What if...

[Atarifever]

Also do you think making the 7800 available through mail order durring the time when retailers were rather dubious about video games, would have been a feasible alternative? (from a cost standpoint, selling them directly through mail order probably wouldn't be much different for the consumer as while you've got the shipping costs, there's no profit going to the retailers)

INTV did it with a lot of their Intellivisions after the crash (and used a few retail places). It was enough to ensure that post crash as many Intys sold as pre-crash. So if they can move 3 million systems with a limited number in stores and others through the mail, I have to assume Atari could have moved some systems under similar circumstances.

[etschuetz]

I was over at http://www.atari7800.com/turbo/history_16.htm and was reading thier history on the TG-16. Interestingly the author hit on how the Genesis design was nearly a blatant rip off of the Atari ST 16bit computer line.

 

"...while the Genesis was based around the Atari ST computer architecture utilizing a single 16-Bit microprocessor. That being said, critics of the Turbo raised questions about the legitimacy of their system being a “true” 16-Bit console. Interestingly enough, no one seemed to question Sega’s blatant rip-off of Atari’s European market technology to build the Genesis / MegaDrive. (Atari sued Sega in U.S. Court and won an unconditional victory, proving Sega couldn’t come up with anything successful on their own.)"

 

This would really help give a bit more credence my "What if..." scenario if Atari would have jumped into the 16bit era, and Sega dropping out to being a software developer again.

[kool kitty89]

I was over at http://www.atari7800.com/turbo/history_16.htm and was reading thier history on the TG-16. Interestingly the author hit on how the Genesis design was nearly a blatant rip off of the Atari ST 16bit computer line.

 

"...while the Genesis was based around the Atari ST computer architecture utilizing a single 16-Bit microprocessor. That being said, critics of the Turbo raised questions about the legitimacy of their system being a “true” 16-Bit console. Interestingly enough, no one seemed to question Sega’s blatant rip-off of Atari’s European market technology to build the Genesis / MegaDrive. (Atari sued Sega in U.S. Court and won an unconditional victory, proving Sega couldn’t come up with anything successful on their own.)"

 

This would really help give a bit more credence my "What if..." scenario if Atari would have jumped into the 16bit era, and Sega dropping out to being a software developer again.

 

I really doubt that's what the mid '90s Sega-Atari suit was about. ANd that statement by itsself is quite dubious.

 

Those statements seem rather rediculous to me, the Atari ST has very little to do with the Genesis, hell the Amiga is much more like the ST than the Genesis is. The only real similarity is the CPU, other than that they're completely different. (though they both sported 512 color palettes)

 

The Genesis is derived from Sega's System 16 arcade board (which was introduced the same year as the ST), which in turn can draw its lineage back to Sega's earlier Sega System 1 (which shares strong similarities to the SG-1000 home console, and later Master System). The SG-1000 was almost identical to the Colecovision, except for having 2 kB of main RAM instead of 1 kB. (there was even a combo console released that could play both systems games) Seeing as the ColecoVision was basicly built with off the shell components and that the SG-1000 came out around the time of the US crash (and never released in the US, plus not very popular in Japan either) that probably explains whay there weren't issues there.

 

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sega_...e_system_boards for Sega's Arcade system boards

 

In any case the System 1 had 2 Z80s running at the full 4 MHz (rather than 3.58 MHz colorburst frequency), one being dedicated for sound, with dual SN76496 sound chips. (I'm not sure if the same TMS VDP was used as on the CV or SG-1000, or if they used a modified, more advanced version instead -like the Master System's) It was released in 1983.

 

In any case the System 16 was their next new Arcade board, released in 1985. It had a new custom Sega developed VDP derived from their older designs (leading back to the CV's TMS9928A, but by now had evelved into something far more advanced, though still with some functionality of the older chips. (taken advantage of to provide backwards compatibility with the SMS on the Genesis) I'm almost positive the Genesis shares an identical VDP, albeit with some pins left disconnected (later removed from the chip package itsself), and with the arcade's 4,096 color palette cut to 512. (later revisions to the Genesis consolidated more and more into a single ASIC with the VDP, first the YM2612, then the Z80, and finally the 68000)

The System 16 used a 10 MHz Motorola 68000 CPU, a didicated 4MHz Z80 for audio, a YM2151 FM synthesis chip, and optional PCM (digital sample) sound chip. (the System 16B also included hardware for scaling and rotation) The Genesis lacked the YM2151, instead featuring a YM2612 (which had 6 channels instead of the other's 8, but also had the 6th channel available directly as an 8-bit DAC for digital playback) as well as the SMS's old 4-channel PSG, with a 3.58 MHz Z80 for sound processing, also used to provide backwards compatibility with the SMS.

The geneis used a cheaper 8 MHz rated 68000, clocked at 7.67 MHz (NTSC), which is as close as you can get from the 53.69 MHz master clock. (same as SMS)

 

Like many contemporary Game consoles, the Genesis used a tilemap+sprite graphics architecture, with multiple scrolling background layers plus the sprite layer. (using hard coded sprites, with a limited maximum on-screen, plus a maximim per scanline -circumvented by using flicker)

It's my understanding the Atari ST used a bitmapped display, with the CPU having to do all graphical effect in software (moving characters/enemies, scrolling backgrounds, ect), while the Amiga did this as well, but had a seperate blitter coprocessor to handel this. (plus hardware sprites as well) The STe later added a blitter as well.

 

Additionally the Genesis has 64 kB dedicated VRAM for the VDP, along with 64 kB of main RAM and 8 kB of audio RAM. (used for sample data, and as the main RAM in SMS compatibility mode, with the Z80 as the CPU) The graphics differences are the most important, as added sound hardware can be configured differently without changing the overall system. (the ST probably should have added some -relatively inexpensive- FM Synthesis chip onboard, that YM2149 chip alone is really weak, especially compared to the Amiga, like comparing a -non Jananese- SMS's sound to an SNES's, while an FM chip would be more like the Genesis vs SNES sound -the merits of which are much more debatable)

Edited July 3, 2009 by kool kitty89

[Retro Rogue]

The lawsuit was over patent violations on patents Atari Inc. had been granted 1977 through 1984, which Atari Corp. then (1993) owned, including a patent for Horizontal scrolling (think Sonic). Specifically a method of fine scrolling accomplished by "placing delay means in the data stream between the memory and the display". Had nothing to do with the ST.

