Atari 7800, XEGS, and ST questions

[Aswald]

If the 7800 came out in 84 it would have sank. No retail outlets would have given it the time of day, and if they had, the fact it had nothing new to bring to the table among the first wave games that DID come out in 86 would have fucked it over anyway.

Well, it did- Desert Falcon, and some other planned games.

You make a good point about the retail outlets, but that was a "maybe," or even a "probably."

It was an "absolutely guaranteed" if they didn't even try. They could've just offered it to the outlets, initially, only taking a cut of profits of those that did sell (the outlets would've had nothing to lose, then). I understand that Nintendo did something like this in the beginning?

It is ironic that what you said may have been more reason to have stuck it out with the 5200 and CV. It really was a matter of dreadful management.

[idrougge]

The NES actually had something like 2.27 KB of RAM, but yes, good point. The NES also featured a custom 1.79 MHz 6502 CPU, similar to the 5200, 7800, and XEGS, except it was customized by Ricoh instead of Atari. Keep in mind, the NES (Famicom) debuted in 1983, while the 7800 essentially debuted a year later in 1984.

Even the PC Engine uses a (severely) customised 6502. Contemporary arcade games also used a lot of 6502 processors.

Also keep in mind, the Sega Master System (SG-1000 Mark III) had 24 KB of RAM and debuted in 1985.

By that method of counting, the Colecovision had 17 KB of RAM. In reality, the Master System had 8 KB, and the Coleco 1 KB. The rest was VRAM, which was dedicated for the graphics processor. That VRAM is required by the Texas Instruments video processors which both consoles use. The NES didn't have much separate VRAM, since its video processor could grab all graphics data directly from ROM instead. And for the same reason, the TI 99/4 had 16 KB of VRAM even in 1979, when RAM was really expensive.

Anyway, if the 7800 and NES have similar CPUs and the 7800 has almost twice as much RAM and a larger color palette as the NES, why do NES games look better than 7800 games overall? Is it because the NES is easier to program? Is it because the NES has a better graphics chip? Is it because of the extra RAM and/or MMC chips used in NES games?

Two reasons:
1) Atari didn't have Konami, Capcom, Namco or Nintendo as developers.
2) Personal preferences. If you don't like blocky pixels, you probably won't like Atari graphics.

MMC chips and extra RAM does add something, but it's very much a case of underpaid and less talented developers.

[idrougge]

But, I think that after 7800, XEGS, and Lynx, Atari wouldn't have had the resources/fortitude to launch another system. For our hypothetical STGS to have a good shot at success, it would've had to have been compatible with regular ST games out of the box. Which means a floppy-based console... hmm.

I forgot to mention that. Unlike the XEGS, a hypothetical STGS wouldn't have had the same immediate synergistic advantage. Atari's 8-bit computers (400, 800, XL, XE) used the same cartridge port and the same cartridges as the XEGS, so the same games could be sold for both formats.

The ST does have a cartridge connector, but it is too crippled to be useful as a medium for games. So an STGS with cartridges would have to use another cartridge port, excluding the obvious advantage of having an already established market of ST users.

[idrougge]

I assume that the ST and Playstation 3 came out years apart. Are you allowing for the decline of the dollar and inflation? You cannot just go by two numbers.

After the first years on the market, the ST was quite cheap, cheap enough to be bought by 12-year-olds.

Another question would be what games did the ST have against the NES or SMS? How well could it stand up to the TurboGrafx-16, Genesis, or Super Nintendo Entertainment System?

When the ST was released, there was no such thing as a TG16, a Genesis or a SNES. In Europe, where the ST's big market was, the Megadrive was released in 1990 and the SNES in 1992. Five and seven years after the ST. If you wanted to play 16-bit games, you had to have an ST or Amiga.

One of the biggest problems with the Tramiels was that they bought into that stupid notion that "video games were dead." THIS was the real reason for the crash, and essentially nothing has changed. Baby Boomer marketers sat around making theories about my generation (and later the one after), spending Lord-knows how many hours talking away, but never doing the one absolutely vital thing that Nintendo did- asking US what WE wanted.

