7800 - what did Atari wrong?

[Rex Dart]

Atari 5200 needed 16kb RAM because it used bitmap graphics.

SMS needed 16kb VRAM because it couldn't read graphics tiles directly from cartridge, it had to copy it to cartridge first.

4kb RAM was enough for Atari 7800 and NES because they could read graphics data directly from cartridge.

 

I don't know that the ability to draw on the screen is enough to declare 4k of RAM to be "enough"...

[+wood_jl]

How would a competition between the 7800 & NES be worse than a competition between the 7800, NES, and 2600? At least you wouldn't have the 2600 sucking sales away.

 

The 2600 wasn't sucking sales away, it was generating sales. It was an Atari, generating sales for Atari, so how is that sucking sales away? It was the cheaper option. You may not agree on cheaper options (perhaps you drive a Lexus or Cadillac and scoff at Toyotas and Chevrolets) but there's always a cheaper option, and it frequently sells. PS2 is still available; is it "sucking sales away" from Sony?

 

Nintendo was smart, recently, to basically discontinue their Gameboy Advance when the backwards-compatible DS launched. The DS probably would've taken a path similar to the 7800 if they'd tried to sell the cheap option & the backwards-compatible expensive option simultaneously.

 

Different time. Different category (handheld). Different market. There are way too many variables and differences to make a meaningful comparison between 2600 and 7800 sales with those of Gameboy Advance and DS 20-something years later. I've noticed that the DS Lite is still for sale. It's the cheaper alternative to the DSi, DSi XL and upcoming 3DS. Is it "sucking sales away?" From Sony, perhaps.

[+wood_jl]

Yes, that´s exactly my point... why keep selling the 2600 console? I mean, okay, in 1987 it was okay, but 1 year after introducing the new console (and hardware prices getting lower) it definately would have made sense not to produce the console anymore... And as far as I remember, at least around 1989/90 the price difference between the 2600 and 7800 were only a few bucks and the 7800 was much cheaper than the NES... Caused to this fact I got one from my parents back then...

 

Opinions, price differences, religious beliefs, philosophies.....no matter. It makes sense to continue to sell a product when there is consumer demand (it's selling) and generating profits for the company. It does not make sense when it no longer generates a profit. If they were taking a loss on each 2600, then it would not make sense to produce it anymore. I have a feeling they were not taking a loss on each 2600.

[svenski]

The 2600 was a seller, it made a profit and as long as it did Atari were going to keep selling it. The Vic-20 was equally as stubborn a seller for Commodore, until they quietly killed it off and brought out the C16.

 

The XES was partly a result of feedback from Atari's main retailers who if they had to choose between a new low cost computer or console said they'd plump for a console. The XES was the best of both worlds and wasn't the result of Atari having a load of 8-bit computers left in stock. The XES was a new case, redesigned motherboard with composite outputs, changes to ROM etc, which would have required more than a tiny investment.

 

I wouldn't slate the XES as a major problem for the 7800 either. It made (some) sense for Atari to breath some new life into the 8-bit line and sell something that could benefit from a huge back catalog of titles.

 

A lot of Atari's woes came from timing - the period of uncertainty when Atari was being reorganised - only to be sold to JT, the time it took for JT and co to re-organise the company, go through what they'd "inherited", work on new lines, sort out finances etc.

[jd_1138]

I wouldn't slate the XES as a major problem for the 7800 either. It made (some) sense for Atari to breath some new life into the 8-bit line and sell something that could benefit from a huge back catalog of titles.

 

 

If were a parent in the late 80's, and my choice was between an XEGS 8 bit computer/console, NES, SMS, and the 7800, my kids would get the XEGS so they could also use it as a computer. They could learn BASIC programming, use it to word process, and play that great catalog of 8 bit Atari video games.

[Phredreeke]

Anyone notice anything strange here?

 

[DracIsBack]

Bah. It needed it, and the system wasn't very expensive to begin with.

 

 

you sure about that ...?

 

 

Some game carts included additional RAM & didn't cost ungodly amounts.

 

 

The games that included 16K were the epyx titles ... they were like twice the price of the other games.

 

 

The 7800 got old arcade ports because that's what Atari thought people wanted.

 

In 1984, yes. The Tramiels didn't think that way, as Marty has brought forth. In fact, they launched a lawsuit to deal with that.