Edited July 4, 2009 by wgungfu

[carmel_andrews]

As far as i recall the sega computer systems (the SG series) were modified from the MSX as sega was one of the last japanese companies to jump on the MSX bandwagon and the last to sign up

 

And since the sms series were producred from the SG computer models, i guess the SMS was sort of electronically msx compatible (ala 5200 to A8, less the cart. port)

 

I guess that means the coleco vision is electronically MSX compatible (but not software compatible)

[etschuetz]

Atari sued Sega in October of 1990 over the violation of 70 patents in which Atari held. by the early 90's, Sega settled with Atari out of court. So I am informed, whether correct or not, is that some of those violations were in conjunction to the 16 bit Sega Genesis' architecture.

[kool kitty89]

As far as i recall the sega computer systems (the SG series) were modified from the MSX as sega was one of the last japanese companies to jump on the MSX bandwagon and the last to sign up

 

And since the sms series were producred from the SG computer models, i guess the SMS was sort of electronically msx compatible (ala 5200 to A8, less the cart. port)

 

I guess that means the coleco vision is electronically MSX compatible (but not software compatible)

 

The SG-1000 was a pure game system (branded with "computer video game" on the front), the later SG-3000 was a simple (biginner) home computer that was compatible with SG-1000 games. There was also the updated SG-1000 Mk.II, and later Mk.III which was basicly the Master System. (western release of the SMS featured basicly the same hardware but with a different cart slot and less expandibility in some respects) The later JP SMS was basicly a Mk.III (same cart slot) in SMS shell with built in YM2413. (an accessory for the Mk.III)

 

More than anything else the SG-1000 resembled the ColecoVision (granted they both used common, off the shelf components), technically, the only difference internally is double the RAM (2 kB up from the CV's 1), it was even software compatible with the Coleco vision, and a combination clone was made and released in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegames_Personal_Arcade

 

So I kind of doubt the SG-1000 design was much influenced with the MSX standard. (the sound chip also doesn't match the Sound+I/O chip of the MSX)

 

Atari sued Sega in October of 1990 over the violation of 70 patents in which Atari held. by the early 90's, Sega settled with Atari out of court. So I am informed, whether correct or not, is that some of those violations were in conjunction to the 16 bit Sega Genesis' architecture.

 

This is certainly plausible, but woudn't have a thing to do with the ST.

 

Based on what wgungfu mentioned, it was older Atari Inc. patents that were the issue, and that scrolling mechanism mentioned, may have been one of the very issues with the Genesis. (though with such a large number, there are plenty of other possibilities) It would seem that features of the VDP (various graphics effects) ware a major issue in this, somthing that would certainly have nothing to do with the ST's bitmapped display.

 

However, such issues would hardly be limited to a single console, if they were present for the Genesis, the same ( if not more) should be there for the System 16, and probably others on the Master System (or Mk.III) and other arcade boards as well. (the SG-1000 or Mk.II shouldn't be an issue given the aformentioned off the shelf nature)

Edited July 6, 2009 by kool kitty89

[oky2000]

NEC enters the American market with the TurboGrafx-16. Atari and NEC battle it out over the next two years, but NEC can't stand up against the power of Atari backed with its plethora of third party developers. NEC introduces the CD attachment by 1990. With the extra space, Atari releases their own CD attachment by 1991. Sharper, cleaner, and deeper games help propel Atari further.

 

I don't think so! Take one look at the PC-Engine/Turbografx version of R-Type and Nemesis Outrun etc. What Sega did to the NES with the Megadrive NEC would have done to the 7800 with this little arcade machine in a case the size of a small packet of chips. It was Mario and Zelda however that sold the NES to millions of American kids. In the UK the NES flopped though anyway, we have more taste in good games so we bought other things

 

 

Nintendo finds a way though. They release the Game Boy and begin to take shape. Atari retaliates with the Lynx, a 16bit color handheld. With the developers behind Atari, especially Epix, Activision, Sega, and Williams/Bally/Midway, amongst others, Atari's Lynx and Nintendo's Game Boy take the competition to the portable market. However, due to the cheaper price, Nintendo is dominant in this market, with Atari pushing close behind. NEC's, TurboExpress, with the advantage of playing home games on the hand held, doesn't win over the hearts of gamers with its $400 price tag.

 

Again I disagree. IF Atari had sold the Epyx Handy prototype as soon as they could they would have cornered the hand held market with a 24 month lead before the crappy Gameboy and it's green puke and vomit yellow monochrome screen. Especially if Atari had made an exclusive licence for Tetris (which is the game that launched the Gameboy to become unstoppable as well) The Lynx was probably the last chance Atari had realistically, and all they did was sit on the prototype for years until AFTER the Gameboy was selling well....by which time it was too late...Tetris was out for it and it was unstoppable. And then there was crappy Pokemon too *puke*

 

Finally 1984 was a bit early really, the video game market crashed for two reasons...

 

1. $40-30 crap VCS games were everywhere and destroyed public interest in home gaming with some prize turkeys like ET and Pacman.

2. Home computers were getting cheaper, more sophisticated AND the games cost a lot less on disk or tape so interest shifted away from consoles.

 

Maybe 1985 would have been better to allow consumers to forget the video game crash and complete loss of confidence in cartridge based expensive upkeep consoles like the Coleco/VCS. Remember Sega's mistake was also not giving consumers to forget getting screwed over by turkeys like the CD add on or the 32x add on. The Saturn was a great machine, but consumer confidence with Sega was shot and Nintendo were pimping their ageing SNES so Sony wiped the floor clean with both of them even though Playstation was only 5-10% better at best than the Saturn technically and it had no Sega exclusive titles to rely on only 3rd party games. And yet it outsold all competitors by 500%

[kool kitty89]

NEC enters the American market with the TurboGrafx-16. Atari and NEC battle it out over the next two years, but NEC can't stand up against the power of Atari backed with its plethora of third party developers. NEC introduces the CD attachment by 1990. With the extra space, Atari releases their own CD attachment by 1991. Sharper, cleaner, and deeper games help propel Atari further.

 

I don't think so! Take one look at the PC-Engine/Turbografx version of R-Type and Nemesis Outrun etc. What Sega did to the NES with the Megadrive NEC would have done to the 7800 with this little arcade machine in a case the size of a small packet of chips. It was Mario and Zelda however that sold the NES to millions of American kids. In the UK the NES flopped though anyway, we have more taste in good games so we bought other things

 

I don't like that too much either, but it's still better than the thing about Sega dropping to software only... Remember that in this hypothetical Atari is also launching its own 16-bit console in 1989 (honestly I'd have chosen 87/88) so it wouldn't have the same advantage Sega/NEC did over the NES. Also note that only Sega really made headway in the US (while the PCE did pretty well in Japan, where the MegaDrive languished) largely due to their marketing tactics. (NEC focused too much on big cities, which worked well in Japan but not the more dispersed US)

 

Also the TG-16 was going to be significantly larger than the PC Engine due to FCC restrictions. (larger case to fit RF sheilding) Not sure how much of the TG-16 is actually empty space though. (haven't seen inside one)

 

Finally 1984 was a bit early really, the video game market crashed for two reasons...

