- Nov 20, 2005
- 14,612
- 318
- 126
When we look back on console gaming history, it is obvious that Atari had the first successful console in how we define success in a modern sense. The 2600 was huge, their games were a hit in the arcades, and then they crashed.
The common reasons of ET and Pac Man are the go-to to describe their decline. I get that if each game would have been better, or if they would have ordered less carts for each, that things would have been different.
But was that really enough?
It seems like the biggest issue is Atari lost control internally and externally. The 2600 was "off the shelf hardware" so they had no control of the eco-system and no econosystem protection like the Colecovision or NES would have had. There was no way to put the horses back in the 2600 barn, and at some point all they had was market momentum that they managed poorly.
I wonder: Would a backwards compatible 5200 that replaced the 2600 have saved the day? Instead of being a high-end option along with the 2600, replace it completely and move on? I mean, there was a five year gap between each which is the acceptable hardware replacement cycle for consoles. It seems like part of what made 2600 games so crappy is that it was hard to program for. I know they made a two port 5200 after launch, but that was too little too late I think.
Or was there something else you think that would have saved Atari? Maybe something long before the 5200 or the 80's?
The common reasons of ET and Pac Man are the go-to to describe their decline. I get that if each game would have been better, or if they would have ordered less carts for each, that things would have been different.
But was that really enough?
It seems like the biggest issue is Atari lost control internally and externally. The 2600 was "off the shelf hardware" so they had no control of the eco-system and no econosystem protection like the Colecovision or NES would have had. There was no way to put the horses back in the 2600 barn, and at some point all they had was market momentum that they managed poorly.
I wonder: Would a backwards compatible 5200 that replaced the 2600 have saved the day? Instead of being a high-end option along with the 2600, replace it completely and move on? I mean, there was a five year gap between each which is the acceptable hardware replacement cycle for consoles. It seems like part of what made 2600 games so crappy is that it was hard to program for. I know they made a two port 5200 after launch, but that was too little too late I think.
Or was there something else you think that would have saved Atari? Maybe something long before the 5200 or the 80's?
Last edited: