Why is the importance of ColecoVision almost never brought up historically?

[enoofu]

Colecovision wasn't that huge when it came out, I should know as I had both a 5800 and a CV. Had some excellent titles for the time but wasn't adopted by the mainstream public.

 

5200 and CV failed since they basically failed to attract a large General audience to cushion themselves in the game market

Poor controls, large consoles surface area, hookup issues, high cost, few game publications and other technical issues which NES somewhat resolved but especially SNES and Genesis

 

The above Statement is basically why CV is classified as 2nd Generation, though the most powerful 2nd Gen machine

[mr_me]

The Famicom/NES distinguishes itself over coleco vision by having more sprites, more colours, some scrolling, multi-coloured sprites. The coleco vision distinguishes itself from the previous generation by more than doubling the graphic resolution as well as having (arguably) more sprites. The high resolution was huge in 1982. Console surface area, cost, poor controls, hookups, game publications, success/failure have nothing to do with it. The coleco vision did have joysticks but so did the third gen Sega SG-1000 (they are essentially the same machine), and the Famicom upon introduction used a similar RF connection. Coleco vision was cheap in 1982. Coleco vision console sales of 2 million in the first two years can no way be considered a failure. The game library, ergonomics, as well as its short life however, should be considered when looking back at the coleco vision's significance.

[VectorGamer]

Colecovision wasn't that huge when it came out, I should know as I had both a 5800 and a CV.

 

 

Who made the 5800? Unaware of this system

 

Coleco vision console sales of 2 million in the first two years can no way be considered a failure.

QFT

[Bill Loguidice]

Yeah, while we shouldn't exaggerate the ColecoVision's place in history or its influence, we also shouldn't diminish what a big deal it was for the brief time it was on the market. It sold a ton in a very short amount of time and was the hottest system out there. Having lots of fresh arcade conversions was definitely one of its selling points. And even in its brief time on the market, the 1984 software showed a noticeable jump in quality over the 1982 software.

 

Here's the reality... The ColecoVision could have easily survived through the Crash and come out on the other side. The problem was that Coleco went down the Adam computer rabbit hole, flat-out bungled it, and then compounded the issue by grossly overestimating how long the Cabbage Patch Doll frenzy would continue. Crash or no Crash, the ColecoVision would have been sustainable, just not when Coleco itself was no longer financially stable.

[VectorGamer]

Here's the reality... The ColecoVision could have easily survived through the Crash and come out on the other side.

 

And we will never know how long the Super Game Module would've extended the life of the ColecoVision and if they would have released a second console.

[godslabrat]

 

And we will never know how long the Super Game Module would've extended the life of the ColecoVision and if they would have released a second console.

It's an interesting counter-factual to wonder what the Colecovision 2.0 would have looked like, competing with the Mattel version of Nintendo.

[Bill Loguidice]

I don't think the Super Game Module would have come to pass, regardless, even if they decided not to go forward with the Adam. However, if we want to look at what a ColecoVision 2 successor might have looked like had Coleco been financially able to continue, we can see a logical path with what Sega did going from the SG-1000, Mark III/SMS, and Genesis. In many ways, the Mark III/SMS was a next gen ColecoVision.

[mr_me]

The coleco vision Super Game Module was just a tape drive allowing larger games. It was soon made obsolete by cheaper ROM prices and large capacity cartridges. But in 1982 rom cartridge capacity was still an issue and is why console games like Donkey Kong couldn't have all four screens while the computer versions did. An SGM rather than the released Adam expansion module might have given Coleco an edge but only temporarily. But history has shown that console expansions are rarely successful.

[zzip]

Let's ignore the RCA Studio II, since that was outdated before it was released. There's just no way to make it competitive for a variety of reasons.

 

We can turn to the Pac-Man homebrew to see how the VES/Channel F would have fared. It would still have only been viable through roughly 1980, but that homebrew demonstrates it could definitely play host to more sophisticated games than it got.

