Jump to content
IGNORED

How powerful was the cancelled Atari Panther compared to the Atari ST/Amiga?


Leeroy ST

Recommended Posts

Lol what mr_me???

Coleco went bankrupt? When? CV went on until 1985 and Coleco was one of biggest toy makers in America what are you talking??? nearly all major companies competing against Atari had pocketed profits Atari had no crash reserves, that's why Warner didn't want to absorb more losses with 7800 strategy it was too much they didn't want to rick it.

Also you said they are world wide sales, we aren't talking about world wide sales as I said in last post clearly, we talking American sales, and in america 5200 according to posted interview I showed from Atari Museum site lee posted, it show that 5200 was leading in America before pull out. This make sense because q1 1984 5200 was pull out and in october later report of 1.5 million Coleco. That is only 500k more than discontinued 5200 and 5200 already on way out shelves way before hand to prepare for 7800 strategy so that ltd was from before so CV was likely behind most of 5200's life outside first few months with Donkey Kong explosion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

Is that why he revived the Atari 2600 jr project and produced new cartridges and releases for the 5200...in 1985?

 

Games for the 7800 were even held up in a separate negotiation from the console, which was the missing piece that explains information provided in articles previous mentioned or posted. At this point you're digging in the tar pits. (Also NES was older technology when it came out.)

As was discussed in another thread, the three atari 5200 cartridges atari corp released in 1986 were developed under atari inc in 1984.  The unused IP was more assets in their inventory.  In 1984 the plan was to liquidate inventory, beyond that was a response to demand, beyond that is anyone's guess.  The atari 2600 continued to sell well as a budget console especially in countries that couldn't afford newer technology.

 

Yes, Tramiel had a warehouse of atari 7800 consoles and cartridges in various stages of assembly.  They could not be sold without the permission of GCC.  And yes the nes technology is only a year older than the 7800, it should have come to north america a couple of years sooner.  North america was stuck with older video game technology for a while.

 

48 minutes ago, ColecoKing said:

Lol what mr_me???

Coleco went bankrupt? When? CV went on until 1985 and Coleco was one of biggest toy makers in America what are you talking??? nearly all major companies competing against Atari had pocketed profits Atari had no crash reserves, that's why Warner didn't want to absorb more losses with 7800 strategy it was too much they didn't want to rick it.

Also you said they are world wide sales, we aren't talking about world wide sales as I said in last post clearly, we talking American sales, and in america 5200 according to posted interview I showed from Atari Museum site lee posted, it show that 5200 was leading in America before pull out. This make sense because q1 1984 5200 was pull out and in october later report of 1.5 million Coleco. That is only 500k more than discontinued 5200 and 5200 already on way out shelves way before hand to prepare for 7800 strategy so that ltd was from before so CV was likely behind most of 5200's life outside first few months with Donkey Kong explosion.

 

I found the following in an atari 5200 faq

"Although the 5200 enjoyed moderate success during its heyday, the gaming public never completely warmed to the SuperSystem, and the "Great Videogame Crash of 1983" helped to seal its fate along with the rest of the home videogame consoles. It should be noted, however, that the 5200 was outselling the Colecovision when Atari decided to pull the plug on its advanced video game system in 1984.

 

And this on the atarimuseum website?

"The Atari 5200 had a hard time of it, still the system had a very nice sized library of games coming out for it, and outsold its new competitor - the Colecovision.  However Great Videogame Crash did in the Atari 5200 before it even had a chance to reach its full potential... besides, Atari had a trump card up its sleeve to fix the Atari 5200 problem... The Atari 7800."

 

Neither are news outlets and don't cite sources to support the statements.  I'm open to the idea of the atari 5200 outselling colecovision.  Is there some evidence to support it.  The only evidence I've seen suggests Colecovision outsold the atari 5200.  You can even see it with third party publisher support; during 1983 developers were switching to colecovision.

 

Edited by mr_me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mr_me said:

As was discussed in another thread, the three atari 5200 cartridges atari corp released in 1986 were developed under atari inc in 1984. 

And were produced by Atari inc with more cartridges being made in a factory and they did the same for older hits. Stop trying to pretend that the games were already there and just moved form a warehouse with the exact amount of demand already printed.

