-Why did less commercial titles for Atari 8Bit?

[TMR]

It wasn't base memory size, it wasn't legacy hardware - it was pure and simple "smaller install base" than the other popular platforms (C64, Apple II, ZX Spectrum etc).

Isn't it fairly safe to assume the smaller user base was an effect rather than a cause though? We'd need to look at reasons why there were less sold and i still stand by my previous point about lack of documentation (so less indie software to make things look "busy" for potential buyers) and what others have said about Atari's marketing; John Harris recounts a tale of them being approached by a firm wanting to port popular productivity software and saying no, because it would "will ruin [the A8's] game machine image" - that's just daft if it's true.

[Jetboot Jack]

TMR,

 

I have to say I don't think so - I my experience as both seller and maker of A8 games - the numbers were always small.

 

I dealt with System 3, Psygnosis, Grandslam, Elite, Virgin, Domark, Microprose and Ocean as a developer and it was the overriding factor that there was a tiny A8 market that limited their ability to release games for the system.

 

They could not re-coup costs, many tried and failed.

 

When I approached them to licence properties for the A8 I got very good deals as they "knew" the market was small so I would be making small numbers.

 

sTeVE

Edited November 7, 2013 by Jetboot Jack

[atarian63]

Isn't it fairly safe to assume the smaller user base was an effect rather than a cause though? We'd need to look at reasons why there were less sold and i still stand by my previous point about lack of documentation (so less indie software to make things look "busy" for potential buyers) and what others have said about Atari's marketing; John Harris recounts a tale of them being approached by a firm wanting to port popular productivity software and saying no, because it would "will ruin [the A8's] game machine image" - that's just daft if it's true.

Would depend on when ,it was large 82-86 maybe even 87. after that not so much, Part of the problem was it was a self fulfilling thing when craphead companies like EA stopped support, it caused others to do the same and users to move on. Not the only reason for sure as 16 bit era has arrived in late 85. seemed like alot of what we got after that point was from Europe.

[JamesD]

TRS-80 sales can't necessarily be taken as an indication of the worth of producing games for it - there were clones of that machine through it's life, probably selling significantly more as a percentage than the Apple 2 clones so the market would have been bigger than you might think.

That's not why I brought the TRS-80 into this. It's more about perception.

 

Anyone that would look at a buyers guide or that would walk into a store from the mid 80s looking for an 8 bit would see the C128, CoCo 3 had 80 column support. The C128 had CP/M, CoCo had OS-9 with multitasking, the CoCo 3 was expandable to 512K and Commodore had a plug in RAM cartridge. The C128 had higher res graphics. The CoCo had much improved graphics and sound (technically the same sound but with a programmable timer interrupt to drive the DAC). Tandy had Deskmate and Commodore had GEOS.

The IIc was an all in one package (except the monitor) with 128K expandable to 256K or more, 80 column support and schools mostly had Apples. The IIgs had improved graphics, a Mac GUI, could support megs of RAM, was faster, supported 64 voice sound and ran most of the old software.

With the 130XE, Atari added 128K RAM, nothing else. No 80 column mode, no Z80 and CP/M, no OS-9 with multitasking, no 512K, no extra speed, no Deskmate or GUI... no nothing.

At best it looked like a half hearted effort to keep sales until the ST took off and people expected the machines to be dumped in a year or two so nobody wanted to support it.

At worst it looked like Atari couldn't keep up with the competition and would be dumped in a year or two and nobody wanted to support it.

The XEGS looked like another last ditch effort at success for Atari that would be dumped in a year or two and nobody wanted to support it.

 

As for Tandy not being worth producing a game for...

Tandy wouldn't carry 3rd party games in their stores unless they had some sort of special arrangement and other stores wouldn't carry software for the Tandy if they couldn't make money on the computers.

99% of CoCo software was mailorder. There were hundreds of games, you just had to look at adds in magazines to find them.

For a small independent publisher it was a good market because you didn't have big companies with a lot of money to compete against and they wouldn't file a lawsuit against you for infringing on some arcade license because they didn't see it as competition.

For a big company that was used to selling through major retailers it was a closed market.

 

*edit*

FWIW, for whatever reason it sounds like software sales for the Atari just weren't there. Big companies were about volume.

 

Edited November 7, 2013 by JamesD

[Magic Knight]

stat1.jpgstat2.jpg

Wow - a Sony Hit bit!!??? ummm rhymes with sh... wait a minute!!