[Rex Dart]

How would a competition between the 7800 & NES be worse than a competition between the 7800, NES, and 2600? At least you wouldn't have the 2600 sucking sales away.

 

The 2600 wasn't sucking sales away, it was generating sales. It was an Atari, generating sales for Atari, so how is that sucking sales away? It was the cheaper option. You may not agree on cheaper options (perhaps you drive a Lexus or Cadillac and scoff at Toyotas and Chevrolets) but there's always a cheaper option, and it frequently sells. PS2 is still available; is it "sucking sales away" from Sony?

 

It wasn't generating 7800 sales, which is what we're talking about here. The PS2 is indeed sucking PS3 sales away from Sony.

Nintendo was smart, recently, to basically discontinue their Gameboy Advance when the backwards-compatible DS launched. The DS probably would've taken a path similar to the 7800 if they'd tried to sell the cheap option & the backwards-compatible expensive option simultaneously.

 

Different time. Different category (handheld). Different market. There are way too many variables and differences to make a meaningful comparison between 2600 and 7800 sales with those of Gameboy Advance and DS 20-something years later. I've noticed that the DS Lite is still for sale. It's the cheaper alternative to the DSi, DSi XL and upcoming 3DS. Is it "sucking sales away?" From Sony, perhaps.

 

 

Time and assumed category are irrelevant. The market is the same. The DS lite did indeed take at least one DSi sale away from Nintendo; mine.

[svenski]

You can argue that the PS2 is "sucking away" sales from the PS3 but, realistically, how many people who had the cash would buy a PS2 today over a PS3?

 

The PS2 is now a budget console, largely bought by people who can't afford or don't want to spend the big bucks on a PS3, and the PS2 probably is at a good price point to sell into emerging markets, places where people could never afford to buy a PS3 at today's prices.

 

Is the PS2 sucking away sales? Not really, it is capturing sales in a different end of the market and buyers become brand aware and (hopefully) when they have the ways and means and desires to outlay cash on something like the PS3 then they'll go down the PS3 route.

 

The same analogy can be applied to car manufacturers. Why do they have a selection of different models with different specs, trim levels and prices? Because we don't all want the same thing nor can afford the same thing. For the car giants it makes sense to try and capture parts of every different market segment rather than ignoring most of them and just selling one model.

[raskar42]

You can argue that the PS2 is "sucking away" sales from the PS3 but, realistically, how many people who had the cash would buy a PS2 today over a PS3?

 

me. just don't see the need to upgrade - no games really appealed to me yet, not to the degree of buying a whole new console. plus they are still making ps2 games. played ghostbusters and force unleased on ps2 and they were great.

[Phredreeke]

You can argue that the PS2 is "sucking away" sales from the PS3 but, realistically, how many people who had the cash would buy a PS2 today over a PS3?

 

me. just don't see the need to upgrade - no games really appealed to me yet, not to the degree of buying a whole new console. plus they are still making ps2 games. played ghostbusters and force unleased on ps2 and they were great.

 

Yes, but if the PS2 wasn't available, would you buy a PS3 or a cheaper Wii or 360?

[raskar42]

You can argue that the PS2 is "sucking away" sales from the PS3 but, realistically, how many people who had the cash would buy a PS2 today over a PS3?

 

me. just don't see the need to upgrade - no games really appealed to me yet, not to the degree of buying a whole new console. plus they are still making ps2 games. played ghostbusters and force unleased on ps2 and they were great.

 

Yes, but if the PS2 wasn't available, would you buy a PS3 or a cheaper Wii or 360?

 

i'd go ps3

[+save2600]

Anyone notice anything strange here?

 

 

 

7800 splash screen (I forgot what the XEGS looks like at boot) and/or is that a Commodore 1702 monitor? Too bad Atari didn't have their own composite monitors. Or monitors that supported both RGB and composite. Surprised they didn't!

 

BTW: they sure do have that XEGS parked unnaturally close to the monitors. Where are the cables?? My money says a different Atari system is responsible for that display. lol

[Phredreeke]

i'd go ps3

 

Well, one might argue that since you're not intending on buying PS3 games, they are getting a better deal selling you a PS2 (since they have better profit margins on that console)

[Lynxpro]

The 7800 got old arcade ports because that's what Atari thought people wanted. The best early Nintendo games weren't arcade ports, they were original. There was no Metroid or Zelda franchise at the time for Nintendo to "snatch up"; they came up with them & Atari's developers could have done the same if the company would've encouraged it.