 

9 minutes ago, mr_me said:

As was discussed in another thread, the three atari 5200 cartridges atari corp released in 1986 were developed under atari inc in 1984.  The unused IP was more assets in their inventory.  In 1984 the plan was to liquidate inventory, beyond that was a response to demand, beyond that is anyone's guess. 

Got direct quotes up above form Atari documents that video games were the plan, and the 5200 and revival of the 2600jr project were all decided in 85 which also included the 7800 console, all of which were negotiated. Next was negotiating games since they only had the console for the 7800.   Here:

 

Quote

According to product scheduling logs from Tom Brightman, the Tramiels were actually focusing on video games as part of their future. The Atari 2100 (which would become the Atari 2600jr) was on the schedule.    The Tramiels and Warner Communications were at odds as to who owed GCC payment for all of the work on the "MARIA" chip and the 7800 system.   After nearly 9 months the Tramiels were the ones who owned the debt to GCC.    Reluctantly Jack Tramiel paid a one time "Go away" amount to GCC, who cashed that check immediately before it bounced (according to a GCC engineer.)         

Now the next issue arose...  7800 games.     While the Tramiels now owned the 7800 console, they didn't own any games for it.    More negotiations with GCC would ensue...   finally by late 1985 a deal was made with GCC for nearly a dozen games for the 7800.

 

9 minutes ago, mr_me said:

And yes the nes technology is only a year older than the 7800

Two years older graphically. The sound was actually newer though Pokey was old and so was TIA.

Edited by Leeroy ST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ColecoKing said:

5200 pacman came out the same year.

2600 came in March,  5200 came in the fall, at least 6 mos later, which is a significant amount of time in the lifespan of a fad.  Atari rushed the 2600 version for a reason, because they knew they needed to get it out while it was still hot.

 

15 minutes ago, ColecoKing said:

What if company had small loss for their game and they had big budget to get ads in paper, TV commercials promoting and only made $10,000,000 because they had to cut the price to move stock to compete with a large pool of cheaper software? Where's the profit?

The figure I quoted was revenue, not profit.   Obviously if you are an industry built on an expectation of $3.2billion or revenue, and it drops to $100 million,  nobody is going to be making a profit and everyone will have huge losses.

 

18 minutes ago, ColecoKing said:

Demand never dried up! People buying more games at bargain bin prices if retailer still carried games. Console is the only one you could say that but not because they were tired of them but because you can get new TV compatible computer for same price or less and then still consoles were sold once those prices drop after crash finally hit.

Demand did dry up.  Even the gaming magazines had to fold because they were losing readership at the same time.   I was subscribed to Electronic Games magazine.  When I subscribed, they were a monthly magazine.  In 84 they went bi-monthly to reduce costs.  Then in 1985, they folded and switched my subscription over to "Video" magazine,  a magazine dedicated to VCRs with basically a single page dedicated to games in each issue.  Competing magazine Electronic fun folded even sooner.   Computer games were the only bright spot, but that was only growing because people had just started buying computers in large quantities around 83.   Their growth wasn't nearly enough to offset the console game sales losses during that time period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

And were produced by Atari inc with more cartridges being made in a factory and they did the same for older hits. Stop trying to pretend that the games were already there and just moved form a warehouse with the exact amount of demand already printed.

 

Got direct quotes up above form Atari documents that video games were the plan, and the 5200 and revival of the 2600jr project were all decided in 85 which also included the 7800 console, all of which were negotiated. Next was negotiating games since they only had the console for the 7800.   Here:

 

 

Two years older graphically. The sound was actually newer though Pokey was old and so was TIA.

Ballblazer and rescue on fractalus for the atari 5200 were in fact 1984 inventories shipped in 1986.  They could always make more with demand as previously mentioned.  But even if they weren't cartridges sitting in a warehouse, it would make sense to produce them rather than letting the IP waste.

 

In early 1984 Tramiel started a new company to "to design, manufacture, sell and service personal computers and related software and peripheral products."   Warner approached Tramiel about the sale of Atari.  Tramiel was interested in Atari's manufacturing facilities for his new computer.  They negotiated and Tramiel ended up with a lot of video game inventory and IP.  No doubt about it he was in the video game business, so they better have some sort of plan.  Their primary focus was their new 32-bit computer.

 

 

Edited by mr_me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mr_me said:

Ballblazer and rescue on fractalus for the atari 5200 were in fact 1984 inventories shipped in 1986. 

