they had tons of data saying people were pissed because the 5200 couldn't play 2600 games without an adaptor and they replied. Given PS1/PS2/PS3, Xbox/360, Wii/GameCube, there is some evidence that they weren't alone in the logic. Though I have a theory that backwards compatibility is an 'important selling feature' that doesn't get used much in practice once the system is home.

 

 

 

The 2600 games sucked royally (:ducks:).

 

That's your opinion. Watch out for the 2600 fans with torches and pitchforks.

 

and to some extent the Master System as well (Genesis released only 3 years into life of SMS).

 

If you assume an ethnocentric view of the world, sure. Outside North America though, the SMS had three times as many games released as in North America ... and the bulk of them came after it was discontinued here.

[BillyHW]

What Atari should have done is redesign the 5200 controller to something simple and decent and drop the price to compete with Coleco. Focus on making technically superior games, market themselves as the technically superior system. Sure, they would have still lost the 1982-1986 generation, but they could have still managed a decent 2nd place showing, while maintaining their reputation.

 

If you want a technical comparison of the 7800 vs the 5200/Coleco look at any of the recent "vs" threads (there have been several over the years). However, I have yet to see a 5200 game match the graphical quality of any the three homebrew games (developed by me) in this post :-

 

http://www.atariage....ost__p__2216869

 

Then in 1987 Handy would have been ready and could have easily been modified into a home console, as well as a portable. They could have had the PC Engine of North America on their hands.

 

A home console and a portable are worlds apart in design ethos.

 

You don't think Handy would have made a pretty awesome console for the time?

 

And why would I want a technical comparison of the 7800 vs. the 5200/Coleco? It doesn't change the fact that the 7800 was the wrong system at the wrong time.

[BillyHW]

and to some extent the Master System as well (Genesis released only 3 years into life of SMS).

If you assume an ethnocentric view of the world, sure. Outside North America though, the SMS had three times as many games released as in North America ... and the bulk of them came after it was discontinued here.

 

I wrote "to some extent" to specifically acknowledge Europe and Brazil wrt the SMS. But it still doesn't change the fact that the SMS was Sega's focus for only 3 years and then their main focus became the MegaDrive/Genesis.

[8th lutz]

And backwards compatibility was such a bad idea. The 2600 games sucked royally (:ducks:). By extending the life of the 2600 for so long, Atari came to be associated with obsolete technology and bad games. They needed to deprecate the 2600 and get people playing higher quality games ASAP.

 

While you don't like the 2600, People from 1982 to 1984 felt about the Atari 2600 much different than you do. One of the reasons the Colecovision was successful was the fact it had a module to play Atari 2600 games. Having a great launch game lineup did help, but the ability to play 2600 games was one of the big selling point for the Colecovision. The Intellivision II even had a module to play Atari 2600 games. Atari was forced to realized the Atari 5200 needed a module and decided to release it as a result.

 

I disagree with your comment about Atari 2600 games suck. The Atari 2600 had good and bad games like all systems do. The Atari 2600 actually did not what types of games it was capable of it in the beginning due to lack of rom at the time and programmers not knowing how advance a 2600 game can go and be a good game.

 

Atari 2600 had some advance games later on and they were good games such as Road Runner, Sprintmaster, and Solaris As examples. The 1986 to 1990 time period that I didn't mention Time period also brought good games like Jr. Pac-Man, Midnight Magic, Super Football, and California Games based on what I have in my Atari 2600 game collection from that time period that I actually played besides Road Runner, Sprintmaster, and Solaris.

 

Atari in 1986 had no choice but to release the Atari 2600 Jr because Atari had an inventory of 2600 games. Atari also released 2600 games that were developed in 1984, but weren't released at the time either besides developing other 2600 games. In 1984 Atari changed hands by Jack Tramiel and his family being the new owners of Atari from a computer and game console stand point. Jack wanted to make money on a company that was losing a lot of money. What Jack did with the Atari 2600 actually helped Atari out from a financial standpoint for a time.

Edited March 6, 2012 by 8th lutz

[NE146]

Really the truth of it is.. hindsight strategy is easy and is obvious to anyone.. especially when you have 20+ years of videogame business history to refer to.

 

But when you're living in the now and trying to figure out the right thing to do for the future, know one knows wtf the right decision is.

[high voltage]

Does it really make economic sense to plan on putting the sound chip in every cartridge, rather than on the console itself? Then you're making people pay for the chip over and over again every time they buy a game. By abandoning the 5200 so soon, Atari totally blew its reputation. And backwards compatibility was such a bad idea. The 2600 games sucked royally (:ducks:). By extending the life of the 2600 for so long, Atari came to be associated with obsolete technology and bad games. They needed to deprecate the 2600 and get people playing higher quality games ASAP. What Atari should have done is redesign the 5200 controller to something simple and decent and drop the price to compete with Coleco. Focus on making technically superior games, market themselves as the technically superior system. Sure, they would have still lost the 1982-1986 generation, but they could have still managed a decent 2nd place showing, while maintaining their reputation. Then in 1987 Handy would have been ready and could have easily been modified into a home console, as well as a portable. They could have had the PC Engine of North America on their hands. Sega was also usually quick to abandon systems. See 32x, Saturn, Dreamcast and to some extent the Master System as well (Genesis released only 3 years into life of SMS). Where are they now? Look at Nintendo on the other hand. They came 2nd place with N64, and a solid 3rd with Gamecube. But they managed to maintain their reputation during these eras and re-emerged with the Wii and reclaimed the #1 spot in the market. The biggest mistake Atari made in the mid 80's was not giving a damn about their reputation.

 

VCS games sucked? You mean N64 games sucked (fuzzy games), N64 second in the market? Doubt that very much. By 95 it was PC first, PSX second than others, Game Cube 3rd, doubt that very much too.

 

Nintendo was lucky with NES, but only in Japan and USA, in Europe NES was a huge failure (2.5 mill sold by 93 (source: Game Over)), very bad. Even SMS did better. BTW, the VCS was the second best selling console in the US after NES, that is not bad for late 80s.

 

VCS had a very good 13 year run, with games getting better and better, as explained to you above. Atari not giving a damn? The Atari ST was a huge worldwide seller, used by musicians all over the world (Madonna, Jarre, Fat boy slim etc...) Hardly a failure. ST was leading 16bit gaming computer in Europe for 4 years, and When Amiga became popular it did a good neck-on-neck run with Commodore.

 

Many people who never played a 5200 moan about 5200 joysticks of how bad they are. Have you ever used one yourself? I doubt that very much. The 5200 joystick is fine, if you know what you're doing.

 

Nintendo's system lasted longer in the market? Maybe Nintendo were just lazy developing new systems? Have you thought about that?

Edited March 6, 2012 by high voltage

[high voltage]

The mistake was that USA 'gave away' the hardware market to Japan, USAers didn't give a damn.

Edited March 6, 2012 by high voltage

[GroovyBee]

You don't think Handy would have made a pretty awesome console for the time?

 

With a 102 pixels vertically I'd say no. Plus the 16 bit wars were already on going with the ST and Amiga by the time the Lynx was released.

 

And why would I want a technical comparison of the 7800 vs. the 5200/Coleco? It doesn't change the fact that the 7800 was the wrong system at the wrong time.

 

Because you stated "Focus on making technically superior games". If you compare the 5200 against the 7800 in graphical capability the 7800 has the upper hand in my opinion.

[high voltage]

Actually in Nintendos case it was milking the cash cow eg NES as long as possible, and then see what happened, they missed the 16 bit bus

Edited March 6, 2012 by high voltage

[BillyHW]

And backwards compatibility was such a bad idea. The 2600 games sucked royally (:ducks:). By extending the life of the 2600 for so long, Atari came to be associated with obsolete technology and bad games. They needed to deprecate the 2600 and get people playing higher quality games ASAP.

 

While you don't like the 2600, People from 1982 to 1984 felt about the Atari 2600 much different than you do. One of the reasons the Colecovision was successful was the fact it had a module to play Atari 2600 games. Having a great launch game lineup did help, but the ability to play 2600 games was one of the big selling point for the Colecovision. The Intellivision II even had a module to play Atari 2600 games. Atari was forced to realized the Atari 5200 needed a module and decided to release it as a result.