 

1. $40-30 crap VCS games were everywhere and destroyed public interest in home gaming with some prize turkeys like ET and Pacman.

2. Home computers were getting cheaper, more sophisticated AND the games cost a lot less on disk or tape so interest shifted away from consoles.

 

You forgot to mention the catylist that pushed the unstable market over the edge and a significant contributor to the low computer prices. Commodore's aggressive price undercutting in the computer market.

Or Atari screwing up with the problematic and expensive 5200.

 

I don't think the public necessarily needed that much time to recover, it all depends on perception, with convincing enough marketing they could have speeded up the process. Part of why Nintendo took longer was they were new on the block and unproven, While retailers were very wary of any (non computer) video games, and Atari had gotten a bad rep with them, the consumers are the driving force to focus on, and at worst mail order is an alternate route. (with too little retail distributor support)

Atari had lost some ground with consumer confidence, but not irreperable if the proper action was taken. (hot sales of the 2600 Jr mid/late 1995 showed that the market was still viable before Nintendo had had an impact -and withAtari Corp's tight budget -of course with this being a bit late it doesn't directly support the 1984 release, but they could at very least get their fot in the door again, particularly with mail order initially while they regained retailers' confidence)

 

Maybe 1985 would have been better to allow consumers to forget the video game crash and complete loss of confidence in cartridge based expensive upkeep consoles like the Coleco/VCS. Remember Sega's mistake was also not giving consumers to forget getting screwed over by turkeys like the CD add on or the 32x add on. The Saturn was a great machine, but consumer confidence with Sega was shot and Nintendo were pimping their ageing SNES so Sony wiped the floor clean with both of them even though Playstation was only 5-10% better at best than the Saturn technically and it had no Sega exclusive titles to rely on only 3rd party games. And yet it outsold all competitors by 500%

 

I dissagree on the Sega analogy, their situation was far more complex and had a lot more to due with comflicts between Japan and SoA than it did customer confidence. (and many mistakes that were related to these conflicts, manifesting it 1993 and becoming pronounced by 1994 and worsened with Kalinske finally leaving, disheartened in 1996) The add-ons had their problems, but so did the Saturn (all 3 had technical, philosophical, and burocratic issues), this isn't the place to discuss this though, there are other sites for that:

http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7061

http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7183

[DracIsBack]

The lawsuit was over patent violations on patents Atari Inc. had been granted 1977 through 1984, which Atari Corp. then (1993) owned, including a patent for Horizontal scrolling (think Sonic). Specifically a method of fine scrolling accomplished by "placing delay means in the data stream between the memory and the display". Had nothing to do with the ST.

 

Wasn't there also an issue with the 9 pin controller used by the various Atari units? Sega had the nine pin in the master system and genesis but, IIRC, didn't pay the license.

[Retro Rogue]

Wasn't there also an issue with the 9 pin controller used by the various Atari units? Sega had the nine pin in the master system and genesis but, IIRC, didn't pay the license.

 

 

No, that's an open standard D-subminiature connector (specifically the DB9 or DE9), Atari didn't invent it or license it.

[+pboland]

Let me put in a slightly different wrinkle. I remember living through the the video game cash as a kid (I was about 10-11 years old). From what I remember, most stores who had sold video game stuff no longer carried that stuff anymore (including magazines). I never saw an Atari 5200 until after the crash. I saw a magazine article about it right before the crash, but never saw one for sale in the stores. I knew one person who had Colecovision and I think he bought it on vacation in another state. By 1984, people just didn't care about home video games anymore. At least where we lived (Cincinnati, Ohio). The arcades were still doing well here (up until about 1986-87, or until the NES took off), but the home market was gone. I think if Atari (who ever owned it at the time) released the 7800 in 1984, it would have died like every other system of the time. People were just fed up with the crap games and if your game cost more than $5.00 you were not selling. With that said, I think any game system that would have done a release in 1984 would have died. Yes, even the NES would have died. That is just the reality of the time. People were not ready for home video games again.

 

Yes INTV was able to sell a lot through catalogs, but at the time most people in electronics wouldn't have taken that gamble. Hindsight, shows the INTV did well, but nobody at that time knew if a strategy like that would have worked. We now know it did.

 

So, in the end I would bet the market would still look pretty much the same. A few details may have been different but, the end result would have been the same.

 

That's just my two cents.

[etschuetz]

It would seem that people aren't taking into consideration that Atari began instituting a lockout feature for 7800 games. Okay, so how would Atari be able to battle the buttloads of crap games that would still come out? Someone recommended the "Seal" like Nintendo used. Let these half rate wanna-be's put out their crap with 2600 graphics, but push the licensed developers to use 7800 graphics and use the licenses. Use official box art that comes with the licensing. Sue the hell out of anyone that tried to "imitate" the box designs and seal. Honestly, it worked wonders for Nintendo.

 

Also, there are a lot of ways that Atari would have gotten around the crash. Seriously, if Jack Tramiel would have taken the console market seriously back then, I am sure the crash we talk about would have been more of a hiccup, or an event of "taking out the trash".

[oky2000]

It would seem that people aren't taking into consideration that Atari began instituting a lockout feature for 7800 games. Okay, so how would Atari be able to battle the buttloads of crap games that would still come out? Someone recommended the "Seal" like Nintendo used. Let these half rate wanna-be's put out their crap with 2600 graphics, but push the licensed developers to use 7800 graphics and use the licenses. Use official box art that comes with the licensing. Sue the hell out of anyone that tried to "imitate" the box designs and seal. Honestly, it worked wonders for Nintendo.

 

Also, there are a lot of ways that Atari would have gotten around the crash. Seriously, if Jack Tramiel would have taken the console market seriously back then, I am sure the crash we talk about would have been more of a hiccup, or an event of "taking out the trash".

 

I think it's unfair to ask a man who just left a company which was loaded thanks to home computer strategy on the last of his entire amassed fortune to gamble it all on a games console when things were getting noticeably cool in the home console front, especially in Europe where Commodore were doing much better overall compared to the USA. He needed a solid platform to start bringing money in instead of hemorrhaging it so he decided to apply the formula he used at Commodore and it worked well at the start. Had the STE been the original ST Atari would have done fine for a long time with their head start.

[oky2000]

NEC enters the American market with the TurboGrafx-16. Atari and NEC battle it out over the next two years, but NEC can't stand up against the power of Atari backed with its plethora of third party developers. NEC introduces the CD attachment by 1990. With the extra space, Atari releases their own CD attachment by 1991. Sharper, cleaner, and deeper games help propel Atari further.

