Could the 5200 have succeeded?

[mr_me]

No he doesn't say royalties is the only payment.  He just says they were expecting royalties.  It could even be that the royalties were on the 7800 cartridges and not the console, GCC had a dozen 7800 cartridges.  He just did not go into those details.  He did say earlier in the video that the deal with Atari on 2600 cartridges was $75k plus three or four percent royalty.  The other odd thing in this video is the involvement of VTI.  He says they hired a consultant to oversee chip development at GCC who reported back to VTI.

Edited October 10, 2021 by mr_me

[+Cafeman]

Atari decisions and the impending crash doomed 5200, but as NES showed in 1985 forwards, people did still want video games.  If Atari had ssecretly krpt 7800 until 86, with a good sound chip, yet stuck by 5200 in a better way until at least 86,  perhaps the company itself would have more loyal fans and wouldn't have bottomed out.  

 

Also, I'm sure many gamers weren't terribly excited by the Activision ports from 2600, but dang-it if those ports aren't fun to play to this day!   Imagine if Atari had made a good replacement to CX52, with  5200 ports of Adventure, Yars Revenge, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and so on, to fill out the library more.  Its a cryin shame that Tempest and Xevious werent released. 

 

 

[NoBloodyXLOrE]

28 minutes ago, Cafeman said:

Atari decisions and the impending crash doomed 5200, but as NES showed in 1985 forwards, people did still want video games.  If Atari had ssecretly krpt 7800 until 86, with a good sound chip, yet stuck by 5200 in a better way until at least 86,  perhaps the company itself would have more loyal fans and wouldn't have bottomed out.  

 

Also, I'm sure many gamers weren't terribly excited by the Activision ports from 2600, but dang-it if those ports aren't fun to play to this day!   Imagine if Atari had made a good replacement to CX52, with  5200 ports of Adventure, Yars Revenge, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and so on, to fill out the library more.  Its a cryin shame that Tempest and Xevious werent released. 

 

 

You have a point, but a big part of the draw of the 5200 was its arcade realism, which is harder to compare for ports of original 2600 games. Also, by the end of 1984, I've heard that the 800XL only cost $80 to produce, and if you remove the keyboard, you could probably sell the thing for around $90 and still make a neat profit, making a proto-XEGS in 1985. Presumably, the 5200 cost a little bit less than the 800XL, though Tramiel did kill off the 600XL (which is 16K just like the 5200) for being less capable than the 800XL yet costing almost the same price to make. Still, at least the 5200 (and in particular the cost-reduced 5100 "Little PAM" model) dropped features like the SIO ports, PBI, or monitor outputs to reduce cost even further.

One of the games I think might've helped the 5200 was Jumpman Junior, as it was a solid original platform game for the time, even if it wouldn't have been great with the stock 5200 controller. A lot of the games @NE146 circled earlier stick out to me as well. While I know Millipede was made for the Atari 8-bit and the 5200 port was never released, Stargate and Xevious, among others, seem to have faded entirely into the ether. Also a shame that the impressive Jr. Pac Man port never saw the light of day.

I don't think the 7800 was really ever necessary from a technical perspective. While it was better than the 5200, the introduction of another system just fractured the developer and customer base for Atari, and the 5200/A8, with clever programming, could still pull off the kind of games seen on the NES (as we've seen with homebrews like Galaga, Space Harrier, and Super Mario Bros in particular, even if only Space Harrier is beyond a tech demo), especially with the advent of bank-switched cartridges.

Edited October 10, 2021 by NoBloodyXLOrE

[NE146]

1 hour ago, NoBloodyXLOrE said:

Stargate and Xevious, among others, seem to have faded entirely into the ether.

Oh those two are definitely around.  Stargate was mostly complete I think. Xevious doesn't seem as quite far along but plays ok. I definitely think any of them would have bolstered the 5200's status.

Edited October 10, 2021 by NE146

[NoBloodyXLOrE]

3 minutes ago, NE146 said:

Oh those two are definitely around.  Stargate was mostly complete I think. Xevious doesn't seem as quite far along but plays ok. I definitely think any of them would have bolstered the 5200's status.