 

I disagree with your comment about Atari 2600 games suck. The Atari 2600 had good and bad games like all systems do. The Atari 2600 actually did not what types of games it was capable of it in the beginning due to lack of rom at the time and programmers not knowing how advance a 2600 game can go and be a good game.

 

Atari 2600 had some advance games later on and they were good games such as Road Runner, Sprintmaster, and Solaris As examples. The 1986 to 1990 time period that I didn't mention Time period also brought good games like Jr. Pac-Man, Midnight Magic, Super Football, and California Games based on what I have in my Atari 2600 game collection from that time period that I actually played besides Road Runner, Sprintmaster, and Solaris.

 

Atari in 1986 had no choice but to release the Atari 2600 Jr because Atari had an inventory of 2600 games. Atari also released 2600 games that were developed in 1984, but weren't released at the time either besides developing other 2600 games. In 1984 Atari changed hands by Jack Tramiel and his family being the new owners of Atari from a computer and game console stand point. Jack wanted to make money on a company that was losing a lot of money. What Jack did with the Atari 2600 actually helped Atari out from a financial standpoint for a time.

 

Backward compatibility is only something people care about before they own the new system. Believe me, once people started playing games made for ColecoVision, they no longer wanted to play Atari 2600 games.

 

Instead of an adaptor, they should have just released the 2600 Jr. earlier, but all advertising and promotion should have focused exclusively on the new system and new games.

 

Atari chose short term profits over long-term gain. It was a bad call.

[BillyHW]

You don't think Handy would have made a pretty awesome console for the time?

 

With a 102 pixels vertically I'd say no. Plus the 16 bit wars were already on going with the ST and Amiga by the time the Lynx was released.

 

And why would I want a technical comparison of the 7800 vs. the 5200/Coleco? It doesn't change the fact that the 7800 was the wrong system at the wrong time.

 

Because you stated "Focus on making technically superior games". If you compare the 5200 against the 7800 in graphical capability the 7800 has the upper hand in my opinion.

 

All Handy needed was a higher resolution + onscreen color mode. Surely that was doable. Handy was also ready in 1987. Take away the LCD screen and you've got a powerful and cost-effective home console at just the right time. It could have been the PC Engine of North America + Europe.

 

The 7800 wasn't necessary because the 5200 was already technically superior to the competition at the time. Atari would have been better off just focussing on making the 5200 smaller/cheaper, coming out with new controllers (here's an easy solution: take the 2600 controller, make it a little more sturdy and just add one more button), and making the best 5200 games possible.

Edited March 6, 2012 by BillyHW

[BillyHW]

Actually in Nintendos case it was milking the cash cow eg NES as long as possible, and then see what happened, they missed the 16 bit bus

 

You do sometimes get the feeling that the SNES was deliberately released a year or two late to milk NES profits. Did it help or hurt them in the end? As with the N64, I think it hurt them in the long run.

[BillyHW]

Does it really make economic sense to plan on putting the sound chip in every cartridge, rather than on the console itself? Then you're making people pay for the chip over and over again every time they buy a game. By abandoning the 5200 so soon, Atari totally blew its reputation. And backwards compatibility was such a bad idea. The 2600 games sucked royally (:ducks:). By extending the life of the 2600 for so long, Atari came to be associated with obsolete technology and bad games. They needed to deprecate the 2600 and get people playing higher quality games ASAP. What Atari should have done is redesign the 5200 controller to something simple and decent and drop the price to compete with Coleco. Focus on making technically superior games, market themselves as the technically superior system. Sure, they would have still lost the 1982-1986 generation, but they could have still managed a decent 2nd place showing, while maintaining their reputation. Then in 1987 Handy would have been ready and could have easily been modified into a home console, as well as a portable. They could have had the PC Engine of North America on their hands. Sega was also usually quick to abandon systems. See 32x, Saturn, Dreamcast and to some extent the Master System as well (Genesis released only 3 years into life of SMS). Where are they now? Look at Nintendo on the other hand. They came 2nd place with N64, and a solid 3rd with Gamecube. But they managed to maintain their reputation during these eras and re-emerged with the Wii and reclaimed the #1 spot in the market. The biggest mistake Atari made in the mid 80's was not giving a damn about their reputation.

