jaybird3rd

Yes. Unfortunately for Atari, the 7800 was never popular enough for its lockout system to have any significant impact on the marketplace; if someone wanted to get around it, they could always do 2600 games instead. It probably would have been a better business decision, too: there were a lot more 2600 consoles, and the games would also play on the 7800. That may be one reason the 7800 got such limited support from third-party publishers (in addition to Nintendo's exclusive deals, of course, which blocked them from supporting the 7800 even if they wanted to). But, unlike the 7800, the NES became the biggest video game console, and its lockout system was part of Nintendo's game plan from the beginning (at least in the American market), so even though Atari's software-based implementation was superior to the NES's flaky lockout chip, the NES's lockout mechanism was more successful overall. Video game distribution at that time seems to have been based on the idea of stuffing product into the sales channels, but in order to support that distribution model, the industry would have had to have been growing much faster than it actually was. There was growth there, of course, but not enough to absorb the huge volumes of product that were being pushed into the market. Imagic, for example, sold about $85M of product to distributors in 1982, but only about $40M of that sold through to consumers. At the same time, they and everybody else were manufacturing new inventory like crazy in anticipation of Christmas sales, and they were also hedging against a future shortage of integrated circuits. Unfortunately, video game sales were plummeting during that same period (from something like $2 billion in 1982 to $200 million in 1983, I believe). That was a result of several factors, including bad games (particularly from the smaller publishers who stank up the market, like Apollo and Mythicon) and the sense that the dominant Atari 2600 was getting maxed out and that the newer consoles were too fragmented to displace it. But whatever the reason, the publishers didn't respond fast enough: the massive Christmas sales never materialized, the distributors were left with huge volumes of surplus inventory, and because they were powerful enough at the time to do it, they pushed it all back onto the manufacturers. The fact that hidden stockpiles of new/sealed Atari and Intellivision product are still being discovered decades later is an indication of just how bad that problem was. There was also the fact that a lot of publishers (like Atari) would force distributors who wanted to carry popular product to also buy certain quantities of unpopular or overstocked merchandise, and that also contributed to a very hostile retail environment in the years leading up to the crash. I certainly don't want to overstate Nintendo's role; that's why I went out of my way to say that they "helped to revive the industry" instead of saying that they did it all single-handedly, as some Nintendo fanboys are wont to do. It's certainly true that their games were more evolutionary than revolutionary, and that's part of what I meant when I said that they have never been a particularly strong technology company. Their hardware was never a gigantic leap forward from the competition, but neither were their game mechanics: as you pointed out, side-scrollers and RPGs were around years before Metroid and Zelda. My point was that Nintendo took these existing technologies and genres and constructed very appealing franchises around them, which made video games more exciting in the short-term but also paved the way for sequels and spinoffs in the long-term. Just think of how many Mario games there have been on every one of Nintendo's consoles, for example, and of how much money they've made on that franchise alone (and not only from the games themselves, but also from licensed merchandise and other ancillary markets). This was a different design philosophy than what you saw in American publishers at the time (at least in the consumer market), which was largely about figuring out new technical tricks and constructing games around those. You see a lot of that especially from pre-crash Activision and Imagic. I think they got into that habit because the technology was still at a very early state, and because the 2600 was the dominant platform a lot longer than it should have been: they always had to find new ways of tweaking the technology they had at the time in order to remain competitive. That was the environment in which designers with strong engineering backgrounds like David Crane really flourished. The issues you mentioned about "A Boy and His Blob" might be an example of how his output suffered once the technology was no longer the biggest creative limitation.

The last time I talked to them, I got the impression that they were mostly 7800 Ballblazer and Jinks cartridges, and that those were the only titles that they kept significant quantities of when they scrapped the others, mostly because the onboard POKEY/RAM chips made them more valuable. They wouldn't offer them to me for less than $3 per cartridge (or $216 per case), even when buying in bulk, which makes them a bit too expensive to buy solely as shell donors.

I think part of the reason is that those earlier years haven't been as well-documented, and of course there's a lot of misinformation out there as well. I'm sure we'll all have more questions when Curt's and Marty's book comes out.

