Explain the Strategy...

[pocketmego]

can someone please explain to me what the marketing strategy was supposed to be behind making adapters for all the popular systems of the original home gaming era to play Atari 2600 games?

 

I mean I really don't understand why they would do such a thing. Hell Coleco went ahead and built an entire 2600 for themselves. If you have what is supposed to be the definitive system (as both Mattel and Coleco both boasted to high Heaven that they had) why port the games of an inferior system to your unit?

 

Intellivision went that extra step furhter and made its better games INTO 2600 carts. I guess George Plimpton got sick of playing Star Strike and wanted him some of that Star raiders action.

 

We know what they DID accomplish. They accomplished putting a glut in the market that nearly WIPED out the home gaming industry for good. But, what did they WANT to accomplish?

 

-Ray

[G.Whiz]

can someone please explain to me what the marketing strategy was supposed to be behind making adapters for all the popular systems of the original home gaming era to play Atari 2600 games?

-Ray

The main impetus, I believe, was that everyone had all of these Atari cartridges -- parents weren't about to buy a brand new system that rendered all of these games obsolete. So if you can't beat 'em, join 'em -- Coleco made an adapter so that you could "step up" to the Colecovision and still be able to play your Atari carts.

 

It worked -- at least in my experience. I think Colecovision had the potential to be the next big platform -- I thought that the graphics were better than the NES even (though it's been decades since I've played either).

 

~G

[jboypacman]

I agree with G.Whiz.If you cant beat them join them.There was money to be made but having systems compatiable with other rival systems.As well as making games for rival systems as well.Remember Atari went on to make games for the ColecoVision and Intellivision as well.

[128bytes]

Also don't forget that it drastically increases the games the system is able to play, which is very useful for marketing purposes and to keep sales strong until a greater number of native games are available. The same strategy worked wonders for the Game Boy Advance, Nintendo DS, and PlayStation 2, and should help the Wii, Playstation 3, and the Xbox 360.

 

 

 

Tangent: Microsoft would not be one of the most valuable companies in the world if it stopped offering operating system software which (basically) can still run everything that ran on the original 1981 IBM PC (the very machine, IMHO, which succeeded BECAUSE of the Atari making people familiar with computer-type electronics, and, because of its own success, helped cause the video game crash of 1983)

Edited September 13, 2006 by 128bytes

[Xot]

Part of the logic, too, was back then systems were much more expensive, so people were much less likely to own more than one. An adapter for other systems means you can sell your 2600 but keep your games. It also allows you to claim a larger library of compatible titles - much like companies do now with backwards compatibility.

[G.Whiz]

Also don't forget that it drastically increases the games the system is able to play, which is very useful for marketing purposes and to keep sales strong until a greater number of native games are available. The same strategy worked wonders for the Game Boy Advance, Nintendo DS, and PlayStation 2, and should help the Wii, Playstation 3, and the Xbox 360.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. A great example was with Apple -- they kept their architecture closed, and ultimately paid the price in much smaller sales levels (though I don't think the whole history is written yet...).

 

Tangent: Microsoft would not be one of the most valuable companies in the world if it stopped offering operating system software which (basically) can still run everything that ran on the original 1981 IBM PC (the very machine, IMHO, which succeeded BECAUSE of the Atari making people familiar with computer-type electronics, and, because of its own success, helped cause the video game crash of 1983)

Not quite so sure on this one. Yes, computers as an industry was certainly a logical extension from Atari, but remember IBM was aiming at the business market right from the start. Their challenge was to show old-school (and just plain old) CEOs what business efficiencies could be had from installing computers instead of maintaining and employing pools of clerks and typists. Apple II, Tandy, Commodore 64, Atari -- those were the big names in the "home" computer market. (Funny how all but one are now gone...)

 

~G

[+else]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. A great example was with Apple -- they kept their architecture closed, and ultimately paid the price in much smaller sales levels (though I don't think the whole history is written yet...).

 

Apple has never kept their architecture closed. However, they have kept clones from being made.

 

Apple II, Tandy, Commodore 64, Atari -- those were the big names in the "home" computer market. (Funny how all but one are now gone...)

 

You forget that the first spreadsheet (Visicalc) was on an Apple II, which allowed Apple to make significant inroads in the business market. Not significant enough to fend of IBM once they entered the market, but to say that Apple was only a home computer is wrong (Apple also played a role in screwing up the business market for themself with the Apple III debacle). And don't forget this little thing called the education market that Apple had cornered. I don't find it surprisng at all that Apple is still around.

