The specifics are too detailed to go through, but the innovative beast that was the atari jaguar could do everything the N64 and PS1 could not. The Atari JAGUAR had better audio then the N64 and was truly 64 bit, while the N64 I think is not truly 64 bit and is limited by the hardware. The PS1 is 32 bit also maybe. Unfortunately few games made use of Atari Jaguars power and it had a small library of third party games as IIRRCC it had a surprise launch at E3 or something.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
The Atari 2600 isn't really from the Nes era. The Atari 2600 was a case that Atari released games for the 2600 in from 1977 to 1984, 1987 to 1989.
The 2600 first released games in 1977 and Nes had games released back in 1983 for Japan. The Atari 2600 main competitor before the crash was the Intellivision. Atari 5200, and Colecovision were not quite in the same era as the 2600. Atari was giving the 2600 and the 5200 a lot of game support from 1982 to early 1984.
The Atari 2600 was faster than Intellivision and able to handle more things at once on a screen.
Starting from the 32-bit era, consoles started to become fairly generalised pieces of hardware which could handle most kinds of computing for the purposes of gaming. The Saturn/PSX/N64 can still be distinguished in the fashion you're talking about because they still used specialised hardware for 2D and 3D rendering, but that was the beginning of consoles being closer to computers.
From what I've read, the Saturn was much better than the PSX at rendering 2D while the PSX beat it in terms of 3D graphics. And the N64 apparently could render 3D graphics better than the supercomputers of its time. I don't know all the details though.
Ah, I see (to 7th Lutz). I wasn't sure whether the 2600 was 4-bit or 8-bit. That's interesting as I thought the 2600 looked ugly on screen whilst the Intellivision looked better looking despite the bad controls.
The 7800 sounds like a beast, but the consoles themselves never seem to look pretty to me (loads of black, White, greens and reds that clash).
I've heard the TG16 was actually better at executing the draw rate then the SNES and Mega Drive and can do many programming tricks which neither could do...unfortunately, it didn't really have a convincing parallax scrolling technique whereas the Mega Drive was better at smoother animation but had a lower colour output. Correct me if I'm wrong of course.
The Atari Jaguar is interesting to say the least...but didn't it get let down by its reputation rather then their output? It kind of happened with the Dreamcast too after the failure of the Saturn.
Speaking of the Saturn, I looked up the "Blue Shadow" incident...and there are many interesting stories of whether the Saturn could actually emulate shadows or not during that era...
The N64's capabilities were really interesting but as HeroOfTime said the hardware itself (the way it executed things) let it down for the most part and the Cartridge format didn't help (sonething which I thinkSEGA changed at the last minute due to being a powerful 2D console at it's core). Speaking of which, does the N64 have a custom sound chip or does it stream music like the discs? It's something I never really hear about.
Ah, I see (to 7th Lutz). I wasn't sure whether the 2600 was 4-bit or 8-bit. That's interesting as I thought the 2600 looked ugly on screen whilst the Intellivision looked better looking despite the bad controls.
The Atari 2600 is a 8 bit system, but shouldn't be compared to a Nes. The problem is the Atari 2600 came from a different generation of game consoles and the technology shouldn't be compared despite both of them had an 8 bit microprocessor. The Atari 2600 had a microprocessor that was similar to the Nes. The problem was the microprocessor the nes had was improved on many times before Nes was released in Japan back in 1983.
The Atari 2600 had a crippled version of a 8 bit microprocessor 6502 called the 6507 because it was a cost efficient move at the time. When the Atari 2600 was being developed, the 6502 processor was too expansive used for a game system. In 1977 if the Atari 2600 had an original version of 6502 processor, it would have had the release price of a Playstation 3 at least. The cost does down to memory for the cost and the microprocessor itself.
Nintendo used a version of the 6502 micro processor that Nintendo developed for the type of games they had in mind.
The 6507 Processor didn't have the ram or the rom the 6502 is capable of. The only reason the Atari 2600 had a 32k rom cartridge game released late in its life was because of bank switching and the cost of that rom size of cartridge. The games games Atari 2600 had later in its life, such as Rador Lock, and Road Runner for an example were possible because of size of rom cartridge and quality of programmers.
Ah, I see (to 7th Lutz). I wasn't sure whether the 2600 was 4-bit or 8-bit. That's interesting as I thought the 2600 looked ugly on screen whilst the Intellivision looked better looking despite the bad controls.
The Atari 2600 is a 8 bit system, but shouldn't be compared to a Nes. The problem is the Atari 2600 came from a different generation of game consoles and the technology shouldn't be compared despite both of them had an 8 bit microprocessor. The Atari 2600 had a microprocessor that was similar to the Nes. The problem was the microprocessor the nes had was improved on many times before Nes was released in Japan back in 1983.