There was a crash. Atari was losing millions of dollars each week. The 2600 market was oversaturated and retail outlets were dropping consoles. Gamers moved to computers such as the C64 and Atari's own computers. Atari alone, especially not after a big corporate makeover, couldn't have turned that around alone. Computers were more lucrative, it's that simple.

Think about it- if video gaming was dead in 1984, why are we discussing Playstation 3s in 2007? Obviously, they were completely wrong; haven't you ever wondered why?

The video games market was dead in 1984, that is a historical fact. That doesn't mean that it is dead in 2007, because unlike living organisms, markets can revive. You can play all the games you want, but if Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo abandoned the market tomorrow, the market is dead regardless of how many games you play.

Atari never seemed able to realize that those idiot marketers were wrong, in spite of the immense popularity of the NES and SMS. Somehow, the Tramiels never seemed to believe that any console could make it, so they never really tried. It wasn't that the 7800, the Lynx, or even the Jaguar were pieces of junk- it was just that the Tramiels gave up before even trying, and this was reflected in everything they did.

As I'm saying, Atari was a computer manufacturer since 1979, and was doing well. Philips made TVs and radios and didn't care about the market which they (through Magnavox) had once created. And Coleco was making whatever it is that Coleco makes. And Mattel was making He-Man toys and Barbie dolls, ignoring the revived market which had already one cost them a lot of money.
You look at Atari from a console perspective, but try to tell that to an ST gamer or someone making music in Cubase.

Note- the one thing I will say in their defense was that old Atari was so reckless with their money, maybe they were afraid of it happening again. But they went too far; to make money, you have to spend money.

I agree, the Tramiels had a problematic relationship with money. But on the other hand, you can't say that Nolan Bushnell has been very successful in the market either.

[ubersaurus]

Well, it did- Desert Falcon, and some other planned games.

You make a good point about the retail outlets, but that was a "maybe," or even a "probably."

It was an "absolutely guaranteed" if they didn't even try. They could've just offered it to the outlets, initially, only taking a cut of profits of those that did sell (the outlets would've had nothing to lose, then). I understand that Nintendo did something like this in the beginning?

It is ironic that what you said may have been more reason to have stuck it out with the 5200 and CV. It really was a matter of dreadful management.

I don't know. Desert Falcon was distinct(except that it also came out on 2600), but Gato and Fractalus were computer games as well. They had little new.

I also don't think the Atari of 1984, losing money hand over foot, was in any position to offer up money to businesses if the 7800 didn't sell.

I'd say the 7800 would have done better had they actually put some money into it in 86 and started putting out the kinds of games you ended up seeing on it in 89. They squandered any chance they had of improving performance until after the Genesis came out and muscled in on their shelf space.

Wasn't the 5200 more money to produce anyway? I know the controllers were dreadful enough I would have wanted to dump it like a hot potato

[7th lutz]

I'd say the 7800 would have done better had they actually put some money into it in 86 and started putting out the kinds of games you ended up seeing on it in 89. They squandered any chance they had of improving performance until after the Genesis came out and muscled in on their shelf space.

I agree. The problem was Atari was spending money on the 2600 for commericals and on games back in in 1986 to 1988 or 1989 in North America. It didn't help having some money being spent on the xegs also for games and systems.

[Gentlegamer]

Computers and home consoles are NOT the same things. The latter are designed strictly for games, which is why you have to spend so much more to get a computer with comparable gaming ability. Name a computer you'd only have to spend about $300 for to get as much gaming ability as an X-Box 360.

Modern consoles are sold at a substantial loss. If the hardware was sold at its real cost, it would match that of comparable home computers.

[Rob2600]

Modern consoles are sold at a substantial loss.

You're right, except for the GameCube and Wii.

[tag274]

The XEGS was running off early 80's Atari 8 bit computer technology. I like it actually and think it is a decent console to have in my collection. next: 800xl

[tom]

So Atari released the XEGS a year after the 7800 and the XEGS had worse graphics? Where's the logic in that?

XEGS = Atari computer from 1979
7800 = 1984