Why was 7800 discontinued

[Lynxpro]

On 4/7/2021 at 7:52 PM, Mitch said:

I was only aware of two. Where did you hear that Curt or NVGM had one?

 

Mitch

 

Because I have 1, Curt told me he had one, and Curt and Dan both told me the NVGM has one.

[Pete5125]

The other note on the controller I do remember back in the day being one of the few that did like the new control pads, vs joystick variations that were closer to the arcade counterparts I had always used over the years.

 

But, making a worst version that hurt your hand never made sense to me.

 

On the controller to this day I cant imagine why, it doesnt look bad, my only guess was they were still concerned about the small percentage of left handed players as the only advantage I can see is a left hand vs right hand could use the controller the same.

 

That was the biggest flaw, but honesty it never sold enough fo rft people to say much about it.

 

The price war is intresting as it did launch for 79bucks and the only commercials tan were the "fun is back of ataree, under 80 bucks 

[Pete5125]

On 5/9/2021 at 1:11 PM, CPUWIZ said:

I missed the NES completely, it was inferior to what I was using at the time, but I am still not sure what any of this has to do with the 7800 being discontinued.  If you guys think Mario killed the 7800, I want to see proof, since I don't believe it.  Purely bad management killed the 7800, IMNSHO.

I mean Mario kept it from being a success, Nes monopolistic policies combined with a cost cutting Atari, kept it from gaining more than 12 percent of mkt.

 

Sonic put the nail in the coffin, 1989, sega Genesis came out, by 91 Sonic was the packin and Sega had 51percent of mkt, SNES was being released that year. 

 

Atari saw the writing on the wall and killed the line and liquidated what was left of the 2600/7800,  in America a year after Genesis hit the mkt.

 

So it ended, because 16 bit had became popular, it lasting the period it did, with the small amount of support Atari gave it is amazing.  Until the Big Lots liquidation finding anyone that sold it or true 7800 games for it was difficult It was in maybe 4 stores KBee, Toys R us, Sears, Hills. It mostly had 2600 games around it, most retailers had NES, and all the games.

 

Also could tell Atari was on the side was not a prominate product, games just weren't displayed the same.  Nintendo had figured out the American mkt and it took it about a year.

[Cebus Capucinis]

On 5/31/2021 at 9:01 PM, Jinks said:

I heard this story once before. You live in the alternate reality bro.

 

Haha well, it was BFE Idaho, and by "we had a 7800 but I never saw an NES" I don't mean they were everywhere or anything. We had one store, a Woolworth's, and it carried....one 2600, one 7800, and a handful of discounted games for each? That was it. It didn't get any NES stuff for a few years, probably because it was a discount store.

 

So it's definitely not a magic Tramiel-free land where 7800 flowed like milk and honey like some deluded folks have said they remember. It was just the cheapo console at the only cheapo store we had in our town. I assume the NES didn't come to us because it was still selling at full price for its first couple years.

[zzip]

5 hours ago, Pete5125 said:

On the controller to this day I cant imagine why, it doesnt look bad, my only guess was they were still concerned about the small percentage of left handed players as the only advantage I can see is a left hand vs right hand could use the controller the same.

But they could have simply put a second button on the CX40 to cater to left-handers too, no need for a redesign.   I can only think the feeling was the CX40 looked ancient at the time, and they wanted something modern-looking,  and before NES,  "modern-looking" meant something along the form-factor of INTV/Coleco with a stick/pad at the end of an elongated controller.

 

 

[Joey Kay]

On 3/31/2021 at 8:56 PM, Turbo-Torch said:

 

Possibly price point?  I don't know what the price of the 65XE was in '87, but if the XEGS was substantially cheaper, I can see people buying it as a home computer instead, especially if that point was brought up in magazine articles.  Although I would have paid extra to not have the Fisher-Price pastel buttons.

 

I still have some Atari Canada quarterly "Special Order Software Product Lists" from 1988 onwards.  The fall 1988 list (Vol. 1, No. 4) was the first time systems were available for purchase via direct order.  The 65XE was $169.95, the 130XE was $259.95, and the XEGS was $249.95.  Note the 7800 was $139.95.  

