Talk:Atari 7800/Archive 1

Inaccuracies in article
Wow, another inaccurate and misleading page regarding an Atari game console. At this rate I think I'll be submitting corrections for the whole lot of 'em. Here is the text as it currently appears:

"The Atari 7800 was an attempt to compete with Nintendo's NES.

"It was released in 1986 after negotiations with Nintendo to support the console were cut off. Instead of the console being supported by Nintendo, it was now in direct competition with Nintendo, which is not what was needed for Atari to recover from the video game crash of 1983. Even though technologically it was far superior to the NES, the game line-up was inferior. It also didn't help that Atari also had 2 other consoles for sale at the same time."

While the 7800 did indeed compete with the NES on store shelves, it was not designed to. The 7800 was in fact designed to replace the Atari 5200, and to once and for all re-establish Atari's market supremacy against the Intellivision and ColecoVision. The system also marks Atari's loss of faith in its own video game R&D staff - it was the first game system from Atari which was designed by an outside company (GCC). (Later Atari consoles also designed outside the company were the Lynx and Jaguar.) The 7800 was launched in test market (southern California) in June of 1984, not 1986. One month later Atari was sold to Jack Tramiel, who beleived (along with most of the country) that the video game fad was over. He pulled the plug on all projects related to video games and Atari's existing computer line to concentrate all efforts on development of the new 16-bit line (Atari ST). The 7800 was RE-introduced in 1986 once Nintendo's success had convinced Jack there was still gold in them thar hills.


 * In other words, it tried to compete with the NES, which is something people who grew up in that era remember. I had both machines. That it was introduced prior to the NES' introduction in the USA is a useful fact, but it's also a fact that Atari used the 7800 as a machine in an attempt to compete with the NES, as you've mentioned.

As for the failed Atari-Nintendo deal, this actually occurred years earlier as well. Nintendo had successfully launched the NES (Famicom) in Japan and was looking to expand it's market. But with Atari dominating the rest of the world market they were concerned about their ability to deliver product on a global scale. So they approached Atari, offering rights to the NES outside Japan. Atari was close to signing the deal, but at the CES that winter Coleco demonstrated it's upcoming Adam computer running Donkey Kong. At that time Atari held exclusive rights to home computer versions of Donkey Kong. Enraged, Atari's CEO pulled out of the Nintendo deal, a move which doomed Atari to forever play the role of also-ran with all their future consoles.

The 7800's technical superiority is debated still today. The architecture is essentially just an Atari 2600 with a slightly better CPU and an advanced graphics chip. While the system could handle far more moving objects on screen (up to 100) than any of it's competitors, it lacked seriously in audio capabilities. To compensate, some games (notably ports from the Atari 400/800 computer line) included a GTIA audio chip in the cartridge. The 7800 was also more difficult to program than other systems available at the time, though this was tempered by the fact that so many programmers were already well versed in the 2600.


 * So (help to) fix it, dear Henry! Seriously, a lot of the material on video game consoles is could use work; it tends to be written by younger video game fans who perhaps lack a bit of perspective, and it hasn't attracted as much review as other more imp...er...contentious areas.  Not everything in the Wikipedia is brilliant prose.--Robert Merkel 04:08, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Clarified the audio description, it was due to lack of board space and the POKEY chip could be included in the cartridge. It was designed that way. Really! Pelladon 23:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, now I understand how this works. One new & improved 7800 article, coming up!