Albert probably just hasn't gotten around to linking it in the "Programming" section yet. The programming forums used to be a separate section, but within the last year they were broken up and moved under the forums devoted to their corresponding platforms, which I think was the right way to go. The only exception is the 99/4A programming section, since the 99/4A doesn't have its own forum.

The AY-3-891x is a very interesting family of audio chips, far ahead of anything Atari had at the time. They seem to be capable of a lot more than they were ever pushed to do in the Intellivision, and I imagine that's mainly because the music composition tools (to the extent they even existed) weren't nearly as sophisticated at the time. The tracker you linked to seems to be Intellivision source code, but has anyone tried to use a PC-side utility to create the music data? I've been looking at Vortex Tracker II as a potential composition tool for Intellivision and Aquarius music. It was apparently designed mainly for the 128K ZX Spectrum+ (which used an AY-3-8910), but since it's the same chip, perhaps it can be used for the Intellivision/Aquarius also.

The way to get around the keypad/disc conflicts is to play the games with both controllers, one in each hand: one to move, the other to shoot. I've heard that this is the way several of the Blue Sky Rangers still prefer to play these games.

That's an interesting idea. I've seen the expansion bus under the nameplate but I didn't know what signals it provided. In case anyone hasn't seen it, here's a picture of my Intellivoice, which has a populated bus: If an adapter could be designed for this, one could potentially offer pre-modified Intellivoice units, with the adapter already installed. Intellivoices are easy enough to come by (Atari2600.com sells them for something like $15 each), and those who already have one could "trade it in" for a discount on the modified one. These trade-ins could then become a source of new Intellivoices, to be modified for other customers.

I think hex65000 had it easy by comparison. This is where the Aquarius has an advantage over the Intellivision: it uses the AY-3-8910 for its controllers also, but the ports are flush with the outer surface of the Mini-Expander.

I was referring more to the fact that the ECS ports don't have a "wall" of plastic between them, so you could use adjacent connectors on a circuit board to plug into it. But yes, the ports are recessed a little too deep beneath the surface for standard vertical DB9 female connectors, so you'd probably need an extender of some kind. The DB9 connectors that were used for the Atari MemCard/SaveKey might do the job; I'd post a picture if I had one handy, but as I recall they were a bit thinner than standard connectors. They might have been regular DB9 solder-cup connectors with the metal housing removed, come to think of it.

I've been considering a similar project for the Aquarius (which uses very similar controllers to the Intellivision), and as I see it, there are at least three design issues to overcome. The first has to do with signal conversion and finding a suitable power source. The Intellivision's controllers are connected to the parallel ports on the sound chip (the AY-3-8914), so they're eight TTL I/O pins and a ground pin. Connecting other controllers--such as Atari joysticks--would require an encoder or a microcontroller of some kind to generate the correct signals; it would need to be more than a simple adapter. But, because the Intellivision controller ports don't provide any power pins (like the Atari joystick ports do), the converter would also require an external power source, either a battery or an AC adapter. These aren't insurmountable requirements, but they might make the converter more expensive. The second is the issue of choosing a reasonable form factor. For the Intellivision I, there's no choice but to open the console and install it internally (the Intellivision I controllers are plugged into a pair of pin headers in opposite corners of the motherboard). With the Intellivision II, you can plug it into the hand controller ports, but it might be tough to come up with a convenient design (especially for both controllers at once) because the ports are seated deep into the hand controller cavities: The third is the issue of finding a controller that would be an adequate replacement for the originals. As Albert pointed out, the Intellivision hand controllers offer several features (a sixteen-direction disc, an integrated keypad, multiple action buttons, an overlay system, etc) that the original games require, and it's hard to think of a single alternative controller that would offer them all. You'd either need a mix of controllers to cover all of the possible inputs, or the converter could have a "passthrough" feature so you can still use the hand controllers for games that wouldn't work with a standard joystick. I'm not sure how much of an improvement multiple controllers would be; maybe some people wouldn't mind, but to me it seems like too much trouble. I suppose one important decision would be whether to design the converter to support the legacy Intellivision games, or only new homebrew games. The latter option would give you a lot more freedom, and I suppose the old games that would work with other controllers could be "patched" to use the converter. If I was to do it, I would probably design it for the extra controller ports in the ECS Computer Adaptor: I know that not everyone has a Computer Adaptor, but I suspect that most hardcore Intellivision enthusiasts probably do. This would offer several advantages: the ports would certainly be a lot easier to reach, they wouldn't interfere with the original controllers at all, and you wouldn't need to mess with internal upgrades because the Computer Adaptor can plug in to all Intellivision models. Besides, it would be nice to get more use out of the Computer Adaptor, and this would be a perfect accessory for it.

