Jump to content
IGNORED

Joe Decuir and the Atari 400GS


ratwell

Recommended Posts

You can find The Great Joe Decuir on YouTube speaking at various vintage computer conferences talking about Atari history and one thing that stands out for me are his comments about lost opportunities.

 

Specifically, he mentions that the thinking at the time of the VCS was that it would have a technical lifespan of about 3 years maximum so Atari had been get working on its replacement.

 

That machine turned out to be the Atari 400 which gained/retained a keyboard during design because the management was so impressed with Star Raiders:

 

 

This one decision set off a chain of events that hurt Atari in the long run...

 

Timeline for discussion:

 

1977 Atari VCS

1979 Atari 400 and 800

1979 Mattel Intellivision

1980 Commodore Vic 20

1982 Colecovision by Coleco

1982 Atari 1200XL

1982 Commodore C64

1982 Atari 5200

1983 Atari XL Lineup

1984 Warner sells Atari

1985 Atari XE Line

1985 Atari ST Line

1985 NES 

1985 Amiga 1000

1986 Atari 2600 jr.

1986 Atari 7800

1987 Atari XEGS

1992 Atari 8-bit Line discontinued


Time Machine Fantasy: what if the Atari 400 had been a low cost 400GS and direct replacement for the VCS?

 

It seems this one decision could have held off both the Intellivision and Colecovision which ate into VCS profits. 5200 development expenses could have gone into a cost reduced 400GS rather than create another incompatible system although I accept that the thinking at the time had less to do with compatibility and more with lowering costs at the expense of compatibility.

 

By imaginary 1982 with a large game library on cartridge, the Atari 800 and cost reduced XL Line that followed could have enjoyed the benefits and subsequent sales due to this this large game library especially as the low cost computers started to gain traction over the game systems as a marketing angle:

 


The Atari 8-bit technology barely evolved between 1979 and 1987 and the game consoles were fractured into too many systems.

 

Having missed out on this opportunity Joe ended up at Hi Toro again with Jay Miner working on the Amiga.

 

I thought I understood that story until he mentioned that the Amiga chipset should have been used as the basis to kick start the 3rd generation of video game consoles. Atari could have extended its lead, possibly staved off Nintendo in North America and possible elsewhere other than Japan but it all blew up in a series of actions and lawsuits that ultimately proved destructive for both Atari and Commodore.

 

I hope Joe writes the definitive book on the development history of the Atari 400/800...

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then the C64 would have ate into Atari's "8 bit" game system profits. The 2600 was making money for Atari, they were not going to change that until they had to (oh yeah... when they totally lost it financially in 1982) . The 5200 thinking was, heck,  I'm not even sure there was thinking on it other than we need it big, have lots of buttons and look good.  Engineering certainly wasn't in-line with what management & Warner wanted... meaning engineering wanted to do something new. Also, the 7800 was released 1984.. and the 7800 could have been really good (until the NES) had they stuck with it then and not mothballed.

 

Honestly, I think if a 400GS came out in 80/81 it would have been killed off by the home computer market, and then Atari would have just repackaged the 400GS as a cost reduced 16K computer to compete with the V20, TI/99 etc.. Then the C64 would have really killed it off.

 

I actually believe it was good/lucky for Atari to make a computer, especially the 800 when they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kheller2 said:

Honestly, I think if a 400GS came out in 80/81 it would have been killed off by the home computer market, and then Atari would have just repackaged the 400GS as a cost reduced 16K computer to compete with the V20, TI/99 etc.. Then the C64 would have really killed it off.

 

I actually believe it was good/lucky for Atari to make a computer, especially the 800 when they did.

So do I but I’m suggesting that a lower cost 400GS and Atari 800 both released in 1979 would have covered all the bases.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ratwell said:

So do I but I’m suggesting that a lower cost 400GS and Atari 800 both released in 1979 would have covered all the bases.

