Was killing the 5200 early one of the most fatal mistakes Atari ever made?

[Laner]

 

Exactly. Atari should have released the 5200 with normal joysticks that people actually want to use. How does such a poor design choice even happen? You'd think that Atari would have play tested the heck out of something as important as the controller for their new console.

 

I always thought it was a poorly-considered attempt to one-up the Intellivision. You've got 16 directions? Well, we have 256!! The lack of auto-centering and poor build quality didn't help things either.

Edited September 8, 2018 by Laner

[Jess Ragan]

To answer the question: no, not really. Atari knew it screwed up royal with the 5200. The company had dominated the video game market up to that point, but when Coleco came in to challenge that dominance, Atari didn't have the hardware they needed to slap that new threat down. It had to be embarrassing to lose the market they had once controlled, and as such I could understand why they pulled the plug early. The 5200 was a black eye for Atari and they wanted to move past it.

 

Personally, I prefer the 5200 to the ColecoVision, but even I can acknowledge it was a misstep for Atari. Its design was too heavily influenced by the marketing department (I understand the controllers everybody hates were the product of focus testing) and Atari stubbornly clung to its old stable of games rather than advancing the medium with new ideas. They originally packaged the machine with Super Breakout, for crying out loud!

 

The core of the 5200 was solid. If it had been more like the XEGS that came later, and had software that didn't taste like leftovers, it could have competed with the ColecoVision. That's not what we got, though.

[JaguarVision]

To answer the question: no, not really. Atari knew it screwed up royal with the 5200. The company had dominated the video game market up to that point, but when Coleco came in to challenge that dominance, Atari didn't have the hardware they needed to slap that new threat down. It had to be embarrassing to lose the market they had once controlled, and as such I could understand why they pulled the plug early. The 5200 was a black eye for Atari and they wanted to move past it.

 

Personally, I prefer the 5200 to the ColecoVision, but even I can acknowledge it was a misstep for Atari. Its design was too heavily influenced by the marketing department (I understand the controllers everybody hates were the product of focus testing) and Atari stubbornly clung to its old stable of games rather than advancing the medium with new ideas. They originally packaged the machine with Super Breakout, for crying out loud!

 

The core of the 5200 was solid. If it had been more like the XEGS that came later, and had software that didn't taste like leftovers, it could have competed with the ColecoVision. That's not what we got, though.

 

The 5200 was quickly getting PC ports in genres that ColecoVision was not getting along with some exclusive arcade ports. I don't agree with them not having the software to slap down Coleco. but that's not really my argument, it's more about weathering the crash than taking down Coleco. The Adam failure would have been the 5200's saving grace.

 

People can make any excuses they like, but that controller was a terrible decision. I mean, did they really think the same style joystick on the CoCo2 was a great choice for arcade gaming? Maybe if they even made it self centering...but they didnt. Just a dumb move.

 

 

I also agree in regards to the controller. I'd say there's a good chance that it was the main contributor to the failure of the 5200. It's THAT bad.

 

The controller had its issues with a lot of games, but there were also games that played better with it, I think it was a simple as working with developers to make their game compatible with the 5200 sticks. Sadly, Atari never did that because Atari hated working with developers.

To answer the question: no, not really. Atari knew it screwed up royal with the 5200. The company had dominated the video game market up to that point, but when Coleco came in to challenge that dominance, Atari didn't have the hardware they needed to slap that new threat down. It had to be embarrassing to lose the market they had once controlled, and as such I could understand why they pulled the plug early. The 5200 was a black eye for Atari and they wanted to move past it.

 

Personally, I prefer the 5200 to the ColecoVision, but even I can acknowledge it was a misstep for Atari. Its design was too heavily influenced by the marketing department (I understand the controllers everybody hates were the product of focus testing) and Atari stubbornly clung to its old stable of games rather than advancing the medium with new ideas. They originally packaged the machine with Super Breakout, for crying out loud!

 

The core of the 5200 was solid. If it had been more like the XEGS that came later, and had software that didn't taste like leftovers, it could have competed with the ColecoVision. That's not what we got, though.