The Atari 2600 had a crippled version of a 8 bit microprocessor 6502 called the 6507 because it was a cost efficient move at the time. When the Atari 2600 was being developed, the 6502 processor was too expansive used for a game system. In 1977 if the Atari 2600 had an original version of 6502 processor, it would have had the release price of a Playstation 3 at least. The cost does down to memory for the cost and the microprocessor itself.
Nintendo used a version of the 6502 micro processor that Nintendo developed for the type of games they had in mind.
The 6507 Processor didn't have the ram or the rom the 6502 is capable of. The only reason the Atari 2600 had a 32k rom cartridge game released late in its life was because of bank switching and the cost of that rom size of cartridge. The games games Atari 2600 had later in its life, such as Rador Lock, and Road Runner for an example were possible because of size of rom cartridge and quality of programmers.
Ah, makes sense, although I think the 2600 would of benefited from the 6502 chip as less shovelware would have been created and maybe have prolonged the crash for awhile longer which may have impacted Nintendo's strategy at the time.
Ah, makes sense, although I think the 2600 would of benefited from the 6502 chip as less shovelware would have been created and maybe have prolonged the crash for awhile longer which may have impacted Nintendo's strategy at the time.
The crash could have been prolonged long by another option if the Engineers of Atari had their way. The company in charge of Atari at the time (Warner) decided use the the technology for the replacement of the 2600 for creating the start of the Atari 8 bit computer line instead.
The choice wasn't made by Nolan Bushnell, but Ray Kassar. Nolan was forced out in 1978 by Warner as CEO of Atari. Nolan and the engineers of Atari thought the Atari 2600 could only last 3 years because of its technology and the engineers of Atari actually was starting to work a replace for the Atari 2600 right after the 2600 was released. What the Engineers had mind was a "corrected Atari 2600" . The chip for the "corrected Atari 2600" was worked on throughout 1978. The "corrected Atari 2600" was supposed to have better graphics, better sound, and matter of fact used the 6502 microprocessor. The "Improved 2600" was supposed to be released around 1980. I am guessing it would have been a big hit because of games such as Pac-man. That meant the "improved 2600" wouldn't have to be replaced before 1983-1984 at least. It was supposed the same controllers as the Atari 400/800 had. The controllers the Atari 400/800 had were similar to the Atari 2600. Atari would have been forced to change controllers in terms of button like Sega did for the Genesis.
Ray Kassar was the new CEO of Atari at the time he made the choice on using the technology for developing the Atari 8 bit computer line instead. Home Computers was busting on the scene at the time, and Ray wanted Atari to be a major player on the computer home market. Ray left Atari 2600 pretty acceptable to have its market decrease as a result. Later on Atari did revisit those plans with the 5200, but with changes even without the keyboard wouldn't allow Atari 400/800 games to be played on the 5200. That was caused by the changes Atari did two the motherboard from the Atari 400/800 to the Atari 5200.
Ray Kassar later on could be blamed for the 2600 Pac-man fiasco. 2600 programmers leaving Atari for creating new 3rd party companies or being programmers for those new companies (Activision, Imagic). What Ray did as CEO at Atari played a role on why that that crash happen.
I see, so in a way, Warner Bros set up the Domini effect. What would happen if they never did any of that? I think Nintendo would have still dominated, but it wouldn't have as much Market Share as a result giving SEGA an existing audience in America and probably would have messed up the Mega Drive as that guy who got promoted as CEO at the time wouldn't be needed...and probably Sony would have came into the Market in 1990 instead of 1994.
The possibilities are endless.
Anyway, that's interesting to say the least, so they basically focused on the PC Market thanks to the C64's success on that platform and pretty much ignored marketing the 2600.
I see, so in a way, Warner Bros set up the Domini effect. What would happen if they never did any of that? I think Nintendo would have still dominated, but it wouldn't have as much Market Share as a result giving SEGA an existing audience in America and probably would have messed up the Mega Drive as that guy who got promoted as CEO at the time wouldn't be needed...and probably Sony would have came into the Market in 1990 instead of 1994.
The possibilities are endless.
Anyway, that's interesting to say the least, so they basically focused on the PC Market thanks to the C64's success on that platform and pretty much ignored marketing the 2600.
Oh and SEGA had to change their button lauout!?!
Warner did set the Domini effect to a point. Mattel and Coleco played a role in the crash though from the video game side. Atari did market the 2600, but they ignored how outdated the Atari 2600 was at the time. Atari waited until 1981 for starting to create a successor for the Atari 2600 and Intellivision was gaining ground. Atari's first successor for the 2600 was canceled before it reached the market and forced to switch to the Atari 5200 as a short term answer. The Colecovision changed that because the 5200 was supposed by Atari's answer to the Intellivision.
Mattel played role into the crash by a couple factors. Mattel kept delaying Intellivision III. Mattel announced it as an answer to the Colecovision. Intellivision III was not the Intellivision III that released in 1986. The Intellivision III Mattel had planed more memory, better sound and better graphics. It also was supposed to backwards compatibility with the Intellivision.
