Talk:Atari 2600

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Atari task force.
 

Rough video resolution and sound capabilities?[edit]

Just wondering what these may be, in order to better compare against the 5200 and 7800 (which, at first sight, don't seem to make massive leaps forward in these areas, even though they have much more memory and better sprite handling)... IE pixel resolution, colour depth (amount on screen at once and palette size), audio channels and what sort of output each one made etc.

The screenshot looks something like the typical 160x200, 8 or 16 colours from 128/256 that the other Atari 8-bits tended to use... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The horizontal resolution is indeed 160; typical vertical resolution for North American games is 192 pixels, but because of the way the system generates the video (line-by-line instead of a screen buffer) that can actually be more or less than 192 depending on the game itself. The Television Interface Adaptor article gives some more details on the color and sound capabilities. 28bytes (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Atari 3200 10 bit CPU?[edit]

Is http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/sylvia/sylvia.html a reliable source? The schematics show 650X, with D7-D0 lines, which seems to indicate a traditional 8 bit CPU. The text says the 10-bit CPU is a popular myth. Change the Wikipedia article perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.130.25 (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's considered a reliable reference here having previously passed a reliability query. It's been used as a reference by both the media and books, as has the site's owner. As far as 10 bit being a myth, that's correct. The full story behind Sylvia and some of the schematics are in our book Atari Inc. BusinessbIs Fun. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Atari Museum is a reliable source. It's maintained by Curt Vendel who has an archive of original Atari documents and who is the designer of the Atari Flashback 2. (ZadocPaet (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC))

Ressurection[edit]

The Atari 2600 until the JR. Redesign was dead and came back. it is clear that the 2600 continued to sell as evident by the long shelf life: "===Decline and resurrection=== During this period, Atari Inc. continued to grow until it had one of the largest R&D divisions in Silicon Valley. However, it spent much of its R&D budget on projects that seemed rather out of place at a video game (or even home computer) company; many of these projects never saw the light of day. Meanwhile, several attempts to bring out newer consoles failed for one reason or another, although Atari Inc.'s home computer systems, the Atari 8-bit family, sold reasonably well, if not spectacularly. Warner was more than happy anyway, as it seemed to have no end to the sales of the 2600, and Atari Inc. was responsible for over half of the company's income.

The programmers of many of Atari Inc.'s biggest hits grew disgruntled with the company for not crediting game developers and many left the company and formed their own independent software companies. The most prominent and longest-lasting of these third-party developers was Activision, founded in 1980, whose titles quickly became more popular than those of Atari Inc. itself. Atari Inc. attempted to block third-party development for the 2600 in court but failed,[1][2][3] and soon other publishers, such as Imagic and Coleco, entered the market. Atari Inc. suffered from an image problem when a company named Mystique produced a number of pornographic games for the 2600. The most notorious of these, Custer's Revenge, caused a large number of protests from women's and Native American groups[4] because it depicts General George Armstrong Custer raping a bound Native American woman.[5] Atari Inc. sued Mystique in court over the release of the game.[6]

Atari Inc. continued to scoop up licenses during the shelf life of the 2600, the most prominent of which included Pac-Man and E.T. Public disappointment with these two titles and the market saturation of poor third-party titles are cited as major contributors to the video game crash of 1983. Suddenly, Atari Inc.'s growth meant it was losing massive amounts of money during the crash, at one point about $10,000 a day. Warner quickly grew tired of supporting Atari Inc., and started looking for buyers in 1984. Although not formally discontinued, the 2600 was de-emphasized for two years after Warner's 1984 sale of Atari Inc.'s Consumer Division to Commodore Business Machines founder Jack Tramiel, who wanted to concentrate on home computers. He froze all development of console games, including a 2600 Garfield game and an Atari 5200 port of Super Pac-Man.