[Magic Knight]

Ok - still from the UK point of view only -

 

I have a good example to here - Mastertronic was a UK based budget software leader. They didnt spend a fortune on adverts compared to the big guns and they sold their software at petrol stations and newsagents (and of course computer outlets) - practically they had nothing to loose by taking chances with both titles and also platforms alike.

 

Heres the statistics for the number of titles released for the 8 bits:

 

 

 

They did look at sales and this does reflect a lot of what the other major uk publishers saw also - even for £10 games.

 

despite Tandy and apple being popular in the US - the uk software developers on the broad sense didnt do a lot on these two and very few in the school yard had heard much let alone seen them in the local high streets

 

 

Ocean was the top major publisher for the 8 bits certainly in the UK in the 80's - the vast bulk of their adverts were fro C64, spectrum and Amstrad. Only occasionally was a 4th/5th platform mentioned for the 8 bits. ST and Amigas in the latter half obviosly caught on more especially when film tie ins were stating to mean big bucks for the lucky software house (Robocop and Batman games which made a fortune for Ocean).

 

Head over heeels and Green Beret are the limited few on the Atari unfortunately. And regrettably Wizball wasn't included...

 

 

 

On a side note - possibly the most infuriating advert ive ever seen - im sure someone at Konami did this to piss atarians off!

 

 

 

 

mastertronic link is here: http://www.guter.org/mastertronic_stats.htm

Edited November 7, 2013 by Magic Knight

[barnieg]

I Wonder if the increase in titles released for the Atari was linked to the cheap 800XL deals (then XE?) through the Dixons chain in the UK? Another issue affecting Sales in the UK would have been retail shelf space, there were games that I didn't know were available at the time as they didn't get displayed.

 

 

Ok - still from the UK point of view only -

I have a good example to here - Mastertronic was a UK based budget software leader. They didnt spend a fortune on adverts compared to the big guns and they sold their software at petrol stations and newsagents (and of course computer outlets) - practically they had nothing to loose by taking chances with both titles and also platforms alike.

Heres the statistics for the number of titles released for the 8 bits:

mastertronic.jpg


They did look at sales and this does reflect a lot of what the other major uk publishers saw also - even for £10 games.


mastertronic link is here: http://www.guter.org/mastertronic_stats.htm

[Jetboot Jack]

I Wonder if the increase in titles released for the Atari was linked to the cheap 800XL deals (then XE?) through the Dixons chain in the UK? Another issue affecting Sales in the UK would have been retail shelf space, there were games that I didn't know were available at the time as they didn't get displayed.

 

 

 

Shelf space is directly related to sales numbers - these figures were centralised and distributed by Gallup and drove the stocking decisions of the high street. So the same issue, few users = few sales = little shelf space.

 

The Dixon's deals generated little demand since they shipped the systems with a bundle of games (usually) and the cheapness of the systems did not attract enthusiasts or committed users to invigorate retail activity beyond the initial sale.

 

Ocean is a great example - they developed some A8 games in the guise of Imagine Software (who they purchased in 1984) - but all were finically very poor performers. I know this from the horses mouth as it were (Mike Hutchinson, Arkanoid Developer and Gary Bracey ex Ocean).

 

sTeVE

[JamesD]

Somewhere out there is a chart showing different Atari 8 bit carts and total sales in thousands. I know I've seen a link to it before.

[BSA Starfire]

I think another factor of the fail in the UK was the really slow tape drive. I remember at school back then common consensus was that the Atari's was REALLY slow, and unreliable to load. And of course back then the UK market was dominated by tape. I guess by the time disc drives were around cheap, no-one cared as the ST and Amiga had pretty much taken over the higher end & Speccy 128+2 had the low end.

Edited November 8, 2013 by BSA Starfire

[Magic Knight]

 

Ocean is a great example - they developed some A8 games in the guise of Imagine Software (who they purchased in 1984) - but all were finically very poor performers. I know this from the horses mouth as it were (Mike Hutchinson, Arkanoid Developer and Gary Bracey ex Ocean).

 

sTeVE

Like Bandersnatch! - this would have been interesting if it didn't help break imagine.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandersnatch_(video_game)

 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt9BsZCifgU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DYt9BsZCifgU

[Magic Knight]

I think another factor of the fail in the UK was the really slow tape drive. I remember at school back then common consensus was that the Atari's was REALLY slow, and unreliable to load. I guess by the time disc drives were around cheap, no-one cared as the ST and Amiga had pretty much taken over the higher end & Speccy 128+2 had the low end.