 

I bought a 130XE instead of an XEGS because I wanted a "computer," but in retrospect the XEGS was a better value.  Oh the 12-year-old mind... 

 

    

[+GoldLeader]

On 6/4/2021 at 7:07 AM, Cebus Capucinis said:

Haha well, it was BFE Idaho, and by "we had a 7800 but I never saw an NES" I don't mean they were everywhere or anything. We had one store, a Woolworth's, and it carried....one 2600, one 7800, and a handful of discounted games for each? That was it. It didn't get any NES stuff for a few years, probably because it was a discount store.

 

So it's definitely not a magic Tramiel-free land where 7800 flowed like milk and honey like some deluded folks have said they remember. It was just the cheapo console at the only cheapo store we had in our town. I assume the NES didn't come to us because it was still selling at full price for its first couple years.

Also NES REALLY came out in 87-88...Definitely NOT in 85 as the internet falsely claims.   Now, not to be misquoted on this...There was a Test Market in I believe 3 places in 1985, and then the rollout began...By LATE 1986, the Holiday Season it was showing up in stores, but still not ubiquitous like people try to claim...I always say, Be Honest,  Did you know about the NES in 1986?   Most people, including myself, did NOT...

[zzip]

14 hours ago, GoldLeader said:

Also NES REALLY came out in 87-88...Definitely NOT in 85 as the internet falsely claims.   Now, not to be misquoted on this...There was a Test Market in I believe 3 places in 1985, and then the rollout began...By LATE 1986, the Holiday Season it was showing up in stores, but still not ubiquitous like people try to claim...I always say, Be Honest,  Did you know about the NES in 1986?   Most people, including myself, did NOT...

Yeah, it was really closer to the end of the decade when everyone I knew was getting NESes.    1985 was a very bleak year for videogames in US because it was the bottom of the crash.   Most stores barely carried them anymore at that point, or they had a weak stock.   You had to go to Toys R Us to find a decent selection of games.

[DavidD]

I've always had the impression that "Nintendo's monopolistic practices" is a bit misused around these parts.

 

The main complaints always seem to be about:

• Nintendo's exclusivity requirement
• Nintendo using a lock-out chip
• Nintendo threatening to hold back shipments of popular NES games if chains carried 3rd party, unlicensed software.

The LAST point is a completely valid complaint, and is surely illegal.  I don't see how the first two are, nor how they had ANY impact on the 7800.  Do we have any examples of 3rd parties skipping the 7800 due to a Nintendo exclusivity deal? Any at all?

 

Nintendo didn't use it's "monopoly" to hard Atari in any way that I can think of.  Tengen/Atari Games could complain thanks to point three, but I don't see how Atari Corp. was harmed in any way by any of Nintendo's "monopolistic" practices.  The fact of the matter is that, on the whole, the average consumer saw the 7800 games as immensely inferior to what was on the NES.

[atarian1]

2 hours ago, DavidD said:

I've always had the impression that "Nintendo's monopolistic practices" is a bit misused around these parts.

 

The main complaints always seem to be about:

• Nintendo's exclusivity requirement
• Nintendo using a lock-out chip

I don't see how the first two are, nor how they had ANY impact on the 7800.  Do we have any examples of 3rd parties skipping the 7800 due to a Nintendo exclusivity deal? Any at all?

 

Nintendo didn't use it's "monopoly" to hard Atari in any way that I can think of. I don't see how Atari Corp. was harmed in any way by any of Nintendo's "monopolistic" practices. 

Not letting 3rd party game makers make games for other systems other than the NES sounds monopolistic to me. Just because you don't hear this from 3rd party game makers doesn't mean it didn't happen. Nintendo probably forced them not to gripe about it in their agreements. Putting a choke hold like that is monopolistic.

 

Can you imagine if Atari put a chokehold on say, Parker Brothers. If Atari told them if you make Frogger for the 2600, you can't release it for Intellivision or Colecovision? If I were Parker Brothers, I would be pissed. While there aren't as many Intellivisions or Colecovisions out there as 2600s, they can still make a decent profit from those non-2600 versions. Why would this not apply to the 7800/NES/SMS era?

[zzip]

7 hours ago, DavidD said:

• Nintendo's exclusivity requirement
• Nintendo using a lock-out chip
• Nintendo threatening to hold back shipments of popular NES games if chains carried 3rd party, unlicensed software.