Later in 1984, Atari introduced the Atari 2600 Jr., a redesigned system that gave the console a different look and a low price point. Atari 2600 sales were strong in 1985, around a million units.[7] In a way this made the 2600 the starting point for the popularity of video game consoles, and for restoring the industry after the video game crash of 1983. The 2600 would go on selling until 1992, a total of between 30 and 40 million units in varying estimates. "

  • To start, for clarity's sake, the only part of the above passage that this user added and which was subsequently removed, is the part that he bolded at the end. As is the case on several other pages, you have cited a true statement, taken it completely out of context, and then made a conclusion unsupported by any sources. As multiple sources will attest, 1985 was the low point in both sales and dollar value for the industry in the US, which only generated $100 million in revenue in 1985, down from a high of $3.2 billion in 1983. There is not a source under the sun that tries to claim that 1985 was a good year for the industry or that it began to revive that year. You are correct that the 2600 sold around one million units in 1985, as your cited source indicates, but there are no sources that attribute those sales to an upturn in the industry, which again, declined to its lowest dollar value of the period that year. Just to provide a little further context, according to the Electronics Industry Association (EIA), there were roughly three million video game consoles sold in the US in 1984. Unfortunately they did not say how many of those were Atari systems, but based on historical patterns and marketshare, it was probably well more than one million of them. As such, one million units sold in 1985 was probably a decline in sales for the 2600, not an increase, which further invalidates your unsupported conclusion. That is why this info should not be included here. Indrian (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That newsletter with the CES coverage from January '86 would be a reliable source (it's just being reprinted at a fan site or whatever that is) for when the 7800 was being re-released and why, and Katz and Atari did actually release that statement at the show. However it was nothing but pure PR. During our interviews with Katz for the book, we verified the 2600 JR was indeed released for Christmas '85, however it's release and the release of the 7800 had nothing to do with 2600 sales over Christmas or over '85 as that statement claimed. The 2600 Jr project was started up again in August '84 and Tramiel had plans to release it and the 7800 for Christmas '84. Legal negotiations caused a delay for the release of the 7800 and financial problems caused him to have to shut down any 2600 development. Both took until Summer '85 to be resolved at which point he sought out Katz to restart a video game division. It literally had nothing to do with 2600 sales for the year. Coverage at the summer '86 CES were stating that the presence of Nintendo and Atari on the market with new consoles and the forthcoming console by Sega were a sign that the market was most likely reviving. But that's the most that could be said about Atari Corp.'s involvement in revitalizing the US consumer console industry.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This is silly because the 2600 did start selling millions again regardless of the reason from 85 on up until 1992. To leave a section just named declin in this case would make no sense unless you put the word "Revival" or "Ressurection" next to it. As that is exactly what happened after its brief downturn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.64.30 (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Did the 2600 begin selling again? Of course it did, but the extent of its later success and whether it posted significant enough sales to be considered a "revival" is a completely different issue that needs to be backed with sources. Not saying you are necessarily wrong, but you do need to back up such a change with cites. Indrian (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Then put a citation tag instead of deleting it. Also the famicom was discontinued in 1995, which explained its last game being in "1995" the production afterward is just repairing and reselling stock units. So yes, the 2600 was as I QUOTED, longest "Active" console. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talkcontribs) 01:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
No, the NES was discontinued in North America in 1995, the Famicom was not discontinued in Japan until 2003. Nintendo's own financial statements show sales of new consoles through 2004 (http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_sales_e1309.pdf). Indrian (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The Very last game for the famicom was the SAME YEAR (1995) before they discontinued it and removed the licensing restrictions. The famicom was also selling STOCK, so yes it would COUNT as "sales" but you seem to love selective reading. And the citation is all that is needed as it is clear that the 2600 sold through after 1985. The only thing you can even argue is sells, but with a million claimed to be sold in 1985 and most likely more so after that I think it's pretty clear i am correct.
No, the console was manufactured until 2003. They were not just selling "stock." (http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-to-end-famicom-and-super-famicom-production/1100-6029220/). Indrian (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
And once again i prove you don't read everything in a conversation because of selective reading. You only read part of one line forgot what I wrote before hand. And I am still correct, The Famicom was not "active" until 2003, it had no support, the last official game was 1995, Adventure Island IV(V?) and they has been removed the licensing restrictions for the consoles so that it was a free consoles. A production run does not mean anything whatsoever. It's why no other source has the NES as the longest lasting console. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talkcontribs) 01:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
You are both WRONG. The longest production run, and official support of any video game console is the SEGA Master System by DECADES now.... It technically was never ended in South America and is still being manufactured and supported today for that market by the original licensee. Tectoy held the exclusive manufacturing rights to the console in that market from the beginning, and they still pay Sega the licensing rights for the console's manufacturing. Apart from a brief period of hiatus in the late 00's, Tectoy have continued to release new updated models of the console with new games for it. Colliric (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

40 million![edit]

Please stop oozing your disruptive behavior to other articles [1]. That 40 million figure was removed from this article as well for a reason. « Ryūkotsusei » 23:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You better shut up and stop being an jerk, especially when you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Disruptive what? I did not even edit I went straight to the talk page, best you be quiet from now on instead of you being an ass.