 

And then they produced more stock, and then produced more cartridges of other games. You're going in circles. 

 

This was for a pulled consoles with no mindshare, negative reception andbarely any consoles on the shelf. Don't forget they also produced new CONSOLES as well.

 

9 minutes ago, mr_me said:

In early 1984 Tramiel started a new company to "to design, manufacture, sell and service personal computers and related software and peripheral products."   Warner approached Tramiel about the sale of Atari.  Tramiel was interested in Atari's manufacturing facilities for his new computer.  They negotiated and Tramiel ended up with a lot of video game inventory and IP.  No doubt about it he was in the video game business, so they better have some sort of plan.  Their primary focus was their new 32-bit computer.

 

 

 

Ok that's great but now you're changing your argument or at least diluting it. At no point was the argument about whether the ST was the "focus" of the company. That's backpedalling.

 

also it was 16-bit not 32, though you could argue semantics.

Edited by Leeroy ST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, mr_me said:

Right.  The discussion was about Jack Tramiel not being serious about video games.

No it was about Atari Corp not being serious about games which was proven patently false my the above historical information and the news articles pages ago. Jacks relevance in some of these decisions related to gaming are minimal and were usually under someone else and he usually green lit them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are talking about putting the 2600jr in production and Tramiel's trouble making a deal with GCC.

 

And this must be the post with the newspaper articles.

https://atariage.com/forums/topic/310881-how-powerful-was-the-cancelled-atari-panther-compared-to-the-atari-stamiga/?do=findComment&comment=4627234

 

There's one that talks about Tramiel at winter ces 1985 demonstrating their new low priced ST computers;  "... greeted with both praise and skepticism ...".

 

Another from jan 1985 has Tramiel explaining that they were unable to begin shipping products in quantity until october 15.  The reason not being able to collect on the account receivables they acquired in the Atari deal.  The sales contract actually has the purchase price lowered if a certain amount of accounts receivables is not collected by a certain date.  He sold some of it back to warner and borrowed money from them as well.

 

A december 1985 article talks about the game "perry mason: the case of the mandarin murder", created by Telarium published by Audiogenic Software.  It was available for Apple II, IBM PC, and Atari ST.

 

Another article around the same time mentions a couple of Infocom games: Wishbringer and Mind Forever Voyaging available for Macintosh, Atari 520ST, Commodore, and IBM PC.

 

A december 1986 article talks about austerity measures at Atari Corp, reissuing well known video game machines,"including an improved system that the company had failed to promote; and began developing a powerful new personal computer".  Analysts are impressed that the company became profitable.  "Atari has kept its video game business alive by selling machines at bargain-basement prices.:

 

A jan 1987 article talks about the new $150 atari xe eight bit computer, and that it comes with a new light gun.

 

Another jan 1987 article talks about Atari Corp becoming profitable in 1986.; and going public.  It says they were successful with a low priced upgraded version of their 1985 st computer. 

 

A may 1987 article explains how tramiel turned atari around. "frugality", "advertising budget has been spent only on deeply discounted 'spot' ads", "undersell the competition".

 

Articles mentioning Michael Katz joining atari in 1985 "to run its video game operations"; another says "head a group offering 'entertainment electronics products".

 

The final article is about someone buying an atari 5200 for christmas 1984 but unable to find cartridges.  They were able to get a price list directly from atari, presumably for direct order.

 

----------------------

Official press release regarding Michael Katz:

"1985 November 15: Atari announced that Michael V. Katz, former chairman, president and chief executive officer of Epyx Inc., had joined the company as executive vice president of marketing, responsible for the management of the sales and marketing functions for Atari's domestic lines of computer hardware and software (replacing the departed James Copland in the role), and responsible for the initiation, development and management of a new division offering entertainment electronics products. In addition, Katz would be on the board of directors of Atari. (PR; Atari Dealer News 11/85)"

Edited by mr_me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont have the article and actually dont care to do digging around this, but again at the time Jack was focused on computers and VG's were to keep money coming in.  There is an interview with him as they were launching the 2600 Jr where he states they were blowing out the VG inventory when they took over as it was not a focus and when they ran out the retailors keep bugging him for more low cost systems so with the left over chips and such they decided to manufacture more and get more serious at the console arena.

