7800 - A Pre- or Post-Crash Console?

[DracIsBack]

All you need for evidence of that was the 7800's sound chip...

 

Except for the fact that the 7800 was deliberately designed to have an advanced chip in cartridge. It had a TIA on-board for backwards compatibility, but GCC designed the machine so that additional sound could be put in cartridge. POKEY was done out of the gate, but a low cost, high performance successor called GUMBY was in the works.

 

Whether you agree with the strategy of having it in cart or not, the fact remains that they most definitely were thinking about it.

 

by 1987, Atari was just cashing out, and had no strategy for moving forward with gaming

 

If that were the case, they wouldn't have hired Mike Katz to run their game division, wouldn't have released the XEGS, wouldn't have released the Lynx and wouldn't have released the Jaguar. Nor would there have been new 7800 games in 1988, 1989 and 1990 that were more advanced than what they released in 1986/7. They also wouldn't have bothered to go to court against Nintendo.

 

The 7800 was advertising the fact that it could play 2600 games...

 

Because they had a user-base of twenty-odd million target customers to upgrade to the new machine and it was a competitive differentiator.

[Retro Rogue]

If that were the case, they wouldn't have hired Mike Katz to run their game division, wouldn't have released the XEGS, wouldn't have released the Lynx and wouldn't have released the Jaguar. Nor would there have been new 7800 games in 1988, 1989 and 1990 that were more advanced than what they released in 1986/7. They also wouldn't have bothered to go to court against Nintendo.

 

Not to mention the 16-bit ST based game console they were already researching in '87, which gave way to the Panther and then the Jaguar.

 

I really think Jaynz just likes trolling his thoughts without doing much actual research. In that last post alone, he's confused two differnet Atari's, the fact that GCC designed the 7800, all the actual design methodology that you pointed out, and clearly missunderstood the reasoning behind the importance of the 7800's backwards compatibility. For later consoles, this feature was also important to advertise.

 

[Jaynz]

Way to get personal there, Retro.

 

I get it, you're a fan of the Atari 7800 and feel no compunction to personally attack people in the name of defending your console. Oddly, though, it's actualy quickly becoming on my my favorite consoles as well (I didn't own one 'back in the day', having gone from the Colecovision to the Nintendo). What's odd is that you insist that I have some odd 'axe to grind' about the console, and that it really really was a mega-hit that kept Atari going for the next 30 years and crushed Nintendo or something and that everyone else lives in a complete fantasy where the 7800 solidly LOST that console war.

 

The 7800 was never marketed well, it make little sense to advertise it's backwards compatibility from a system people had already abandoned by that time (1987 had NO demand for the 2600 assortment), the sound chip issue - which could have easily been rectified by putting a default Pokey in 1987 was a HUGE negative against the system, and Atari was plagued with half-assed decisions up until it put itself out of business.

 

Atari put out the 7800. I don't GIVE a flying fuck that GCC designed the system, as that - in this case - is a completely unimportant detail. Atari green-lit it, put their name and company reputation on it, and promptly did a bad marketing campaign, focused on games now 7 years past their prime, and woefully underspent selling the console during both of its releases. A pity, yes, but to pretend otherwise out of some woefully misguided sense of brand loyalty is ludicrous.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Jaynz

[Atarifever]

I really think Jaynz just likes trolling his thoughts without doing much actual research.

I don't think he's trolling, just misunderstanding. Trolls, and I have dealt with a couple real ones, don't actually respond with anything new. They just argue that you are dumb despite themselves being clearly wrong. Jaynz is wrong, but he tries new avenues of argument, making him simply misinformed.

 

For example, in his last post he argued backwards compatibility was an outdated feature. That's simply wrong. See, that was a new feature (out of the box backwards compatibility). Previous systems needed an add on to do that. Most future systems would have this feature (the 32X, PS2, Xbox 360, Wii, Wii U, PS3, etc.). Pretty much all future systems going forward will have this feature. That makes it a forward looking feature. That argues the opposite of Jaynz's point. When something you introduce in 1984/1986 will be in a new Nintendo system released November 2012, how does that make you backwards looking?