I think #2 was within Nintendo's rights,  and possibly #3 to Nintendo these were the equivalent of bootlegs hurting their bottom line,  the NES was intended to be a closed system, and they intended to enforce that, unlike Atari before them.

 

Some of the practices I've heard around #1 sound more monopolistic to me.   Nintendo can control what gets made for their system, but they have no rights dictating what can't get made for other systems

[empsolo]

5 hours ago, atarian1 said:

Not letting 3rd party game makers make games for other systems other than the NES sounds monopolistic to me. Just because you don't hear this from 3rd party game makers doesn't mean it didn't happen. Nintendo probably forced them not to gripe about it in their agreements. Putting a choke hold like that is monopolistic.

 

Can you imagine if Atari put a chokehold on say, Parker Brothers. If Atari told them if you make Frogger for the 2600, you can't release it for Intellivision or Colecovision? If I were Parker Brothers, I would be pissed. While there aren't as many Intellivisions or Colecovisions out there as 2600s, they can still make a decent profit from those non-2600 versions. Why would this not apply to the 7800/NES/SMS era?

Because third parties were barely a thing in second generation and there were few court cases to test wether or not a closed platform was legal or wether or not third party exclusivity was legal either. It should be noted that Both Sega and Atari Corp sued Nintendo on antitrust grounds but a jury ended up returning a not guilty verdict because the antitrust laws simply do not cover the question of an exclusive licensing deals as well as the fact that as far as the Jury was concerned third parties were free to enter into contracts with other players or even to reserve certain franchises to certain systems.

 

In a lot of ways, Nintendo’s practices are still with us. Take a look at the bidding wars between Sony and Microsoft over obtaining exclusive rights to third party IP.

[empsolo]

1 hour ago, zzip said:

I think #2 was within Nintendo's rights,  and possibly #3 to Nintendo these were the equivalent of bootlegs hurting their bottom line,  the NES was intended to be a closed system, and they intended to enforce that, unlike Atari before them.

 

Some of the practices I've heard around #1 sound more monopolistic to me.   Nintendo can control what gets made for their system, but they have no rights dictating what can't get made for other systems

If that were the case then Sony wouldn’t be moneyhatting exclusivity deals to try and keep the hottest Japanese Games off of Xbox for a year or two in an effort to frontload sales.

[BydoEmpire]

On 6/3/2021 at 7:27 AM, GoldenWheels said:

 

Except they're not even better than the CX-40s! ? (edit, I agree with zzip obviously!)

 

At least Atari was never dumb enough to use number pads again! Wait.....

I actually like controllers with number pads, but mostly the stick needs to be on the bottom of the controller (if it's joystick-based, not like the Jag).  That's why I liked the Inty controller more than the 5200 & CV.  It doesn't put too much pressure on your wrist when moving.

[zzip]

2 hours ago, empsolo said:

If that were the case then Sony wouldn’t be moneyhatting exclusivity deals to try and keep the hottest Japanese Games off of Xbox for a year or two in an effort to frontload sales.

I think there's a difference between a timed exclusivity deals and using heavy-handed tactics to keep developers away from other platforms.  (Xbox has done timed-exclusitivity too btw)

 

For instance, there are some developers that mostly publish to a single console.   That's fine if that's their choice.   You might see a company like Insomniac (before they were bought by Sony) mostly publish to Playstation consoles, but occasionally release a multiplatform game or even an Xbox exclusive.

 

But I think the situation developers found themselves in in the NES days was Nintendo severely limited the number of games they could publish on NES in a given year, but also punish or dis incentivize them from publishing on other consoles.   In such a case, these developers might want to release more games than Nintendo allowed but do it on other platforms to increase revenue,  but couldn't.

Edited June 8, 2021 by zzip

[+GoldenWheels]

2 hours ago, BydoEmpire said:

I actually like controllers with number pads, but mostly the stick needs to be on the bottom of the controller (if it's joystick-based, not like the Jag).  That's why I liked the Inty controller more than the 5200 & CV.  It doesn't put too much pressure on your wrist when moving.

I wish I could say I liked them, and given the tech of the time, they make a lot of logical sense.