Cost would have been an issue.  The VCS was, what around $200 in 1980?  The 400 was over $500.  Even if you strip it down, it would probably be around $375.  I'm just guessing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, kheller2 said:

Cost would have been an issue.  The VCS was, what around $200 in 1980?  The 400 was over $500.  Even if you strip it down, it would probably be around $375.  I'm just guessing here.

There is a really nice teardown at this site:

 

https://www.oldcomputr.com/atari-400-1979/

 

“The complexity of the Atari 400 kept production costs quite high: the electronic components were spread over 4 different boards”

 

A 400GS doesn’t require memory or peripheral expansion like the 800 and in those days cartridges were subsidizing consoles. Didn’t the PS3 cost upwards of $800 initially continuing this practice?

 

It seems that DRAM has always been expensive since the earliest days of computing but if the VCS could get by with 128 bytes of RAM then a 400GS might be able to manage with 4K.

 

The Intellivision debuted at $275 in 1979 so that would be the price to match:

 

https://www.atariarchive.org/mattel-intellivision-game-release-dates/

 

Then you’ve got the costs associated with the FCC rules:

 

Texas Instruments lobbied to have the RF interference rules relaxed, and the FCC granted a conditional waiver of the rules in late 1979 (it finally changed them in 1983), but by then it was too late for Atari to simplify the design of its machines before launch.”

 

What would have stopped Atari from lobbying the FCC at the start of the project and after the VCS release?

 

 

Edited by ratwell
Corrected for VCS RAM. Thanks.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I love the Atari line hardware wasn't the problem past the VCS imo. Nintendo figured out (or stumbled upon, who can say for sure) this early and has stuck with it steadfast. The NES wasn't a superior game console, but it had reliably entertaining software, particularly for a specific demographic that Nintendo considered their prime (younger audience up to teen). Atari was split in their identity as a console or computer manufacturer and aspired to be more of a "serious computer", which confused and divided their software plans. Their hardware was always more than adequate if they had focus in business strategy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ratwell said:

 

“The complexity of the Atari 400 kept production costs quite high: the electronic components were spread over 4 different boards”

 

A 400GS doesn’t require memory or peripheral expansion like the 800 and in those days cartridges were subsidizing consoles. Didn’t the PS3 cost upwards of $800 initially continuing this practice?

 

It seems that DRAM has always been expensive since the earliest days of computing but if the VCS could get by with 128 bytes of RAM then a 400GS might be able to manage with 4K.

 

The Intellivision debuted at $275 in 1979 so that would be the price to match:

 

 

 

 

I don't think carts were subsidizing consoles back then... that's a new MS Xbox practice. LOL  You can't compare it to the PS3 -- video games were a fad and fleeting moment in time.  Star Raiders alone required 8K of RAM to run, as I recall.    The 5200 was just under $300 in 1982.  I'll stand by my swag for now of $375 for the 400GS, maybe $350. 

 

I don't think Atari would have been able to stave off the NES, no matter where it was.  Atari thought they could make some money doing the 2800 in Japan JUST as Sega and Nintendo were releasing their systems in 83.

 

I'm not trying to argue with you, and I understand what you are saying.  I also don't like speculation -- so do the Jaguar -- do the Math. ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters, Commodore themselves failed with their C64 GS variant though of course that was later, it wasn't well publicised and C= in general never had much success with consoles.

 

The BOM for a 400GS would probably be $30 less without a keyboard, maybe less.

What hurt the 400/800 early on was the complexity of the design, it's proven with the XL on a single board instead of 4 or more on the earlier ones.

Really the main differences and price disadvantages come because of:

- paranoid use of heavy RF shielding

- onboard power conversion board

- RAM and CPU on daughterboards.  Fair enough, due to density the RAM had to be that way in the first couple of years

- OS on daughterboard

 

Possibly there could have been some saving earlier on if they'd designed some of the component optimisations in like Sally CPU which eliminated external ICs for halt logic and elements of Freddie which simplified memory selection.

But just reducing the board count down to 2 in itself might have given a double figure %age advantage in the wholesale price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's intrigues me about the history that it's less of a hypothetical question and instead rooted in a management decision that contemplated Candy as a game machine.