 

Also, of course, Nintendo and Sega didn't have this feature back then because, well, what would they have been backwards compatible with? Their first forays into the North American market could hardly have been "out of the box" compatible with their non-existent previous North American consoles, could they?

 

Also, note that a) Nintendo didn't use backwards compatibility in consoles until the GC 2) Nintendo's most successful line ever (launched after the 7800), their handheld line, has always had this feature and has always benefited from it and 3) Nintendo was going to add this feature the first chance they got (going from NES to SNES) but didn't, but had some of their SNES design decisions dictated by this.

 

Looks like trying to push BC on the Atari's was pretty forward looking, and Nintendo simply didn't because they couldn't.

 

 

Also, that response shows its stripes as a Wikipedia generation type response with the quote "and to a lesser extent Sega." I see that side note added about the Master System all the time. It is based on nothing. How exactly was the system with the, arguably, better specs, the generally bigger sprites, the ports of 16 bit games, the really good 3D glasses (including 3D gun games), and two media types looking toward the future "to a lesser extent" than the NES? We're only doing 3D games NOW. Nintendo didn't do it for nearly a decade later. the two media types were designed to allow differential game price points, which we are just getting again NOW. How exactly is that being forward lookign "to a lesser extent?" It isn't. It's just one of those wikipedia generation side quotes about the SMS vs. NES. you always basically say "Nintendo, and to a lesser extent Sega" because that;s in the wikipedia generation style guide or something.

[Atarifever]

In my last post I pulled a Buzz from "Home Alone." I won't even fix it because it is so funny to me. If you know the movie, you'll get it right away.

[Jaynz]

Except for the fact that the 7800 was deliberately designed to have an advanced chip in cartridge. It had a TIA on-board for backwards compatibility, but GCC designed the machine so that additional sound could be put in cartridge. POKEY was done out of the gate, but a low cost, high performance successor called GUMBY was in the works.

 

Even if they did it deliberately it was a BAD decision. Simple as that. When the console shipped, both times, it sounded like a machine from 7 to 12 years ago rather than a NEW gaming machine. The only way that gambit would have worked is if EVERY 7800 game came out with a Pokey, or Gumpy, on board - which would have then begged the question "Why not put the bloody thing in the console in the first place?" But they didn't, and most of the 7800 lineup sounded like 2600 games. I remember the commericial showing the NES Donkey Kong with the 7800 one. It was painful.

 

If that were the case, they wouldn't have hired Mike Katz to run their game division, wouldn't have released the XEGS, wouldn't have released the Lynx and wouldn't have released the Jaguar. Nor would there have been new 7800 games in 1988, 1989 and 1990 that were more advanced than what they released in 1986/7. They also wouldn't have bothered to go to court against Nintendo.

 

Each of which had a half-ass job someone along the line, undermining the 'could have been' every time. I understand the reasons, but there's a reason that Atari went under and Nintendo did not.

 

Because they had a user-base of twenty-odd million target customers to upgrade to the new machine and it was a competitive differentiator.

 

In 1984 you could make the argument due to the Colecovision's add-on being so successful. But in 1987, it looked like an anemeic selling point, particularly since there wasn't a lot of people asking for those old games. They either still had an Atari 2600 (which you could buy NEW for $20 at that point), or they had moved on to the C-64 or something similar. Atari's marketing this as a key feature (while also selling the 2600jr at $79.99 when $20 2600's hadn't cleared off the shelves yet) was a collosal misstep.

[Jaynz]

For example, in his last post he argued backwards compatibility was an outdated feature. That's simply wrong.

 

By 1987, no one saw a need to 'keep the old library' for the 2600 games. In 1984 it was a good idea, but it was NOT a good idea in 1987 to remind everyone (particularly retailers and distributors) why the video-game crash happened in the first place. If we had seen a smooth transition between the 2600, 5200, to 7800, it would have made more sense. The transition between the PS1-PS2 and PS2-PS3 eras didn't have a 'North American market crash' to muddle the situation.