 

VCS games sucked? You mean N64 games sucked (fuzzy games), N64 second in the market? Doubt that very much. By 95 it was PC first, PSX second than others, Game Cube 3rd, doubt that very much too.

 

Nintendo was lucky with NES, but only in Japan and USA, in Europe NES was a huge failure (2.5 mill sold by 93 (source: Game Over)), very bad. Even SMS did better. BTW, the VCS was the second best selling console in the US after NES, that is not bad for late 80s.

 

VCS had a very good 13 year run, with games getting better and better, as explained to you above. Atari not giving a damn? The Atari ST was a huge worldwide seller, used by musicians all over the world (Madonna, Jarre, Fat boy slim etc...) Hardly a failure. ST was leading 16bit gaming computer in Europe for 4 years, and When Amiga became popular it did a good neck-on-neck run with Commodore.

 

Many people who never played a 5200 moan about 5200 joysticks of how bad they are. Have you ever used one yourself? I doubt that very much. The 5200 joystick is fine, if you know what you're doing.

 

Nintendo's system lasted longer in the market? Maybe Nintendo were just lazy developing new systems? Have you thought about that?

 

I have my own issues with how the N64 destroyed 2D gaming, but you can't compare Goldeneye to E.T.

 

I was basing my numbers comparisons on Wiki's console wars page. The N64 came second in sales in that generation to the PS1. GameCube came a (close) third to Xbox in the following generation. I wasn't counting PCs.

 

I will never understand Nintendo taking so long to enter the NA market and seemingly ignoring the EU and LA markets.

Edited March 6, 2012 by BillyHW

[high voltage]

Nintendo didn't enter the US market late they wanted to release the AVS in 84 but nobody was interested. Nintendo had an almost three years struggle to establish the AVS = NES in the USA.

 

Whilst Wiki is good as a general resource don' t rely to greatly on it, especially the fanboy doctored pages.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2012 by high voltage

[GroovyBee]

All Handy needed was a higher resolution + onscreen color mode. Surely that was doable. Handy was also ready in 1987. Take away the LCD screen and you've got a powerful and cost-effective home console at just the right time. It could have been the PC Engine of North America + Europe.

 

Then it wouldn't be Handy would it?

 

The 7800 wasn't necessary because the 5200 was already technically superior to the competition at the time. Atari would have been better off just focussing on making the 5200 smaller/cheaper, coming out with new controllers (here's an easy solution: take the 2600 controller, make it a little more sturdy and just add one more button), and making the best 5200 games possible.

 

By the mid 80s the 5200 technology was not a competitor to the NES, SMS or 7800 sprite/tile handling capabilities. The platformer was becoming king and that is a game genre that the A8s can't do well without a load of programmer tricks (and inherent restrictions) or you end up with bland looking games.

[NE146]

Many people who never played a 5200 moan about 5200 joysticks of how bad they are. Have you ever used one yourself? I doubt that very much. The 5200 joystick is fine, if you know what you're doing.

 

Not to change the subject.. but "If you know what you're doing" is open to interpretation. When I was 12 I knew how to use the stick expertly to play all my games (and still do), but had no clue how to fix it. My mom had to buy me at least 5 or 6 until they stopped selling them and I could no longer play any more games since none of my "start" buttons worked.

 

So yeah while I am a 5200 fan and am fine with the joysticks, saying "they're fine" is somewhat inaccurate since they simply broke much of the time so they were bad in that respect.

 

I got no problems with them now, but heck it's 20-30 years later.

[8th lutz]

And backwards compatibility was such a bad idea. The 2600 games sucked royally (:ducks:). By extending the life of the 2600 for so long, Atari came to be associated with obsolete technology and bad games. They needed to deprecate the 2600 and get people playing higher quality games ASAP.

 

While you don't like the 2600, People from 1982 to 1984 felt about the Atari 2600 much different than you do. One of the reasons the Colecovision was successful was the fact it had a module to play Atari 2600 games. Having a great launch game lineup did help, but the ability to play 2600 games was one of the big selling point for the Colecovision. The Intellivision II even had a module to play Atari 2600 games. Atari was forced to realized the Atari 5200 needed a module and decided to release it as a result.