 

Id love to see where Jack's Atari actually produced more 5200 carts - thats the strangest thing Ive heard as the 5200 was deader than a doorknob within a year of release.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Goochman said:

I dont have the article and actually dont care to do digging around this, but again at the time Jack was focused on computers and VG's were to keep money coming in.  There is an interview with him as they were launching the 2600 Jr where he states they were blowing out the VG inventory when they took over as it was not a focus and when they ran out the retailors keep bugging him for more low cost systems so with the left over chips and such they decided to manufacture more and get more serious at the console arena.

This was all common knowledge at the time.  Even Michael Katz admits it in an interview posted on this thread, that Jack saw VGs as a way to help fund his other projects and wasn't willing to make the kinds of investments needed to be made in gaming.

 

27 minutes ago, Goochman said:

Id love to see where Jack's Atari actually produced more 5200 carts - thats the strangest thing Ive heard as the 5200 was deader than a doorknob within a year of release.

Wikipedia lists 3 5200 titles released in 1986.  All were games from 1984 (Fractalus, Ballblazer and I forget the third).   Jack didn't release any new titles, just what they already had on hand.    Maybe he made a new run of carts to meet demand,  but again it's minimal effort designed to bring in cash from existing inventories/IPs

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Goochman said:

I dont have the article and actually dont care to do digging around this, but again at the time Jack was focused on computers and VG's were to keep money coming in.  There is an interview with him as they were launching the 2600 Jr where he states they were blowing out the VG inventory when they took over as it was not a focus and when they ran out the retailors keep bugging him for more low cost systems so with the left over chips and such they decided to manufacture more and get more serious at the console arena.

 

Id love to see where Jack's Atari actually produced more 5200 carts - thats the strangest thing Ive heard as the 5200 was deader than a doorknob within a year of release.

Except the 2600jr couldn't have been inventory because it didn't exist yet until Atari Corp revived the original 2100 project.

 

Also we literally have threads here on this very forum with pictures of Atari Corp on 5200 game cartridges, and games like Ball Blazer were produced for the 5200 by Atari Corp and then they even produced other 5200 games that were out of print.

 

I literally posted quotes and LOGS from Atari just a page or two ago as well as other facts. You guys keep digging down this pit.

 

Once again there is a difference between focused more on ST because that's where they were betting for the companies revival and still supporting as much as they could for games and "lol they never tried they hate games they didn't compete" like Zip keeps flailing about on despite all the facts and articles showing otherwise and now we have logs from Atari confirming this as well. 

 

2 hours ago, zzip said:

This was all common knowledge at the time.  Even Michael Katz admits it in an interview posted on this thread, that Jack saw VGs as a way to help fund his other projects and wasn't willing to make the kinds of investments needed to be made in gaming.

He was hired for gaming in 85, also read the response to the quote above, also go back a page or two and read direct logs for Atari. Companies are more than one person, I know that's hard for you to accept, as well as the continuing fact pile that builds up showing Atari did TRY as HARD as they could with the little resources THEY HAD to push video games. You were wrong plain and simple and have yet to produce any evidence in this thread other than one recollection interview about an opinion of one man, forgetting that he didn't run the whole company himself.

 

2 hours ago, zzip said:

Wikipedia lists 3 5200 titles released in 1986.  All were games from 1984 (Fractalus, Ballblazer and I forget the third).   Jack didn't release any new titles, 

Semantics, by definition he released new titles for the system and revived the system from the dead for consumers. Then produced more more consoles and reproduced older games. Doesn't sound like something a company that didn't care about games would. Nor revive the 2600jr project and finish it and ship it. Or negotiate with GCC TWICE once for the 7800 console and for games.

 

You just keep scoring zeroes. Don't forget the information posted about atari logs directly having video games as a strategy. ST being focus and you saying they weren't trying to compete are two different things you are wrong, and I know you keep saying "I feel" but I mean dude, the facts are right there you can feel whatever they factually used what resources they had into gaming. You can argue if they did it wisely but seriously? Give up. 

