Why was 7800 discontinued

[youxia]

Well, we might see very little "new information" but you can always count on some low-level drama

[Pete5125]

On 9/13/2021 at 2:58 PM, James Vontor said:

Games were not outdated at launch for Prosystem 7800 model. Atari internally knew full well market demand was still high for those retroactive considered old games, and demand for 2600.

 

That is why 2600 was still sold even with Prosystem being compatible with 2600 library. 

 

They planned to coast on name brand because console market research showed no indication that any of new comers had any chance so they only thought they would instead try and make money and they did. Not a single console product lost money all gain 100%.

 

Every press wire they have earnings or some announcement of consoles brining in some amount of money so on and so on.

 

No one knew Nintendo had big number of production facilities and sent an army over. It gave Nintendo ability to take the shelves. But even with Nintendo ending up being winning competitor unforeseen, Sega was burning cash and Atari was making cash it didn't really matter if they were losing.

 

Because if you exclude Nintendo things went as planned. They compete much more than usual but only to sell a good number of consoles to increase profit, but still go with plan of coasting on brand name and selling in demand old games.

 

Atari 7800 Prosystem console, XE system consoles, 2600 console in old stock, the new Junior 2600 model, left over 5200 warehouse units, all together maybe sell 15 million units world wide. Maybe 10 million of that in US or more alone. 

 

It big pay day at Atari, and they had big software sales in the millions too, much revenue generated, then you have accessories and so on. I would say for Atari brand most successful period in life 1985-1991? There was no lack of customers, Nintendo came out of nowhere and surprise and yet still big sales for Atari name and not including computer, only TV machines.

 

Sega meanwhile never make single dollar on any system in each.

 

Individually it may seem mixed with small library some great games some WHAT? games but, Atari never planned individual they wanted to invade through many machines.

 

For Baby step and nostalgia 2600 Junior model, for those ready for next step teenagers college Prosystem 7800, those who was burned they get some small 5200 stuff. For sophisticated computer user you have now a TV Atari 8-bit computer. I remember reading they call it "multi-demographic targeting" which worked.

 

Problem is they had no follow up. No follow up to Prosystem 7800 means you can't use 7800 as new first step machine like 2600 junior. You have no computer TV machine after XEGS. You instead have two cancelled device one may never have even exist, so called ST hybrid TV computer, I think 100% imaginary.

 

So named Cheetah than changed to Panther also may have just been demo model that never actually did anything itself if it did I apologize but I think any software was some stand alone thing had nothing to do with an actual working Panther machine.

 

We end up with another cat Jaguar, going to save the company they all keep saying, but turns out to be another dead cat bounce just like those that had false hope Radioshack stock coming back so they go bankrupt with them, lose their house.

 

Only product we got in between was handheld Lynx, did not even bundle Klax after seeing Tetris and was second priority to Jaguar dead cat bounce. So Lynx end up bouncing with it, but at 300 feet what happen when you land on head? Rip.

 

My opinion Jack did not do enough to train his kids, they did not understand his original master plan for what was term "multi-demographic targeting" which worked very well, what we should have had is 7800 Prosystem replace 2600 as first step console, Atari 10000 as new main console, ST Game System short hand as STEG to replace XEGS, then Atari have 3 product for all ages compete with Sega Drive and Super Nintendo. And Bonk machine but that would be easy win. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That, is crazy, 7800 was dead in 92, believing Atari should continue to invest in a machine that had a small user base is crazy.

 

Those that had purchased had moved on by this point. 

 

2600 had a huge user base, so continuing as a budget machine did work. 

 

You are correct finding a way to sell thru a massive library of games, then even sell enough systems to re-release some of the 2600 games was ingenious. He sold most of the backlog and made a profit.

 

This move also killed Atari's name as being leaders in the industry. The 2600 was known in early 80s as delivering best home experience, by the 90s it was known as the poor kids system, that dated tech was 10 years. Behind competitors.

[James Vontor]

6 hours ago, Pete5125 said:

That, is crazy, 7800 was dead in 92, believing Atari should continue to invest in a machine that had a small user base is crazy.

 

 

You are confusing the problem.

 

The problem was Atari destroyed all their products even if they made marginal profits.

 

7800 just one of the pieces.

 

At some point you just have the Jaguar only. Where is your reserves? None exist. So you can't make a mistake.

 

But this is Atari Corp under Sammy, mistakes every hour.

[James Vontor]

On 10/4/2021 at 11:55 AM, zzip said:

Warner was running a videogame company that also sold computers.

 

Jack was running a computer company that also sold videogames, and the ST was his signature product.   Every product line that wasn't ST didn't get as much attention/investment as it needed.   So they were focusing most of their limited resources on the ST.