 

My big beef with the three you mention are actually the disc, the analog stick and the coleco nubbin. I never found number pads a real negative I guess...they did their job at the time. Just seems like such a dead end design (which I think is backed up by how NO controller has them now...of course if you count the buttons a on a modern controller, you could easily assign each a number and call your aunt in Peoria if it was a phone....)

[+GoldLeader]

Also, Nintendo (allegedly) held back chips (to make the games) when publishers made games for other systems too.  They blamed it on "chip shortages", but most would say that was only partially true.  This absolutely hurt the third party's bottom line, and is different than a timed exclusivity deal, i.e. "Get it first on PlayStation!".  Part of their agreement also limited each publisher to 5 games a year, but that was part of Nintendo wishing to maintain a high level of quality, and was rarely an issue.  As for stores,  one of their (illegal) monopolistic practices was to tell the stores that they could Only carry Nintendo, and that they would not sell to that store if they carried Atari, Sega etc.

[+GoldLeader]

5 minutes ago, GoldenWheels said:

I wish I could say I liked them, and given the tech of the time, they make a lot of logical sense.

 

My big beef with the three you mention are actually the disc, the analog stick and the coleco nubbin. I never found number pads a real negative I guess...they did their job at the time. Just seems like such a dead end design (which I think is backed up by how NO controller has them now...of course if you count the buttons a on a modern controller, you could easily assign each a number and call your aunt in Peoria if it was a phone....)

?  haha!   You crack me up man! 

 

Modern controllers except for Sony, kind of suck too,  as they always put the D-Pad in the wrong spot...But I digress.

[empsolo]

18 minutes ago, zzip said:

I think there's a difference between a timed exclusivity deals and using heavy-handed tactics to keep developers away from other platforms.  (Xbox has done timed-exclusitivity too btw)

 

For instance, there are some developers that mostly publish to a single console.   That's fine if that's their choice.   You might see a company like Insomniac (before they were bought by Sony) mostly publish to Playstation consoles, but occasionally release a multiplatform game or even an Xbox exclusive.

 

But I think the situation developers found themselves in in the NES days was Nintendo severely limited the number of games they could publish on NES in a given year, but also punish or dis incentivize them from publishing on other consoles.   In such a case, these developers might want to release more games than Nintendo allowed but do it on other platforms to increase revenue,  but couldn't.

The problem with the punishment angle is that is has been alleged that this occurred, but strangely nobody offered any proof or smoking gun especially when the justice department was sniffing around the time of the Atari and Sega suits. I remain skeptical especially when sources Phoenix: the rise and fall of Video Games alleged the same practices occurred between Atari, Coleco and Mattel against each other’s shelf space in big box retail outlets.

[empsolo]

4 minutes ago, GoldLeader said:

Also, Nintendo (allegedly) held back chips (to make the games) when publishers made games for other systems too.  They blamed it on "chip shortages", but most would say that was only partially true.  This absolutely hurt the third party's bottom line, and is different than a timed exclusivity deal, i.e. "Get it first on PlayStation!".  Part of their agreement also limited each publisher to 5 games a year, but that was part of Nintendo wishing to maintain a high level of quality, and was rarely an issue.  As for stores,  one of their (illegal) monopolistic practices was to tell the stores that they could Only carry Nintendo, and that they would not sell to that store if they carried Atari, Sega etc.

Like I said this was alleged and strangely none of the retailers would admit to this in court when witnesses were being deposed for Atari Corp lawsuit.

[zzip]

3 minutes ago, empsolo said:

The problem with the punishment angle is that is has been alleged that this occurred, but strangely nobody offered any proof or smoking gun especially when the justice department was sniffing around the time of the Atari and Sega suits. I remain skeptical especially when sources Phoenix: the rise and fall of Video Games alleged the same practices occurred between Atari, Coleco and Mattel against each other’s shelf space in big box retail outlets.

I don't know for sure if it was as bad as alleged,  just that out of the 3 complaints posted earlier in the thread, this was the most likely to be anti-trust violations.

 

 

[BydoEmpire]

55 minutes ago, GoldenWheels said:

I wish I could say I liked them, and given the tech of the time, they make a lot of logical sense.