 

 

Super Mario Bros., Excite Bike, Duck Hunt, Hogan's Alley, and even the original version of Punch Out! were all Nintendo arcade ports.

 

 

Yes, but the 7800 could do everything a 2600 could do. They should have axed the 2600 -console- and made sure that people knew that the 7800 was backwards compatible. At that point anyone who needed a replacement 2600 would have picked up the 7800 because it would have been the only option. With the 7800 having a pack-in game that at least showed the 7800 could do a lot more than the 2600, it might have set more people up to look for actual 7800 games. (Although they definitely should have avoided the "For the 2600 and 7800" garbage, although to be fair I saw that coming more from the unlicensed 3rd parties like Activision, which they probably couldn't do much about.)

 

 

When I was playing the emulator on my friend's Wii, I couldn't believe how bad Rampage and Double Dragon were on the 7800. I don't remember them being that bad back in the day but the sound was atrocious [due to the lack of the Pokey chip] and I can't imagine the graphics were better than the NES versions [although in fairness, there was no 2 player mode on the NES for DD]. Even Xenophobe was a rather bad port too [i don't remember the Lynx version being bad]. If I recall, Xenophobe was published by Atari but DD and Rampage were published by Activision.

 

 

 

Anyone notice anything strange here?

 

 

 

7800 splash screen (I forgot what the XEGS looks like at boot) and/or is that a Commodore 1702 monitor? Too bad Atari didn't have their own composite monitors. Or monitors that supported both RGB and composite. Surprised they didn't!

 

BTW: they sure do have that XEGS parked unnaturally close to the monitors. Where are the cables?? My money says a different Atari system is responsible for that display. lol

 

 

You mean XEGS carts didn't have the same splash screen as the 7800 titles? If that's the case, I'm rather surprised the Tramiels didn't "recycle" it.

 

Wasn't there an Atari [Corp.] branded composite monitor in Europe? That's actually something that surprised me about Atari Inc. during the 400/800/XL days...why they were so content to have Atari 8-bit owners buy composite monitors from Commodore and Philips which were both competitors [Commodore computers and Magnavox Odyssey, etc.]. To think Atari Corp. later discussed marketing Atari branded television sets around the time they started selling Atari branded calculators.

 

 

As for the 2600 vs. 7800 argument, I think it would be fitting to suggest that Atari should've continued selling the 2600 as long as they could but not allocate precious development dollars on titles for it at the expense of the 7800. As for 7800 vs. XEGS development dollars, unless I am mistaken, there wasn't much development dollars necessary to take already existing Atari 8-bit disk based games and "convert" them to cartridge versions. In fact, that might be one of the reasons why Atari was gung-ho about the XEGS; they got to recycle and repackage content whereas converting those very same titles to the 7800 would have been another expense. Furthermore, this is probably why the Tramiels opted to cancel the 7800's expansion port...they probably concluded that if a consumer wanted a computer keyboard they should just buy the XEGS. That seems like a sure fit considering their hyped - at the time - logic of color coding anything with the 8-bit computer line in red and products related to the Atari ST line were to be colored blue. They actually thought this would differentiate products successfully in mass market outlets and they actually bragged about this in Atari Explorer magazine [although I think Antic/STart ridiculed it] that such retailers wouldn't need to have knowledgeable sales staff because of it.

 

Regarding left over 8-bit parts as the reason for the XEGS, perhaps Atari had leftover custom and RAM chips that had been allocated for the 65XE that wasn't selling so well at the time and they opted to repackage that with the redesigned mobo for the XEGS. The other reason for the XEGS was to shore up the Atari 8-bit line to increase the user base since software publishers were looking for any excuse to dump the Atari 8-bit line because of the alleged rampant piracy on the platform [even if there were far more C64 owners who were software pirates]...

[Lynxpro]

I'm rather curious if anyone believes the AMY chip could have been added to the 7800 via either the Expansion port or via the cartridges themselves [a la the Pokey]...