It was probably an issue of ROM size. I could be wrong about this, but I believe most of the original Mattel sports titles were 8K. When they were revamped and expanded by INTV Corp. a few years later, larger ROMs had become more affordable, and the games could be up to 32K. That gave them the extra space they needed to implement AI, improved graphics, and all the other "goodies" that may not have been affordable in the original versions.

I know I'm late to this, but let me chime in with my two cents ... A lot of this discussion has been about technology, but in my opinion, Nintendo is not a strong technology company. Their hardware has never been that far ahead of the competition, and for every so-called technological "innovation," you can probably find somebody else who really did it first. Maybe Nintendo deserves credit for popularizing the gamepad and other things, but not for inventing them. In my opinion, Nintendo's biggest contribution was recognizing the mistakes that had been made in the video game industry in the years leading up to the crash and implementing policies and procedures which remedied those mistakes, and in the process, helped to revive the video game industry. One of the mistakes they saw that Atari and others had made was designing consoles without any sort of protection for locking out unauthorized third-party software. In a business in which the hardware is sold more or less at cost in the hope that software sales will create most of the profit, an uncontrolled third-party software market hurts the console manufacturers' margins because it steals potential sales, with no royalties. It might help to make the consoles more popular, but it makes them much more unpopular if the third-party product is bad (which a lot of it was during those pre-crash "feeding frenzy" years). Nintendo's methods of controlling the market have been criticized as draconian, but some solution was clearly needed, and theirs was certainly effective. As I understand it, they barred unlicensed developers from creating software for their consoles, they implemented strict quality control, and then they had the developers pay them to manufacture the games. I think their standards for evaluating new product were especially ingenious. As Larry Kaplan described them once (in an interview on Retro Gaming Radio that I heard some years ago), the eight criteria they used were: graphics, sound, playability, replayability, initial impression, documentation, portability, and originality. Each was scored on a scale of one to five, and unless your game got at least an 80% overall score (32 out of 40), you were not allowed to publish it. This allowed them to block bad games, but also non-original games that would have diluted the market with too much "me-too" product. Another contribution, thanks in large part to the work of Shigeru Miyamoto, was the creation of several prominent franchises which helped to popularize video games among new generations of players, and which are still making money for Nintendo decades later. While Nintendo was hooking video game players with fresh ideas like Super Mario Brothers, Metroid, and The Legend of Zelda, Atari was still recycling their classic arcade product (Centipede, Asteroids, etc) on the 7800. I love the 7800 versions of those games, and I have mixed feelings about the transition in the popular culture from American game companies and ideas to Japanese ones, but I think it's clear that Nintendo understood what gamers wanted more than Atari did in the mid-80s. That also played a role in bringing video games back, and in elevating them from a fad to a mainstream segment of the entertainment industry.

It might be a bad STIC chip (the graphics chip). I had an Intellivision console that gave me nothing but a black screen, and that's what the issue turned out to be. I just picked up a bundle of "dead" Intellivision hardware on eBay to use as chip donors. I would try re-seating the chips before replacing them, though. You shouldn't need to use a Dremel tool to remove the RF shielding; just suck the solder out of the joints with a piece of solder wick. I removed all of the solder and re-sealed the shielding with strips of electrical tape so I could remove it more easily later.