 

The 5200 was quickly getting PC ports in genres that ColecoVision was not getting along with some exclusive arcade ports. I don't agree with them not having the software to slap down Coleco. but that's not really my argument, it's more about weathering the crash than taking down Coleco. The Adam failure would have been the 5200's saving grace.

 

[ubersaurus]

Adam or no, Coleco was still supporting their system through the crash into 1985, and looking at periodicals from that 84-85 era, there was still pretty decent interest in the Colecovision. I don't know what PC ports you're talking about the 5200 having other than Star Raiders, as the Lucasfilm games came out post-crash in the Tramiel era. The 5200 had arcade ports, but hey, so did the Colecovision. Third party games were pretty comparable in both machines.

 

Atari engineers knew the controller was an issue but the company went ahead with it as is anyway. Being able to make games that use the analog features doesn't change the fact it's poorly designed and flaky as hell.

 

There's just no scenario where the 5200 is Atari's main machine on the market as long as the Colecovision existed, and while the 2600 market was so lucrative for third parties and for Atari itself. The lack of backwards compatibility from the get go (or even out of the box) for the 5200 when such an adapter existed so early on for the CV was a massive oversight.

[+x=usr(1536)]

The UK and European side of the 5200 isn't that well reported.

 

Originally intended to replace the aging 2600, we were told to expect a UK launch in the summer of '83.

 

Hardware expected to have a RRP of that of the Colecovision,games expected in at around £29.95.

 

Next announcement by Atari, it's been delayed as focus on getting a production plant in Ireland set up, UK 5200 now due Xmas '83.

 

 

Then

 

Eric Salamon, then Marketing Director of Atari UK:

 

 

 

"We are in a fast moving buisness of high technology.When we isolate a marketing opportunity, we seek to fill that gap.

 

 

 

Sometimes these gaps close and new ones arise before we can introduce the product.This has been the case with the 5200.

 

 

 

Atari will be concentrating on the 2600 and a new series of home computers, as well as making software for other systems."

 

UK isn't getting the 5200,which must of p#ssed off the various home shopping firms here which had been advertising it in their catalogues..

 

As for Germany, a friend of mine says Atari over there didn't even want it, seeing the 600XL as offering better VFM.

 

Slogan of why should i buy a toy,when i can get a computer which also plays Donkey Kong?

 

The fundamental truth of the above is that 1983 was when home computers started to really take off across Europe - and consoles had never really achieved the level of popularity prior to that that they did in the US. It wouldn't be until the early- to mid-'90s that consoles started to achieve mass popularity in Europe to the same extent as they had across the pond in the '80s.

 

Granted, that's country-by-country - but, in general, is an observation that holds up.

 

As relates to the 5200 in Europe, Atari no doubt saw the European purchasing patterns where home computers were preferred over consoles and decided to just stick with computers and the 2600. They'd already had a year to judge its success in the US, likely didn't feel that that had developed enough momentum to translate to success in Europe, and cancelled the launch. Frankly, it was probably the best decision they could have made given that the 8-bit line in general was aging by that point and no solid upgrade path was in the wings yet.

[Lost Dragon]

Very true.

 

It wasn't until the NES, MS and planned launch of the PC Engine, along with release of Gameboy, Lynx etc that the UK started to embrace the consoles once again.

 

The Konix had been our great white elephant type hope and that crashed and burned.

 

There'd been murmurings of the ST Console or ST+, long before the Panther info started to appear, but nobody really paid any attention, Atari's reputation at this point was wait a few weeks and they'll annouced something else that probably won't appear or if it does, it won't be what was promised.

[+x=usr(1536)]

Very true.

 

It wasn't until the NES, MS and planned launch of the PC Engine, along with release of Gameboy, Lynx etc that the UK started to embrace the consoles once again.

 

The Konix had been our great white elephant type hope and that crashed and burned.

 

There'd been murmurings of the ST Console or ST+, long before the Panther info started to appear, but nobody really paid any attention, Atari's reputation at this point was wait a few weeks and they'll annouced something else that probably won't appear or if it does, it won't be what was promised.

 

True, but this is also where country-by-country comes into play.

 

I grew up in Ireland, and was given a UK-market NES a few months after its launch. Nintendo basically hadn't bothered with the Irish market at the time, so there was no software available in the country for it at retail. This meant that I would have had to order games from either the US or UK (assuming that I could find a retailer willing to ship to Ireland, which not all were) and then deal with the ridiculous postage costs and import duties because this was happening pre-EU. If the games were coming in from the US, they'd also have to be sent to Nintendo UK and converted for use on a PAL system, incurring even more costs - and Nintendo UK wasn't thrilled about having to send games to Ireland, where they had no business presence to speak of.

 

The Virgin Megastore in Dublin did eventually end up stocking them, but more than two years after the console's UK launch. By then there were better things on the horizon, and nobody cared. In all, I believe that I had a grand total of six games for the system, which sat largely-unused as I stuck with my Atari hardware.

 

The Konix is one that I remember well; it always seemed like such a fantastic idea for a system. I've never understood why they didn't attempt to licence the design to Commodore or Atari to create an Amiga or ST console variant, which would have given either company a really stand-out product in the marketplace and a ready software library to go with it.

[BassGuitari]

The bigger mistake was probably not releasing the 5200 (or whatever form the VCS's successor would take) a year or two earlier.

[JaguarVision]

Adam or no, Coleco was still supporting their system through the crash into 1985, and looking at periodicals from that 84-85 era, there was still pretty decent interest in the Colecovision. I don't know what PC ports you're talking about the 5200 having other than Star Raiders, as the Lucasfilm games came out post-crash in the Tramiel era. The 5200 had arcade ports, but hey, so did the Colecovision. Third party games were pretty comparable in both machines.

 

Atari engineers knew the controller was an issue but the company went ahead with it as is anyway. Being able to make games that use the analog features doesn't change the fact it's poorly designed and flaky as hell.

 

There's just no scenario where the 5200 is Atari's main machine on the market as long as the Colecovision existed, and while the 2600 market was so lucrative for third parties and for Atari itself. The lack of backwards compatibility from the get go (or even out of the box) for the 5200 when such an adapter existed so early on for the CV was a massive oversight.

 

They supported the CV by putting out games on it but most of the actual marketing and support was on the Adam, not the CV, they didn't even divide it. So interest in Coleco was falling fast. If CV actually pushed the CV during 84, you may have had a point, and maybe Coleco would have still be in the industry, but that's not the case.

 

You not knowing about the library doesn't mean you know what's in it (how does that even make sense?), also as for the Lucas games those were supposed to come out earlier. With support the 5200 would have had more games on it it wouldn't otherwise have, or games releasing earlier. The CV has arcade ports but 5200 got more ports not on the CV than the otherway around, which makes a big difference considering the time period we are talking about.

 

As for the controller, I'm not excusing the controller, but if you are going to make a product make sure you get as many developers to adapt tot hat product. games that used the stick worked well, so more time with it would have resulted in more games working with it. having more games play well on the 5200 instead of being unplayable is a benefit.

 

You focus way to much on the CV, Coleco started pushing the CV aside in 84 and significantly so in 85 for the ADAM and then trying to save the ADAM. The ADAM is also what cause Coleco to drop electronics and go for dolls, despite the fact the Coleco was not a loss for them. 5200 has basically a vacuum by itself. Also cutting support of the 2600 would have been more beneficial than BC. Looking at Ataris financials during the crash, the 2600 was literally no longer producing the returns it used to in 82, and were basically peanuts in 83. Some of the 5200 ports were barely better than the 2600 versions because some devs made the games on the 2600 first. Atari had started remedying that issue, but cut the console off before that took off.

 

 

Very true.

 

It wasn't until the NES, MS and planned launch of the PC Engine, along with release of Gameboy, Lynx etc that the UK started to embrace the consoles once again.

 

The Konix had been our great white elephant type hope and that crashed and burned.

 

There'd been murmurings of the ST Console or ST+, long before the Panther info started to appear, but nobody really paid any attention, Atari's reputation at this point was wait a few weeks and they'll annouced something else that probably won't appear or if it does, it won't be what was promised.

 

Neither the NESor PC ENGINE were relevant in Europe.

 

 

The bigger mistake was probably not releasing the 5200 (or whatever form the VCS's successor would take) a year or two earlier.