[8th lutz]

I had no problem with Atari completing Atari 2600 that started to be worked in 1984 and were completed later in the 1980's since it made perfect sense to sell the 2600. The problem was the games Atari started for the 2600 in 1987

 

Here are the games that Atari shouldn't developed for the 2600 and the development money should went the 7800 instead:

 

• Cracked (game was a prototype for 2600, but was released for 7800)
  
• Crossbow (Game was also released on 7800)
  
• Dark Chambers (game was released for the 7800 also)
  
• Desert Falcon (game wasn't work for the 2600 in 1984, but the 7800 version was)
  
• Double Dunk (2600 only game)
  
• Fatal Run (Game also released on 7800)
  
• Ikari Warriors (game also released for 7800)
  
• Klax (prototype game for 7800)
  
• Motordeo (game was released for 2600 in 1990)
  
• Off the Wall (2600 only game released in 1989)
  
• Rador Lock (2600 only game released in 1989)
  
• Save Marry (2600 prototype game in 1990)
  
• Sentinel (game was also released 7800 overseas)
  
• Secret Quest (2600 only game)
  
• Shooting Arcade (2600 prototype game in 1989)
  
• Sprint Master (2600 only game)
  
• Super Baseball (2600 only game)
  
• Super Football (2600 only game)
  
• Xenophobe (also released for Atari 7800)
  

 

Some of the 2600 games would have been great help for the 7800 game library for Sports and Racing games in Double Dunk, Motordeo, Super Sprint, and Super Football. Rador Lock would have fixed a big void the 7800 had in After Burner Style games. Secret Quest would helped the 7800 big time for the adventure game genre. Save Marry, and Shooting arcade would have been good for more light gun games for the system. Off the Wall would have been a good addition for breakout style games for the 7800.

Edited February 3, 2011 by 8th lutz

[8th lutz]

I had no problem with Atari completing Atari 2600 that started to be worked in 1984 and were completed later in the 1980's since it made perfect sense to sell the 2600. The problem was the games Atari started for the 2600 in 1987

 

Here are the games that Atari shouldn't developed for the 2600 and the development money should went the 7800 instead:

 

• Crack'ed (game was a prototype for 2600, but was released for 7800)
  
• Crossbow (Game was also released on 7800)
  
• Dark Chambers (game was released for the 7800 also)
  
• Desert Falcon (game wasn't work for the 2600 in 1984, but the 7800 version was)
  
• Double Dunk (2600 only game)
  
• Fatal Run (Game also released on 7800)
  
• Ikari Warriors (game also released for 7800)
  
• Klax (2600 game released in pal, and a prototype game for 7800)
  
• Motordeo (game was released for 2600 in 1990)
  
• Off the Wall (2600 only game released in 1989)
  
• Rador Lock (2600 only game released in 1989)
  
• Save Marry (2600 prototype game in 1990)
  
• Sentinel (game was also released 7800 overseas)
  
• Secret Quest (2600 only game)
  
• Shooting Arcade (2600 prototype game in 1989)
  
• Sprint Master (2600 only game)
  
• Super Baseball (2600 only game)
  
• Super Football (2600 only game)
  
• Xenophobe (also released for Atari 7800)
  

 

Some of the 2600 games would have been great help for the 7800 game library for Sports and Racing games in Double Dunk, Motordeo, Super Sprint, and Super Football. Rador Lock would have fixed a big void the 7800 had in After Burner Style games. Secret Quest would helped the 7800 big time for the adventure game genre. Save Marry, and Shooting arcade would have been good for more light gun games for the system. Off the Wall would have been a good addition for breakout style games for the 7800.

The 2600 the same games on the 7800 in some case. Games I listed were games that weren't even in prototype form back in 1984. The money spent in Development in the 2600 versions of Crossbow and Dark Chambers would have been better off going 7800 game development for Super Mario Bros. style game, and Zelda Style game. Scrapyard Dog and Midnight Mutants came too late being the first Super Mario Bros. style game and a Zelda Style game for the 7800. A Zelda Style game and Super Mario Bros game in 1988 could have made a better impact for the 7800 instead of 1990. Scrapyard Dog and Midnight Mutants would have been the 2nd game of the Super Mario Bros style genre & Zelda style game genre.