 

I don't think so! Take one look at the PC-Engine/Turbografx version of R-Type and Nemesis Outrun etc. What Sega did to the NES with the Megadrive NEC would have done to the 7800 with this little arcade machine in a case the size of a small packet of chips. It was Mario and Zelda however that sold the NES to millions of American kids. In the UK the NES flopped though anyway, we have more taste in good games so we bought other things

 

I don't like that too much either, but it's still better than the thing about Sega dropping to software only... Remember that in this hypothetical Atari is also launching its own 16-bit console in 1989 (honestly I'd have chosen 87/88) so it wouldn't have the same advantage Sega/NEC did over the NES. Also note that only Sega really made headway in the US (while the PCE did pretty well in Japan, where the MegaDrive languished) largely due to their marketing tactics. (NEC focused too much on big cities, which worked well in Japan but not the more dispersed US)

 

Also the TG-16 was going to be significantly larger than the PC Engine due to FCC restrictions. (larger case to fit RF sheilding) Not sure how much of the TG-16 is actually empty space though. (haven't seen inside one)

 

Finally 1984 was a bit early really, the video game market crashed for two reasons...

 

1. $40-30 crap VCS games were everywhere and destroyed public interest in home gaming with some prize turkeys like ET and Pacman.

2. Home computers were getting cheaper, more sophisticated AND the games cost a lot less on disk or tape so interest shifted away from consoles.

 

You forgot to mention the catylist that pushed the unstable market over the edge and a significant contributor to the low computer prices. Commodore's aggressive price undercutting in the computer market.

Or Atari screwing up with the problematic and expensive 5200.

 

I don't think the public necessarily needed that much time to recover, it all depends on perception, with convincing enough marketing they could have speeded up the process. Part of why Nintendo took longer was they were new on the block and unproven, While retailers were very wary of any (non computer) video games, and Atari had gotten a bad rep with them, the consumers are the driving force to focus on, and at worst mail order is an alternate route. (with too little retail distributor support)

Atari had lost some ground with consumer confidence, but not irreperable if the proper action was taken. (hot sales of the 2600 Jr mid/late 1995 showed that the market was still viable before Nintendo had had an impact -and withAtari Corp's tight budget -of course with this being a bit late it doesn't directly support the 1984 release, but they could at very least get their fot in the door again, particularly with mail order initially while they regained retailers' confidence)

 

Maybe 1985 would have been better to allow consumers to forget the video game crash and complete loss of confidence in cartridge based expensive upkeep consoles like the Coleco/VCS. Remember Sega's mistake was also not giving consumers to forget getting screwed over by turkeys like the CD add on or the 32x add on. The Saturn was a great machine, but consumer confidence with Sega was shot and Nintendo were pimping their ageing SNES so Sony wiped the floor clean with both of them even though Playstation was only 5-10% better at best than the Saturn technically and it had no Sega exclusive titles to rely on only 3rd party games. And yet it outsold all competitors by 500%

 

I dissagree on the Sega analogy, their situation was far more complex and had a lot more to due with comflicts between Japan and SoA than it did customer confidence. (and many mistakes that were related to these conflicts, manifesting it 1993 and becoming pronounced by 1994 and worsened with Kalinske finally leaving, disheartened in 1996) The add-ons had their problems, but so did the Saturn (all 3 had technical, philosophical, and burocratic issues), this isn't the place to discuss this though, there are other sites for that:

http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7061

http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7183

 

I think there were many reasons why Sega didn't make it much past 2nd year of the Dreamcast, bad decisions over 3 successive console generations is one (32x, Sega-CD, No Sonic game on the Saturn and a very difficult machine to code, and a weird GD-ROM drive for the Dreamcast when clearly DVD playback would have kept them in the game). The fact Sony didn't put a foot wrong and shifted the target demographic to expand the home console business by 500% compared to the SNES/Genesis past is another.

 

Back on topic anyway, wasn't the 16bit console going to be ST(E) based anyway rather than some radically different hardware? No offence but sometimes (50% due to bad/sloppy programming) even the Genesis wiped the floor with the Amiga let alone the 256 colour SNES. If this is the case then that console would have flopped anyway as there were no exclusive games on the Atari ST platform (unlike Mario/Sonic/Zelda/Sega arcade licences) to even do battle on gameplay side.

 

I wonder if taking the 7800 chipset and making it into their base line 8bit home computer instead of repackaging the 800XL as the 65XE would have helped, interesting to think how that might have turned out too.

 

Whatever they did they definitely should NOT have put those little joypads in with the package, they were really horrible I thought.

[kool kitty89]

It would seem that people aren't taking into consideration that Atari began instituting a lockout feature for 7800 games. Okay, so how would Atari be able to battle the buttloads of crap games that would still come out? Someone recommended the "Seal" like Nintendo used. Let these half rate wanna-be's put out their crap with 2600 graphics, but push the licensed developers to use 7800 graphics and use the licenses. Use official box art that comes with the licensing. Sue the hell out of anyone that tried to "imitate" the box designs and seal. Honestly, it worked wonders for Nintendo.

 

The problem was that 3rd parties weren't the bigggest problem (there was stuff here and there, and the handful of porn games, but not that significant of an issue) A very large portion of crap was being released by Atari themselves something that quality controll (not rushing things out the door for a quick buck) would impact more than lockout. What lockout would allow is money made from 3rd party licencing, which in turn could allow the hardware price to be cut (in later generations many companies were cutting to the point of breaking even ot taking losses on hardware to later make it up on software -particularly once cheap disc media became popular)

 

The NES had/has plenty of crap too, and like the 2600 a very large portion were theirs (rather their officially licenced games in N's case). Also like the 2600 there were a trmendous number of good games to choose from, and you could usually count on N's 1st party stuff to be top notch. The trick, of course, is telling the good from the bad in a time where official reviews were nonexistant, and Gaming magazines few to none. (and you couldn't count on a company's own magazine for that as they'd never badmouth a product, though Nintendo Power had a crytic way of hinting at things that you'd only notice if you already knew about the game -and weren't a young kid)

[kool kitty89]

I think there were many reasons why Sega didn't make it much past 2nd year of the Dreamcast, bad decisions over 3 successive console generations is one (32x, Sega-CD, No Sonic game on the Saturn and a very difficult machine to code, and a weird GD-ROM drive for the Dreamcast when clearly DVD playback would have kept them in the game). The fact Sony didn't put a foot wrong and shifted the target demographic to expand the home console business by 500% compared to the SNES/Genesis past is another.

