flowmotion

I'm surprised so many people at AtariAge of all places would put the 2600 and 5200 in the same "generation". It's an interesting debate, but it's always bothered me that Wikipedia classified consoles this way, mostly because it's editorial and violates their own policies about Original Research. However, I've never been able to devise an adequate substitute. There's always been consoles which were either ahead of their time or behind their time that don't neatly fit into the Sega-Nintendo-Sony axis. It's basically impossible to separate by raw capabilities, because some fanboy will object to some minor detail. But a strict yearly classification doesn't really work either.

During the runup to the crash, Coleco was heavily promoting their upcoming "computer expansion module #3". While the ADAM was never successful, it gave Coleco a big edge in the propaganda war. So Atari missed a huge opportunity not making the 5200 an extension of their already successful computer line. (Had they done this successfully, the 7800 probably would have never happened, and Tramiel would have probably focused entirely on the computers. ) And its one thing to say 5200 and 8bit were basically the same now, it would have been quite another back then, when everyone had to buy the same software over again.

Just caught up with this thread, so bump. To the question of why Atari ended production of the 5200 in 1984 (and Coleco ended production of the CV), keep in mind that major retailers had decided that they wanted nothing to do with video games. Sears, Penny's, Target, K-Mart, and so on all had huge firesales where they sold off their back inventory of consoles and cartridges for pennies on the dollar. Atari couldn't have paid them to stock a 5200 or 7800 in 1985. Afterward, video game systems were only available in smaller toy stores and mom&pop computer shops. So while it's technically true that the Adam 'replaced' the ColecoVision, the reality is that the Adam had about 1/100th of the retail presence, as did later Atari efforts like the 7800 and XEGS. Even Nintendo had a lot of trouble getting retail space (some people have hypothesized that the ROB robot was to make the system look more like a 'toy' than a game console). It wasn't until the Jaguar that Atari finally got back into the big box stores. As to which system sold better, CV or 5200, I'd be curious if anyone digs up some real numbers.

Maybe Sears pulled some strings and demanded the 'Pong' brandname.

I think this list could use a "Comics" category

Most of the real early ports were simple B&W games in the arcade, so the color VCS versions with all of their game variations were at least almost equal if not better. Outlaw, Air-Sea Battle, Sky Diver, Combat/Tank, Canyon Bomber, Video Olympics/Pong of course and so on. But its been a long time since I've played any of those arcade games

Coleco mentioned the coming "Computer Expansion Module" in almost all of their advertisements, so the idea at least must have sold a lot of ColecoVisions. The actual product however didn't stand up to the C-64 etc but I don't see any fault in marketing it that way.

I think if Coleco would have survived they might have continued with their close relationship with Nintendo. Who knows, the NES might have been the Coleco Entertainment System for the US market

The "domino effect" theory does make sense. If the most active game players moved to platforms where they could get games without paying for them, it would have certainly affected overall demand. However in modern times, you see a big demand drop-off at the end of every console lifecycle as everyone prepares for the "next generation". Everyone expects this to happen, and inventory is managed accordingly. But when Atari went from 2600 -> "next gen" (either 5200, Coleco, or computers), they didn't have any existing history to work from and made a lot of poor assumptions about continuing 2600 demand which contributed to their inventory glut.

I never got the hang of SB with the sticks, but SI is a well executed game. However, from a strategic standpoint I'm not sure if Atari should have released these games for the 5200 in the first place and certainly not as launch titles. Neither of them really showed off the power of the 5200 over the 2600.

The Lynx was the only Atari product I had/have absolutely zero interest in. Battery life, form factor, a bunch of no name games, zero marketing, could only buy it at obscure dealerships. Don't think I'd even bend over to look at a lynx game in a thrift store.

I don't disagree that a very active segment of the market moved to computer gaming, including myself and some (but not all) of my friends. Just that in terms of sales numbers it was only a small piece of the pre-crash pie. Total game software sales went from roughly $3Billion to only $100Million. (Of course many computer users found ways not to pay for games ) This is because the "casual players" (adults, females) quit the video game market and it refocused on the more hardcore young male group. Also it was a push-pull phenomenon. Major retailers had dumped all their console stock and Atari/Coleco/etc had canceled most of their promised titles. Many people including myself certainly would have continued purchasing new console games if they were available, but they weren't. [Edit: the only reason I'm pointing this out is that it's directly relevant to the article's premise that Nintendo is creating a 'bubble']

This is a good point. At that time, nobody had experienced a "next generation" console. Before there was only one Atari, not a 2600 and 5200. The initial 5200 lineup was mainly 2600 rehashes with minimal improvements, which lead people to believe that Atari was just trying to double-charge them for the same games. And then you had the ColecoVision which could play 2600 games. I think there was a lot of consumer confusion about all of this. People got frustrated which lead to the sales slowdown. Plus games like SuperBreakout and Space Invaders were ancient anyways and should have never been on a new console. Or they should have at least called them "Ultra Breakout" or "Space Invaders II" or something and been improved both visually and play-wise. Finally the 5200 controllers were getting a bad rap from the very beginning, even in the mainstream press. Big problem which Atari never really addressed.