I believe the Atari engineers themselves didn't believe the 2600 tech would make it through 1980 either, which is why they started the 'Colleen' project to produce a next gen system

 

 

Again turning to homebrews and/or how similar systems evolved, it's clear that the ColecoVision and 5200 could have played host to better, more sophisticated games over time, but they'd still be lacking in comparison to at least some of the types of games that appeared on the NES, which was able to be easily augmented through in-cartridge helper chips. It also helped that its base hardware made things like scrolling games, which became increasingly important as the 80s wore on

But how much of the popularity of side-scrollers was due to Nintendo and SMB in the first place? In an alternate timeline where CV or 5200/7800 became dominant and the crash didn't happen, would we still be playing a ton of side-scrollers, or would a different genre that shines on the dominant platform become prominent? I don't know the answer to that.

 

Yes NES would always do a some things better, but then again INTV usually did graphics much better than 2600 and other 2nd gen systems. So there are always disparities in power within a generation.

[zzip]

The coleco vision Super Game Module was just a tape drive allowing larger games. It was soon made obsolete by cheaper ROM prices and large capacity cartridges. But in 1982 rom cartridge capacity was still an issue and is why console games like Donkey Kong couldn't have all four screens while the computer versions did.

No just more efficient programming. The Atari 800 Donkey Kong cart was 16KB, same size as the CV one IIRC. But it still had all 4 screens, plus some of the animations missing from the CV

[Bill Loguidice]

But how much of the popularity of side-scrollers was due to Nintendo and SMB in the first place? In an alternate timeline where CV or 5200/7800 became dominant and the crash didn't happen, would we still be playing a ton of side-scrollers, or would a different genre that shines on the dominant platform become prominent? I don't know the answer to that.

 

Yes NES would always do a some things better, but then again INTV usually did graphics much better than 2600 and other 2nd gen systems. So there are always disparities in power within a generation.

 

Yeah, there are too many "what ifs?" there. If the Crash didn't happen and it was more of a market correction to drop all the dead weight like on the computer side, then Nintendo's entry into the US market would have taken a different path. It would have been competing against a mature ColecoVision and an upstart Atari 7800 (it would be difficult to see the 5200's role, particularly if Atari still stuck with the 2600, but I suspect Atari would have slowly phased it out).

 

With that said, I think even in a delayed late 1986/early 1987 timeframe, the NES games would have still looked fresh and sophisticated in comparison, and Super Mario Bros. and soon enough Zelda would have still been incredibly popular and influential. In our alternate history - like many fictional alternate histories - there would likely still be the same high points as there were in our timeline. Theoretically if Atari was able to unleash the 7800's full potential and increase the ROM sizes and include a POKEY on almost every cartridge, it could have remained competitive with the NES (and SMS by this time, although we could see a scenario where Sega would partner with Coleco instead of Tonka), with the ColecoVision probably showing its practical limitations. They would have still had enough time to produce a successor system of some type (if not releasing the SMS themselves in some form).

[H.E.R.O.]

It's an interesting counter-factual to wonder what the Colecovision 2.0 would have looked like, competing with the Mattel version of Nintendo.

 

Didn't Nintendo go to Coleco wishing to sell the Colecovision in Japan but couldn't agree on price? If that union was made, perhaps the NES could have been Colecovision 2 in USA-Europe / NES in Japan.

[+save2600]

The thread that wouldn't die. Now you guys are going in circles.

[mbd30]

I believe the Atari engineers themselves didn't believe the 2600 tech would make it through 1980 either, which is why they started the 'Colleen' project to produce a next gen system

 

 

 

But how much of the popularity of side-scrollers was due to Nintendo and SMB in the first place? In an alternate timeline where CV or 5200/7800 became dominant and the crash didn't happen, would we still be playing a ton of side-scrollers, or would a different genre that shines on the dominant platform become prominent? I don't know the answer to that.

 

Yes NES would always do a some things better, but then again INTV usually did graphics much better than 2600 and other 2nd gen systems. So there are always disparities in power within a generation.