Justify reverts and stop being overprotective
This article and the Atari 400 article seem to be vigilantly reverted whenever I add content to them, content that I feel is not only relevant, it's interesting and useful. For instance, the 7800 vs. the NES is very relevant in console history, and perfectly appropriate for the article. I haven't seen a good justification for the reverts. It seems that certain folks think these articles are their property to guard. They're not. They are supposed to be amalgams—the end result of contributions from many people.
 * As people have pointed out, it doesn't have much to do with the 7800 history overall other than to say the 7800 competed against several consoles during its lifetime. Focusing on the NES is not relevant, and posting content in the format of personal opinion has no place here and is against Wiki policies on original research and documentation.  You want to talk about the merits of the NES, do it in the NES article.  --Marty Goldberg 03:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How the 7800 did in the market is extremely relevant to this article. The machine's tech specs and talk about the company's internal management isn't the only thing that the article should include. The 7800 was a commercial product and how people reacted to it in the market is absolutely relevant, just as how the 400/800 system's games compared to other systems is relevant. I see no logic in what seems to be a radical approach to Atari equipment articles. I've worked on a number of other articles and haven't seen this strange situation, although the Bible/Homosexuality article was in a similar mess which luckily has been sorted out.
 * Once again, you're not focusing on "how it did in the market", providing resources on market performance, etc. You're simply continuously putting in personally opinioned "NES vs. 7800" material.  I.e. the "fanboy" stuff you make mention, and none of it fits in NPOV or Original Research policies.  Finally, the 7800's performance and causes are already covered in the "Aftermath" section in a much more neutral manner.  --Marty Goldberg 03:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing "fanboy" about discussing how well the 7800 did as a commercial product. The NES was the console that defined the second generation. That has nothing to do with my "agenda". It's a simple fact. The fact that Atari tried to compete with the NES and failed with the 7800 is also a fact. That there are many variables responsible for the success or failure of a product is also a fact, and those variables are worth including in the article. Some of them are there, but those I've added are labeled "original research", "point of view", and "NES is great fanboy chatter". This is absurd. What I see is bad behavior on the part of people whose perspective isn't large enough to see that there are many dimensions to this article other than the ones that have occured to them—that some people can't understand that they're not omniscient and that they're point of view concerning what's relevant and what's not isn't universal. To me, how a product does in the market is important, and comparing a product to its main competition is essential. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.133.103.221 (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Seriously, I think you should take a step back from the keyboard, take a breath, and look in the mirror. Becuase what you're accusing others of is exactly how you're coming off.  First, you're the one that brought up "fanboy", not anyone else - I was simply repeating the comment.  What you added, once again, is clearly labeled by Wikipedia.  Its not like they're labeled just for you and you're being picked on, its policies that have been followed here for quite some time.  Now, as stated, the 7800's performance in the market or lack thereof is already covered.  Simply doing a direct comparison against the NES and trumpeting the reasons for what you consider NES's "superiority" does not follow under the scope of a 7800 article or guidelines for Wikipedia content.  You can cry "being picked on" all you want, and make sarcastic edit comments over and over again, but this is nothing personal.  --Marty Goldberg 03:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My successor edit
I will edit the the part of the article which says that the Atari XE is the sucssesor to the Atari 7800, as that is the successor to the Atari 8 bit, not the 7800, the successor to the Atari 7800 is the Atari Panther, releaced in 1991. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Panther was never actually released. Dancter (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case then, the Atari Jaguar is the sucsesor. 86.20.32.16 (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the XE came out before the Jaguar and after the 7800. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It may have come out before Jaguar and after 7800, but XEGS was neither the successor to the latter nor the predecessor to the former. It was labeled "XE Game System" but it was NOT a video game console. It was, in effect, a 65XE in a different shell.  This is different, btw, than the 5200, which while based on the 400 computer line was NOT a 400 computer.  XEGS could use ALL programs and peripherals from the XE computer line because it was an XE computer; 5200 couldn't use any of the 400 computer line's programs or peripherals because it was NOT a part of Atari's personal computer line.  The Jaguar is, in fact, the successor model to the 7800, but the Panther was supposed to be before development was killed off to concentrate on Jaguar.  The XEGS wasn't really part of the game console line, because it really wasn't a game console at all, but rather a personal computer. --Therealspiffyone (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's complete WP:OR. The XE GS was released as and marketed as a game console that expands in to a computer. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It didn't "expand" into a computer, it WAS a computer: the keyboard was PACKED with the unit,  it ran all 65XE programs right OUT OF THE BOX, and could be further added onto with tape drives (which, btw, were not standard with 65XE but was an add-on for that unit as well).  Again, it didn't "expand" into a computer: it was a computer.  And, iirc, Atari marketed the unit as a computer as well.  At the very least the XE wasn't the successor to 7800 as it was not released to eventually REPLACE the 7800, and there is no documentation to prove that. - Therealspiffyone (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, complete WP:OR. It was marketed as a game console that expanded in to a computer, but a game console first and foremost.  It was presented as such by Atari in the press, it was packaged as such by Atari, it was reviewed as such, and it was advertised as such by Atari (including the slogan "The XE Game System, the system with the power to play computer games") including commercials directly comparing it to the NES (which the 7800 was also marketed against).  Any attempt to portray it as otherwise is purely speculation based on personal opinion.  When I interviewed Michael Katz for the 7800 article for Retro Gamer magazine as well, he also clearly stated is was intended as a console that expands in to a computer via it's ability to add peripherals.  Additionally that's incorrect, only the deluxe package came with a keyboard.  The initial system packaging only came with a base system with joystick with the keyboard and light gun sold separately.  Likewise, successor for the infobox is not designated as replacement here, it simply means the next related product by the company. For example the 5200 was sold alongside the 7800 and 2600 as well under Atari Corp.  And the 5200 upon it's release was also positioned as a higher end compliment to the 2600 rather than a replacement.  However by standards it's listed here as the 2600's successor.  Once again, you have no consensus for your continued attempt at forceful editing. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine. Here: [4] Marketed as BOTH a game system and computer. And here: [5] (various bits of info as to how it's a computer right out of the box). And, of course, there's the fact that it includes the keyboard in the box, and as such it seems awfully clear as to the fact that it isn't "expandable" to a computer, but IS a computer marketed as a game system, which is more accurate than stating otherwise. I'll agree that it was marketed as a game system...but it was also clearly marketed as a computer as well, and was not "expandable to a computer, but was a computer out of the box. The links prove that. But, hey, the Atari pages are apparently your show, so have at it. - Therealspiffyone (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine here what? You haven't shown anything supporting it with the above, just repeated the same claims and provided two links that do nothing to contradict all the direct sources given above. Likewise again not understand what "predecessor" for the template is meant to define.  I'll repeat it again, it's not "replacement" but next product.  The 5200 did not "replace" the 2600, but was Atari's next released game console product.  That's all it's meant to imply. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