Edited September 14, 2006 by else

[+else]

<please delete>

Edited September 14, 2006 by else

[shadow460]

Apple musta cracked down on the clones with the IIGS. The Franklin Ace 1200 we had was a clone of an Apple IIc/IIe.

[Almost Rice]

Apple musta cracked down on the clones with the IIGS. The Franklin Ace 1200 we had was a clone of an Apple IIc/IIe.

 

I dont think so. I think by the time the IIgs came out. Apple 2 line was waning. The market for them was shrinking and the amount of resources Apple took to develop the IIgs hindered the ability of anyone trying to clone it.

[pocketmego]

Man, this thread took off in a weird direction.

 

I remember the old ads that stated the more games a system has the better it is. That ahd to bethe logic. The VCS had the most games, so they decided that an adaptor added to an INTY and a CV were the way to do. HOWEVER, that doesn't explain the Gemini and what CV was trying to accomplish there. Wasn't that just making your own competition?

 

-Ray

[G.Whiz]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. A great example was with Apple -- they kept their architecture closed, and ultimately paid the price in much smaller sales levels (though I don't think the whole history is written yet...).

 

Apple has never kept their architecture closed. However, they have kept clones from being made.

 

Apple II, Tandy, Commodore 64, Atari -- those were the big names in the "home" computer market. (Funny how all but one are now gone...)

 

You forget that the first spreadsheet (Visicalc) was on an Apple II, which allowed Apple to make significant inroads in the business market. Not significant enough to fend of IBM once they entered the market, but to say that Apple was only a home computer is wrong (Apple also played a role in screwing up the business market for themself with the Apple III debacle). And don't forget this little thing called the education market that Apple had cornered. I don't find it surprisng at all that Apple is still around.

 

As to your first point, yes, well that was what I was getting at. I believe that the abundance of IBM clones then (including Compaq, HP, and back-room frankensteins) is the main reason for Apple's small market share today.

 

Also, I wasn't quite saying that Apple was "only" a home computer, simply that the home market was their focus with the Apple II, etc. When the Mac came out in 1984 it was widely seen as the best computer on the market with its graphical interface, and was geared to be the next generation of computers for the business market. I'm not quite sure of the reasons why it didn't take off -- perhaps IBM was seen as business and Apple home, perhaps again the clone issue -- but IBM still remained in front. I suspect the introduction of Windows soon after may have had something to do with this, though Windows didn't really take off until the early 90's when they started bundling with computer sales.

 

The major exceptions for Apple in the business world were the printing industry (where Mac is still the favourite of printing presses and graphic designers) and in the music industry. I believe that Mac was also big in schools in the US, though not nearly so much in Canada. Regardless, if I remember right, they didn't make much selling to schools because they purposely discounted them for the school market. The idea was to get students hooked on Apples and Macs so that they would continue to use them in the business world (Corel tried the same thing when it introduced "educational" pricing for students and teachers in the late 1980's/early 90's). However the business plan does not seem to have worked to any great degree (especially in the case of Corel).

 

Finally, when I say the history isn't completely written yet, what I mean is that Apple is still kicking and may end up winning because of its business strategy after all. I've always wanted to own a Mac, but my clients all use PC so I'm pretty much stuck, though now that Macs can run Windows I am ready to take another look!

 

~G

[keilbaca]

Part of the logic, too, was back then systems were much more expensive, so people were much less likely to own more than one. An adapter for other systems means you can sell your 2600 but keep your games. It also allows you to claim a larger library of compatible titles - much like companies do now with backwards compatibility.

 

Exactly.

 

These were the first gen systems, and most of em didn't have the money to get two or 3 consoles back then. So, to promote their system, they would be backwards compatible (techincally this is true as the 2600 was the weakest powered system out there), so you can get a new system but if you don't like it or felt like playing the Atari again, you just plug in the adapter and play.

[Paranoid]

Apple should be the classic example of an OS platform and architectural design that has suffered for consistently throwing the baby out with the bathwater in the name of progress. You can be a fan of the Apple 8 bits and Macs if you want, but, every major revision has wreaked havoc with whatever had become before in the Apple world. The same just isn't the case with the PC.