 

Jay Miner and the gang built a very successful game machine in the VCS but with the 400 and the Amiga, their next generation technology was packaged into a computer and priced out of reach of many consumers delaying adoption and total sales.

 

Among Atari developers, effort had to be split between the VCS, 400/800, 5200, 7800 which were all roughly based on the same technology but incompatible. Focusing developers on cartridges for the 400GS would have been a boost for the 800 and XL's and XE's that followed especially given the number 7800 and XEGS consoles and carts that eventually sold.

 

I'm not saying that a 400GS would have beat a NES in the market or allowed the 800 to sell in greater numbers than the C64 but trying to hit a home run with some many consoles when a 400GS could have been put out in 1979 just seems like a decision that hurt Atari in the long run.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The late 70's were a totally different era and market for both computers and video consoles. The 800 was designed as an expandable computer in light of the computers it was set to compete against, namely the Apple II. It was superior and much cheaper than the competition when it was released, before even the Vic-20 and TI 99/4(a) and long before the changing home market that the C64 started. Atari couldn't create a big enough market share in business, education and for the wealthy up against the Apple II and so they switched to the new home computer market with the 800 and 1200XL and then the C64 came along for half the price and Atari was playing catch-up and never did. The 400, on the other hand, I feel was a mistake marketing it as a low-end home computer as it was before there was any real home computer market.

 

The 800 should have remained as it was, competing with the Apple II and the rest, but Atari made the mistake of keeping it a closed system. The 400 should have been released with the 800 as only a game console to replace the VCS and it should have been designed from the start as an un-expandable one-board system just like the VCS and the later 5200. That would have saved far more in the cost than not including a keyboard, which they could have still done, just as the Odyssey 2 hand a membrane keyboard and other contemporaries had keypads on the console or controllers. To keep costs lower, they could have also introduced it without a keyboard, but have it as an add-on like the VCS's Graduate was to have been, not focusing on it as a selling point or marketing ploy; sell it as a video game system but include a catalog showing it's expansion possibilities into an entry-level computer and educational machine. Do the same with the 410 and all the educational software, other game consoles had educational software coming out for them too. But still, focusing it in the market as a pure gaming console like the VCS before.

 

And if even more cost-reduction were necessary to compete with the Intellivision, then yeah, only include 4K ram instead of 8K or 16K. Star Raiders could have been adapted, they did it for the VCS with only 128 bytes didn't they? Rely on rom not ram, The 7800 only had 4K ram and relied on larger rom cartridges. They could have taken the Intellivision by the horns and already be prepared with an established console by the time the Colecovision was released. Then, use the 400 one-board console as the basis, and expand it, for a much cheaper 64K home computer to replace the 800 either prior too, or at the same time as the C64 at a similar price-point.

Edited by Gunstar
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gunstar said:

The 400 should have been released with the 800 as only a game console to replace the VCS and it should have been designed from the start as an un-expandable one-board system just like the VCS and the later 5200.

Agreed that the 400/800 should have been released as the VCS replacement console and the 800, but there are a couple of things that I feel would need to have happened along with them to make it a workable proposition:

  1. Keyboard and SIO expansion for the 400 game console.  This would give purchasers the option of buying the inexpensive game system and expanding it over time if they wanted to, or jumping straight into the computer if that was what interested them.
  2. 100% software compatibility between the two.  Whether that means cartridges, tapes, or disks doesn't matter; both need to be able to run the same software with no changes so that people aren't purchasing the same titles twice if they upgrade machines.  As a side note, this really should have happened with the 5200 in relation to the A8 line as well.
  3. I'll also toss in a vote for an optional 2600 backwards-compatibility module.  Keep people in the family by not requiring them to lose their investment in the games they already have.

Obviously, care would have to be taken to ensure that potential customers didn't view the 800 as just a beefed-up-toy version of the 400 console, but, done carefully, it would be possible. 

Edited by x=usr(1536)
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things we have to remember:

- 2600 was a cash cow even after a long time obsolete.