As far as the Intellivision software is concerned, it's inevitable that Intellivision games and Atari games are very different, because both consoles are different and were designed to appeal to different audiences. The 2600 was intended primarily for home conversions of popular arcade games, and the initial games that were made for it reflected that. On the other hand, the Intellivision seems to have been aimed at more of an upscale market: it was much more expensive, it was advertised in mature outlets like Playboy Magazine, its woodgrain and brown plastic case didn't look like something that belonged on a spaceship, its pitchman was the urbane and erudite George Plimpton, and its games were seen as more sophisticated and more realistic ("the closest thing to the real thing"). Its initial library of games were aimed at a wider audience than kids who hung out at video arcades, so you had very detailed implementations of classic games (card games, board games, Horse Racing, etc), sports games, simulations, and other types of games that the general public was familiar with. So, in the beginning, the Atari was the "kid's console," while the Intellivision was the "thinking man's console" (hence its full name, "Intelligent Television"). As the video game market grew more competitive, and as it became clear that space shooters and arcade games were driving more sales, the game ideas for both consoles became more intermingled: the Intellivision gradually got more arcade-style games, while the 2600 got more detailed and sophisticated games. But in both cases, the game designs were closely tied to the capabilities of the hardware, and games that were designed for one couldn't easily be ported to the other. So, out of necessity, the two consoles maintained very different personalities, and Intellivision games certainly have a different "feel" than Atari games as a result. You'll either like them or you won't, but it's a mistake to dismiss them merely because they aren't just like what you might have played when you were a kid. I think the 2600 turned out to be the more versatile of the two platforms because its minimalist design was more flexible (again, a happy accident on Atari's part), but the Intellivision still has a lot to offer, and if you're willing to expand your horizons a bit and give it an honest chance, you may find that you'll like it.

No, they couldn't. The whole idea of third-party support, both in hardware and in software, didn't evolve until after both the 2600 and the Intellivision were already on the market. Remember that, in the early years of video game consoles, most controllers were either built in to the console control panel (like the early Pong units) or were hardwired into the console (like the Channel F), so at the time, the use of hardwired controllers in the Intellivision wasn't unusual at all. The 2600 was given removable cartridges mainly so it could play both Tank and Pong, and since both of those games required different controllers, the controllers were made removable as well. Neither decision was made to "attract third-party support," because at the time, there wasn't any such thing; there weren't even any third-party software publishers until 1980 (Activision). The 2600's ability to be expanded with cartridges and controllers from all kinds of different companies was an accident. The Intellivision took an all-in-one approach with the hand controllers, so making them removable probably wasn't deemed necessary. It's perfectly true that the Intellivision could have had third-party controllers if Mattel had made them removable, but it's ahistorical to say that Mattel was wrong not to have known that at the time. I'm simply trying to look at these decisions in the proper context, the way a historian would, instead of imposing a more modern point of view.

Perhaps, but that possibility probably didn't even occur to anyone when the console was designed; I'm not sure if a third-party controller market even existed in 1978. One can hardly fault Mattel for not making allowances for something they weren't in a position to anticipate at the time. Besides, with the overlays, sixteen-direction disc, keypad, and other unusual features offered by the stock Intellivision controllers, it wouldn't have been as easy for third-party manufacturers to create a suitable alternative (or to adapt one of their Atari designs, as many of them did for non-Atari platforms), so who knows how many of them would have done it even if the option was available. I do agree that Mattel did the right thing by switching to a removable controller with the Intellivision II. Like I said, I don't have a problem with the stock Intellivision controllers, so I never really felt a need for a third-party solution. As a general rule, I usually prefer to play with the stock controllers on any platform, unless they're exceptionally bad (like, in my opinion, the stock 99/4A joysticks).