 

Also, that response shows its stripes as a Wikipedia generation type response with the quote "and to a lesser extent Sega."

 

I'm ten years your senior, son. The SMS was a fairly nice system, but Sega didn't push it as hard as Nintendo was doing. You keep focusing on the 'tech details' of the console, but that's not what determined who won that particular race. Sega, unlike Atari, learned their lessons and came back super-strong with the Genesis, remember? Nintendo's system wasn't the strongest it could be, but Nintendo of Japan and Nintendo of America made damn sure it was the one everyone was playing. Sega struggled, and Atari came into the field with its head between its knees and walking backwards.

[Atarifever]

The 7800 was never marketed well, it make little sense to advertise it's backwards compatibility from a system people had already abandoned by that time (1987 had NO demand for the 2600 assortment),

 

Jaynz, I'm sorry, but I think you're new here, right? This has all been examined much more in depth than you are going right now. Curt posted the actual (as in the real, from Aatri's real, actual, physical, tangible, holds in his hands) really, really, really real, on paper, sales numbers for the 2600 games post 1986. he posted those here years ago. We've all looked at them. I personally made an Excel file of them for a computer so long ago I don't even own it anymore.

 

The post 1986 2600 game sales were amazing. For really reals. In reality. Planet Earth. Location Solar system. In the Universe.

 

Sorry, but when you say things like "no one wanted 2600 stuff" to people who have seen the real, actual sales numbers, you're not winning. you're just Wikipediaing stuff up here. Don't do that.

[Atarifever]

I'm ten years your senior, son. The SMS was a fairly nice system, but Sega didn't push it as hard as Nintendo was doing. You keep focusing on the 'tech details' of the console, but that's not what determined who won that particular race. Sega, unlike Atari, learned their lessons and came back super-strong with the Genesis, remember? Nintendo's system wasn't the strongest it could be, but Nintendo of Japan and Nintendo of America made damn sure it was the one everyone was playing. Sega struggled, and Atari came into the field with its head between its knees and walking backwards.

Didn't say you weren't. Like the age of Aquarius, we are living in the Wikipedia generation. Nothing to do with your age, just your mentality.

[Atarifever]

Here you go:

http://www.atariage....00-sales-86-90/

 

Well over 1 million software units sold in 1986, nearly 3.5 million in 1987, and nearly 3 million in 1988 if I recall correctly. Given the general software numbers moved by consoles at the time and the 2600 being a decade old, those numbers are incredible. To put it in perspective, it looks like a lot of the Wii games released this year for a system with a much, much, much higher install base, which is younger, in a market with a lot more money to spend, are hitting numbers similar to those.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Atarifever

[Jaynz]

Jaynz, I'm sorry, but I think you're new here, right? This has all been examined much more in depth than you are going right now. Curt posted the actual (as in the real, from Aatri's real, actual, physical, tangible, holds in his hands) really, really, really real, on paper, sales numbers for the 2600 games post 1986. he posted those here years ago. We've all looked at them. I personally made an Excel file of them for a computer so long ago I don't even own it anymore.

 

The Atari 2600 sales were largely due to clearing-house prices. I was there. I saw them lined up in the Children's Palaces, Toys R Us, etc., of the time. The 2600jr sales were virtually non-existant because there was so much stock left of the classic 2600 for a much cheaper price. Carts sell-thru was also due to clearing-house prices. No one was buying Midnight Magic, Jr. Pac Man, or Crazy Climber in 1987 for $40 a cart. By 1988, the biggest seller of 2600 carts was Big Lots.

 

Any argument that the 2600 was doing amazing numbers of great profitability is, quite frankly, bullshit. Costs for this stuff were written off years ago, naturally, but when you're seeing most carts for less than $5, saying "looking how many we sold" as evidence of how much of a hit the 2600 was in 1987 is a lot like saying your local thrift store is proof that 1960s clothing never goes out of style.