first paragraph is terrible
talking about the rerelease before the initial release? wtf22:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.150.163 (talk)

I agree - starting the article off with the re-release history is extremely confusing if you're not already familiar with what the complete release history was. I've taken a stab at editing it to make it more clear - probably not perfect, but I think it's an improvement. 67.168.51.80 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

revised color explanation, and minor edit of CPU info
I've edited this sentence "Powering the system was an Atari SALLY 6502 (Atari's slightly custom 6502, sometimes described as a "6502C") processor running at 1.79 MHz, similar to the processor found in home computers (Atari 8-bit, Apple II, Commodore 64) and other consoles (Atari 5200 and Nintendo Entertainment System) but running at almost twice the clock frequency." The phrase "almost twice the clock frequency" is misleading. While the Apple II and Commodore 64 ran at 1MHz, the other systems listed ran their 6502 at the same 1.79MHz clock speed as it runs in the 7800. The slower speed of the A2/C64 could be distinguished in another sentence but I think that would stray off-topic and really isn't useful, so I've simply removed the "twice the clock frequency" comment. If somebody would prefer to put it back then fine, but it needs to be phrased differently to avoid being misleading.

I've also revised the discussion of color limitations in the Graphics section. I disagree with characterizing this system as "25 colors per screen". It's really not designed that way, the real limit is "25 colors per scanline". In practice changing colors between scanlines might not be done very often, but nevertheless describing limitations "per screen" isn't accurate. I can tell the person who wrote the previous version was aware of this, but they regarded exploiting scanlines as a special trick. I disagree - reconfiguring the graphics parameters between scanlines is advertised in the original programming documentation. My source citation for the graphics section is indirect - it leads to Curt Vendel's web page where there are links to the programming docs. I didn't want to hotlink directly to a PDF on his server. 24.32.207.253 (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with the Atari 2600 VCS
I've looked at this section, and I can't see any weasel words in it. Unless anybody else thinks different, I'll be removing the template on 14/04/10. a_man_alone (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision needed - to do list
This article is pretty bad and needs work.

Ideally, we'd want to use the Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System as a template guide. The SNES article is a featured one and what to look for in an article.