 

2 hours ago, zzip said:

but again it's minimal effort designed to bring in cash from existing inventories/IPs

Yes

 

1. Negotiating deal for 7800 console in 1985

2. Negotiating deal for games in 1985

3. Hiring staff to run the new gaming division in 1985

4. Continuing and later finishing 2100 project which became 2600 jr. in 1985

5. Getting dozens of devs ready for the ST in 1985

6. Reviving 5200, producing titles not before released. In 1985

7. Producing several other titles for 5200, produced more consoles, in 1985.

8. Negotiating with retailers and preparing marketing campaigns for all the above. In 1985.

 

But hey minial effort, company with only a small budget and limited access to capital (which they used) spend millions of dollars on an ST as a hope to revival and preparing tons of games for it hoping gamers would be attracted to the ST, while at the same time spend millions of dollars (though not as much) on video games with one revival, new production of games, 1 risk that hadn't proven itself, and reviving a dead project and finishing it.

 

But no effort though. Crazy stuff. Can't even say how all that's minimal effort. 

 

The in 1986, new dev teams ready, tramiel undercut price strategy ready, sold everything they could afford to manufacture for 7800, 2600 jr flying off shelves, Atari producing third party titles themselves because they can't put it on the system on their own, with licenses they had to PAY FOR. Plus 1st party development, plus aggressive game bundling on ST.


lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Lord Innit said:

What have all these  umpteen pages to do with comparing the power of the Panther with the Amiga and ST? Just asking coz you know, title of the thread and all that.

The twist came from the Panther being the successor to a canceled proposed ST console and while speculating on the ST console the Atari Corp haters came out in droves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

Except the 2600jr couldn't have been inventory because it didn't exist yet until Atari Corp revived the original 2100 project.

 

 

He built the 2600 Jr from old stock once he ran out of inventory.  The retailers continued to want more inventory so Jack decided to manufacture more product at the cheapest cost possible.  I believe this is when the black and white label variants came out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Goochman said:

He built the 2600 Jr from old stock once he ran out of inventory.  

Know he continued what Warner already did before the project and production was cancelled. He revived the project and moved to produce "X" quantity of consoles quickly to get the systems out early in 86 which is why the original 2600jr boxes were in in featureless red boxes (and some silver featureless boxes from the demo production run from Warner.

 

He didn't built it from old stock, he revived, adjusted, and produced new 2600's. 2600jr. Actually came out months before the 7800. It was the fastest "new" product to get on the market with the ST as 7800 was still in limbo. 

 

From what I gather Atari Corp didn't have much original model(s) 2600 in inventory that wasn't already in retailers at the start of 85 which would make sense since they sold 1 million 2600 consoles in 1985 which would necessitate the fast production and release of the Jr.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

1. Negotiating deal for 7800 console in 1985

Taking two years to get a console that was supposed to release in 1984 released, with the same games from 1984.  Sorry not impressed

 

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

2. Negotiating deal for games in 1985

Anything to compete with Super Mario Bros?   No?  Not Impressed

 

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

3. Hiring staff to run the new gaming division in 1985

Michael Katz, who said the same thing I (and pretty much everyone else) did about Jack.  He didn't want to put serious investment into gaming, and only wanted to be in gaming to raise cash for his other stuff.

 

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

4. Continuing and later finishing 2100 project which became 2600 jr. in 1985

A new version of a 1977 console in 1985?   Not impressed

 

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

5. Getting dozens of devs ready for the ST in 1985

The ST was not a console and certainly not a direct competitor to NES,  so apples and oranges.   The ST is the only they truly cared about during this timeframe

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

6. Reviving 5200, producing titles not before released. In 1985

7. Producing several other titles for 5200, produced more consoles, in 1985.

three titles that were already two years old when released in 86 (not 85), released on a console declared dead two years prior.  Not impressed.

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

8. Negotiating with retailers and preparing marketing campaigns for all the above. In 1985.

Marketing for a bunch of old stuff at a time when Nintendo is bringing in new stuff and stealing Atari's market share.   Not impressed.

 

But we get it...    your cherry-picked sources are better because you said so.   Even though they don't dispute what I've said.   Showing up to retailers selling games, and making an effort to be a serious player is not the same thing.  When it came to games, Jack was like a little league coach trying to beat a big league team and win the world series.   Maybe he hired a star player or two, but he bought them whiffle balls and bats to practice with because he didn't want to spend the money on the expensive stuff.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, zzip said:

Taking two years to get a console that was supposed to release in 1984 released, with the same games from 1984.  Sorry not impressed

 

Anything to compete with Super Mario Bros?   No?  Not Impressed

 

A new version of a 1977 console in 1985?   Not impressed

You not being impressed due to your personal opinion is irrelevant to an argument about facts that you're wrong in. I (like not impressed 2600 outselling the NES with SMB in 1985, does that fact hurt your feelings? It may, but that's what happened regardless of how you feel.)