- it's a fair bet that the 8-bit computer line didn't or barely made a profit for much of it's lifespan.

- Price competitiveness.  Even the 400 was at a premium price point and realistically we didn't properly compete in that regard until at least late 1983.  And even then that was the US domestic market, Europe and elsewhere suffered for some time after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rybags said:

Things we have to remember:

- 2600 was a cash cow even after a long time obsolete.

- it's a fair bet that the 8-bit computer line didn't or barely made a profit for much of it's lifespan.

- Price competitiveness.  Even the 400 was at a premium price point and realistically we didn't properly compete in that regard until at least late 1983.  And even then that was the US domestic market, Europe and elsewhere suffered for some time after that.

Which are all good points.

 

Realistically, we're playing 'what-if' with Atari's history at this point, so nothing is off the table since we're basically writing fiction.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does mean that it's all an exercise in futility since everything only happened one way ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Obviously, care would have to be taken to ensure that potential customers didn't view the 800 as just a beefed-up-toy version of the 400 console, but, done carefully, it would be possible. 

 

One way to do that is to add a cheap keyboard to the 400GS and market it as an entry level computer in its own right.

 

Oh, wait, that's what happened.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

400 without keyboard and an XEGS like option for a detachable might have worked.

And the machine's lifespan is compatible, ie by the mid 80s the market had matured and plenty of people didn't want consoled but a proper computer.

 

But yeah, it's what-ifs.  And if they're cutting features then maybe stick to 4K Ram as well.  And put it on the board to make expansion that much harder.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rybags said:

 

- 2600 was a cash cow even after a long time obsolete.

 

Yes, but as was done, and is still done by console manufacturers today: two supported consoles; one the cheaper last-gen for those on a budget and the new tech for those who want to be on the leading edge of gaming. As was done with the advent of the 5200 and the 7800 and the XEGS later on. They would have still made all the 2600 monies from that market, plus preempted or stolen sales from Intellivision and later Colecovision. The VCS would have been the support monies needed to ensure the 400GS could be released and time to establish itself. Which was basically how it worked for the 400/800 computer line anyway, they just never established themselves at the forefront of the market and the 2600 was left as the Atari only cash-cow for far too long, until it was too late. It even remained a cash-cow for Atari Corp. while they ramped up the new computer lines, with the 2600jr. that sold over a million units with no advertising (at a $50 price point) in '84/85, combined with 800XL sales to keep them afloat until the new products were released. I think Atari would have been better off, by the time of Jack, to put all money and development used for the XE line into establishing the 7800 and just keep the XL line as-is, with further cost-reducing measures taken in it's replacement the XE, continue to sell and support the XL line, but focus on and push the 7800 and ST lines to compete with the new generation of consoles and computers for '85, and in doing so, stop at least the NES juggernaut from becoming the juggernaut, and strong sales of the 7800 from a roll-out in '84 could have bolstered market positioning of the ST line with the new Macintosh and Amiga computers. This all, of course, in light of the Amiga going to Commodore instead of Atari's new flagship gaming console (with the 2600 compatible 7800 still there as the low-cost alternative and forget the 2500jr all together since the 7800 was also a 2600 already). The 7800 should have been the $50 budget console relying on 2600/7800 games for a profit even if they had to lose money on the 7800 console to make it the budget alternative and then bring out an ST console in '87 instead of the XEGS as the by then, under-powered answer to the NES, again, preempting the Sega Genesis and the 16-bit generation in at least '87 like the Amiga console could have been in '85.

 

But I believe the real underlying issue and where it all started to go wrong, as it all did happen, and never should have, was Bushnell selling Atari to the corporate monsters for funding to release the 400/800, And Atari then becoming a short-sited corporate monstrosity constantly playing catch-up as it did, instead of being an industry leader in innovation that it was under Nolan. Even if it meant the 400GS and 800 releases had to be delayed until '80 while the VCS continued to grow in sales opening the door for Bushnell's Atari computer and console line releases. This also would have allowed time for FCC rules to relax and the actual 400GS and 800 computer could have been much less expensive at their releases.