 

In some ways, yeah, but I think the burocratic problems were the main problem. (and influenced many of the other problems) The (perceived) piracy threat on the Dreamcast was a bigger problem than DVD support IMO, and they'd have had to launch it significantly later to practically incluse a DVD drive. With the Saturn cut short in the US that would have left Sega without n active console for around 3 years. (causing them to lose their head start, and also the cost advantage due to the expence of the DVD drive, the GD-ROM drive being more or less a normal CD-ROM drive) Despite that and other problems with their releationships with developers durring the DC's life, it was very successful for its short life (at least outside Japan), no way could it have competed with the PS2 directly, but seeing how much the GC and Xbox struggled, who knows how the DC would have fared had they followed through. Again, it's off topic, and if you're ever on Sega-16 it'd be an interesting topic to pic-up over there.

 

 

Back on topic anyway, wasn't the 16bit console going to be ST(E) based anyway rather than some radically different hardware? No offence but sometimes (50% due to bad/sloppy programming) even the Genesis wiped the floor with the Amiga let alone the 256 colour SNES. If this is the case then that console would have flopped anyway as there were no exclusive games on the Atari ST platform (unlike Mario/Sonic/Zelda/Sega arcade licences) to even do battle on gameplay side.

I don't know if the ST would come into play at all, if this hypothetical is for Warner-Atari, or some "other" purchaser of Atari. There was the licencing of the Amiga to considder, but also Atair's own shelved (fully prototyped) 68000 projects, Sierra seeming the most practical, but information too vague to really tell what the capabilities/cost were. (Gaza, with its workstation orientation and dual CPU design, would not be in the running here)

 

I wonder if taking the 7800 chipset and making it into their base line 8bit home computer instead of repackaging the 800XL as the 65XE would have helped, interesting to think how that might have turned out too.

 

Whatever they did they definitely should NOT have put those little joypads in with the package, they were really horrible I thought.

 

A computer expansion had been a significant part of the 7800's planned lifecycle (perhaps an integrated standalone unit as well), something that was cut after the crash and under Tramiel.

 

And for Atari alone (no Tramiel or ST, or Amiga) this would be interesting, as would the 8-bit line development, though including the older components for backwards compatibility would add to cost. Perhaps another route would be to kind of follow the Apple II's evolution, later versions with faster processors and maybe a 16-bit (65816) development as well. Or this in conjunction with the aplication of the MARIA.

 

Or you could go with one of the 68000 machines (again Sierra would seem the most practical), or the 68000 computer as the high-end computer and the further developed 8-bit line as the (backwards compatible) budget line.

 

Lots of possibilities here, another would be to go with the 7800+computer add-on (possibly in integraded form) to boost interest in the computer market, and get those retailers' interested. Continue the 8-bit line as it was (at least the standard 800XL) as a budget line while also launching a new high-end machine (like Sierra), possibly using this as the basis for their next-gen console.

Otherwise continue with MARIA, or an enhanced derivative and use that as the basis for your next console. I'm not sure further offering backwards compatibility would be a good idea, maybe if you can utilize the old hardware in a useful manner. Sega did this rather well in the Genesis, though in Atari's case they'd need to include 2600 hardware as well for 7800 compatibility, perhaps an adapter module could contain that, also allowing a differnt cartridge connector as well, puting the necessary connections on the cartridge connector to facilitate this. (rather like Sega's power bace converter, but including active circuitry as well, namely TIA and RIOT and any additional switches as well -that are absent from the main unit) They could have included a 6502C onboard the main unit as a coprocessor. (in Sega's case they used the Z80 as a sound processor -though it wasn't limited to this it was the main purpose, controlling the PSG and YM2612's FM synthesis as well as handling digital audio playback and some simple wavetable synthesis through the YM2612's 6th channel DAC -with 8 kB of RAM -used as the SMS's main memory when in compatibility mode)

 

 

 

When you mention the joypads, are you talking about the 7800 proline controllers in the US, or the NES/Master System style gamepads that were released in Europe? (I would assume the former) They could have made both available though for those that prefer each type, or scrapped the proline for someting like a 2-button CX-40. (though that might have been just as awkward depending on how they placed the second button)

[oky2000]

Back on topic anyway, wasn't the 16bit console going to be ST(E) based anyway rather than some radically different hardware? No offence but sometimes (50% due to bad/sloppy programming) even the Genesis wiped the floor with the Amiga let alone the 256 colour SNES. If this is the case then that console would have flopped anyway as there were no exclusive games on the Atari ST platform (unlike Mario/Sonic/Zelda/Sega arcade licences) to even do battle on gameplay side.

 

I don't know if the ST would come into play at all, if this hypothetical is for Warner-Atari, or some "other" purchaser of Atari. There was the licencing of the Amiga to considder, but also Atair's own shelved (fully prototyped) 68000 projects, Sierra seeming the most practical, but information too vague to really tell what the capabilities/cost were. (Gaza, with its workstation orientation and dual CPU design, would not be in the running here)

 

Ahh I thought we were talking about the Atari 16bit console the Tramiels were talking about before the design/announcement of Jaguar and after the ST was produced. I only ever heard news reports never saw any design prototypes about it so maybe they were just toying with the idea of putting an STE in a box as the ST had a cartridge port. Maybe this is why the ST was designed with a cartridge port who knows.

 

 

When you mention the joypads, are you talking about the 7800 proline controllers in the US, or the NES/Master System style gamepads that were released in Europe? (I would assume the former) They could have made both available though for those that prefer each type, or scrapped the proline for someting like a 2-button CX-40. (though that might have been just as awkward depending on how they placed the second button)

 

The little NES style gamepads yes, the Pro-line sticks were OK (we had them in the cost reduced smaller 2600), I still like the original classic joysticks best for 2600 gaming yes, 2nd button placement is an issue of course. They weren't the only ones the NES pads suck badly too, so do the Amstrad GX4000 pads etc. In fact the only good ones I ever used were the 6 button smaller Genesis/Megadrive joypads Sega produced for Street Fighter 2. The dpad is wonderfully accurate, the pad is ergonomic and the concave buttons have just the right give. Perfection...and better than the PS3 or 360 dpad control to this day!

 

(I am British)

[The_Laird]

I think the 7800 pads are superb personally. Far prefer them to the NES or SMS pads. The thumbstick was a great idea!

 

You are in the UK? You should come to JFUK in September my massive 7800 collection will certainly be there!

[+pboland]

Also, there are a lot of ways that Atari would have gotten around the crash. Seriously, if Jack Tramiel would have taken the console market seriously back then, I am sure the crash we talk about would have been more of a hiccup, or an event of "taking out the trash".

For that statement to work, one would have to assume that Atari caused the crash. That was not the case.

 

On a side note, I think it is interesting that with these "What if" threads (that take place around the time of the crash) they seem to always get into discussions of the hardware specks. As if better hardware would have somehow gotten a video game company through the crash. We already know this wasn't the case. Can anyone say ColecoVision?