Among issues with the article currently are:


 * Complete reorganization of info is needed. The article jumps around all over the place with various sections appearing in completely illogical places.- I've actually done this, though it still needs work to tie sections together and move information around to fit into proper sections.
 * General rewrite needed to remove the article's fan tone.
 * General rewrite of history section is needed to segue better and to provide more information. It's rather vague in places and doesn't cover some of the turmoil cause by the Tramiel buyout.
 * General rewrite of tech section needed.
 * Lack of sourcing - Article desperately needs sourcing. I know a lot of technical documents are actually available, some from Curt Vendel's Atari museum website and other places like on Atariage where various scanned tech documents have been archived and members are fairly knowledgeable. Other sourcing such as newspaper articles, etc are needed as well.
 * Technical infoboxes needed in the tech sections. The SNES article does this well and can be used as a template.

Add to this list or strike-out as work is done.--Lendorien (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Joypad not available in US?
I've asked for a cite for this because, although I don't have a cite either, at one point the joypad was at least advertised in one of the major retailer Christmas catalogs in the US.76.226.128.115 (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Limited launch in 1984 in southern California
There is a "citation needed" for The 7800 was initially released in southern California in June 1984. There are numerous sources to support the claim that there was a limited marketing/preliminary launch in 1984, but most of the these sources while seemingly well-informed are not "reliable" per Wikipedia guidelines. Example. Just trying to help, given that I spent about 15 minutes trying to find a reliable source, but the above example was about the best I could find. - I&#39;m not that crazy (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Competiton
Inserted and conflicted: === Competition === "The Atari 7800 initially did well sharing sales with the Nintendo Entertainment system in 1986, in some places even selling out while NESs were still on the shelves. This could be due to the strong launch line-up including the then only console port of Pole-Position two, high quality arcade conversions, the strong 2600 sales in 1985, and backward compatibility with the entire Atari 2600 library.

Atari was able to keep up this pace even around 1987 when the NES sold 3 million that year. Atari managed to sell a total 1.59 million of according to official documents in 1987. Around 1.4 Million away putting the two big consoles in close competition. By 1988 the 7800 boosted again selling over 3 million until the end of 1988, where the 7800 lost its edge in probably the biggest sales drop In video game console history: while the TOTAL sale for 1988 was 1.4+ million, the sales momentum, which beat the 1987 sales figures, dropped to 655,353 in 1989, and selling less than 100,000 in 1990. Keep in mind these sales were only for North America as Atari never stated European sales. Also the only one atari reported in their official documents.

Many reasons may have attributed to fast fall of the Atri 7800 after being strong for around the first 3 years. By this time Nintendo's policies for third-parties, were brutal to the 7800. By the end of 1988's peak the 7800 would have less games than the NES by a large margin by the Christmas season. The lack of support relied on Atari's first-party and few third-party deals to cover the gap. However, Atari did not have the finances to push as hard as SEGA did with the MasterSystem for first-party games. The Atari 2600 was also still selling well in the form of the Atari 2600 JR. A new redesigned Atari that was sold until 1992 taking away more sales year after year with its low price point. Another big reason is due to Atari not reporting new games sales, or general news often. Leading a lot of the media to believe Nintendo was the only console doing well and the only right choice in the market. Giving the Atari 7800 a self-inflicting wound by being silent and not getting much media attention or advertising. By 1989 all these problems had caused sever damage.

The Atari 7800 was still a successful project for Atari, and was a primary instrument with the NES at reviving the then low value Video Game Industry. But Atari would not ever be able to gain back the massive success of the Atari 2600."

These are based on actual sales figures presented in the press at that current time and official atari documents.


 * I did not do detailed research here, but I did read the first source; a scanned Milwaukee newspaper from 1986. The opinion of one local technical writer from the Midwest US is hardly proof that the Atari 7800 was outselling Nintendo in "some places".--Asher196 (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the only thing that would allow us to say (and I believe that was reported in several different newspapers during the time) is that the 7800 initialy had good sales and sold out at some locations. Nothing comparatively to the NES though (i.e. "outselling"). The only thing we can really comparatively say is how it placed overall in the US market compared to the SMS and NES based on reported and internal sales figures, which would be a distant second to the NES. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Citations are not dating.
I put in the format for my citation needed wiki codes. However, they will not date and I don't know why. After it did not work the first few times in preview, I went to another article and copied a code exactly and changed the month. Sadly, that did not work either. Here is what I did, maybe someone can find out what I am doing wrong. Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Third Opinion (Also for Gamegear page)
There is currently a disagreement on whether the word Demise should be used in this page. From my POV, Demise is not used on other pages because it seems it is used for pages like this in the context of failure. That does not apply to this console (or the GameGear where I made the same edit.) as it was not a failure for the company, Atari(or Sega).