Geez, if the OP hates it that much, why doesn't he just get rid of it? I'll gladly take it off his hands. I had never seen an Intellivision until my thirties, so I can't claim to have grown up with it. But I've since built up a decent collection (about 85 games, plus some semi-rare accessories like an ECS and Music Synthesizer), and I've come to appreciate what it has to offer. If you ask people who grew up on Atari consoles what they don't like about the Intellivision, the answers you'll get basically boil down to "I don't like it because it isn't an Atari": the controllers are different, the graphics look different, the types of games in its library are different, etc. I think what helped me is that nostalgia doesn't play much of a role for me when I sit down to play a game on a classic computer or console: I still like playing the games I played when I was a kid, but I'm not so limited by my experience that I can't appreciate anything else. It's important to get beyond this kind of limited thinking if you are to evaluate the Intellivision on its own terms. Regarding the much-maligned hand controllers: in my opinion, the main stumbling block that modern gamers have to overcome is their familiarity with gamepads. If you try to use the hand controller like a gamepad, as newcomers to the system often do, you're only making it harder on yourself because that isn't the best way to use it. For side-to-side games like Astrosmash, use your index and middle fingers to "rock" the disc back and forth; for four-direction games (like Snafu), I often find that it's easier to "spin" the disc around in a circle with your index finger to reach the directionals, rather than manhandling it by pushing it up, down, left, or right with your thumb. You have to find a method that works for you, but again, don't approach it like a gamepad! It also helps if you can find a way of holding the controllers that makes the side buttons more comfortable. Once you get used to them, you'll find that the hand controllers aren't as bad as their reputation might suggest: they offer sixteen directions, a feature unique to the Intellivision and Aquarius (and yes, it does make a difference in games that were designed for it). They also offer a keypad for secondary input, an idea that the Atari 2600 needed a whole separate controller to implement. As for the criticism that the controllers are hard-wired (in the original Intellivision) and that the cords are too short, consider this: in the late 70s and early 80s, video game consoles were not placed in a home entertainment center close to the television, but on the floor or on a table close to the players. You'll notice this if you look at video game ads from that era, and this was the way the Intellivision was intended to be played. In this setup, there is really no need to extend the controller cords, and except for those rare occasions when you have to repair or replace the controllers, having them hard-wired to the console isn't much of an issue, in my experience. When would you ever need to unplug them?

We tried once; that discussion got bogged down by nitpicking 5200 and NES fans. I can appreciate the humor in the "safe" forum description we have now, but those who haven't read the earlier thread really wouldn't understand it, so I do think we need a better permanent description. I still like the most recent one I suggested:

I'd love to see a technical game development blog, especially since I'm thinking of developing for the Intellivision myself someday. Just don't stretch yourself too thin with all the projects you've got going!

I'd think that's likely the culprit, as the video comes up clear and great, it just blinks in and out, rendering 2600 games unplayable. I have yet to try the S-video connection on it -- that's something I'm hoping to do soon -- so perhaps that will fix the problem. That's so strange ... I tested that console, with both 2600 and 7800 games, on my 1702 monitor and on a conventional analog TV, and the 2600 games I tested (Pitfall II, Solaris, and a few others I'm forgetting at the moment) worked fine for me. I also used it with a projector--albeit an older one--some time ago, and had no issues. I didn't have an LCD TV to try it on, nor do I own a Harmony cartridge, so I don't have any firsthand knowledge of any issues that might be specific to those. Have you tried it with an ordinary television? If it works on a TV and not the projector, then it's almost certainly an issue with the projector; if it doesn't, it must be the mod kit.

If all of this is some kind of code for "I'm resurrecting my old 2600 out of storage so I can play my Combat and Pac-Man cartridges again," I'll be really disappointed.

PM sent.

Here is a link to it. It's been a little quiet there for the past few months, but hopefully my multi-cart project will shake things up a bit as it gets closer to completion.

Well, they wouldn't work for the multi-cart because they seem to require BASIC, but I'd happily archive them for you if you need me to. The Aquarius really needs an alternative to the cassette tape for persistent storage, so at some point I'd like to create a new memory cartridge that combines a 32K RAM expansion with some sort of flash-based storage for CAQ images, which can then be loaded from BASIC. This is the reason why I'm actually moving away from the idea of doing the machine-language tape conversions that I've talked about for the multi-cart, since they'd only be made obsolete by the flash cartridge anyway, but I'll be including a few extra-rare goodies in the multi-cart that I think will compensate. I'll talk more about all that in the multi-cart thread when I finally get the new board revision finished.

Interesting. Were you able to save the tapes in WAV/CAQ format?