 

The main reason the crash happened was because of over saturation of the gaming market. Too many people were copying each other for the fast buck. The consumer started believing that video game were a fad because of this lack of creativity. Basically, consumers thought this was as good as it got.

 

So, then the thought is, just make better and more original games. That was happening over at Intellivision, and Activision, but too many companies were trying to make the quick buck. Consumers didn't want to pay $30.00 for a game (which was a really good game) when they could buy six games at $5.00 each in the bargain bin (which ended up being crap). Remember, this is before you could rent a game to see if you like it. Back then you had to buy it, and hope of the best.

 

No gaming system could have made it through the cash in these circumstances. That is why I stated that even the NES would have died in 1984. The gaming buying public need a break from the scene. It took almost two year before people were willing to open up there wallets to try it again and the NES happen to be at the right place at the right time. Not to mention most people didn't know the name Nintendo as a home console, so it didn't have the connotations that went along with the pre-crash gaming companies.

Edited July 8, 2009 by pboland

[carmel_andrews]

tramiel...serious about the console market....perhaps you want to REREAD the history books (pre atari)

 

2 words...max and ultimax

 

remember that while he was buying atari, atari were planning a 68k 'super console', now even though they lost the amiga to cbm, there was nothing to stop tramiel perhaps doing a 68k console based on the ST (if indeed the ST was as good as he said it was)

 

reason why he didn't do that or go ahead regardless of any court case withg cbm over the amiga and do a 68k 'super console' (or even something based on the ST) is because tramiel had long since demonstrated no interest in gaming systems...and remember that atari only sold existing 2600 inventory during the initial period of tramiel takeover and not put any new systems into production (so as to save costs) and also not consider the 7800, as it would have meant taking resources and financing away from developing and marketing any upcoming atari products (like the st)

[kool kitty89]

Ahh I thought we were talking about the Atari 16bit console the Tramiels were talking about before the design/announcement of Jaguar and after the ST was produced. I only ever heard news reports never saw any design prototypes about it so maybe they were just toying with the idea of putting an STE in a box as the ST had a cartridge port. Maybe this is why the ST was designed with a cartridge port who knows.

 

I'm not entirely sure either way, he never mentions specifically, it seems the main thesis is just based around the 7800's release in 1984 rather than any specific scenario. He later mentions the Lynx, Panther (shudder), and Jaguar; this could just be another assumption though, and honestly Atari would still be a rather natural choice to end up with inless Epyx or Flare tried to partner with a Japanese company (probably not going to happen with the handheld at least), or possibly another US/EU company. (perhaps Commodore??? maybe a toy company or other electronics/computer company?) I could see Sega or Nintendo possibly picking up the Flare design (Nintendo did afterall pick the SGI MIPS chipset for their N64), though the timelin's a bit off given Flare had been working on (parts of) the designs since the late '80s and I think joined up with Atari around 1990, while Sega/Nintendo wouldn't really be interested until around 1993.

 

I think the inbetween ST-Jaguar system you're referring to is the "32-bit" Panther (68k CPU and 32-bit "Panther" Object Processor). This thread's author mentioned it as well and suggested it as the successor to Atari's post 7800 16-bitter and pre-jaguar, but as I responded earlier, that's a very bad idea:

 

Atari holds the 16bit market until 1991 when Nintendo finally introduces the SNES. Even though it uses a slightly slower 65816 chip, it has Mode 7 effects, more colors, and better sound. Atari, seeing this decides to push into the next gen again with the 32 bit panther. However, during this time, Atari is also developing the 64bit Jaguar. By 1993, Atari releases the Jaguar to the masses, with its huge compliment of developers, Atari remains ahead of the curve. NEC has officially dropped out of the market by this time, and Nintendo's 16bit sales have been getting higher.

Also don;t even mention the Panther, it would have been a joke (in it's current form) compared to the Genesis or SNES, not to mention Atari;s own 16-bit console. (I think their previous Sierra 68000 computer project could be a good starting point for this, assuming the plans for the Amiga fell through -which would seem likely with Amiga joining with Commodore -regardless of wether Tramiel acquired Atari)

 

See this thread for previous discussion on it:

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...68#entry1750868

 

Despite the "32-bit" label, the Panther was not at all like an ST or Amiga or any other console or home computer. It was most similar to the 7800, which was notoriously difficult to port to. It didn't have a frame buffer OR character modes (the two dominant ways to handle backgrounds), sprite X/Y position registers, collision detection, or a blitter. It could reproduce most of those effects but they were coded very differently. It also had almost no memory, just a few kilobytes available to the game. Most ST/Amiga/home computer games of the day relied on frame buffers and generous amounts of memory.

 

The Jaguar on the other hand was a better fit for Amiga and ST ports, since it had a nice 2MB chunk of RAM, a frame buffer, and a very fast and friendly blitter (at least for 2D stuff).

The Panther's graphics chip was the predecessor of the Jaguar's Object Processor. The two are very similar in how they operate, although the Panther had a couple of interesting features not in the Jaguar and of course the Jaguar's OP was far more flexible and advanced, and capable of producing many more colors.

 

Probably the best way to think of the Panther is a slightly weaker Sega Genesis that can display larger, zoomable, sprites. The number of on screen colors is limited like the Genesis. Unlike the SNES, there is no rotation (or "Mode 7"), no 256 color palettes, no 15-bit RGB, and no color blending/semi-transparency effects.

 

The graphical tour de force for the Panther would be a game like Afterburner.

 

In terms of CPU power, it should have been somewhat weaker than a Genesis since the CPU could only run while the (bus-hungry) graphics chip was idle. Additionally, the Genesis had 128KB of RAM split 50/50 between the CPU and graphics, while the Panther had only 32KB and was shared between graphics and CPU.

Atari was very focused on making things cheap since the Atari ST (i.e., since the Tramiels). The 32KB limit was part of keeping it cheap. To get into gory details, the object processor required a ton of bandwidth to do its job, so Atari used a 32-bit wide static RAM buffer. More than 32KB of static RAM is too expensive. To supply 512KB would have required dynamic RAM. However, dynamic RAM could not have achieved the needed bandwidth with only 32-bits.

 

The Jaguar solved the Object Processor bandwidth issue using 64-bit dynamic RAM instead of 32-bit static RAM. Just one more reason the Jaguar was a better thought-out design.