Looking at the definitions of demise, Death or decease; or the more reasonable definition; Termination of existence or operation. This last definition can apply to the Demise of the Xbox and PS2 for example, so it should be used this way. But, in this article it is clearly used as failure in my POV, which doesn't make sense because that definition is not what Demise means. The reason why I believe this is the way it's being used here, is because it seems to only be used for consoles not popular or not in first place with one exception across most gaming consoles pages. Now, if I can use the word Demise for every gaming platform and nobody minds the changes, then I don't mind leaving it here and on the Gamegear page. For something like the Atari Jaguar and Game.com, the better term would be Commercial Failure or Financial losses I believe.

But I think we may need a third opinion on this. I Invite User:Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever to come by, along with a few users who have given me suggestions before, User:Wgungfu and User:Sergecross73 to share their thoughts. Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: It looks like User:Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever's reason for his revert is that he believes the 7800 was a failure because it was behind the NES. However, that's not how it works in my POV and makes little sense. Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You still have problems dealing with the sales of the Atari 7800. The overall sales are 3.77 million until 2014. 10.77 million is obscure nonsense. But for me it's annoying let you remove certain details of the 7800's failure/demise. IX | (C"&#60;)  19:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The sales of the 7800 are only until 1990 in the reference. The 7800 was not discontinued in 1990 so it would not make sense to say that the sales of the 7800 in the United States was 7800 in a way that makes the sales seem like that was the final count. The main story here though is your strange reverts. You just now told me that I removed details from the 7800 page but I have not done that at all. I'm actually not sure where you got 10.6 million from, because I never wrote that. Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You lied (somewhat). IX | (C"&#60;)  19:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Lies about what? I checked and I am pretty sure I did not write what you said and that my definition of demise is correct. Anyway, I also forgot to add that your definition of demise doesn't make sense since it's factually the wrong definition. Saying the console is a failure because of not being in first place doesn't make sense unless we are allowed to use demise for every single page. like the Xbox 360 and the PS3 because they lost to the Wii, and I know from outside this website alone that I will be murdered on sight for trying that by fanboys. You are welcome to attempt this though. I still think we need a third opinion however.Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with either term. Also, I'm pretty certain that most parties, Atari included, would not be happy with what this system accomplished. It sold very little, and couldn't have made them much money. Sergecross73  msg me   20:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. I understand your point that Atari was dissatisfied with the 7800's failure. IX | (C"&#60;)  20:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sergecross73 your research is a bit off target. I can see that the system was responsible for some nice profits for the company. Whether you think that they would be happy outside is actually POV because thoughts are not verifiable. We also don't know how much it sold because we only have sales in one country up to 1990. We may need a more veteran point of view for this case. Maybe from User:Wgungfu or that other guy that corrected my proper noun claim User:Indrian, they seem to be in a lot of gaming related pages. As for not having a problem with the word demise, I am not sure what to say about that because the way it is used here is wrong by definition. Unless we use the correct definition, and we also use demise for the Gamecube/Xbox/Xbox360/PS3, in that case I wish you the best of luck, because that's not going to work at all for anyone. Unless we get the big guys involved to force the change. To be honest, whether the console failed or not does not exclude the fact that demise is being use the wrong way. It's like me relabeling that section Iced Tea.Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright then, sources for these nice profits then? Sergecross73   msg me   20:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh didn't see this. It's all on the Atarimagazines website. They have all kinds of financial there. But that still doesn't really matter in the end whether it failed or not because that's not the correct definition of demise. Again, it would be like me labeling it Iced Tea; The Gamegear Iced Tea in their lifespan. See? That doesn't make much sense you see. You can call me a nerd of correct definitions. I'll touch back on this tomorrow. It's funny because the bugs get me when I am trying to leave as well. Doesn't even think I am logged in.Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. IX | (C"&#60;)  20:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That analogy makes zero sense to me, but regardless, maybe a compromise could be using "Decline"? That was used in the Sega Saturn rewrite recently, and it seems accurate but more neutral. Sergecross73   msg me   13:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense, we are using words for something completely different from their actual meaning. Unless you approve me applying denclined to every other video game handheld/console page, using the second definition of the word, then sure I won't care and leave it there. But that's the only way it would actually make sense. Waiting on you. Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how good one thinks their analogy is, if it doesn't make sense to its audience, it's worthless. That's where we're at. What's your actual opposition to the compromise proposed. Sergecross73   msg me   03:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting reference
I need a kind user to put in this reference. It contains a review from a reliable source : http://videogamecritic.com/7800info.htm