 

 

Even without SMB, smooth scrolling was taking precedence over single screen games. Arcade games were heading in that direction anyway. You couldn't have a smooth port of Xevious, Marble Madness or Paperboy on the Colecovision.

[mbd30]

Colecovision wasn't that huge when it came out, I should know as I had both a 5800 and a CV. Had some excellent titles for the time but wasn't adopted by the mainstream public.

 

 

I was a kid at the time and I never knew anybody who had a CV. I had a 2600, my neighbor had an Intellivision, and other kids I knew had Ataris.

[Bill Loguidice]

 

I was a kid at the time and I never knew anybody who had a CV. I had a 2600, my neighbor had an Intellivision, and other kids I knew had Ataris.

 

To add my own anecdote, the order of ownership at my school in central New Jersey went Atari 2600, then ColecoVision, then Intellivision, then Odyssey2, then Atari 5200. Computers around this same time went C-64, then Apple II, Atari 8-bit, TI, and then "other".

[Duke75]

 

I was a kid at the time and I never knew anybody who had a CV. I had a 2600, my neighbor had an Intellivision, and other kids I knew had Ataris.

 

I had a Colecovision. In our case, we originally had a Telstar Pong clone system, and then we got the CV because my older brother was really keen on it and the 2600 was already looking old. When my parents divorced, my mom got a 5200 to help us stay entertained when we visited her (she was also really into Star Raiders for a bit). We were the only people I knew that had either of those systems, though. Every other family either stuck with the 2600 or ended up getting an NES a few years later, or maybe a C64.

 

Never met anyone who had an Intellivision, though.

[Tanooki]

 

Here's the reality... The ColecoVision could have easily survived through the Crash and come out on the other side. The problem was that Coleco went down the Adam computer rabbit hole, flat-out bungled it, and then compounded the issue by grossly overestimating how long the Cabbage Patch Doll frenzy would continue. Crash or no Crash, the ColecoVision would have been sustainable, just not when Coleco itself was no longer financially stable.

I guess in a way Coleco pulled a Sega before Sega did it to themselves a decade and a half later. Did stupid design choices, ran down a rabbit hole, had it collapse on them thinking a flagship item would keep them afloat. The Colecovision (like Dreamcast) easily could have been sustainable but the company went right into the crapper and couldn't take it any longer and both faded into death and obscurity outside of the fans who still care.

[Bill Loguidice]

I guess in a way Coleco pulled a Sega before Sega did it to themselves a decade and a half later. Did stupid design choices, ran down a rabbit hole, had it collapse on them thinking a flagship item would keep them afloat. The Colecovision (like Dreamcast) easily could have been sustainable but the company went right into the crapper and couldn't take it any longer and both faded into death and obscurity outside of the fans who still care.

 

Very similar. Sega was financially damaged going into the Dreamcast to the point where even though the console was a success, they still had to pull out. Coleco was financially stable during the ColecoVision's early run, but then came to financially damage themselves to the point where even though the console was a success, they still had to pull out. Either way, it was primarily about bad decisions made outside of the domain of those respective consoles.

 

Atari's situation with the Jaguar was similar to Sega's situation with the Dreamcast, with the obvious exception being that the Jaguar was never a success. Top of my head, I can't think of any other company with a string of consoles that eventually had to pull out other than NEC, and their situation was more losing to attrition in Japan than going out with a final console bang.

[zylon]

I went my own way and bought a Tandyvision back then.

[Pixelboy]

Here's the reality... The ColecoVision could have easily survived through the Crash and come out on the other side. The problem was that Coleco went down the Adam computer rabbit hole, flat-out bungled it, and then compounded the issue by grossly overestimating how long the Cabbage Patch Doll frenzy would continue. Crash or no Crash, the ColecoVision would have been sustainable, just not when Coleco itself was no longer financially stable.

The CV could have survived the crash? Sorry, I have to disagree here. The main point of the crash, the one that really made it a "perfect storm" scenario, wasn't that Atari went out of business per say, it was the fact that retailers collectively and simultaneously lost confidence in the video game industry as a whole, and they pushed all those console games (regardless of which company manufactured them) to the bargain bins with the goal of clearing them out and not purchasing any more afterwards. Even if Coleco had been in a better financial situation, had somehow avoided the pitfalls of the Adam computer, and had continued to release good games for the CV, they still would have been in trouble because very few retailers would have accepted putting up those games on their shelves.

 

It's the main reason why Nintendo did so well a couple of years later: There was an actual retail vacuum that Nintendo filled up with hardware that was better (at the time) than every game console that came before it in North-America. Retailers saw the video game money train coming back and jumped on it.

 

I think Coleco would have retired the ColecoVision and Adam, and would have let their R&D department develop the next generation of gaming console, assuming they wouldn't have pulled out of the industry altogether like Mattel did.

 

The point is, the ColecoVision wouldn't have survived.

[Bill Loguidice]

The CV could have survived the crash? Sorry, I have to disagree here. The main point of the crash, the one that really made it a "perfect storm" scenario, wasn't that Atari went out of business per say, it was the fact that retailers collectively and simultaneously lost confidence in the video game industry as a whole, and they pushed all those console games (regardless of which company manufactured them) to the bargain bins with the goal of clearing them out and not purchasing any more afterwards. Even if Coleco had been in a better financial situation, had somehow avoided the pitfalls of the Adam computer, and had continued to release good games for the CV, they still would have been in trouble because very few retailers would have accepted putting up those games on their shelves.

 

<snip>

 

Cartridges continued to sell into 1985 and 1986. It wasn't a total vacuum. Considering the Atari 2600 and Intellivision kept going (in different ways), I don't think it's outrageous to think that a less financially damaged Coleco could have continued on with the ColecoVision for those few years, even with the obvious reduction in revenue from lower retail reach. The ColecoVision itself was not necessarily in a bad place in the market, unlike some of the other systems.

[CatPix]

 

Didn't Nintendo go to Coleco wishing to sell the Colecovision in Japan but couldn't agree on price? If that union was made, perhaps the NES could have been Colecovision 2 in USA-Europe / NES in Japan.

I would like to have more infos on that.

In 1982, Nintendo came to Atari with a NES prototype that they demonstrated to them, and their idea was to work with Atari to sell it in the US, as Nintendo was a bit worried of introducing themselves on the US market.

 

I would then be a very strange move from them to try to make a console of their own and to acquire a console to export in Japan at the same time.

 

http://www.atari.io/atari-nintendo-nes-deal/

 

 

[mr_me]

 

 

Even without SMB, smooth scrolling was taking precedence over single screen games. Arcade games were heading in that direction anyway. You couldn't have a smooth port of Xevious, Marble Madness or Paperboy on the Colecovision.

Simple 1-way pixel scrolling in either horizontal or vertical direction can be done no problem with coleco vision. It would have to done in software and use a bit more rom cartridge space but it can be done. The NES isn't ideal for multidirectional/diagonal scrolling as well, the NES controller isn't good for selecting diagonal directions anyway. Each system has their strengths, programmers make games that leverage those strengths; must be why the NES ended up with so many side scrollers. Multidirectional scrolling has been around in arcade games since the 1970s, Intellivision even had it.

[mbd30]

Simple 1-way pixel scrolling in either horizontal or vertical direction can be done no problem with coleco vision. It would have to done in software and use a bit more rom cartridge space but it can be done. The NES isn't ideal for multidirectional/diagonal scrolling as well, the NES controller isn't good for selecting diagonal directions anyway. Each system has their strengths, programmers make games that leverage those strengths; must be why the NES ended up with so many side scrollers. Multidirectional scrolling has been around in arcade games since the 1970s, Intellivision even had it.

 

 

I can no-death Marble Madness with a NES pad and that game is full of diagonals. It's not that hard to press two direction buttons at the same time to register a diagonal.

 

 

 

What strengths does the Colecovision have over NES? I don't think that it would have been able to compete. SG-1000 games looked much worse than NES, and that is almost the same hardware as Colecovision. Compare Star Force on that system to the NES port.