Especially the first batch of kikstart tapes for mastertronic that came in at around 33m. The gap between bleeps was a screwup at the compiling process. and you could complete the last v8 around a dozen times in the time that ks took to load!

Edited November 8, 2013 by Magic Knight

[barnieg]

I think the Dixon's deals did shift units (would be interesting to see figures for that time) I had one of the 800XL deals at the time and it did have games and tape unit.

 

I remember buying Green Beret and it was an awful port so that wouldn't have helped sales

 

 

Shelf space is directly related to sales numbers - these figures were centralised and distributed by Gallup and drove the stocking decisions of the high street. So the same issue, few users = few sales = little shelf space.

 

The Dixon's deals generated little demand since they shipped the systems with a bundle of games (usually) and the cheapness of the systems did not attract enthusiasts or committed users to invigorate retail activity beyond the initial sale.

 

Ocean is a great example - they developed some A8 games in the guise of Imagine Software (who they purchased in 1984) - but all were finically very poor performers. I know this from the horses mouth as it were (Mike Hutchinson, Arkanoid Developer and Gary Bracey ex Ocean).

 

sTeVE

[Thorsten Günther]

I think another factor of the fail in the UK was the really slow tape drive. I remember at school back then common consensus was that the Atari's was REALLY slow, and unreliable to load. And of course back then the UK market was dominated by tape. I guess by the time disc drives were around cheap, no-one cared as the ST and Amiga had pretty much taken over the higher end & Speccy 128+2 had the low end.

 

This problem was addressed in Eastern Europe (i.e. the German Democratic Republic and Poland) very late in the XE lifecycle: the solution was called "Schleife '88" in the GDR and "Turbo 2000" or similarly in Poland and there was a software (on cart or tape) called the Chaos Loader. This sped up the loading speed to 6000 Baud (10 times as fast as originally) with apparently rock-solid data transfer, see schematics here:

 

http://www.abbuc.de/community/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3167&p=42739&hilit=chaos+loader#p42739

 

Sadly, this invention never made it back across the iron curtain and in '88 it may already have been too late anyway to have an impact on UK or West German sales. Stunning nonetheless.

 

Oh, BTW, and "Schleife" does in this case not mean "loop" as I originally thought, but refers the community Schleife/Slepo (the latter being the Sorbian name) in Saxony .

Edited November 8, 2013 by Thorsten Günther

[TMR]

I think the Dixon's deals did shift units (would be interesting to see figures for that time) I had one of the 800XL deals at the time and it did have games and tape unit.

That's how i got my first 800XL too. i get the feeling that Dixons just got everything out of a warehouse or two including some returns because my first one was constantly conking out with a red screen and, when i took it back, the assistant commented that they'd had a lot of returns and immediately swapped it with no questions asked at all.

 

I remember buying Green Beret and it was an awful port so that wouldn't have helped sales

Awful is a bit harsh, it's more "a bit meh" to be honest and play the C16 version to see how much worse it's possible to make Green Beret. =-)

 

[kiwilove]

I'll add my 2 cents worth here, about this...

 

It is all about timing of course. And $$$, and marketing, etc etc...

 

The Atari 400/800 were advanced computers for their initial release - which I believe is around 1980 and were generally available from 1981? This should have given them a head start - but prices at this time were not cheap - an Atari 800 costing around the same as an Apple II?

When the Vic-20 appeared - this was the start of home computers being more affordable - and the Sinclair Spectrum... But anyone taking notice of their graphics capabilities - should have been disappointed, at what these could do...

When the C-64 appeared - this obviously made the Vic-20 redundant. At this time, people could afford to buy one computer, only to trash it a year or two later. With the Atari 800XL being of a reasonable price - it could really compete against the C-64 - although it's architecture still dates back to the Atari 400/800 design.

The C-64 does have the advantage with more independent hardware sprites available - but in reality few games showed this to it's advantage and I think the only reason why the C-64 tended to have the better games - was that more companies/developers/programmers/etc were developing for the C-64 - because more C-64s were sold, and it was the bigger market.