But only add the comments in the ratings, not the beginning paragraph which is unreliable. SunrodHercules (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Declined - Your rationale doesn't make any sense. How can the review score be reliable but a paragraph from it not be? (I don't believe its a reliable source at all.) Sergecross73   msg me   00:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's no evidence of reliability for that site as a whole. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

About backwards compatibility
In this edit, I reworded a claim that the 7800 had backwards compatibility with the Atari 2600 in response to the lack of backwards compatibility in the Atari 5200. This was unsourced. I've found an interesting audio recording from a presentation given at the Vintage Computer Festival East 2.0 on July 16, 2004 by the people who designed the 7800. The link to the audio is near the bottom of that page. About 27 minutes in, they acknowledge that they thought the lack of backwards compatibility in the 5200 was a mistake, but that's really all they say on the matter. I don't know if this kind of thing can be used as a source, but it may prove useful to those working on this article. 208.94.30.16 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone got 7800 total sales?!
Has anyone got any total sales of the Atari 7800 between 1986 and 1992, because in this article or the History of game consoles third gen, there don't appear to be any evidence to show what the total sales are. Im gonna have a crack on google, but if anyone can find any other info about the Atari 7800's total sales, please give us a bell on it. Cheers, mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Still no joy? Well as soon as any one's got any info on total Atari 7800 sales give us a bell, and that will be helpful. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

AtariAge discussion
I have got a link from Atariage that states that the Atari 7800 sold 3,772,751 units in total, I will edit the article, if anyone has got any objections, please state so on this talk page and I will discuss them. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The main page is not a discussion page, your edit was done like you were on this page. 2) A forum is not a valid reliable resource per policy.  When and if Curt puts those original documents up on his site, we can certainly reference to those. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok will do soon as possible. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

AtariAge discussion at suggests that the 3.7M total is a combination of consoles and carts - 1.1M consoles and 2.6M carts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.233.84.162 (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Atari Could not have sold 3.77 million Atari 7800 Systems
Ever since Curt Vendel of the Atari Museum released some spreadsheets a few years back that he claimed were 7800 Pro System sales drawn from Atari's own records, there has been a widespread belief that Atari sold 3.77 million 7800 systems, more than anyone had previously thought. Its a shame this has gotten so much attention, because an examination of other sources shows this to almost certainly be a myth.

First of all, the documents themselves -- which Curt made publicly available at the Atari Age forums -- do not appear to be referring to 7800 system sales. If one looks at the actual files (not summaries posted elsewhere), the reports do not actually state what sales are being tracked. Vendel *says* they are 7800 sales, but there is no way to verify this from the documents themselves. Clearly they represent unit sales of something (since the words "unit sales" actually appear in the documents), but there is no way to tell what. Furthermore, the price per unit is all over the place in a way that makes no sense at all. This will, of course not be uniform as bulk customers can be expected to get a better price and promotional deals and other factors will cause fluctuations too, but these appear far wilder than that. For example, in the 1987 figures Pace Membership Warehouse has 33 separate sales entries. One of them is for 36 units and $378 in revenue, a price per unit of $10.50, which is way to low for a video game system. Another one is for 208 units and $11,144 in revenue. That's a far more believable price of $53.58 per unit. But then there is another outfit, Ken's T.V. Service, that took 64 units for $785.20, or $12.27 per unit. A distribution system where one gets a better price for taking less product makes no sense at all and implies that some of these lots are not 7800 systems.