Now then, you have on source for 30 million, a very bad reference from business week. The other mention of 30 million in the article does not even have a source. There are multiple better sources to choose from and we could have talked about this instead of you spitting out mean spirited nonsense. Here are some source= The TOY HALL OF FAME/Salon-http://www.salon.com/2007/11/09/toy_hall_of_fame/ PC World, then reported by Lnews-http://www.leasingnews.org/Pages/50Best2.htm Arkansas News-http://firstarkansasnews.net/2010/11/retrograming-in-style-with-the-atari-2600/ Gamespot: http://slumz.boxden.com/f13/sales-every-console-ever-created-pretty-much-929067/ The Guiness World Recrods: https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=atari+2600+40+million&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest#channel=suggest&q=atari+2600+40+million+Guinness+World+Records+Gamer%27s+Edition&tbm=bks

There are more sources as well. Much better sources, especially the fact 40 million will be under Ataris name in the toy hall of fame which would be very odd if 40 million as not the closest accurate number.Jakandsig (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"The Atari 2600 proved so popular that it is believed to have sold more than 40 million units worldwide in its life span" -Guinness.
So in short, they have no idea.
Salon
If you bothered to read what I already said[2] (and the article), you wouldn't cite this. Wikipedia is not a reliable source yet the article constantly cites Wikipedia. Unless... this is just a coincidence Wikipedia said 40 million at the time. Maybe the console really did sell 10 million units in 6 years. 2001, 2007
PC World
Probably blindly regurgitating Salon. Their own sister sites contradicts this: techhive, pcworld.pl
GameSpot
Not only could you not link me to GameSpot itself, you've decided a sketchy third-party source that is quoting a GameSpot forum post to be good enough?
firstarkansasnews.net
At this point I'm assuming you're just causally browsing around and seeing what sticks. What makes this site reliable?
So there you have it. Only one "legitimate" article. It is probably citing Wikipedia just like Salon, but is not telling the reader. Consider asking more questions on the talk pages and taking less action in articles. If you got editors (and IPs) challenging you here, going somewhere else claiming it to be true is just being disruptive. « Ryūkotsusei » 01:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
"You better shut up and stop being an jerk, especially when you have no idea what the hell you are talking about", "best you be quiet from now on"..... Threatening language is not going to win you friends on this issue. And I think it's against Wikipedia policies to threaten other editors. Colliric (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
2 of those aren't even threatening language. at least try to lie correctly. At least we came to an agreement. There you go. also how can Salon quote wikipedia if Wikipedia did not have it at 40 million? Again, it's a thing, i am sure they did research for that number, and again, that will be the number under the label of the 2600, in the toy hall of fame, and that is what it is. Now that we have agreed we can now change it. See not hard. Also i like how you are using the word "probably" and them using estimates yet use a horribly sourced piece of one article for 30 million to downplay sources. not cool man. Also against wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talkcontribs) 21:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Another third opinion request[edit]

There (again) is currently a disagreement on whether this text should be kept in the article; With its introduction came a resurgence in software development both from Atari Corp. and from a few third parties (including Activision, Absolute Entertainment, Froggo, Epyx, Palan, and Exus).

This text is not verified in anyway. There are no pictures of flyers saying this, no reliable references to support it, and yes I tried looking. There where also third parties still developing making games through 1983/84 onward for the system looking online, which makes this whole statement seem very unreliable.

But I think we may need a third opinion on this. I Invite User:Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever(again) to come by, along with a few users who have given me suggestions before(again), User:Wgungfu and User:Sergecross73 to share their thoughts(again). Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolute, Froggo, Palan and Exus weren't successful in the early 1980s as Parker Brothers, Activision, Imagic, and Epyx. IX|(C"<) 20:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to verify what you just said? Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).