Edited July 9, 2009 by kool kitty89

[kool kitty89]

tramiel...serious about the console market....perhaps you want to REREAD the history books (pre atari)

 

2 words...max and ultimax

 

Perhaps, but had it not been for the failure of those things may not have gone the same way with the creation of the C64 perhaps. Also, there are texamples of when game consoles are the wrong option; had Tramiel stayed at Commodore this mistake may not have ever existed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64_Games_System (or perhaps it would have been earlier -enough to still be competitive, and more like the XEGS concept)

 

 

remember that while he was buying atari, atari were planning a 68k 'super console', now even though they lost the amiga to cbm, there was nothing to stop tramiel perhaps doing a 68k console based on the ST (if indeed the ST was as good as he said it was)

 

reason why he didn't do that or go ahead regardless of any court case withg cbm over the amiga and do a 68k 'super console' (or even something based on the ST) is because tramiel had long since demonstrated no interest in gaming systems...and remember that atari only sold existing 2600 inventory during the initial period of tramiel takeover and not put any new systems into production (so as to save costs) and also not consider the 7800, as it would have meant taking resources and financing away from developing and marketing any upcoming atari products (like the st)

 

The console market was shakey at the time so it's at least understandeable to be hesitant, the active work on resurrecting the 2600 Jr. project, also note they released the 2600 Jr. to significant success in fall of 1985 (before Nintendo had "revived" the market, or even before their test market of the NES), this was certainly a factor in finally releasing the 7800. (I think there had also been ongoing negotiations on the terms/conditions of the 7800 contract with GCC)

 

I think a deravitive of the ST as a game console is an interesting idea, though it wouldn't be able to compete technically with the Genesis or SNES in some respects, had it been released early enough it would have had a good head start, or if the suggested 1989 date was taken, the STe is another option. (the blitter making it significantly more compeditive, the added sound hardware is good too, though in either case an additional FM synthesis chip could improve things at reasonalbe cost -especially a lower end one)

 

It probably would have been good to release an ST derivative in place of the XEGS (which was aging rather badly and in more or less direct competition with the 7800). With the ST you'd have a next-gen system, so not a direct compditor with the 7800, and had it beein released in a similar manner as the XEGS in '87 it would have a good head start over the competition and the additional possibility of expansion into a full ST computer. (using the STe would probably make it last longer though, maybe you could push for the blitter and get it out by 1988, though '89 really isnt bad, but you're in direct competition with the TG-16 and Genesis; of course there's the Lynx to suppliment things as well up until the Jaguar)

 

 

If we're talking about a Tramiel owned atari and not something else, an ST/STe derivative would probably be the best option (inless he'd known of Sierra and decided to scrap the ST in favor of that), avoiding haivng too much different hardware out at once. (if you had an additional 16-bit system, youd have that, plus the ST line, plus the 7800, plus the lynx, and that's assuming the 2600 is discontinued a bit earlier and XEGS never existed)

 

 

Also, there are a lot of ways that Atari would have gotten around the crash. Seriously, if Jack Tramiel would have taken the console market seriously back then, I am sure the crash we talk about would have been more of a hiccup, or an event of "taking out the trash".

For that statement to work, one would have to assume that Atari caused the crash. That was not the case.

 

Oversaturating the market and making a vairety of mistakes (not listening to customers' suggestions/complaints, lack of quality control -too much of a "quantity over quality" mentality, among other things including the botched 5200) which weakened the market and caused consumers to begin losing interest. When a company that controls well over 2/3 of the market fails, it's going to take the rest of the market with it. (granted Commodore's actions around the time with their price cutting kind of pushed things over the edge, but all that did was push things over the edge they were on already)

 

On a side note, I think it is interesting that with these "What if" threads (that take place around the time of the crash) they seem to always get into discussions of the hardware specks. As if better hardware would have somehow gotten a video game company through the crash. We already know this wasn't the case. Can anyone say ColecoVision?

 

Perhaps, but that particular example also had to do with poor decisions with the Adam. (had they kept the CV and had a more practical Adam along side, they might have just pulled through, particularly selling through mail order like Mattel did durring/after the crash)

 

As to specs in general, games themselves are important, and features of the hardware to create these effectively make the specs important in that respect (hardware capabilities/features -sprites/scrolling/colors etc, ease of programming, and audio capabilities)

There's also the comparison to contemporaries to show their relative merits and strengths. (whether if they can compete)

There's also the issues of cost and other factors, in the 7800's case it featured 2600 compatibility as well as being inexpensive and simple. (all issues with the 5200) It had it's flaws, and it's really a shame they didn't add a POKEY instead of the on-cartridge route, but still it corrected a good number of issues. (plus MARIA had some nice features, though peculiarities and limitations as well, and even with the TIA, sound was a bit better than on the 2600 -presumably due to additional CPU time)

 

 

The main reason the crash happened was because of over saturation of the gaming market. Too many people were copying each other for the fast buck. The consumer started believing that video game were a fad because of this lack of creativity. Basically, consumers thought this was as good as it got.

 

So, then the thought is, just make better and more original games. That was happening over at Intellivision, and Activision, but too many companies were trying to make the quick buck. Consumers didn't want to pay $30.00 for a game (which was a really good game) when they could buy six games at $5.00 each in the bargain bin (which ended up being crap). Remember, this is before you could rent a game to see if you like it. Back then you had to buy it, and hope of the best.

 

Good points, granted Activision (and IMAGIC) did some copying of their own, but in most cases these turned out as great games and often better than the inspiration. (and in some cases they're more coincidence than copy)

 

Atari (Warner) was the absolute worse though for the oversaturation (both 1st party releases and other companies coming to them for ROM chips, which they had a semi monopoly on -who need lockout?)

 

The NES had many of these issues as well, but Nintendo did have better quality control (granted they had a lot of crap "seal of quality" official games as well, but nothing like Arari, particularly comparing the # of games released to consoles sold; NES had far more consoles and substancially fewer games)

Renting was still pretty new/nonexistant for the early part of the NES's life and Nintendo had sued to keep games form being rented as well. (reviews of games were sparce as well, and companies' own mags were little help due to the biassed nature)

 

No gaming system could have made it through the cash in these circumstances. That is why I stated that even the NES would have died in 1984. The gaming buying public need a break from the scene. It took almost two year before people were willing to open up there wallets to try it again and the NES happen to be at the right place at the right time. Not to mention most people didn't know the name Nintendo as a home console, so it didn't have the connotations that went along with the pre-crash gaming companies.

 

I don't know, as a combo console/comuter system (which had been a prototyped considderation by Nintendo), anyway Nintendo isn't necessarily a good example, they lacked the really original defining games ealry on, in 1984 thy'd have been in little better of a situation than anyone else, and they were unknown to the public, unlike Atari, Coleco, or Mattel. Still it may not have died, jut taken a long time to gain momentum into 1986.