 

The 7800 didn't get a Super Mario Bros style game, and Zelda Style game too late in its life. The money spent for Dark Chambers, and Crossbow would have solved that problem. Money for development for 2600 versions of Crack'ed, Desert Falcon, and Ikari Warriors could have went to 7800 development for Failsafe, Boulder Dash Style game and a contra style game for 7800 for an example instead.

 

Fatal Run, Klax, Sentinel, and Xenophobe were released for the 2600 in 1990 for North America, or were pal only games. The development money Atari spent on 2600 versions of Fatal Fun, Klax, Sentinel, and Xenophobe could have went into 7800 game development for Captain Skyhawk style game, R-Type style, Bomberman style game, and Pinball game.

[+wood_jl]

The problem with this thread - and so many similar ones.....is that everybody is an armchair CEO with 25-years of hindsight, and they think the answer is SOOOOOO SIMPLE that they just figured out exactly where the Tramiels went wrong, and that it was all their fault. Is that even possible?

Edited February 3, 2011 by wood_jl

[Mord]

Yes, but the 7800 could do everything a 2600 could do. They should have axed the 2600 -console- and made sure that people knew that the 7800 was backwards compatible. At that point anyone who needed a replacement 2600 would have picked up the 7800 because it would have been the only option.

Not necessarily. The 2600 was the cheap option. If that cheaper option was not available, they would either have to do without a video game console or choose between the more expensive options at which point they could just as likely have chosen to buy the NES instead.

 

Keep in mind that the 7800 sold for like 20 bucks more than the 2600 at the time. We're not talking a difference in price between a PS2 and PS3. (100 vs 300+) At such a small difference in cost, just about anyone able to get a 2600 was able to get a 7800 just as easily. And the NES was much more expensive than the 7800 from what I recall.

[jbanes]

To throw my hat in the ring...

 

The #1 problem was timing. The 7800 was designed to be a Mofo at arcade games. For when it was designed, it was extremely powerful hardware for home use. Had the home market been interested in playing arcade games at home, the 7800 could have gone on to sport a number of fancy, high-color arcade games from the late 80's. Some of the best Shoot'em Ups of all time were made in the late 80's and would have been more than enough to keep the 7800 in games.

 

The problem is that by the time the 7800 hit the market, Nintendo had already changed it at a fundamental level. The games that players wanted to play didn't look anything like arcade games. Computer games were closer, but they still didn't cut the mustard. The dominant genre was side-scrolling platformers - which couldn't have been a worse match for the 7800 if they had tried!

 

If history had been written a bit differently, Atari would have never released the 7800 when it did. Instead, it would have scrapped the project and gone on to create something more competitive for the home market.

 

Which brings me to problem #2: Atari didn't invest in first party games. I mean, it simply wasn't in their culture. (Before and after Tramiel.) They gave a programmer a limited amount of time and budget and told them to create a game. With little thought paid to the quality, they then shipped it. Nintendo transistioned the industry over to thinking in terms of teams with a game designer laying out a vision and overseeing the quality of the product. IF Atari had somehow gotten around the timing problem, they would have had to invest heavily in first-party titles to compete.

 

Only after those issues do we get to the various other factors. The hardware is easily #3 on the list. For all the power of the system, it was mostly theoretical. Actually programming for the 7800 was a bloody mess. (Kind of the same problem Atari would have with the Jaguar several years later.) The 5200 ended up superior to the 7800 in a number of ways, not the least of which was that programmers had an easier time squeezing the results they wanted out of it. The fact that the hardware was more generic helped as well.

 

I think the POKEY issue gets overblown a bit. Yes, it sounds better. Yes, customers care about sound. No, you can't put sound on the back of a box. And the NES wasn't exactly pumping out high fidelity digital symphonies, so the issue probably wasn't as big as many people make it out to be.

 

The joysticks, however...

 

Atari invented the home console joystick. They seemed to think that made them masters at figuring out what was a good controller and what wasn't. (The XEGS commercial is case in point. "Play with a real joystick?" As if it was a feature!) Yet as we follow Atari's history with joysticks, they seem to get progressively worse. The 7800 was by far the poorest excuse for a joystick in history. The long neck combined with the thin body was nothing but a recipe for players to fight with their own torque. The fact that the "world champion" game players looked like dorks using them didn't help.