 

The exception to this MAY be in South America, which had just recieved a large number of clearanced-out Ataris and games which made them purchasable to their consumers for the first time. Of course, the 7800 was never released there (officially), so that part of the argument is moot anyway.

 

Besides, the key point still stands, why would 2600 compatibility be a successful strategy in 1987 when you could buy brand new Atari 2600s everywhere for $20? It would be like a new PS3 advertisement today proclaiming how you could play "Legend of Dragoon", "Final Fantasy 8" etc, as a main selling point.. while your brand new, in huge numbers, PS1s were sitting there costing $20 at GameStop.

 

Sorry, but when you say things like "no one wanted 2600 stuff" to people who have seen the real, actual sales numbers, you're not winning. you're just Wikipediaing stuff up here. Don't do that.

 

Your youthful condescension aside, you're talking to someone who has BEEN in the industry, who HAS HAD Atari stock, who dealt with the numbers, and is still in some communication with some of the principals. I'm arguing against someone who is claiming that the Atari 2600 and Atari 7800 were mega-hits that apparently outsold Nintendo and did crazy sales numbers, despite all of Atari's well-publicized and detailed financial problems. History does not agree with your contentions here.

[Jinks]

Ya know something good could become of this. I propose we should have a pinned post for each console in the forums with quick facts like sales numbers, specs, release dates, and so on to give all of us the knowledge that few actually know.

 

Also calling someone a wiki generation when they are older.. Please someone explain so I can too be the elitist non wiki generation atarite.

One other thing is that it seems the newbie this and that talking down to on all forums on the internet to me is getting old. Should the only people on forums that are allowed to post or thought of any value be only the ones that joined atari age from day one?

[Jaynz]

Ya know something good could become of this. I propose we should have a pinned post for each console in the forums with quick facts like sales numbers, specs, release dates, and so on to give all of us the knowledge that few actually know.

 

Actually his links are good, but they back up my contention, since they show the typical MRP for each card - around $5.00 on average. What was selling was not a not of 'hit new games at full retail', as he intimated, but bargain-house prices clearing out old stock, often at a loss. Atari was neither moving anywhere near the numbers of its heyday, and certainly not at the margins they once were. The claim that the 2600 was still a major hit that required the 7800's backwards compatibility in 1988 is pretty demonstrably false.

 

(It had it already, mind you, and it would make LESS sense to remove it, but my point was that it should never have been the 7800s main selling point in 1988 - particularly when you're also trying to move a 'new' 2600 at the same time anyway...)

 

Also calling someone a wiki generation when they are older.. Please someone explain so I can too be the elitist non wiki generation atarite.

 

"Wiki Generation" is usually used by people my age, sadly, to insult millenials who get all thier information from the easily-edited and often-abused wikipedia. It was, quite blatantly, a personal attack.

 

One other thing is that it seems the newbie this and that talking down to on all forums on the internet to me is getting old. Should the only people on forums that are allowed to post or thought of any value be only the ones that joined atari age from day one?

 

It does seem like that around these parts, but that's not a phenomenon unique to Atari Age. It's a common Sandbox Lot mentality.

[8th lutz]

The Atari 2600 sales were largely due to clearing-house prices. I was there. I saw them lined up in the Children's Palaces, Toys R Us, etc., of the time. The 2600jr sales were virtually non-existant because there was so much stock left of the classic 2600 for a much cheaper price. Carts sell-thru was also due to clearing-house prices. No one was buying Midnight Magic, Jr. Pac Man, or Crazy Climber in 1987 for $40 a cart. By 1988, the biggest seller of 2600 carts was Big Lots.

 

I disagree with you about saying no one bought 2600 games in the late 1980's. My parents in the late 1980's bought my younger brother and I Atari 2600 games. I even got Jr. Pac-Man as a Birthday present from my parents back in 1988. My family didn't go to big lots in the late 1980's and actually there wasn't big lots where I live back in the 1980's. I did see Atari 7800 and Atari 2600 games in the mid 1990's at Big Lots.