 

The other factor to consider - is that when someone is developing a computer videogame - it takes time to build up the expertise/experience to do so. eg. It might take perhaps a year for someone to teach themself (say via a book) assembly language programming - and it may take another year to perhaps write their first proper game? And I'll guess that you may expect this first full game not to be anything that special at all? And that it'll probably be the second full game - in which one's skills can be fully shown? And so it can be very difficult to be in synch with the computer marketplace - in that you could be ready to produce a high quality computer game - only to find that the market has peaked and died in the meantime.

 

Of course, the introduction of 16-bit computers hurried along the demise of the 8-bit computer market.

 

You cannot expect a lot of hobbyist programmers to become commercial game developers - but of course, some (ie. a few) definitely will...

 

Harvey

[kiwilove]

Something I didn't word properly...

 

At this time, people could afford to buy one computer, only to trash it a year or two later.

 

Should have been:

 

At this time, people could afford to buy one computer - and could not afford to trash it a year or two later.

[kiwilove]

I'll say that the demise of the 8-bit Atari's were inevitable - and you could not expect 16-bit games to be converted to the 8-bits. That only very few could have been, and even then, the 16-bit version would probably look and play better?

You got to be realistic about conversions as such - and the limitations of the Atari 8-bit hardware.

 

Big name companies offering home computer versions of popular arcade games - were for the most part ripping off the consumer. In that if only a poor home version was offered - it would have been a poor purchase. The Spectrum (and others) could not offer fine scrolling and other such abilities/qualities - and could only

produce very few worthwhile conversions as such, which their hardware could cope with. Likewise the Atari 8-bits face this hurdle as well - the earlier coin-ops, were of course simpler games - which could lend themselves towards a home computer version. But games the likes of Zaxxon and Xevious - are just too difficult to convert successfully. It would be asking for someone to do the impossible.

 

Of course - Atari 400/800 could have been better marketed. But to become dominant in the mass market it needed cheaper versions to be manufactured and sold, hence the XL line. I can only guess they were far cheaper to manufacture - having been retooled/re-engineered to be so. By this time it was like Atari was playing catch up - to the C-64.

 

Harvey

[TMR]

When the Vic-20 appeared - this was the start of home computers being more affordable - and the Sinclair Spectrum... But anyone taking notice of their graphics capabilities - should have been disappointed, at what these could do...

Not really, the term "cheap and cheerful" comes into play; people just wanted to have fun with home computers at that point, so less graphical horsepower was a reasonable trade off for something they could afford - they were just happy to be there as it were.

 

The C-64 does have the advantage with more independent hardware sprites available - but in reality few games showed this to it's advantage

i'm not sure i can agree with that, in part because it was looking at C64 games with loads of moving objects that enticed me to "the dark side" of programming for it and that was around a year before the first sorting multiplexers appeared. i've been coding on the Atari 8-bit for a while now but it's still hard to match even the simplest C64 budget game for sprite count and flexibility of positioning with a quarter of a century of coding experience under my belt.

 

and I think the only reason why the C-64 tended to have the better games - was that more companies/developers/programmers/etc were developing for the C-64 - because more C-64s were sold, and it was the bigger market.

That's understandable, but i still wonder why the Atari 8-bit didn't end up with a similar feedback loop a few years earlier? It didn't have the C64 or even VIC 20 to contend with for a couple of years so everything was in a similar price bracket but offering less overall on the specification front.

 

And so it can be very difficult to be in synch with the computer marketplace - in that you could be ready to produce a high quality computer game - only to find that the market has peaked and died in the meantime.

Calling something high quality is pretty subjective to start with, but gamers usually just want a fun experience and don't need to be presented with the best of the best each time and won't actually notice in some cases when they are!

 

I'll say that the demise of the 8-bit Atari's were inevitable - and you could not expect 16-bit games to be converted to the 8-bits. That only very few could have been, and even then, the 16-bit version would probably look and play better?

A 16-bit version will usually look better but it doesn't necessarily follow that it will play better as well; games like Blood Money, Chip's Challenge or Ballistix which were converted down play just as well on the C64 whilst Defender Of The Crown actually plays better (because it was tweaked based on feedback from the Amiga version) and titles converted up such as Wizball are still more playable in their C64 or indeed Spectrum iterations. And the less said about the Amiga and ST "conversions" of classic C64 shooter Armalyte (where the developers felt they could improve on the original) the better...

[kiwilove]

For some people - it was a waiting game for when to buy a home computer - when it was the right time to, for them.

