Xref: utzoo rec.games.video:1498 comp.sys.atari.8bit:2058 comp.sys.atari.st:12715 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!soohoo From: soohoo@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Ken Soohoo) Newsgroups: rec.games.video,comp.sys.atari.8bit,comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: Re: New Atari Home Video Game (Just a rumor?) Message-ID: <7973@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 3 Dec 88 18:10:21 GMT References: <1027@paris.ics.uci.edu> <3863@ihlpe.ATT.COM> <2074@nunki.usc.edu> Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: soohoo@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Ken Soohoo) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 77 In article <2074@nunki.usc.edu> rjung@nunki.usc.edu (Robert allen Jung) writes: > >(Cross-posted to rec.games.video because it's relevant, comp.sys.atari.8bit >because the 8-bits are involved, and comp.sys.atari.st to address Atari's >US image problems) : > > >In article <3863@ihlpe.ATT.COM> kimes@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Kit Kimes) writes: >> [Questions about the Atari 7800 game system deleted] >> >>The 7800 was designed while Warner Brothers still owned Atari and almost >>never saw the light of day. Tramiel inherited 100,000 or so of them when >>he bought the company. They sat for a year or more and were only released >>because Atari wanted to clear them out and make a little money (my opinion). >>They caught it just right though, because video games took an upswing about >>then. The 7800 has even better graphics than the 8bit computer (and XE Game >>System) because it was designed with graphics in mind and with a better >>graphics handling chip. I think they compare very favorably with the >>Nintendo and Sega systems, but have only a limited number of cartridges (if >>you don't count the 2600 games). > > I agree, the 7800 would (have been?) be a great system if there was more >software for it. As it is now, Sega and Nintendo seem to have a deadlock on >the "hot" game titles, which seems to hamper Atari's chances to penetrate >the market. Yes, the 7800 has a great architecture because it was designed with coin-op mentality, making it terribly difficult to program, which is why Super titles haven't exploded onto the market. It has great potential to beat Sega, and give Nintendo a run for it's money. Yes, if you want "Arcade" titles, you can buy a Sega/Nintendo, but if you want new, neat, good graphics, good playability games, the 7800 _should_ be the machine, it just doesn't have the software base yet. Ideally, the new popular 7800 titles would become the Arcade Games of the future, becuase they'll have been desgined on a machine that permits _somewhat_ easier portability to an upright (at least, that's an idea). (Did you know that the ST was used to design the shapes in Gauntlet II??) > > In relation to all this, who else thinks as I do that Atari is spreading >itself reeeeeeeeeeeally thin with three game systems? Why the 7800, the 2600, >and the XEGS -- all at once? If all the software was compatable, then it'd >be okay (sort of like Nintendo's Basic System and Deluxe System, etc.). But >with incompatable games, it's like a lot of waffling from Sunnyvale... >Maybe just the XEGS and/or the 7800. > No, Atari isn't spreading itself thin with 2600/7800 & XE systems, remeber that the 2600 is still selling like mad, along with the games, and Atari doesn't have to do much to make money there. The 7800 is it's "new" machine, which _is_ backward compatible, so you buy the 7800 and you get _all_ the hundreds of 2600 games (which is the Basic/Deluxe idea). Now the XE system is the logical extension for the 8bit Atari line, which already has a huge installed base (like the 2600, although not nearly in the same numbers), and the XE _Game_ system plays / uses all the older Atari computer software, hardware, and cartridges. So by bringing out the XE (which used to be the 400/800 looong ago), Atari can make use of all sorts of existing machines out there that people are selling, or have sitting in the colset, as publicity and perifs. The XE Game system is a Computer & a Game Machine, an a _proven_ computer (i.e. education and fun). So really, you've just go two lines, the Computer Line, and the Game line, both marketed under the Game image, because now Atari's selling the ST as it's flagship computer. > Then, of course, this all ties in to the problem of Atari's "Pac-Man" >image problems in America. When will we see a serious drive for promoting >the ST in America? Us ST owners know the machine blows the doors off most >other machines in its price category, but all we get are silly looks from >the die-hard IBM/Macintosh pinstripes crowd... Someday, someday... For now, just sell Games in the US, Computers in Europe. --Kenneth Soohoo (soohoo@cory.Berkeley.Edu) Atari 400/800/600xl/800xl/1200/130xe/65xe, 1040ST hacker Sometime Berkeley Student, othertimes... My opinions are my OWN, not necessarily Atari's