 

My Dad and I went to Toys 'r' Us in early 1988 to buy a game console and I decided to have my dad pay for an Atari 2600 Jr. after looking at the prices for a SMS, NES, Atari 7800, Atari 2600 Jr., and Atari XEGS. I my Dad and I thought the Nes, Sms, Atari XEGS were too expensive. It was done to Atari 7800 and the Atari 2600 Jr.

Edited October 15, 2012 by 8th lutz

[ninjarabbit]

I bought an Atari 2600 in the late 80s because the console was only $50 vs $200 for the NES and the games I bought were $1-10 clearance games for the most part. It was all I could afford being a kid who got $10/week for allowance plus birthday/Christmas money and whatever money I could get from recycling cans and mowing lawns and I had to split that money between video games, sports cards, GI Joe, and Transformers.

[Jaynz]

8th > I think that there's a bit too much pendantry in parsing what I said. I could, and perhaps should, have clarified simply and said "No one was paying the full markup for either the 2600 or its carts by 1988, or would have been willing to do so." There was virtually no demand for 2600 games or consoles as a main-line release in 1988, and it had been too many years - by that time - for the success of the 7800 to be bet on backwards compatibility.

 

Wether or not you feel the Atari 7800 was a pre-mid-post-launch console, it's clear that ATARI was just dusting off the boxes and going through the motion, and didn't much notice that the gaming market had changed in the intervening few years. To the company, at least, the 7800 was a pre-crash console, because Atari never really took stock of why the crash happened in the first place - or at least their own part in it.

 

Ninjarabbit > Obviously you should have given up sports cards.

[Jaynz]

To clarify, Big Lots wasn't the only place offering deep discounts on the Atari carts they had. All the major chains had dropped the prices to fractions of what they once were. The linked document helpfully provided illustrates that. In 1987, most carts were at or under $5 a copy anywhere.

 

Note: This was intended to be edited into the above, but the editor is barfing on me for some reason...

[Atarifever]

Shag it, edited to no comment.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Atarifever

[RetroGamer45]

I would consider the 7800 a post crash console because it was officially released in 1986.

Edited October 15, 2012 by RetroGamer45

[Retro Rogue]

Way to get personal there, Retro.

 

I get it, you're a fan of the Atari 7800 and feel no compunction to personally attack people in the name of defending your console.

 

Nope, I'm a fan of facts and solid research, hence my background as a professional industry historian and writer. Calling some of your posts trollish was an observation, given your propensity to ignore facts others have posted in favor or your own beliefs that do not appear to be based on anything other than "you were there." Most of the people here were there as well, including myself, and still others have taken the time to do actual research - including digging up paperwork and doing direct interviews with the people involved.

 

Oddly, though, it's actualy quickly becoming on my my favorite consoles as well (I didn't own one 'back in the day', having gone from the Colecovision to the Nintendo). What's odd is that you insist that I have some odd 'axe to grind' about the console, and that it really really was a mega-hit that kept Atari going for the next 30 years and crushed Nintendo or something and that everyone else lives in a complete fantasy where the 7800 solidly LOST that console war.

 

No, and no. I never said you have an axe tro grind (please show where I stated that). Nor did anyone portray the 7800 as beating the NES, though Atari Corp. did indeed beat the Master System in the U.S. Which is actually why Sega came to Atari Corp. in '88 to release the Megadrive/Genesis for them here.

 

The 7800 was never marketed well, it make little sense to advertise it's backwards compatibility from a system people had already abandoned by that time (1987 had NO demand for the 2600 assortment), the sound chip issue - which could have easily been rectified by putting a default Pokey in 1987 was a HUGE negative against the system, and Atari was plagued with half-assed decisions up until it put itself out of business.