 

Well Asteroids came out in 79, and that was around the start of the2600, exploding. Sure it did well before, but all of a sudden from 79 to 81 it was bringing in a ton of money and was beating the crap out of Mattel who launched their console in 79, so I'm not entirely sure releasing a successor earlier made sense. By 82 the profit well was rapidly drying up.

Adam or no, Coleco was still supporting their system through the crash into 1985, and looking at periodicals from that 84-85 era, there was still pretty decent interest in the Colecovision. I don't know what PC ports you're talking about the 5200 having other than Star Raiders, as the Lucasfilm games came out post-crash in the Tramiel era. The 5200 had arcade ports, but hey, so did the Colecovision. Third party games were pretty comparable in both machines.

 

Atari engineers knew the controller was an issue but the company went ahead with it as is anyway. Being able to make games that use the analog features doesn't change the fact it's poorly designed and flaky as hell.

 

There's just no scenario where the 5200 is Atari's main machine on the market as long as the Colecovision existed, and while the 2600 market was so lucrative for third parties and for Atari itself. The lack of backwards compatibility from the get go (or even out of the box) for the 5200 when such an adapter existed so early on for the CV was a massive oversight.

 

They supported the CV by putting out games on it but most of the actual marketing and support was on the Adam, not the CV, they didn't even divide it. So interest in Coleco was falling fast. If CV actually pushed the CV during 84, you may have had a point, and maybe Coleco would have still be in the industry, but that's not the case.

 

You not knowing about the library doesn't mean you know what's in it (how does that even make sense?), also as for the Lucas games those were supposed to come out earlier. With support the 5200 would have had more games on it it wouldn't otherwise have, or games releasing earlier. The CV has arcade ports but 5200 got more ports not on the CV than the otherway around, which makes a big difference considering the time period we are talking about.

 

As for the controller, I'm not excusing the controller, but if you are going to make a product make sure you get as many developers to adapt tot hat product. games that used the stick worked well, so more time with it would have resulted in more games working with it. having more games play well on the 5200 instead of being unplayable is a benefit.

 

You focus way to much on the CV, Coleco started pushing the CV aside in 84 and significantly so in 85 for the ADAM and then trying to save the ADAM. The ADAM is also what cause Coleco to drop electronics and go for dolls, despite the fact the Coleco was not a loss for them. 5200 has basically a vacuum by itself. Also cutting support of the 2600 would have been more beneficial than BC. Looking at Ataris financials during the crash, the 2600 was literally no longer producing the returns it used to in 82, and were basically peanuts in 83. Some of the 5200 ports were barely better than the 2600 versions because some devs made the games on the 2600 first. Atari had started remedying that issue, but cut the console off before that took off.

 

[Flojomojo]

JV, why do you ask questions when you obviously think you have all the answers?

[BassGuitari]

 

Well Asteroids came out in 79, and that was around the start of the2600, exploding. Sure it did well before, but all of a sudden from 79 to 81 it was bringing in a ton of money and was beating the crap out of Mattel who launched their console in 79, so I'm not entirely sure releasing a successor earlier made sense. By 82 the profit well was rapidly drying up.

 

Atari starting developing a successor console almost immediately after the Video Computer System launched in '77, figuring that the system had maybe a three-year shelf life. 1980-81 would have been exactly when they would have wanted to launch their next platform. As fate would have it, of course, that system went on to become the 400 and 800 computer systems instead, which forced Atari to lean on the VCS in the console arena longer than they planned to, and then scramble to come up with something when stuff like the Intellivision started popping up (and when the Coleco wasn't far away).

 

The Intellivision test marketed in Fresno in '79. It didn't actually launch until '80.

[mbd30]

 

Atari starting developing a successor console almost immediately after the Video Computer System launched in '77, figuring that the system had maybe a three-year shelf life. 1980-81 would have been exactly when they would have wanted to launch their next platform. As fate would have it, of course, that system went on to become the 400 and 800 computer systems instead, which forced Atari to lean on the VCS in the console arena longer than they planned to, and then scramble to come up with something when stuff like the Intellivision started popping up (and when the Coleco wasn't far away).

 

The Intellivision test marketed in Fresno in '79. It didn't actually launch until '80.