 

I wouldn't say the ST was a huge success either.   It sold well at first..  it was the most affordable 16-bit computer at the time.   But it only did well for a couple of years before.   By 88, the Amiga 500 was giving it a run for its money and it was already becoming clear that PC was going to be the dominant platform.

ST was a success, it stopped when it's upgrade released.

 

Jack left and things were starting to slow then Sky messed things up at lightning speeds.

 

ST was what saved Atari Corp it was the only product to get them in the game. They had the success and mindshare but several later staff did not understand the blue print.

 

As quoted by other above I mentioned way before the three prong strategy that was set to sim at multiple demographics, that made Atari insane money across 3 consoles. Add in ST and you are looking at a money train.

 

But that strategy was wrecked. 7800 was supposed to be the new 2600, 7800 replaced, and new XEGS like console for high end.

 

Instead we get no TV machine and only a portable. Then we have mega st super st mega ste, stacy, Falcon all failures.

[Zonie]

IMHO, the thing that killed it was cheaper computers, and the C64 at $259, then $179 made game consoles of the era noncompetitive. Commodore bought MOS technologies, which meant they now had their own fab and got the chips at cost. Atari could no longer compete, and Apple and IBM were in a totally different market, such as the more affluent homes and businesses, and Apple had the school market shared with Tandy.

 

Commodore flooded the market, and the developers supported it.

 

Piracy was easy with computers too. Kids could get dozens of games by copying disk and tape games, and there were always people breaking the copy protection, like GCS, German Cracking Service. After I got my 64, The Atari went into the closet and I never looked at consoles again, until I had my own kids.

[zzip]

13 hours ago, Zonie said:

IMHO, the thing that killed it was cheaper computers, and the C64 at $259, then $179 made game consoles of the era noncompetitive. Commodore bought MOS technologies, which meant they now had their own fab and got the chips at cost. Atari could no longer compete, and Apple and IBM were in a totally different market, such as the more affluent homes and businesses, and Apple had the school market shared with Tandy.

That is a good point.   When the next generation of computers arrived, (Atari ST/Amiga/Mac)  they were far more expensive, and that's precisely when the console market revived.

[Pete5125]

On 10/10/2021 at 5:32 PM, James Vontor said:

ST was a success, it stopped when it's upgrade released.

 

Jack left and things were starting to slow then Sky messed things up at lightning speeds.

 

ST was what saved Atari Corp it was the only product to get them in the game. They had the success and mindshare but several later staff did not understand the blue print.

 

As quoted by other above I mentioned way before the three prong strategy that was set to sim at multiple demographics, that made Atari insane money across 3 consoles. Add in ST and you are looking at a money train.

 

But that strategy was wrecked. 7800 was supposed to be the new 2600, 7800 replaced, and new XEGS like console for high end.

 

Instead we get no TV machine and only a portable. Then we have mega st super st mega ste, stacy, Falcon all failures.

The 3 prong approach only made a ton of money, cause he had warehouse of old tech that he got for next to nothing and was just finding ways to rebrand old tech to sell old stock, he lucked out that Atari had great luck thru catalog sales.

 

7800, as he refused to use chips, as they made games to expensive was very dated tech and was not selling in 92, Atari wouldn't of liquidated if their was any chance of selling it, with the backwards compatibility of 7800, keeping 2600jr on the mkt at all made very little sense, as game development could of continued, for both machines.

 

User base for 7800 was way to low to keep 7800 in production.

 

Atari should of developed at 16/32 bit system for early 90s release to replace 7800/xe, but all their money was tied up in re-releasing old systems and the low end computer mkt, by the time they figured out computers were moving to IBM clones, their computer line was dead.

 

Moving back to consoles was the better move but, they had been out of the mkt to long and had no understanding of what was needed and how much it cost to relaunch their brand name in the mkt.

 

Probably just moving to ibm software and producing games for Sega/Nintendo would of yield more money, but they had been In the hardware business for 2 decades so they went for it, looked like they may have a chance and it didn't work.

[atarian63]

On 10/17/2021 at 8:41 PM, Zonie said:

IMHO, the thing that killed it was cheaper computers, and the C64 at $259, then $179 made game consoles of the era noncompetitive. Commodore bought MOS technologies, which meant they now had their own fab and got the chips at cost. Atari could no longer compete, and Apple and IBM were in a totally different market, such as the more affluent homes and businesses, and Apple had the school market shared with Tandy.

 

Commodore flooded the market, and the developers supported it.

 

Piracy was easy with computers too. Kids could get dozens of games by copying disk and tape games, and there were always people breaking the copy protection, like GCS, German Cracking Service. After I got my 64, The Atari went into the closet and I never looked at consoles again, until I had my own kids.