I stand corrected. Stargate looks pretty amazing. While Stargate on the 2600 looks almost as good as Defender on the A8/5200, Stargate is just a step above. As you said, Xevious looks a little rough though, but I do take your point. I don't think the 5200's problem was its software library, which is pretty good in my opinion, despite missing several titles as has been discussed, it still has great versions of a lot of classics.

[BIGHMW]

As for the 5200 prototypes that went unfinished (Asteroids, Stargate, Xevious, Final Legacy, Battlezone, Xari Arena, and Tempest among them) only Tempest and Xari Arena wound up being finished (and also available at the AA store on cart) as 5200 ports but what about the status of the 8-bit versions of them, were they ever finished or are they too, unfinished???

 

BTW, a note to @Albert to please make sure that Xari Arena and Tempest are made available for the 8-bit (400/800/XL/XE/XEGS) soon, we'd love to see them.

[Keatah]

Maybe the whole product lineup was changing too fast and too focused on cost-cutting. That's what it seems from all this. Too much jockeying for position.

 

Maybe Atari should have had a blanket policy in place to automatically make a home port of whatever was produced for the arcade. Collectors would've loved it!

[BIGHMW]

41 minutes ago, Keatah said:

Maybe Atari should have had a blanket policy in place to automatically make a home port of whatever was produced for the arcade. Collectors would've loved it!

I could hardly disagree, and, on top of that, make both a 2600 port, and an 8-bit/5200 port and, make every 8-bit port a 5200 port as well (unless limitations exist like RAM limitations for 5200 versions). Everyone wins!!! 2600 owners get their games and 5200 and 8-bit owners get their versions of those same games as well.

[+x=usr(1536)]

1 hour ago, BIGHMW said:

Xari Arena

This one has apparently already been converted and is up on Atarimania.

 

[NoBloodyXLOrE]

I generally agree to the idea of Atari making arcade ports of all of their games, but not necessarily with developing them for every system. I think Atari, around 1983, should've started phasing out development of new 2600 games to focus on the 5200 and 8-bit computers, and completely stop by around 1984.

Keep in mind that a game like Galaga, while it was ported to the 2600 a few years ago, would've likely been derided as impossible for the 2600, or given a subpar port. On the other hand, skilled developers could've reasonably made it happen on the 5200/400/800 in 1984.

[James Vontor]

No, the 5200 made Warner overrely on the 2600 and push heavy marketing for outdated machine, the mindshare so large people were becoming irritated which is why if they learned of Colecovision they ran to it with open arms.

 

5200 was disconnected from reality from start.

 

First main issue is basing it off the computers. Atari never made money on any of them, this meant 5200 launched at a higher cost than Coleco but was still losing money. Arguably Coleco had a better machine too

 

Second Warner messed up the supply chain without thinking so they were trying to push production to Taiwan which delayed shipments, so early shipments were small.

 

Third price war from computers started to slowly hit console prices, Coleco stand alone game machine with no game went to drop to $129, than $99. 5200 actually gained not going that deep press and customers thought it was premium and sales jumped, but Atari decided to join the cutting, they were already not making money I remind you.

 

So now the premium value perception is gone sales hit a wall.

 

Incompetence with their facilities also made it hard to drop internal costs for all Atari computers.

 

Warner never fixed it, instead they decided to brute force with cash, but usually when a company does that they have a plan to generate revenue. Warner did not.

 

So why did they do it? Don't know. Some press say they wanted to force impulse sales to get parts and prices cheaper, but then they go to GCC to get a much stronger machine at 40% discount on production?

 

But then that news just leaves a bunch of unsold stock. Now it's Atari not just at -10 profit and only earning +5 per sale, which was still negative, now they just have product sitting there not selling at all so -10 per unit flat.

 

Warner then sells to Jack but my problem is you are the one who caused the finishing blow to your divisions losses, with intent to switch to a cheaper alternative, why quit on your own plan? So now you just wiped out any chance of recouping some of your money?