In my case I was intrigued by home computers since they first appeared in magazines - when you had to solder your own memory boards and asemble it all yourself. I wasn't into electronics and could not solder, etc etc - and knew that was beyond my understanding and capability - decades later I did attend a basic electronics class and learnt soldering and assembly - but the theory was too hard for me to fully understand.

I did not feel impressed enough to want to buy a ZX-80, Pet computer, TRS-80 or even an Apple II (though I did think about this later one...). The Atari 800 did attract my attention - although it was very pricey. The Atari 400 keyboard did not appeal to me at all - being a touch typist.

I have to admit there wasn't much to show off on the Atari 800 - but Star Raiders seemed to sum it up pretty well. Which I purchased, along with Pac Man. When Miner 2049'er, Blue Max and Encounter popped up - then, I knew I made the right choice - for a computer to play arcade quality games on.

There was nothing impressive for the C-64 upon it's debut - it did take time for some really nice titles to start appearing - and when they did, it seemed like the floodgates were opened? Anyone who opened up a C-64 should have noted it's flimsy construction and how cheap looking it looks like how it was made.

Being graphics orientated - the other computers did not appeal to me at all.

 

Harvey

[TMR]

For some people - it was a waiting game for when to buy a home computer - when it was the right time to, for them.

So why was the A8 left out in the cold whilst the Apple II wasn't then? It had better hardware specs, a solid build quality and a price tag in the same range as the competition but doesn't appear to have taken off in the same way.

 

Anyone who opened up a C-64 should have noted it's flimsy construction and how cheap looking it looks like how it was made.

So perhaps that's the route Atari should've been taking?

[kiwilove]

My guess is that, Atari was in direct competition with the Apple II - which had established itself well in the educational (schools) and business markets - but in the early till mid-80s from Britain there was the desire for a cheaper computer system - which obviously the Spectrum, and it's competitors were geared towards. Tramiel saw this opportunity, obviously with it's release of the C-64. And the world wanted a decent cheap computer - thus a computer entered the mass market finally.

Atari did have the opportunity to do well against the C-64 - because they did seem evenly matched for a while, some conversions being better on the Atari, and others on the C-64?

Something consumers are not really aware of - is the distribution chain involved and how this affects sales and market share, etc.

Better hardware does not necessarily mean it'll be the best selling computer. The Apple II illustrates this.

[snicklin]

I remember buying Green Beret and it was an awful port so that wouldn't have helped sales

 

 

I think that the sound was what ruined that game most. The graphics were alright, but the sound was irritating.

[Subby]

Notice how often Atari's, um, "lackluster" marketing comes up?

IMO, these guys had no clue what they had.

Initially the 800 was positioned to compete head-to-head with the Apple II. Just look at the software and accessories, quality high end stuff. Yeah, there were some rough edges, but you can see where they wanted to go just by looking at the Atari Word Processor package.

But, dammit, the videogame craze was going on and the home computer division execs were envious of the VCS guy's bonuses. So for some reason they decided to change the 400/800 into game machines instead of education/business machines.

"Hey guys, let's to fight it out with "Honest Jack" in a race to the bottom, instead of Jobs and company for the higher end more margin market!"

[+davidcalgary29]

Notice how often Atari's, um, "lackluster" marketing comes up?

IMO, these guys had no clue what they had.

Initially the 800 was positioned to compete head-to-head with the Apple II. Just look at the software and accessories, quality high end stuff. Yeah, there were some rough edges, but you can see where they wanted to go just by looking at the Atari Word Processor package.

But, dammit, the videogame craze was going on and the home computer division execs were envious of the VCS guy's bonuses. So for some reason they decided to change the 400/800 into game machines instead of education/business machines.

"Hey guys, let's to fight it out with "Honest Jack" in a race to the bottom, instead of Jobs and company for the higher end more margin market!"

 

I'm certainly not a Tramiel apologist, but I'm not sure that much/all of the blame for the A8 line's relative commerical failure should be laid at their feet. Atari (Time Warner) squandered the two-year head start that they enjoyed in the marketplace, and realized much too slowly that relatively few people would want to either buy either an expensive, indestructible tank or a McDonald's cash register. Really, timing was terrible for the system and it was nearly strangled to death by poor planning and decision making at both Atari Inc. and Atari Corp. Why should software developers code for a system that was beginning to have a reputation for being a flake? The Tramiels tried to turn the A8 into a low-cost computer system, but I think that that 2-year hiatus, when nothing new was coming out, just killed this line.