Commodore was not needed or wanted, what was needed was more licenses fir arcade games

[zzip]

On 10/22/2021 at 8:18 PM, Pete5125 said:

Atari should of developed at 16/32 bit system for early 90s release to replace 7800/xe, but all their money was tied up in re-releasing old systems and the low end computer mkt, by the time they figured out computers were moving to IBM clones, their computer line was dead.

This would have helped, and I'd like to think they could've produced some kind of STGS with no keyboard/floppy that took carts and sold for under $300.   But they still didn't know what they were doing on the content side.   Even if they had built such a system and beat Genesis/N64 to market, I have a feeling it would be lacking in compelling games.

[Pete5125]

18 hours ago, zzip said:

This would have helped, and I'd like to think they could've produced some kind of STGS with no keyboard/floppy that took carts and sold for under $300.   But they still didn't know what they were doing on the content side.   Even if they had built such a system and beat Genesis/N64 to market, I have a feeling it would be lacking in compelling games.

True, Sega shouldn't of been able to do what they did with Genesis in North America, Nintendo had to much of the mkt. But, the gamers Nintendo had, had grown up playing video games, Nintendo did not move with the mkt, because they were just making to much money, I mean nes only ended because, Nintendo wanted SNES to be a success so they just ended, it .

 

Atari decided to be a budget console in the Tramiels Era, this lead to get low grade us developers, add to that in early 90s, Nintendo still has their monopolistic practices in place, sega could supplement this because of a booming arcade devision, Atari had split, so Atari had pre 84 Arcade titles to re-release or plead with Tengen/Time Warner to support them, apparently depending on how early in 90s this could be option, but at some point Atari had even  ? that company.

 

Would of maybe got Atari enough money to get a lynx3 and a jag 2 out the gate, but, ST did have some descent titles, so it may of worked, 3rd place may of been good enough for a reboxed system to bring on money 

[Lynxpro]

How on Urth is this dumb thread still going?

 

Call the Time Lords and get this thread time locked for Rassilon's sake.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Lynxpro

[+x=usr(1536)]

12 hours ago, Lynxpro said:

How on Urth is this dumb thread still going?

 

Call the Time Lords and get this thread time locked for Rassilon's sake.

I know, right?  It's just like that 'Could the 5200 have succeeded?' thread where it just keeps garnering pointless reply after pointless reply. ?

[leech]

33 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

I know, right?  It's just like that 'Could the 5200 have succeeded?' thread where it just keeps garnering pointless reply after pointless reply. ?

I just wanted to add another pointless reply... 

[zzip]

9 minutes ago, leech said:

I just wanted to add another pointless reply... 

why would you do that?  It's pointless!

 

Edit:  gotta love the irony of taco posters complaining about "pointless replies"  ?

Edited October 28, 2021 by zzip

[+x=usr(1536)]

5 hours ago, zzip said:

why would you do that?  It's pointless!

 

Edit:  gotta love the irony of taco posters complaining about "pointless replies"  ?

I love it about as much as the irony of you still caring about VCS butthurt after everyone else lost interest, sweetie.

[leech]

On 10/28/2021 at 12:51 PM, x=usr(1536) said:

I love it about as much as the irony of you still caring about VCS butthurt after everyone else lost interest, sweetie.

Some people enjoy butthurt, I don't judge.

[werpu]

On 3/31/2021 at 11:45 AM, Keatah said:

Seems Atari did a lot of repackaging of tech they developed in the late 70's. And it didn't really matter if the 5200 was the same (or not) as the home computers. The software looked the same. And it was "common knowledge" that it was a stripped down 400. And that's all us kids needed to know.

 

Well the 5200 originally was plannet as a 2600 successor ca 1980 from Bushness POV it never came to it!

The 7800, I am still scratching my head on why they did it like that, it would not even have made sense if the 5200 came out ca 1980 and the 7800 in lets say 84, given the absymal sound and face it the resolution of the Maria chip was subpar to similar offerings coming out in 84 like the NES!

 

[zzip]

7 hours ago, werpu said:

The 7800, I am still scratching my head on why they did it like that, it would not even have made sense if the 5200 came out ca 1980 and the 7800 in lets say 84, given the absymal sound and face it the resolution of the Maria chip was subpar to similar offerings coming out in 84 like the NES!

They didn't really plan for it,  Atari had GCC making 2600 carts for them, and the GCC guys came up with the 7800 design on their own and brought it to Atari in 83.    Atari was at a weird phase where they had no concept of console generations and seemed to think they could release a new console every year and be fine,  they were also talking to Nintendo at the time about releasing the NES under the Atari brand,  and had designs on an Amiga-based console to be released in 85...

 

Anyway 5200 was plagued with technical issues, high price and complaints about 2600 compatibility.  Instead of addressing those they decided to kill it in 84 and offer the 7800 instead.   That was probably a huge mistake that hurt Atari's reputation- killing an expensive console after less than 2 years, but we didn't have the internet back then to hear the shrieking.