 

My big beef with the three you mention are actually the disc, the analog stick and the coleco nubbin. I never found number pads a real negative I guess...they did their job at the time. Just seems like such a dead end design (which I think is backed up by how NO controller has them now...of course if you count the buttons a on a modern controller, you could easily assign each a number and call your aunt in Peoria if it was a phone....)

I definitely agree they were a product of the time and the three systems that used them didn't implement them well - it wasn't the number pad, it was the rest of the controller .  I would also say you could make the argument that since no modern controller has joysticks either, then joysticks also a dead-end design.  ... that doesn't mean I don't still like them and prefer them for certain types of games.

[pacman000]

If I remember right, U.S. courts considered exclusive-dealing contracts per se violations of anti-trust laws till the late 70's or mid-80's. By the late 80's, the courts had decided that exclusive dealing contracts were ok, if they were to help maintain quality standards, so that's what Nintendo claimed when they were sued; they claimed that the lockout chip was needed to help maintain the quality consumers expected.

 

Also, Nintendo pointed out that developers could release different versions of the same game on other systems; that's probably why you start seeing a few games get releases on both the NES & home computers by the late 80's. As long as they had different level designs, developers weren't violating their contracts.

[Leeroy ST]

On 6/4/2021 at 3:55 AM, Pete5125 said:

The other note on the controller I do remember back in the day being one of the few that did like the new control pads, vs joystick variations that were closer to the arcade counterparts I had always used over the years.

 

But, making a worst version that hurt your hand never made sense to me.

 

You were supposed to play it on a table or some other flat surface.

 

On 6/8/2021 at 1:39 PM, empsolo said:

Like I said this was alleged and strangely none of the retailers would admit to this in court when witnesses were being deposed for Atari Corp lawsuit.

But makes sense since Sega and Ataris' retail presence dropped in 1987 after the 7800 sold out the year before and had positive coverage from Magazines, and Sega had started working with Tonka to increase distribution only to see it fall not long after. Of course, there's no direct proof but there's always some old guy who comes out with something before they go, or if they no longer have to worry about long term litigation/NDAs.

 

On 6/8/2021 at 10:32 AM, empsolo said:

Because third parties were barely a thing in second third generation

They were on computers in comparison. The issue was that the courts didn't think precedents on computers or in different industries applied to game consoles because a lot of legal experts viewed these machines as toys, and I mean the electronic version of a ken doll type toy. Even though others viewed them as consumer electronics, the toy issue was a concern that became worse when Nintendo positioned the NES as a toy itself. When you think of it from a 55 year old, or older judge or lawyers perspective in the 80's, it's hard to really wrap your head around tech at the time, everything was happening really fast.

 

On 6/8/2021 at 4:30 AM, atarian1 said:

Not letting 3rd party game makers make games for other systems other than the NES sounds monopolistic to me. Just because you don't hear this from 3rd party game makers doesn't mean it didn't happen. Nintendo probably forced them not to gripe about it in their agreements. Putting a choke hold like that is monopolistic.

 

 

Katz who was hired to be in charge of the gaming division in 1985 to get software for the 7800, before the NES was even tested in NYC, had already ran into this issue that very early. Nearly all the Japanese developers were already blocked from making deals with Atari and they had to resort to computer software developers, a small handful since the so many computer third parties had no interest in making games for any of these weaker limiting consoles over the power and flexibility of home computers. There was literally nothing Katz could do unless Atari put out a powerful ST console out in 1986 which wasn't happening.

 

Sega was in a similar boat, although it was a bit more self-inflicted based on their actions in Japan.

 

On 6/7/2021 at 9:44 AM, zzip said:

Yeah, it was really closer to the end of the decade when everyone I knew was getting NESes.    1985 was a very bleak year for videogames in US because it was the bottom of the crash.   Most stores barely carried them anymore at that point, or they had a weak stock.   You had to go to Toys R Us to find a decent selection of games.

More consoles sold that year than people think, and more retailers had them then people thought. I think it was something like 3 million consoles. A big drop but showed that things were improving.

 

On 6/4/2021 at 4:09 AM, Pete5125 said:

I mean Mario kept it from being a success, Nes monopolistic policies combined with a cost cutting Atari, kept it from gaining more than 12 percent of mkt.

 

 

At one point Atari had 20% of the market than 13%.