 

Sorry, that's just not right. First off, counter to your previous post above to Drac, the 2600 and it's cartridges sold well not because of "clearing house sales". Atari Corp. actually remanufactured much of the 2600 cartridges in '86 and '87 for the relaunch of the cost reduced 2600 (called the Jr.) The reason for the prices were on purpose - Mike Katz set the relaunch of the Jr. at $50 to place it as a low end alternative to the re-launching 7800. Likewise with the drop in price to the remanufactured 2600 cartridges, and all the NEW 2600 games that came out up through 1990 (17 from Atari Corp. alone and more from 3rd party). You don't manufacture new inventory and create new games if things are just selling because of 'discount sellout prices' and you're just 'dusting off boxes.' That was not the case. You are simply wrong, and as you stated - quite frankly what you're portraying is bullshit. The 2600 and it's games were specifically placed at those price points by Atari Corp. itself to take over the low end market, which as the sales figure we released showed (directly from the internal accounting documents), worked. News reports from the time also back up Atari Corp.'s position as second in the U.S. market due to those sales.

 

 

Atari put out the 7800.

 

Atari Inc. put out the test release. Atari Corp. is the one that released it.

 

I don't GIVE a flying fuck that GCC designed the system, as that - in this case - is a completely unimportant detail. Atari green-lit it, put their name and company reputation on it, and promptly did a bad marketing campaign, focused on games now 7 years past their prime, and woefully underspent selling the console during both of its releases. A pity, yes, but to pretend otherwise out of some woefully misguided sense of brand loyalty is ludicrous.

 

And what your bravado translates to is what I said before - you don't give a flying fuck about facts, just your own viewpoint. Warner green-lit it for Atari Inc. (GCC's partnership was forced on Atari Inc. by Warner), and that was Atari Corp. that did your marketing campaign you are complaining about. Two different companies. Likewise regarding some sort of bad stamping on less than decent hardware, we have the engineering logs where Atari Inc. engineers are actually weighing the MARIA (the codename of the 7800) against the then yet to be released Famicom (which Nintendo had come to them with regarding doing an OEM version under Atari) and felt the 7800's MARIA chip was more powerful sprite wise, hence was coming out ahead between the two. Additionally, from what Curt has posted in the past - they actually did a lot in advertising of the 7800, including far more than just "and it also plays 2600 games" ads. On commercials alone, here's a few:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A46SSY9q3n8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQG4vfsAOgw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-mlc4B5tDs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnz3UWU6aCs

 

Your youthful condescension aside, you're talking to someone who has BEEN in the industry, who HAS HAD Atari stock, who dealt with the numbers, and is still in some communication with some of the principals. History does not agree with your contentions here.

 

And I would say the same back to you on all points. Especially on the last two, but rather replacing "some communication" with "lot's of communication," and adding "and facts" to "History."

 

Likewise, calling Drac "youthful" isn't going to make your position any stronger than your exception at him bringing up the Wikipedia angle. You being there doesn't mean much, a lot of us here were old enough to be there as well. It doesn't make a position any more valid. There's plenty of people who 'were there' for instance who for years now incorrectlythought Atari Inc. carried on and Tramiel had 'taken over Atari, when Atari Corp. was a complete different company. That's what facts, documentation, cross-referencing, direct interviews, etc. are for - that little thing called vetting. Please feel free to share with us which principals from Atari Inc. or Atari Corp. you're getting your info from, I'd be happy to call them up to verify.

[Atarifever]

Likewise, calling Drac "youthful" isn't going to make your position any stronger than your exception at him bringing up the Wikipedia angle. You being there doesn't mean much, a lot of us here were old enough to be there as well. It doesn't make a position any more valid. There's plenty of people who 'were there' for instance who for years now incorrectlythought Atari Inc. carried on and Tramiel had 'taken over Atari, when Atari Corp. was a complete different company. That's what facts, documentation, cross-referencing, direct interviews, etc. are for - that little thing called vetting. Please feel free to share with us which principals from Atari Inc. or Atari Corp. you're getting your info from, I'd be happy to call them up to verify.

I think that was directed at me actually. It's nice to still be considered youthful at 31 by the way. I mean, yes, I still do get I.D.ed for beer (and legal age here is 19), so I'm used to it, but it's still nice. I thought the kids had taken away my youthful edge, but I guess not.