 

Had Atari not been bleeding money as bad as they were, may have ridden things out, particularly with the 7800 addressing many of the problems of the 5200 (low cost, simplicity, backwards compatibility. Of course, this would have meant for Atari/Warner to make better decisions beforehand which may have prevented the crash alltogether. (inless they kept the poor quality practices gennerally, but didn't make the mistakes of ET and Pac Man and other overproduction of their own products -still oversaturation of poor/games in general, but not the severe money costing mistakes of overstock at Atari)

 

Again, Mattel did OK through mail order (though I think this was just selling off old stock, which there was a lot of; I've seen statements of them selling as many Intellivisions post charsh as prior), but Coleco in particular could have made out better with their Adam, had they planned things better. (namely the tape drive decision, and some marketing issues)

Edited July 9, 2009 by kool kitty89

[carmel_andrews]

I think you'll find that the c64gs as well as it's amiga equivalent (the cd32) were nothing to do with tramiel

 

Commodore needed to shore up the 8bit end of the market as it was sagging a bit due mostly to the dominance of nintendo and it needed more games for it's c64 workhorse, the amga cd32 was i guess only released to stave off the inevitable as by then commodore were seriously haemoragging cash big time

 

I guess the 7800 suffered in the same way that the coleco vision and theinteli8vision did...i.e the 7800 after the crash only really sold to existing atari console users and a few stragglers who got lost in the big ninitendo/sega mellee

 

Ultimately though the 7800 was wasted on tramiels Atari, perhaps in a bid to at least make atari's hardware output visible to the consumer, after buying out atari tramiel could have considered a further split (as he wasn't realy into atari's existing product base) i.e allow warners or a 3rd party to keep the existing atari consoles and computers and have that as a sperate unit/division and tramiel just concentrate on the ST (which was his intention all along) that way the 7800 might have succeeded in getting the right number of games (as even in 1984/5 there were still major US games publishers willing to take a gamble on atari) and also decent sales/marketing strategy not forgetting a still useful distribution/dealer or retailer network, and seeming as though atari still had a presence in the US to just keep doing the same as they'd always done and start focusing on getting atari out into the non US markets like europe UK, asia, south america etc

[kool kitty89]

I think you'll find that the c64gs as well as it's amiga equivalent (the cd32) were nothing to do with tramiel

 

Commodore needed to shore up the 8bit end of the market as it was sagging a bit due mostly to the dominance of nintendo and it needed more games for it's c64 workhorse, the amga cd32 was i guess only released to stave off the inevitable as by then commodore were seriously haemoragging cash big time

 

What I meant was perhaps they wouldn't have made the mistake with the C64GS, either never come out with it at all, or made something more like the XGES. (sorry if I rambled a bit in my previous post)

The CD32 was a bit of a different issue as Commodore was attempting to switch to game consoles with their computer market dying. (kind of like with the Jaguar, but more like if Atari had turned the Falcon into a game console) By that time both Atari and Commodore had been basicly pushed out of the computer market.

 

Who knows how things would have gone for both companies if Tramiel had stayed at Commodore, perhaps Commodore would have done better, Atari is rather open ended depending on the scenario you want to set-up, but they certainly could have ended up worse than they did with Tramiel, but possibly better -at least as far as games- with the right circumstances; all huge hypotheticals of course, but less wild than some of the assumptions in the initial topic post of this thread)

 

 

 

I guess the 7800 suffered in the same way that the coleco vision and theinteli8vision did...i.e the 7800 after the crash only really sold to existing atari console users and a few stragglers who got lost in the big ninitendo/sega mellee

 

Even so (and Sega was even weaker than Atari in the US arround this time), the 2600 had a massive user base compared to the other 2, and the 2600 Jr. continued to increase this for the budget market as well. If a significant portion of previous Atair users were to adopt the 7800 over the competition, that's still a good margin, particularly a bit later when the 7800 could shift into the budget market in place of the 2600 Jr. an some newer 2600 adopters could be interested in that as well. (the 7800 didn't do nearly that well though, lack of proper advertizing, some confusing advertizing and labeling "for 2600 and 7800" kinds of things, and lack of developers/software really hurt it)

 

Ultimately though the 7800 was wasted on tramiels Atari, perhaps in a bid to at least make atari's hardware output visible to the consumer, after buying out atari tramiel could have considered a further split (as he wasn't realy into atari's existing product base) i.e allow warners or a 3rd party to keep the existing atari consoles and computers and have that as a sperate unit/division and tramiel just concentrate on the ST (which was his intention all along) that way the 7800 might have succeeded in getting the right number of games (as even in 1984/5 there were still major US games publishers willing to take a gamble on atari) and also decent sales/marketing strategy not forgetting a still useful distribution/dealer or retailer network, and seeming as though atari still had a presence in the US to just keep doing the same as they'd always done and start focusing on getting atari out into the non US markets like europe UK, asia, south america etc

 

An interesting consideration, but I think Warner wanted out at this point and such a deal would (practically speaking) mean Warner would still be keeping some of the debt of the consumer devision. (if you're going to take on all that debt you're going to want your money's worth)

 

I do suppose there are some scenarios that this may have been possible in, but that would require Warner to still be interestid in keeping parts of the consumer devision. (I don't know the specifics on this) Perhaps some deal where Tramiel gets all the computer hardware devision stuff (8-bit line, other projects, staff, etc) and Warner keeps the videogame portion, but still, it seems like Tramiel was mainly interested in having the Atari brand name to use (not even particularly interested in Atari's computer projects, otherwise he may have taken more interest in things like Sierra before firing the developers) But it really seems like Warner just wanted out, and would have preferred the hisorical deal than something like Tramiel taking on a significant portion of the debt just for branding. (particularly as I doubt it would have been anthing like 1/2 of Atari's debt just for branding, maybe for the entire computer hardware sections; honestly there seems to have been a number of interesting projects that were in line with what Jack wanted to do, perhaps if he'd just taken the computer portions he'd have scrutinized things more closely before scrapping them or firing the designers)

 

Ten again, leaving Warner with parts of the consumer devision could possibly create unwanted competition for Tramiel, even if he took all the computer stuff and there was some kind of agreement that Warner-Atari wasn't to sell home computer hardware (software would be a different issue), Atari's game consoles could cut into the gaming portions of the computer market. Then again it may have been more advantageous to have this competition as well, as Warner-Atari's game market would cut in on Commodore's (with gaming being a rather significant portion of the C64's interest), especially if Tramiel didn't particularly care about the ST being a highly competitive gaming machine. (which is pretty feasible)

OTOH, if there was an agreement that Warner-Atari wouldn't sell home computers, then the computer/keyboard add-on for the 7800 would probably have to be scrapped, or licenced by (Tramiel's) Atair Corp. which could get messy.