 

I disagree with your comment about Atari 2600 games suck. The Atari 2600 had good and bad games like all systems do. The Atari 2600 actually did not what types of games it was capable of it in the beginning due to lack of rom at the time and programmers not knowing how advance a 2600 game can go and be a good game.

 

Atari 2600 had some advance games later on and they were good games such as Road Runner, Sprintmaster, and Solaris As examples. The 1986 to 1990 time period that I didn't mention Time period also brought good games like Jr. Pac-Man, Midnight Magic, Super Football, and California Games based on what I have in my Atari 2600 game collection from that time period that I actually played besides Road Runner, Sprintmaster, and Solaris.

 

Atari in 1986 had no choice but to release the Atari 2600 Jr because Atari had an inventory of 2600 games. Atari also released 2600 games that were developed in 1984, but weren't released at the time either besides developing other 2600 games. In 1984 Atari changed hands by Jack Tramiel and his family being the new owners of Atari from a computer and game console stand point. Jack wanted to make money on a company that was losing a lot of money. What Jack did with the Atari 2600 actually helped Atari out from a financial standpoint for a time.

 

Backward compatibility is only something people care about before they own the new system. Believe me, once people started playing games made for ColecoVision, they no longer wanted to play Atari 2600 games.

 

Instead of an adaptor, they should have just released the 2600 Jr. earlier, but all advertising and promotion should have focused exclusively on the new system and new games.

 

Atari chose short term profits over long-term gain. It was a bad call.

It was not a bad call by what Jack Tramiel era did with the 2600 when he bought the console and home computer divisions of Atari in late June or early July of 1984 from Warner based the documents Curt Vendel has unless you never wanted the Atari Lynx to be released. I am saying that because Tramiel did not have a lot of options when he bought the game console and computer divisions of Atari and Continuing the Atari 5200 was not an option because of Warner.

 

Curt Vendel actually has a lot of documents on Atari sales figures. memos and other paper work concerning Atari. Those documents actually made Jack Tramiel not as bad as he was portrayed. It portrayed the management Warner had at Atari pretty bad.

 

When Jack bought those two divisions of Atari from Warner, Atari 2600 was forced to be used for keeping the early days of Tramiel era Atari afloat along with the Atari 8 bit computer line because Atari would have fold otherwise. In 1985, Atari 2600 made Atari Money. Atari under Tramiel Ownership also sold remaining inventory of the 5200. I said this because the fact is Tramiel did not the have rights to the Atari 7800 when he bought the Atari console and computer division of Atari besides the fact Atari ST was not ready before 1985.

 

Your problem with the 2600 being continued so long is something that should have been blamed on Warner era Atari because Tramiel era Atari was not under any position to discontinue it when it got the game console and computer divisions of Atari. The only argument you have is when Tramiel era Atari should have discontinue it in 1989 or 1988. Atari was not any shape to get a ride of the 2600 before then under Tramiel.

 

Tramiel era Atari had nothing to do with Atari 5200 being discontinued because Warner era Atari already did that to the 5200 instead of the 2600. All could be done with the 5200 under Tramiel's ownership of Atari was sell the Atari 5200 inventory that Atari had under Warner.

 

It all boils down to Warner era Atari didn't handle the Atari 2600 correctly after the 5200 was released. There was no instructions or any examples to handle very successful game console while releasing a newer game console. The truth is all companies that released in 1982 would do the same thing as Atari did with the 2600. If the knowledge of fully supporting an older game console was hurting the sales of the newer game console were known was known now at the time, Atari 5200 would have more games released since Atari would have been cutting back on the games released on the 2600. That is a hindsight thing though, but there is a question how much it would have helped.

 

I brought that up because the 8 bit computer line Atari had at the time of the 5200 was released. When the Atari 5200 was released, it used the same technology as the 8 bit computer line and had the same games including having that were already released on the Atari 400/Atari 800 computer lines. That meant Atari 5200 did not have the games to give the system its own identity based on what was released for games. The only way to fix that Atari 8 bit computer issue was make the 5200 compatible to use Atari 400 game cartridges since both use the same technology. The thing is that is more hindsight what Atari should done with the 5200 because what is known now wasn't known when the Atari 5200 was released in 1982.

Edited March 7, 2012 by 8th lutz