 

If it wasn't for media division that company never would have survived I guarantee. There is no way in hell.

 

It's like I sell you shirts taking $50 losses on each shirt sold, I lose even more money because I stop production because I'm planning to replace the shirts I'm selling with ones that are cheaper to produce, but then lost millions more by cancelling both, then I blame you, the customer, and my employees, and go bankrupt.

 

It's upside down land.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NoBloodyXLOrE]

23 minutes ago, James Vontor said:

No, the 5200 made Warner overrely on the 2600 and push heavy marketing for outdated machine, the mindshare so large people were becoming irritated which is why if they learned of Colecovision they ran to it with open arms.

The 5200 didn't make Warner overrely on the 2600, they chose to do that.

 

23 minutes ago, James Vontor said:

First main issue is basing it off the computers. Atari never made money on any of them, this meant 5200 launched at a higher cost than Coleco but was still losing money. Arguably Coleco had a better machine too

I call that into question. While it's not a guarantee that Atari made a profit on the computers as a whole, they were all introduced at profitable prices for Atari - the 400 at $550, the 800 at $1000, the 1200XL at $900, the 600XL at $200, the 800XL at $300, and the 65XE at $120 were all profitable machines when they first came out. The trouble was the price drops - Atari quickly started losing money on discounted 400/800/1200 machines in 1983.

By 1982, when the 5200 launched, Atari could probably break even at $270 for it, and into 1983 and 1984, the machines only got cheaper to produce (just as the prices dropped towards the consumer), to the point where the 800XL was only $80 to make. Besides, Atari didn't have another  high-end architecture ready, and it saved them a lot of R&D on the system and its games.

Also, the ColecoVision is not better than the 5200. They're pretty on par, with the advantage for each title being held by the one with the better programmer.

[+x=usr(1536)]

3 hours ago, James Vontor said:

First main issue is basing it off the computers.

I think you'll find that the computers were based off of the design that eventually became the 5200, not the other way around.

[NoBloodyXLOrE]

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

I think you'll find that the computers were based off of the design that eventually became the 5200, not the other way around.

While it's kind of a meaningless issue, as I recall, Atari intended to develop a 2600 successor, that morphed into the 400/800 computers after Atari witnessed the success of the Apple II. However, after the Intelivision launched, Atari turned their focus back to the games market and retooled the game console turned computer back into a game console. I've often said that in the process of trying to turn a kickass game console into a home computer, Atari created the best game console possible.

[BIGHMW]

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

This one has apparently already been converted and is up on Atarimania.

 

Which version, the unfinished prototype or the AtariAge version??? There are two, you know, the same thing also with Tempest.

[phuzaxeman]

5 hours ago, James Vontor said:

No, the 5200 made Warner overrely on the 2600 and push heavy marketing for outdated machine, the mindshare so large people were becoming irritated which is why if they learned of Colecovision they ran to it with open arms.

 

5200 was disconnected from reality from start.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 5200 didn't make Warner rely on the 2600, Atari still marketed the 2600 and chose to support both systems instead of focusing on the 5200.  

 

5200 was not disconnected either.  It was arguably the best system (w/coleco), used cutting edge technology with analog sticks (although the sticks were unreliability) and the best trackball, and had arcade quality hits regardless if they shared with the 2600.  The pause and reset on the controller was ahead of its time.   It's a shame Atari didn't go 100% on the 5200.    

[+x=usr(1536)]

9 hours ago, BIGHMW said:

Which version, the unfinished prototype or the AtariAge version??? There are two, you know, the same thing also with Tempest.

Feel free to check on your own.  I have no idea.

[zzip]

On 10/10/2021 at 11:54 AM, Cafeman said:

If Atari had ssecretly krpt 7800 until 86, with a good sound chip, yet stuck by 5200 in a better way until at least 86,  perhaps the company itself would have more loyal fans and wouldn't have bottomed out. 