None of that really matters though, because the figures in Curt's documents do not match the reported sales reality at all. In November 1988, Atari issued a press release commemorating the sale of its 26 millionth console, which contained the following line: "Since 1985, Atari has sold more than 3 million video game units." This report is referring to sales of the 2600, 7800, and XEGS, as the press release says "Atari is the only company to offer three video game systems -- the starter 2600 ($49.95), the arcade-quality 7800 ($79.95) and the highly advanced XE ($149.95)." The press release also states that it is announcing figures based on "third quarter 1988 sales," so these are sales to October 1, which was the end of Atari's third quarter in 1988. So Atari itself unambiguously states that between 1985 and October 1, 1988, the company has only sold 3 million total video game systems. According to Curt's figures, in just 1986 and 1987, Atari sold 1.6 million 7800 systems. Not even accounting for sales of the 7800 in the first three-quarters of 1988, this is already over 50% of all systems Atari is said to have sold in that period. This makes no sense at all. For those that would still argue that the 7800 could have really been the bulk of Atari's sales because it was newer than the 2600 and more reasonably priced than the failed XEGS, however, there is more evidence to the contrary when poking other Atari sales figures.

On June 13 1988, the LA Times stated that "since the second video boom took off 2 1/2 years ago" (which means January 1986) "Atari has sold 2 million systems." At the January 1986 CES, Michael Katz stated that Atari sold over 1 million consoles in 1985 as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on January 11. Put those two figures together, and you get to 3 million by June 1988, which jives perfectly with the over 3 million figure by October 1. But wait, there's more! We also have the December 8, 1987 article in USA Today, which states that Atari has already sold its entire production run of both the XE and the 7800 to retailers and expects to sell one million "home video game consoles" (so 2600, 7800, and XE, all of which are also mentioned by name in the article) for the year. The article also states that Atari could "sell 250,000 more if it had them" which means that this one million figure represents the entire stock they delivered to retailers (at least in regards to the sold out 7800 and XE; the article does say that it still has 2600 units available to retailers, so the final sales number may have been slightly higher than one million based on 2600 sales). The article also states that Atari sold 600,000 systems in 1986. All of this comes straight from Michael Katz. If Atari is planning to sell one million video game consoles in 1987 at a time when they have already sold out of 7800 systems to retailers, they could not possibly have sold over 1.3 million 7800 systems alone in that year as reported by Vendel. So again, by the end of 1987 you have one million in 1985 plus 600,000 in 1986, plus at least one million in 1987, or roughly 2.6 million by the end of 1987. This jives well with the claim of over three million sold by October 1, 1988 in the Atari press release. Finally, in the December 1986 issue of Computer Entertainer an Atari spokesman is quoted as saying that due to production issues, only about 100,000 7800 systems were sold in 1986, far fewer that the 286,000 claimed by Vendel.

So in summary, we have Atari stating directly in a press release that the company sold "over 3 million video game units" between 1985 and October 1, 1988, an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that claims a million in 1985, an article in Computer Entertainer that claims sales of 100,000 7800 systems in 1986, an article in USA Today that claims around 1.6 million in sales in 1986-87, and an article in the LA Times that claims 2 million in sales between January 1986 and June 1988. All of these articles and press releases gel with each other perfectly and all of them (with the exception of the LA Times article) are quoting Atari sources directly rather than NPD estimates or the like. All of them also use generic terms like "game console" or "game system" rather than a specific console when discussing sales. Both 1986 7800 figures and total 1987 console sales estimates reported at the time are lower than those claimed in Vendel's documents for the 7800 alone in those years, so the interpretation that Vendel's documents refer to 7800 sales figures does not jive with other reliable sources. I am therefore removing this claim from the article. Indrian (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm bumping this some years late but The Computer Entertainer numbers don't make any sense. Since you wrote this back in 2015, we got a newer, confirmed, over 1 million consoles sold in june 1988 for the 7800 from Ataris own mouth, along with an La times article saying NES sold 4.1 million and the SMS selling 500,000 the same date, June 1988. Thuis factually tells us the over 2 million Atari systems sold mentioned in the L.A. times article is primarily split between the 7800 and the 2600 (with maybe a dash of Xegs somewhere in there).

Along with the above information we know that 1988 was the 7800's biggest year, and the sales up tile June due not include August-oct and the two holiday months. That time frame would likely double or triple the sales what it already sold up to that point in 1988.