 

Just so everyone is clear, I was there too (they make it sound like we're talking about NAM or something). As I have stated on Atariage before, the first game I ever played was PacMan 2600, the first game me and my brother ever purchased was a new copy of Jungle Hunt (bought at Zellars), and the first game I ever bought on my own was 2600 QBert in the Red Box (also from Zellars). Jungle Hunt and Q-bert were full priced 2600 games at the time ($20 or whatever), and I'd have been 6 or 7 at the time, which makes it 1987 and 1988. So just in case anyone is getting the feeling from Jaynz's posts that I'm 12 or something without checking my age, I wanted to point out that I was also a conscious, living human being who bought Atari games in the late 80s too.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Atarifever

[Atarifever]

Your youthful condescension aside, you're talking to someone who has BEEN in the industry, who HAS HAD Atari stock, who dealt with the numbers, and is still in some communication with some of the principals. I'm arguing against someone who is claiming that the Atari 2600 and Atari 7800 were mega-hits that apparently outsold Nintendo and did crazy sales numbers, despite all of Atari's well-publicized and detailed financial problems. History does not agree with your contentions here.

I was wrong. You're trolling after all. Sorry for the confusion. Just so we're clear, I didn't say it was a huge success. That's just your baiting. Trolls gonna bait I guess.

 

Atari's well publicized financial problems came before and after the 7800, as has been pointed out to you. Atari (the one with the 7800) rebuilt the company from nearly banckrupt to a Fortune 500 company again. Seriously, go look it up. there are a bunch of old news articles about the turnaround to profitability. They were a huge computer company who also happened to have second place in the NA videogame console market (granted a distant second, but also a much cheaper second). The fact that you are thinking a Fortune 500 computer company was having financial problems at the height of its success, just because they were second place in NA in videogames, and with their videogame market making a profit at the time, again speaks to the Wikipedia generation thing you keep getting mad at me over.

 

It has nothing to do with your age. It has to do with the fact that none of what you are saying is based on any actual facts.

[Atarifever]

One other thing is that it seems the newbie this and that talking down to on all forums on the internet to me is getting old. Should the only people on forums that are allowed to post or thought of any value be only the ones that joined atari age from day one?

I didn't say newbie. Here, I will write out what I wanted to get across in a way that can't be confusing:

 

For most of the people here, this is not the first debate on this. It is not the 50th debate on this. During the course of all of those debates, we have posted and read dozens or hundreds of old news articles, magazine ads, and catalogs. We have watched old TV interviews, trade show footage, and commercials. We have downloaded and analyzed old sales numbers and budgets. The result of all of that is a very nuanced view of how the 7800 performed.

 

It is not a view that excludes anyone's input. It is not elitist. It is simply a well developed opinion based on a lot of stupid bickering and some good fact checking. That's all.

 

No one is saying the 7800 did spectacular. No one ever claimed the NES didn't dominate the market. However, most of the people Jaynz is arguing against have developed a very nuanced, not black-and white view of the 7800, and how that version of Atari did at the time. Black and white "console wars" type of answers aren't going to change anyone's mind. hence the link I provided. No one is interested in stuff like "Nintendo was forward looking and Atari was backward looking" console wars arguments here. We had those back before we had any numbers. No one is changing their minds based on that kind of reasoning because that was reasoning used here like a decade ago.

 

That might sound "newbie vs. oldster' to you but it isn't. It's simply the truth. Sorry if you want to have an argument about the world being flat, but people have been in space. Like, a lot, and for a long time. It's not. It's pretty round.

 

I eagerly await further black-and-white console wars responses to this post. Because, hey, Nintendo won, am I right. I mean Nintendo won and Atari lost, and Atari was bankrupt, and that's because they wanted to sell old stuff to people who wanted tile based platformers. I mean, what were they on, right? Imagine, they had joysticks. That was the problem. They only sold, like, a dozen 7800s, and they threw the NES in the garbage can for no reason and turned them down, because they had joysticks. Man, Atari was dumb. they should have been smart, like Nintendo, then they wouldn't have went bankrupt when they released Gauntlet, Defender, Atari Video pinball, Pong, and the 7800!