If they were to hold the 7800 tech until 86,   they should put more enhancements in it besides sound.  Make the 320 modes more usable so 7800 games don't look low-res next to the NES.   Maybe give it tile modes

[ymike673]

As someone who bought a 5200 back when it came out just a few thoughts. I agree that super breakout was a terrible pack in game but it was one of the few games with a 4 player capacity. Since the original consoles were 4 player I assume that Atari wanted to include a 4 player game with it. At time I also bought the Missile Command cartridge which worked perfectly with the Atari controllers and I wondered why that was not the pack in game. In hindsight I think Atari should have released the console as a two player unit with Missile Command or Centipede or Pac Man had the controller been self centering.  

[NoBloodyXLOrE]

48 minutes ago, ymike673 said:

As someone who bought a 5200 back when it came out just a few thoughts. I agree that super breakout was a terrible pack in game but it was one of the few games with a 4 player capacity. Since the original consoles were 4 player I assume that Atari wanted to include a 4 player game with it. At time I also bought the Missile Command cartridge which worked perfectly with the Atari controllers and I wondered why that was not the pack in game. In hindsight I think Atari should have released the console as a two player unit with Missile Command or Centipede or Pac Man had the controller been self centering.  

Yeah the point about four players is valid, but if that was their reasoning, it's still shaky, since the 5200's intended appeal was based more on arcade-quality graphics than having four controller ports. I'm certainly with you that Pac-Man, Missile Command, or Centipede (or maybe even Space Invaders) would've been ideal. Also, I think it would've been best if the 5200 joysticks took a page from many early PC joysticks, with the ability to adjust how powerful the centering springs are, so you can make the controller non-centering for games where you control a cursor like Star Wars or Missile Comman, or very centering for a game with precise relative directional control like Pac-Man.

[ymike673]

41 minutes ago, NoBloodyXLOrE said:

Yeah the point about four players is valid, but if that was their reasoning, it's still shaky, since the 5200's intended appeal was based more on arcade-quality graphics than having four controller ports. I'm certainly with you that Pac-Man, Missile Command, or Centipede (or maybe even Space Invaders) would've been ideal. Also, I think it would've been best if the 5200 joysticks took a page from many early PC joysticks, with the ability to adjust how powerful the centering springs are, so you can make the controller non-centering for games where you control a cursor like Star Wars or Missile Comman, or very centering for a game with precise relative directional control like Pac-Man.

Sure. It was a bad reason for that to be the pack in game but it's seems like Atari made the wrong decision every time as far as the 5200 was concerned. 

[BIGHMW]

1 hour ago, ymike673 said:

Sure. It was a bad reason for that to be the pack in game but it's seems like Atari made the wrong decision every time as far as the 5200 was concerned. 

Yup, Big Sexy could've had a great future.... back then.... if only the guys at Warner (who called all the shots for Atari as they owned them and had the last word on pretty much everything) had made better decisions on her, there was some logic to having the non-centering 360-degree analog (dual-pot) sticks for more maneuverability on games that capitalized on its capabilities, like Super Breakout and Missile Command, for instance. It may not have been the best controller, especially for 4-directional games like Pac-Man or Qix for instance but she worked pretty well, once you got used to it and knew how to deal with it.

 

As one of the first to get a 5200 (an OG 4-port unit, Serial No. 141101, USA-made, for my 17th Birthday back on May 19th, 1983, along with both Super Breakout and Missile Command) and the awesome CX53 Trak-Ball (I still own her to this day and most recently cleaned her up lubed the speed sensors and replaced all the keypads and the start/pause/reset buttons with Best Lifetime Gold-contact ones), I felt like I was on top of the world, and I remember when I got her that first night I played the shit out of Missile Command, I believe until about midnight before I HAD TO go to bed as it was a school night, but after acquiring Pac-Man, Defender, and Centipede and others along the way in June and July and August (and so on) she kept me occupied all those days I was at home during summer vacation and then some!!! I even trained for the arcade by using my 5200 and got better at the arcade versions too as a result of it!!!