 

I think it would be better if they told GCC to go back to the drawing board refine the design for an eventual 5200 successor in 86 or 87--  get a real sound chip, improve the high-resolution issues, for example.     But there was too much disarray and lack of forward thinking for that to happen.

[Flojomojo]

It almost makes me wonder why GCC didn't take a shot of their own in the console market space. I guess it's safer to stay as an "employee" of Atari, getting paid for work completed, instead of taking the entrepreneurial risk of betting the company like that. 

[GaryH917]

On 10/10/2023 at 12:16 PM, zzip said:

They didn't really plan for it,  Atari had GCC making 2600 carts for them, and the GCC guys came up with the 7800 design on their own and brought it to Atari in 83.    Atari was at a weird phase where they had no concept of console generations and seemed to think they could release a new console every year and be fine,  they were also talking to Nintendo at the time about releasing the NES under the Atari brand,  and had designs on an Amiga-based console to be released in 85...

 

Anyway 5200 was plagued with technical issues, high price and complaints about 2600 compatibility.  Instead of addressing those they decided to kill it in 84 and offer the 7800 instead.   That was probably a huge mistake that hurt Atari's reputation- killing an expensive console after less than 2 years, but we didn't have the internet back then to hear the shrieking.

 

I think it would be better if they told GCC to go back to the drawing board refine the design for an eventual 5200 successor in 86 or 87--  get a real sound chip, improve the high-resolution issues, for example.     But there was too much disarray and lack of forward thinking for that to happen.

I agree with this 💯. The 2600 should've been cancelled in 1982 and Atari could've concentrated more effort into the 5200. If they would've reduced the price of the 5200, made it compatible with the 2600 carts on release and had self-centering joysticks it may of had a 4 year life ending with the 7800 release in 1986. Look at all the prototype games found for the 5200 after it's demise. Should've been a great system but Atari seemed to rush the 5200 to market just to compete with the Intellivision/Colecovision. Why have all these divisions competing against itself at the same time with the 2600, 5200 and the computer lines? Sounds like greed and bad decisions making by those in charge at Atari. The 5200 is still my favorite system even with all the "failure" labels attached to it 🙂.

[+DrVenkman]

Jesus. This thread went on for 16 pages and everyone already hashed, rehashed and regurgitated the same stuff as it was. Why bump it back to life two years later with more of the same? 

[GaryH917]

On 10/28/2021 at 12:40 PM, leech said:

I just wanted to add another pointless reply... 

I just wanted to add another pointless reply... 👍

[GaryH917]

2 hours ago, DrVenkman said:

Jesus. This thread went on for 16 pages and everyone already hashed, rehashed and regurgitated the same stuff as it was. Why bump it back to life two years later with more of the same? 

Looks like a new user made a comment to the topic and a few people replied? What's the problem boss? 

[zzip]

On 10/10/2023 at 12:24 PM, Flojomojo said:

It almost makes me wonder why GCC didn't take a shot of their own in the console market space. I guess it's safer to stay as an "employee" of Atari, getting paid for work completed, instead of taking the entrepreneurial risk of betting the company like that. 

I think GCC was more of a band of hackers than a company as such.   Atari was going to sue them for producing bootlegs and decided to hire them to create 2600 carts instead, at least according to a video by one of the GCC guys.   Probably didn't have the funding or business expertise (or recognizable name) to launch their own console.

[RevEng]

On 10/10/2023 at 4:14 AM, werpu said:

I am still scratching my head on why they did it like that, it would not even have made sense if the 5200 came out ca 1980 and the 7800 in lets say 84, given the absymal sound and face it the resolution of the Maria chip was subpar to similar offerings coming out in 84 like the NES!

On sound, you're missing context as to why the decisions were made. Maria itself was supposed to have built-in sound originally, but it got squeezed out for the Maria2 silicon updates which were much needed. But even then the plan was never perpetual TIA audio - not all that long after Maria2 was in production, GCC had a $2 in-cart sound chip prototyped and playing music in their offices.

 

This plan was interrupted by the sale of Atari, which unfortunately halted all dealings with GCC. On the plus side, this circumstance gave us line-in audio on the cart, which is a very neat feature.

 

As to which system has better resolution, it's more of a "which system fits the game design" sort of thing. 7800 can display both 320 and 160 modes, while the NES has a 256 mode. The NES resolution is a great middle-ground, but there are trade-offs. The NES can't produce graphics or text as dense as the 7800 320 modes (see Rikki+Vikki, or recall all of the NES "press A to continue" over and over again whenever dialog was involved. ) nor can the NES manage as many simultaneous colors as the 7800 160 modes.

 

Whenever you compare consoles that are contemporaries, it's rarely as cut and dry as "A" being better than "B". You may prefer one set of trade-offs over another, but it's hardly universal.