 

Fortunately the Atari 2600 has surprisingly flexible hardware which allowed it to be competitive for longer. It's amazing how much a system that was designed to play Pong and Combat was pushed.

Edited September 9, 2018 by mbd30

[Osgeld]

Neither the NESor PC ENGINE were relevant in Europe.

 

 

You know who didnt rely on Europe

 

Nintendo, NEC, Apple, about a hundred PC clone makers, arguably Microsoft, what ever happened to those companies

[Jess Ragan]

JV, why do you ask questions when you obviously think you have all the answers?

I'm with him on this. You pose a question, then you slap down everyone else's observations on the subject. If you want to have an open discussion on these topics, let others have their say. If you only want to offer your opinion, do that, but don't present your posts as questions open to discussion by the community.

[atarilovesyou]

The bigger mistake was probably not releasing the 5200 (or whatever form the VCS's successor would take) a year or two earlier.

 

Even if they did, though, they were relying on better versions of games that were already past due, at least for their target audience...owners of the VCS. There was no real imagination behind the game designs, no SMB-thinking that would have ushered in the new age. At least Coleco had some outside of the box titles, not that it mattered much in the end. No backwards compatibility must have hurt as well.

[Osgeld]

 

Even if they did, though, they were relying on better versions of games that were already past due, at least for their target audience...owners of the VCS. There was no real imagination behind the game designs, no SMB-thinking that would have ushered in the new age. At least Coleco had some outside of the box titles, not that it mattered much in the end. No backwards compatibility must have hurt as well.

 

yea that's kind of my take on atari

 

even the XEGS what did they have running as a store display, pole position

 

decade old boring pole position, next to altered beast

 

1989 we got space invaders and a 1 button joystick!!!

 

my 5200 was brand darn new, out of the box its got one bad joystick and Ms Pacman (and pole position bought with it), whoa there easy on the excitement

Edited September 9, 2018 by Osgeld

[ubersaurus]

Yeah, by 82 super breakout was old news, and a lot of their more current/popular arcade ports on the 5200 were also available on the 2600 and the 8 bit computer line. Like, you had options for Atari's games, and the 5200 version might be better, but is it that big an improvement? For something like Galaxian or Space Invaders or Super Breakout? Probably not. They did right by games like Defender or Robotron, sure... but history has shown that those weren't enough to really push units. Coleco had access to a number of B-list arcade games and Donkey Kong, and you gotta give em credit, they made those ports shine on their platform.

 

I will agree that has the 5200 come out around in 80-81, it would have probably been able to get more established, and probably could have gotten away without 2600 compatibility.

[phoenixdownita]

I believe the 5200 was an ill conceived project all around.

If you are basically repackaging the tech you used 4 years earlier on the 400 just use the same memory mapping so the games can be "ported" at zero cost (aside the funky controls), it would have expanded the SW base for the 5200 immensely and maybe have given it a fighting chance.

[MrMaddog]

I'm with him on this. You pose a question, then you slap down everyone else's observations on the subject. If you want to have an open discussion on these topics, let others have their say. If you only want to offer your opinion, do that, but don't present your posts as questions open to discussion by the community.

 

Yeah lately we're getting posts from newbs that are basically, "What's your opinion? I'll tell you what it is!"

 

Normally I would love responding to what if's like this, but I don't have time for pissing contests....

[CatPix]

Neither the NESor PC ENGINE were relevant in Europe.

 

And where are you from to claim such things?

 

The PC-Engine wasn't relevant in Europe because NEC never tried to sell it, but it was the most popular grey market console available, with some countries (France, but I believe also Germany and Spain) getting a local imported selling Japanese PC-Engine nationwide.

But the NES...

Sure, in some countries, like the UK, the NES didn't get a huge foothold. But in other countries it did. In France, the NES was slow-selling first agaisnt the Master System (and the 7800 being non-existant) but ultimately, it ended up selling 1/3 more systems than the Master System (most likely due to the Game Gear and Megadrive cannibalizing the SMS sales, as games kept selling well up to 1996)

In countries where Nintendo was present, the NES sales where at least 50/50 with the Master System.