 

Today I currently own a 2-port unit (with 4-port BIOS), and still have one of my original twin controller holders from Space Dungeon and Robotron from 1983 (I had 2 of them) and added the VCS adapter a few years back and a whole slew of controllers for her (all either third-party or Best Lifetime 5200 and 7800 sticks) as well as Redemption 5200 - 7800 version and will soon add a Retro Game Boyz Masterplay clone along with them to use with my AtGames Flashback 9 joysticks as well.

 

The Atari 5200 TRULY IS (and could've been) a SuperSystem, that while she may have her share of critics, but she also has her fair share of fans as well like me, despite being tempted to lean toward my XEGS every once in a while. it's tough deciding though if it had to be one or the other considering that not every 5200 port was re-ported back to the XEGS, there are still about 20 games (mostly homebrews like the brilliant Tempest, available in the AA store right now) that only 5200 owners can play currently.

Edited October 17, 2021 by BIGHMW

[bikeguychicago]

I think it could have been a serious contender if a few things had been done differently:

1. The controllers should have used brass or gold contacts on the buttons to severely reduce or eliminate the button press issues
2. The joystick should have been auto-centering. Q*Bert and Frogger are two examples of why this should have been the case. 
3. It should have released a year after the Intellivision to both gain market share and give it a head-start on CV.
4. Pac-Man should have been the pack-in cart, even if it were a loss-leader.

 

It would have also been nice if a digital arcade controller had been released as an accessory for games that worked best with such a control.

Edited October 22, 2021 by bikeguychicago

[atarian63]

On 9/29/2021 at 9:27 AM, zzip said:

I think they could have done a lot to right the ship even if it was released in that state.   

1. release a new slimmer (cheaper) model with improved controllers.   One thing that helped Colecovision was that it was cheaper.

2. Sell new units with Pac Man or Ms Pac Man as the pack-in

3. replace broken controllers from the original system under warranty with the improved ones.

4. GAMES!   What was really needed was more innovation, the old formulas were getting stale.  Atari was on the right track with the Lucasfilm partnership, unfortunately that fell apart.

5. Don't go down the 7800 route!!   Cancelling the 5200 less than two years in created a lot of pissed off 5200 buyers and was not a good move for brand loyalty.  Maybe send the GCC guys back to the drawing board to create a better console to eventually replace 5200 by 86 or 87.   1984 was way too soon.

 

As for making it 400 compatible-   while that would be nice,  I think game licensing was a concern.   Games like Donkey Kong were licensed separately for console and computer.   So a 5200 that could play the 400 DK would have created a problem.  Remember Atari lost their shit when they saw DK running on a Coleco Adam.    I also don't think the market really wanted an XEGS-style console.   Every console announced a keyboard add-on around 83 or so that would have done just that.  Not one of them succeeded.  The people who wanted computers bought actual computers

Adam barely worked, we took back nearly everyone we sold.defective

Edited October 25, 2021 by atarian63

[Lynxpro]

On 9/29/2021 at 6:22 AM, -^CrossBow^- said:

Or held out and not released it at all and just released the 7800? I believe the 7800 designs started not long after the 5200 was released. Atari likely never saw the 5200 as more than a quick compete against Coleco until we can design and release something better console. So I'm not sure that Atari ever had long term plans for the 5200 did they?

 

 

The 5200 was a reaction to the Intellivision, not the ColecoVision. Coleco caught Atari by complete surprise with the debut of the ColecoVision. It was the double-whammy of 1982 along with the Commodore 64 and a total failure of any industrial intelligence Atari conducted.

 

With that having been said, Nolan Bushnell and Co had been planning for a 2600 replacement right after the 2600 was released. He was advising Warner to allow him to scrap the 2600 in 1978 following the abysmal Christmas sales caused by the popularity of Mattel Electronics' handheld electronic games that Christmas. The Atari 8-bit computers started out as that project but Ray Kassar wanted it changed to become a computer so that Atari could earn the profit margin Apple was making off per sale of the Apple II which was significantly more than the profit margin on a sub $300 video game console. So the 5200 wasn't a "repackage" of the Atari 8-bit computers; it was the return to the original goals of that project.