 

You can do this all you want but everything you've argued in this thread is factually debunked by historical evidence and you're thoughts are not relevant to what actually happened.

 

But as of right now you have no ground to stand on and honestly you never did since your argument has been to use your feelings to debate historical events which is pure nonsense and you're still doing it. Nothing is cherry picked, you just don't want to admit what actually happened. (Torr also did the same thing having a hissy fit attacking me for striking down opinions when historical facts of what happened or trying to find out what happened aren't "opinions" and like you he can't seem to figure something that simple out.)

 

Fact is gaming was part of the core strategy, straight from the logs of Atari themselves, they spend an insane amount of money on it and more later after ST brought in cash, from the start they hired gaming people and had two negotiations for a console they could have said screw it to. I know it's not what you WANT to believe but it happened, quotes, logs, news scans, all actual evidence. None of which you rebuked nor have you posted any evidence of the contrary.

 

Now, If you want to debate subjectivity and feelings than concede and make that another topic of conversation because you lost this one sorry. 

 

Edited by Leeroy ST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

You not being impressed due to your personal opinion is irrelevant to an argument about facts that you're wrong in. I (like not impressed 2600 outselling the NES with SMB in 1985, does that fact hurt your feelings? It may, but that's what happened regardless of how you feel.)

 

You can do this all you want but everything you've argued in this thread is factually debunked by historical evidence and you're thoughts are not relevant to what actually happened.

 

If you want to debate subjectivity than concede and make that another topic of conversation. But as of right now you have no ground to stand on and honestly you never ddi since your argument has been to use your feelings to debate historical events which is pure nonsense and you're still doing it.

I guess the best way to end this debate is Nintendo is still a gaming king globally and Atari under Jacks "huge push" into video consoles is a footnote.  Nobody remembers Atari video consoles post 1983 regardless of how many old 2600's sold 1 year.  Everyone remembers SMB revived the video console market - no amount of articles or statistics can refute that.

 

However the ST is remembered as a competitive computer - MIDI alone it was a powerhouse for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

You not being impressed due to your personal opinion is irrelevant to an argument about facts that you're wrong in. I (like not impressed 2600 outselling the NES with SMB in 1985, does that fact hurt your feelings? It may, but that's what happened regardless of how you feel.)

Nintendo easily cleaning Atari's clock is not personal feeling, it's historical fact.  I don't care how many gaming moves you can list that Atari did, with sources   They were insufficient moves to change that outcome.

 

5 minutes ago, Goochman said:

I guess the best way to end this debate is Nintendo is still a gaming king globally and Atari under Jacks "huge push" into video consoles is a footnote.

ding ding ding!  We have a winner!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Goochman said:

I guess the best way to end this debate is Nintendo is still a gaming king globally and Atari under Jacks "huge push" into video consoles is a footnote.  Nobody remembers Atari video consoles post 1983 regardless of how many old 2600's sold 1 year.  Everyone remembers SMB revived the video console market - no amount of articles or statistics can refute that.

 

However the ST is remembered as a competitive computer - MIDI alone it was a powerhouse for years.

Except none of that was relevant to the argument. That's again mixing in opinion and also a bit of dishonesty into a topic strictly about events. "huge push" is relative, even after the ST Nintendo had vastly more money than Atari Corp so you can't really sarcastically use the term "huge push" and dismiss it based on market performance when that wasn't the argument and then omit the Atari Corps financials.

 

If anything you just prove my point that almost every person on the opposing side isn't interested in being historically accurate, just how they feel which isn't relevant. I not even a fan of the 7800 or the 2600, partial fan of the ST, yet I only posted actual articles verifying what "happened" at the time and yes Atari Corp did put effort into games despite peoples feelings with the resource they had, which were limited until ST money came in and event hen were still limited. Atari Corp was never that big of a company. 

 

Like I said if people want to argue on whether 7800 was impressive than ok that's a completely different argument to making the false claim Atari Corp didn't put effort into the 7800, they used the resources they could. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zzip said:

Nintendo easily cleaning Atari's clock is not personal feeling, it's historical fact. 