Sure, most of the time, there were more computer sold than consoles, but the NES paved the way for 16 bits consoles overtaking the European market.

[schuwalker]

 

You not knowing about the library doesn't mean you know what's in it (how does that even make sense?), also as for the Lucas games those were supposed to come out earlier. With support the 5200 would have had more games on it it wouldn't otherwise have, or games releasing earlier. The CV has arcade ports but 5200 got more ports not on the CV than the otherway around, which makes a big difference considering the time period we are talking about.

 

 

Actually, it's the other way around.

I counted around mid 30's for Atari 5200 - Astro Chase did come out on arcade on a multi-system - very rare.

Colecovision is around the mid 40's.

The 5200 did have the ubiquitous arcade ports like Berzerk, Pac-Man, Missile Command and Robotron. The oddball ones are Sega Pengo and Taito Qix, Space Dungeon.

Colecovision has the heavy hitters from Sega and Nintendo and a lot of the library from Exidy and Universal. The Colecovision kills the 5200 on arcade oddball ports.

Edited September 9, 2018 by schuwalker

[enoofu]

Yeah, by 82 super breakout was old news, and a lot of their more current/popular arcade ports on the 5200 were also available on the 2600 and the 8 bit computer line. Like, you had options for Atari's games, and the 5200 version might be better, but is it that big an improvement? For something like Galaxian or Space Invaders or Super Breakout? Probably not. They did right by games like Defender or Robotron, sure... but history has shown that those weren't enough to really push units. Coleco had access to a number of B-list arcade games and Donkey Kong, and you gotta give em credit, they made those ports shine on their platform.

 

I will agree that has the 5200 come out around in 80-81, it would have probably been able to get more established, and probably could have gotten away without 2600 compatibility.

Breakout was/is a pretty good game on the 5200 and they could of did far worst for a launch title as it was the tetris Game of it era

[schuwalker]

The 5200 controller did play a big part of me just not owning one early one. I remember playing at a kiosk of the 5200 at a Sears in our local mall, and even as a kid, must have been underwhelmed - it definitely would've been a requested a Christmas gift that years or bday the following.

 

Doing a little research on the 5200, it appears the Nov. launch games were Galaxian, Pac-Man, Space Invaders and (pack-in) Super Breakout . I *think* I can say the majority of us agree having Super Breakout sans a paddle controller, as a pack-in title is laughable. Anybody know when Pac-Man replace Super Breakout as the pack-in?

 

Here is what I found for the Colecovision launch in August of '82 (someone correct me if I'm wrong): Cosmic Avenger (decent Defender clone), Smurf (exclusive), Donkey Kong (pack-in), Carnival, Mousetrap and Venture.

 

What looks more enticing here?

[82-T/A]

When my parents bought the 5200, I don't remember the NES even being a thing at the time... though, I lived in that house for 4-5 years, so it it was at best, 1-2 years away. Never the less, I already said the joystick was why my parents returned it. It's not that it wasn't self centering, it just didn't flat-out work. Both of them were broken. I was so upset, I wanted my parents to keep it. What kind of horrible QA/QC did Atari have back then?

 

I'm just shocked that they wouldn't have done some kind of testing.

 

At the time the 5200 came out, the graphics, to me... were noticeably better than what I was used to playing on the 2600. It SOUNDED better, the graphics seemed better... just all-around, seemed better.

 

We'd had the atari 2600 for at least 4-5 years prior.

[Flojomojo]

It's not that it wasn't self centering, it just didn't flat-out work. Both of them were broken. I was so upset, I wanted my parents to keep it. What kind of horrible QA/QC did Atari have back then?

 

I'm just shocked that they wouldn't have done some kind of testing.

Rushed to market, I guess?

In the middle of "does it twist or not?" questions about the controller, I dug up this old article with early impressions of the 5200. Seems it landed with a resounding meh.

https://atariage.com/forums/topic/278810-the-new-atari-vcs-faq-and-info-thread/page-14?do=findComment&comment=4052410

 

I only had a few real-life encounters with the 5200, and none of them were as exciting as poring over the Sears Wishbook, wondering what it would be like to have these arcade-quality, high resolution games at home. The reality was a lot less interesting, unfortunately.