Mattel also screw up advertising a Keyboard component in television ads for the Intellivision back in 1981. The Keyboard component never released due to problems. FTC actually fined Mattel $10,000 a day before it ships because the amount delays and Mattel decided to cancel it as a result. Mattel ended up creating a shorted lived Entertainment Computer System for the Intellivision.
Coleco changed their 3rd ColecoVision module #3: from Super Game Module to Adam computer. Either Way, Celeco shouldn't have created Colecovsion expansion Module#3.
The Super Game Module was being worked in 1983, but there was problems with the two formats for it and was canceled before getting released. Coleco lost 34 millions dollars on it as a result.
Coleco made two versions of Adam computer. One was made to be an add-on for the Colecovsion and the other as a stand alone computer. Adam Computer was huge failure and part of it was cause by the early productions the Adam computer had including up 50% of early tape drives being defective. Adam Computer caused Coleco to go down the path of bankruptcy
C64 didn't come out when the Atari 400/800 first did. Commodore did start their computer than Atari did though. Atari 400/800 came out in 1979. C64 came out in 1982. Warner followed TRS-80, Commodore PET, and Apple II. The 3 computers I mentioned were released in the same year the Atari 2600 was.
Sega did change their controller for the Sega Genesis in 1993. Sega released a 6 button controller for the Sega Genesis after having a 3 button controller since 1989. Fighting games was one of the reasons Sega created a 6 button controller. I remember getting a 6 button controller in 1993 matter of fact.
That is all very interesting, although with each company losing so much money to creating the next big thing, shouldn't they have found a solution earlier? Like if so many of these companies were planning a new iteration, shouldn't one of them held back until they felt like their console was fully developed and had QA done months in advance?
It does sadly sound like they all tried to get a piece of the pie and ended up losing more money because of it.
I think SEGA should of changed the controller formats before...although I love my three button layouts...complicated games were eventually going to become the norm and the Super Nintendo had this figured out. Does button input add more memory in code or doesn't it matter?
That is all very interesting, although with each company losing so much money to creating the next big thing, shouldn't they have found a solution earlier? Like if so many of these companies were planning a new iteration, shouldn't one of them held back until they felt like their console was fully developed and had QA done months in advance?
It does sadly sound like they all tried to get a piece of the pie and ended up losing more money because of it.
I think SEGA should of changed the controller formats before...although I love my three button layouts...complicated games were eventually going to become the norm and the Super Nintendo had this figured out. Does button input add more memory in code or doesn't it matter?
I think button commands do add memory to code based on what I recalled from a computer programing class I took in 10th grade from late Aug. 1994 to June 1995.
Coleco, and Mattel really couldn't find a solution earlier. You could blame Coleco, and Mattel for doing something that console developer shouldn't be doing though. Coleco did that because they wanted to prove how much better their system was compared to the 2600 and Intellivision. Mattel even claimed Coleco made Donkey Kong bad on purpose for the Intellivision. Mattel only did games for the 2600 and they actually tried to make quality games for the 2600. Atari even developed games for the Coleovision.
Atari actually tried to develop "system X" in 1980-1981, but games programmers complained about it because it difficult to program it. "system X was scratched and the Atari 5200 was developed on the fly as a short term answer before the Atari 7800 was ready. System X in some ways was an early version of an Atari 7800 because it was backwards compatible with the 2600.
Coleco could have waited a couple years for creating Super game Module. Colecovision had 3 big problems. They had problems with scrolling games due to choppiness, and they had more video ram than regular ram for their system. A homebrew author for the Colecovision created an arcade port of Yie Ar Kung-Fu and I read it was a pretty good arcade port despite the arcade game came out 3 years after the Colecovision did. Coleco was module happy with their Colecovision from the beginning. They created a module for playing 2600 games and a module for driver's controller for Colecovision games. Coleco even was planning creating a Module that allows them to play Intellivision games on a Coleocvision, but it wasn't released.
Mattel was screwed either way because even without a keyboard or a computer. Mattel test marketed the Intellivision in 1979 and their marketing besides sports games was their graphics were better than their competitors. When the 5200 and the Colecovision came out in 1982, Intellivison system no longer had the best graphics. The Intellivision needed be replaced from 1983 to 1985 time frame because of when it was test marketed.
I thought so, kind of explains why Street Fighter took more memory on both the Nega Drive (and the imported Master System) then the SNES.
All this cross promotion stuff really doesn't help their cause, although SEGA did have Fantasy Star on the NES and C64 so I dunno if it could cause a crash.
Adding modules does seem interested but it kind of makes the 2600 obsolete if it ran games perfectly.
Forums
Topic: Advantages/Disadvantages of Hardware
Posts 1 to 14 of 14
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.