Which has nothing to do with your false claims of Atari not putting effort in video games. You not being impressed by what came out are called feelings. I don't know why you are having this many problems comprehending something so simple, and of course you don't debunk the fact you haven't put out a single historical fact to rebuke any previous points and immediately try to find a way to escape so you don't have to admit you lost the argument.

 

You make false claims, all of them are wrong period. If you think that Atari would have sold millions more and be near Nintendo if in YOUR ViEW they tried "harder" than guess what? That's also feelings, because Atari did try as hard as they could with what resources they did and with more money and third parties locked on contract and company you AREN'T mad at, Sega, went through a similar pit fall in marketshare. So even with feelings you aren't consistent. 

 

But guess what, fact is Atari did try what they could, their performance in relation to Nintendo due to that isn't relevant and had nothing to do with the fact your claim was wrong. Sorry.

 

Now again, facts=/=feelings. 

 

Edited by Leeroy ST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can only add this - I was in my 20's during this period.  Grew up a huge Atari fan - nothing I read in articles matched what was going on in the street.  Unless you lived in CA, Atari didnt exist after 1984.  The ST was the only thing marketed in any meaningful way until 1987 when the 7800/XEGS and 2600Jr. were flooded to the market and almost instantly hit the discount racks at Kay Bee.   The console push lasted maybe a year and by 1988 Atari video consoles were things you could get cheap if you wanted to.   I didnt know a soul who owned any Atari consoles, but alot of my 2600 friends had Nintendos.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Goochman said:

Well, I can only add this - I was in my 20's during this period.  Grew up a huge Atari fan - nothing I read in articles matched what was going on in the street.  Unless you lived in CA, Atari didnt exist after 1984.  The ST was the only thing marketed in any meaningful way until 1987 when the 7800/XEGS and 2600Jr. were flooded to the market and almost instantly hit the discount racks at Kay Bee.   The console push lasted maybe a year and by 1988 Atari video consoles were things you could get cheap if you wanted to.   I didnt know a soul who owned any Atari consoles, but alot of my 2600 friends had Nintendos.

Which has to do with what? You are talking about a subject that wasn't even argued. 

 

ST not being the main product of Atari Corp to revive a dying brand was never an argument. The argument is they didn't put in effort in games or tried to compete, and they did with the resources they had. Everything else is feelings or completely different discussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr_Me evidence is 1 million US sold 5200 to 1.5 million CV in october 1984 when 5200 was already on clearance and pulled out at the beginning of the year, that gap can't work without the 5200 being ahead then CV inching ahead by 500,000.

zzzip


2600 came in March, 5200 came in the fall, at least 6 mos later, which is a significant amount of time in the lifespan of a fad. Atari rushed the 2600 version for a reason, because they knew they needed to get it out while it was still hot.

The figure I quoted was revenue, not profit. Obviously if you are an industry built on an expectation of $3.2billion or revenue, and it drops to $100 million, nobody is going to be making a profit and everyone will have huge losses.



You are talking about only a 6 month different for a game that at time was 2 years old?

Also yes, Revenue, the difference is moot in this case as games are $10 supposed to be $80 revenue cuts down with profit. No one in the industry was making money that's why it crashed and many layoffs and bankrupcies. If game cost $80 to make $30 of each cart and you have to drop it from that to $20 or less you are screwed. But you have to do it because a glut of games bad and good, some even similar or clones, are cheaper than your game. The good ones were the big problem because they gave you similar entertainment for a better price even if it didn't look as good or play as good, if it was good enough then there you go. Then with computer prices crashing you would be a fool to leave console prices up you have to drop price of console, lose even more money.

Demand never drive up everyone was buying bargain price video games. Some places retailers took out games but that's because there was no money in putting games on shelf, the rest moved everything to bargain bin everyone was buying it. No one in 1984 or 1985 was saying games are bad let's not buy any you brought what you could, even new games release in 1985! It took most of that year for money to come back into the industry.

We never had another situation like that again because of standardized pricing and regulations put in place, even outside of video games. Today, a company can't make a COD clone when standard price is $60 for a game and sell it and mass market it at $20. It would have to be a small project with low budget or maybe indie game. A major AAA game doing that would be instantly criticized or worse before the game was even put on the shelf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...