 

Mario had nothing to do with it, if Mario was as much as a driver that revisionists say they would have sold out all test consoles and would have led to a bigger 1986 than what Nintendo had.

 

On that note, one factor about Sega and Ataris situation that isn't considered, Atari 7800 sold out what they could make in 1986 and Sega did well according to reports, they both sold within the 100k range for their machines which was better than expected without NES being there, however at the time both those consoles hit those landmarks Nintendo had shipped over 1 million by the end of the year. 

 

Sure there may have been some stuffing, but there was also the fact Nintendo had deals with retailers and having that much stock out makes it easier to get retailers to sign on to deals.

 

My question is, could Atari or Sega have actually manufactured more SMS and 7800's? Because from my view I don't think Atari 7800 or the Sega Master System had a chance of winning or being a closer second place to the NES, because I don't think either could increase manufacturing fast enough. You can have games that make people faint in surprise and you won't be able to sell anything if you can't produce the numbers. Assuming we go higher than we should with the estimates and make the assumption that Sega and Atari combined shipped 300k the NES would still be over 3x that in available units at retailers.

 

Unless something changes which forces the NES to undership, which is unlikely since because of Japan Nintendo was flush with cash and had an advantage in manufacturing clout, I don't think it was ever possible at any time to compete with the NES unless Sega and Atari put out stronger systems to get Arcade software companies and computer software companies to replace those large gaps in their libraries, and if they helped with the marketing. 

 

In hindsight Ataris strategy with the 2600JR made perfect sense, because the 2600JR was cheaper and faster to manufacture you can produce 1 million or more 2600JR a year, and then slowly cut back the shipments for it as the 7800 shipments increase. It doesn't work to well with "beating" the NES but it does provide a way to make profits when you know you're going to lose. I've looked at some other forums and news information and it does seem that the 2600 was selling pretty close to the NES earlier on, so it's clear people still wanted those "dead games" that the revisionists bring up. 

 

But back to the point, I think Sega and Atari were screwed from the start since the monopolistic game policy was already in effect. With no developers and lower shipments there's no way they could possibly challenge the NES and try and stop the retail monopoly, and there's no way either could have known how many consoles Nintendo put out there. 

 

The Genesis coming out a bit early helped it with this, they were able to get shipments to increase over time, picked up marketing, and by the time the SNES came out they could do counter ads, several policies from Nintendo were dropped or in the process of being dropped, and when Sonic hit it helped the Genesis stay in retailers and expand its footprint. 
 

On the other end, from the ST consoles, to the Panther, to the Jaguar, Atari had too many delays, and when the Jaguar came out way too late (1994) Atari had the same problem they had almost 10 years earlier. 

 

 

 

[zzip]

8 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

Katz who was hired to be in charge of the gaming division in 1985 to get software for the 7800, before the NES was even tested in NYC, had already ran into this issue that very early. Nearly all the Japanese developers were already blocked from making deals with Atari and they had to resort to computer software developers, a small handful since the so many computer third parties had no interest in making games for any of these weaker limiting consoles over the power and flexibility of home computers. There was literally nothing Katz could do unless Atari put out a powerful ST console out in 1986 which wasn't happening.

Japanese developers were not a significant force in the western home market prior to NES arriving.   The only exception was when licensing certain arcade games from the likes of Namco, Konami and Nintendo.

 

Most of the cartridges for these systems were produced by western companies, many of which were recent upstarts.   Many were produced by the platform holders, like Mattel or Atari themselves.

 

Atari had it's own arcade division which was the source of many hits, but that was not part of the 1984 sale.   Atari used to have a large R&D group for making games, but that got decimated too.   Third parties will happily develop for anyone who pays the bills, technical limitations be damned, it's guaranteed income.    Problem is many of them didn't trust the Tramiels to pay the bills, they saw how they tried to stiff GCC.

 

All this reeks of excuse-making by Katz.   He had to deal with problem of Atari's own making.   If there was money in the platform developers would flock to it.   New third parties would rise up to support it.

 

21 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

More consoles sold that year than people think, and more retailers had them then people thought. I think it was something like 3 million consoles. A big drop but showed that things were improving.

Sales in emerging markets were increasing,  not in North America where the crash happened primarily