Yes, hardcore gamers like most of us switched over to the computer scene, but the casual players the article is referencing just dropped out of the market. Home computer sales were only a fraction of what console sales were pre-crash and it took maybe 5 years for video game sales to really recover. Anyway, I agree that the crash was caused by awful Atari management, specifically excess inventory, old catalog games, and a bungled "next gen" with the 5200. As long as Nintendo isn't repeating the same mistakes, they won't have the same problem.

Just accept that it never made much sense, and the marketers fooled you into thinking "bits" were important back then. The Wikipedia list is also total made-up BS -- it puts the 2600 and 5200 into the same "generation"!

Back in the early 1990s, I bought a second hand IIfx and used it until about 1996. (It was actually a MacII with an upgraded logic board). I had an upgraded 24-bit color board and a funky old fashion Apple 2 page grayscale display w/ special video adapter. The big issue was finding the 64-pin SIMMS which were only used in about 3 different computers. They used to be ridiculously expensive so I was limping along with 10MB of RAM which was barely enough for Netscape. Maybe you can find them on ebay nowdays if you scrounge. Gaming-wise the system wasn't all that great to be perfectly honest. It limped in Marathon compared to some pedestrian 040 systems and Marathon II was unplayable. Also I never used the "black terminator" and my SCSI chains worked fine. I think this issue might have only applied to A/UX which had a special fast scsi driver for the FX, but I'm not sure.

The Kaybee in my local mall had all their Atari stuff in a big discount bucket thing out in front of their door. I remember thinking "Atari 2600? In 1988? What in the hell?", but now I regret not buying up that stuff. Never saw Atari anything at a major retailer post-crash.

carmel_andrews -- you make a good point that Warner didn't have any clue WTF. You read these stories about how Atari had hundreds of employees spread across a dozen buildings and they still had subcontractors writing their games. Or how the engineers protested the 5200 design, but marketing overrode them. etc etc etc. However, ultimately the crash didn't happen because of technology. It's because those sales and marketing geniuses at Warner Atari massively overproduced millions of games that had no customers, and then leaned on the retailers to buy their inventory. What took Atari down wasn't any sort of Silicon Valley voodoo -- it was just retail 101. The video game industry has actually "crashed' many times since (most recently a couple years ago), but at this point everyone understands the business cycle with console generations, and they know how to manage inventory and push out sequels and so on, so it hasn't been such a big deal. That's why I think Warners could have installed competent management at Atari and saved them (versus dumping them on Tramiel, where they were doomed).

Not gaming, but I have my Atari Video Music hooked up to my stereo and I fire it up now and again.

I would have figured that on AtariAge we wouldn't hear overly-simplistic explanations like "ET caused the crash". If Atari wasn't such a mess business-wise, ET would have been just another mediocre mostly forgotten game. Assume there's just a slowdown instead of a crash. Warner Bros cleans house at Atari and doesn't sell them to Tramiel. In that case, Atari would stick with a streamlined version of the 5200 (better joysticks, possible Atari8-compatible computer expansion module). The 7800 probably would never see the light of day. Also, Warner Atari very likely would have purchased the Amiga computer technology and eventually adapted it into a 16-bit era console. I also think it's inevitable that Nintendo and Sega enter the US market -- either by partnering with Coleco/Mattel or on their own.

That reminds me of when I first started getting into the 5200 and I had to find four different systems before I could piece one together that worked. I did a lot of cussing too. Luckily I eventually found the Wico stick with all the right cables

Well, the classic gaming hobby was actually just taking off back in the early 90s, so not everyone thought 2600 games were crappy. And there's a lot of people in a certain age range that have a lot of nostalgic feelings for the N64, so not everyone thinks so poorly of those games. But, whatever, in terms of pure numbers, most Atari games did look and play like crap. Just like with every other system. People will filter the list down the classics, and only the obsessive collectors will be worried about the stinkers.

True the Apple ][ was much more expensive, and had inferior graphics and sound. (It did color from Day 1 though.) But there were so many publishers that developed on Apples and put out games there first, you can't dismiss it as a game platform. Ultima, Wizardry, Bard's Tale, Castle Wolfenstien, and many other big titles came out for Apples first. Plus, by the time the C-64 started to get really popular in 1985 or so, Apple had already come out with the Mac and was pulling efforts off the ][ series, so it's not totally fair to compare them.