Edited by Gunstar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, ClausB said:

One way to do that is to add a cheap keyboard to the 400GS and market it as an entry level computer in its own right.

 

Oh, wait, that's what happened.

Yep.  And in the process completely lost the '2600 replacement' part of the equation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, gnusto said:

As much as I love the Atari line hardware wasn't the problem past the VCS imo. Nintendo figured out (or stumbled upon, who can say for sure) this early and has stuck with it steadfast. The NES wasn't a superior game console, but it had reliably entertaining software, particularly for a specific demographic that Nintendo considered their prime (younger audience up to teen).

I don't think it was that the NES software was aimed at a younger audience, it was that it had new and original games. Atari was stuck in the rut of trying to bring arcade titles into the home, and with each new game system (5200, 7800, XEGS), they mostly touted yet-another-remake of arcade titles like Asteroids, Missile Command, and Centipede. People were tired of seeing a slightly different version of the same old software. Nintendo had Super Mario Bros., an original platformer that was not a home version of an arcade game (it was a home *sequel* to an arcade game), and Atari had nothing like it.

I was working in retail when the Atari 7800 was on the shelves next to the NES. Nobody cared about the 7800. Over and over and over I'd hear some version of "but mom, I'm sick of playing missile command...I want something NEW! I want Super Mario Bros!" It really was their killer app.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gollumer said:

I don't think it was that the NES software was aimed at a younger audience, it was that it had new and original games.

This is actually my point, apparently poorly made.

 

Fundamentally Atari saw themselves as a hardware company and tried to differentiate based on that - the original post for instance recounts some of the mistakes made and regrets not having a low cost 400 gaming platform. The irony is they already had arguably superior hardware (certainly in the early 80s they did). Nintendo was relatively ambivalent about hardware; they instead thought of themselves as an entertainment brand, delivered through software. A position they maintain even today (it's not like the Switch is anywhere close to being a hardware leader even within the portable category).

 

I don't think a 400GS would have made any difference to Atari, because they were attacking the wrong problem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, gollumer said:

I don't think it was that the NES software was aimed at a younger audience, it was that it had new and original games. Atari was stuck in the rut of trying to bring arcade titles into the home, and with each new game system (5200, 7800, XEGS), they mostly touted yet-another-remake of arcade titles like Asteroids, Missile Command, and Centipede.

Not only that but 80’s and 90’s CoinOp graphics and sound could not be replicated close enough using the same 1979 8-bit chipset.

 

it’s too bad that Atari and the dentists that backed Amiga couldn’t get that chipset to market in the form of a new game console; it would have at least been able to keep pace with the arcade at home experience of the NES generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ratwell said:

Even if Atari had a new console with an Amiga based chipset in time for 1985?

 

Yes.. even if Atari had the Amiga Game Player System.  This is Atari we are talking about.  We are re-writing too much history here.  Jack came in in 1984, Amiga was gone ... so we would have to re-write how that plays out now.  But still, Nintendo had a lot of original content and locked in a lot of licenses that Atari had problems getting (for the 7800 and in general).

 

I just don't see how anything could have prevented or killed off the NES, within reason that is.  Oddly enough, I could see Atari getting into the graphics card business in later years if they had pulled off the 1600XL PC/A8 combo.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we forget that Atari was offered the NES... and passed it up... the Loraine/Amiga based system would have been better, but Jack didn't give a sh*t... he had his own ideas and wanted a closed, cheap *ss system... Atari still could have rolled L/A based console without issue... just not allowed to use a keyboard etc. until whatever time period passed. Before re-writing history, sometimes we might need to understand the history we have already...

Edited by _The Doctor__
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct Doctor.  I think the deal for the NES however was only for North American to brand the device an Atari device, everywhere else it would be Nintendo.  Or something like that.  And there were lots of restrictions, Atari had to buy the components from Nintendo and so on.  It wasn't a great deal, but wasn't bad either.  Atari just held onto the cash cow 2600 way too long and should have followed up with a more advanced system (possibly using arcade tech).

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...