 

All in all, the 7800 was the wrong console at the wrong time trying to reach the wrong market. It never stood a chance, which is why it's no surprise that it's barely a footnote in history. Or to put it another way, the 7800 was to the NES what the Game.com was to the GameBoy.

[+wood_jl]

I think the POKEY issue gets overblown a bit. Yes, it sounds better. Yes, customers care about sound. No, you can't put sound on the back of a box. And the NES wasn't exactly pumping out high fidelity digital symphonies, so the issue probably wasn't as big as many people make it out to be.

 

Good points you make. But I don't think the POKEY issue can be overblown, though. NES wasn't a Commodore 64 sound-wise, but its sound was roughly on-par with POKEY-type sounds. If the sound wasn't utterly disappointing, there never would have been plans to put POKEYs in cartridges, then. The 7800 should have done *everything* at least as well as a 5200, or it's going to be disappointing in whatever regard it fails to, right? I mean, we do expect video games - and their underlying technology - to continually improve, or at least not backslide, right?

 

The joysticks, however...

 

Atari invented the home console joystick. They seemed to think that made them masters at figuring out what was a good controller and what wasn't. (The XEGS commercial is case in point. "Play with a real joystick?" As if it was a feature!) Yet as we follow Atari's history with joysticks, they seem to get progressively worse. The 7800 was by far the poorest excuse for a joystick in history. The long neck combined with the thin body was nothing but a recipe for players to fight with their own torque. The fact that the "world champion" game players looked like dorks using them didn't help.

 

Ha ha, I agree with your criticism of the joystick, but it's not the poorest in history. Although I dislike them, I'd take a 7800 joystick any day over a Coleco or 5200.

[GroovyBee]

The dominant genre was side-scrolling platformers - which couldn't have been a worse match for the 7800 if they had tried!

 

After writing three scrolling homebrew games (2 of them scroll in all 4 directions) I can't agree with this statement. The 7800 is easily capable of doing scrolling in all directions.

 

For all the power of the system, it was mostly theoretical. Actually programming for the 7800 was a bloody mess. (Kind of the same problem Atari would have with the Jaguar several years later.) The 5200 ended up superior to the 7800 in a number of ways, not the least of which was that programmers had an easier time squeezing the results they wanted out of it. The fact that the hardware was more generic helped as well.

 

I agree that the 7800 was never pushed much back its day. However, I don't find the 7800 hard to program. Any game is always a trade off between the resources available and what you what it to do. If the 7800 is so lacking in prowess how is that I've developed six games in "C" on it? We all know about the overhead of "C" programs .

[DracIsBack]

Good points you make. But I don't think the POKEY issue can be overblown, though.

 

I do relative to the way some weigh it's role in the 7800's success or lack thereof.

 

I've seen people say, "the 7800 failed because it had an old old sound chip that was just like the 2600!"

 

It failed because most consumers didn't know what one was (see "lack of marketing"), couldn't buy one (see "lack of retail clout", "competition with other Atari systems for shelf space", and "Nintendo dominating shelves and bullying retailers"), and couldn't find the hot arcade games of the time on it (see "Nintendo exclusivity contracts", "Tramiel chincing on dev costs" and "Tramiel chincing on manufacturing costs").

 

It would have been nice to have a POKEY, but I think it amounts to little in the grand scheme of things. Back in the "day", when friends came to play my 7800 they'd notice the sound briefly but focused on things like "why are the games so short?", and "does this have Castlevania"?

 

 

Atari invented the home console joystick. They seemed to think that made them masters at figuring out what was a good controller and what wasn't. (

 

Data point of 1, but I always found this was something that Atari kind of sucked at.

 

I hated the 7800 controller, but learned to live with it. Reality is that I felt the same way about the 2600/XE and 5200 controllers too. I didn't mind the Jaguar controller, but a lot of people hated it too. Even the joypad seems a little off and uncomfortable to me.

 

 

The 7800 was by far the poorest excuse for a joystick in history.

 

Didn't know you had a chance to try every joystick in history. I'd take it over the Intellivision "side buttons that destroyed my thumbs" controller any day. But I agree ... you shouldn't have to 'learn to live with' a joystick. I did.

Edited February 3, 2011 by DracIsBack

[Atarifever]

we can thank Rupert Murdoch

That's a policy I generally apply to everything. If there's something wrong in the world, usually it's his fault.