This in turn discredits the vendal numbers as well, just at a different angle. Although I'm not entirely sure the vendel numbers are being read correctly in the first place.

At the very least we know articles until the discontinuation of the SMS and 7800, constantly put the SMS in third place and NA numbers for the SMS are between 1.5 and 2 million depending on the source, more commonly 1.5. Those numbers were announced at the EOL of the SMS in 1992, 4 years after 1988. So knowing this, if 1988 was Ataris' biggest year, and its biggest holiday season, and the 1 million in 1988 only includes up to June 1988, that's 4 summer/fall months and two holiday months left in the year.

This leads me to believe it's still possible the 7800 still hit over or at 3 million, but not close to 4 million like Vendels 3.77 suggests. But the only sources we have for any numbers between 1989-1992 are vendel so for all we know vendel does have the right numbers but we may possibly be reading the chart wrong.

Computer entertainers Atari 7800 numbers of 100,000+ for 1986, which would have the 7800 selling 900,000+ in 1987 to June 1988. That is slightly plausible except the SMS figure doesn't make sense as we have figures as low as 50,000 for the SMS launch. On the other hand, the 7800 does have numerous articles in 1986 from reports to retailer comments saying it sold out, so the 100,000 in 1986 may be accurate if not 200,000 at the most that some other sources imply. But at least for now 1986 isn't that relevant.

We Know that it sold 1 million in 1988. So that at least tells us that the 1 million included part of 1988 up till June, how much we don't know. The only real question we need answered is how much did the 7800 sell in the last 6 months of 1988, which we know is it's biggest year. Then the other answer we need is how much did the 7800 sell between 1989-1992. It seems clear at the very least, based on the numbers, that the 7800 outselling the SMS in NA doesn't change whether we use vendels numbers or not. If the SMS sold 1.5 million by 1992 then it's a sure thing. Atari selling 1 million by June 1988 leaves 6 months that would make up the majority of Ataris sales for 1988. So Atari selling over 1.5 million in those 6 months is VERY likely. Then once 1988 is finished there's still another 3-4 years of sales.

So all this leads me to believe it's still possible that the 7800 hit at/over 3 million sold. So it makes me wonder more and more about whether or not the vendel numbers are wrong or if they are just misread. Spike Danton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Atari 7800. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/7800/expansion/
 * Added tag to http://www.atarimuseum.com/ahs_archives/archives/pdf/videogames/7800/gcc1702b_maria_specs.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140628043258/http://ataritimes.com/index.php?ArticleIDX=632 to http://www.ataritimes.com/index.php?ArticleIDX=632
 * Added tag to http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/7800/7800.html
 * Added tag to http://www.atarimuseum.com/ahs_archives/archives/archives-techdocs-7800.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.atarimuseum.com/whatsnew/2009-JUN-11.html
 * Added tag to http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/7800/games/
 * Added tag to http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/7800/expansion/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311035331/http://www.legacyengineer.com:80/portfolio-7800.html to http://www.legacyengineer.com/portfolio-7800.html
 * Added tag to http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/7800/7800menu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Atari 7800. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130117172550/http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/7800/7800menu/ to http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/7800/7800menu/
 * Added tag to http://www.atarimuseum.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.legacyengineer.com/portfolio-7800.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130117172550/http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/7800/7800menu/ to http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/7800/7800menu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"first console to have backward compatibility without the use of additional modules"
Didn't the Sega Master System have backward compatibility with the SG-1000 in Japan? If so, this statement should be removed. 173.84.15.238 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

100,000 sales and low market penetration.
What exactly is wrong with the sourced statement of "A reason cited for the lack of third-party interest in the 7800 was its small 100,000 install base and low market penetration"?

It has a valid source, which includes the magazine name, and is an industry publication. It makes reference to contact with Atari - and with retrospect they certainly seem to have been correct. When you say "the writer did not have all the information at the time to make an accurate assessment" - what were they missing and needed to make an accurate assessment? Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * What the writer did not know in 1986 is that nintendo did not allow third party developers/publishers to make their games for other systems. In 1987 five times the number of Atari 7800 consoles were sold compared to 1986 and even more in 1988.  That's the install base the cited article suggested is required to attract third party developers.  SO the article is incorrect based on itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.46.177 (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's still accurate. The fact that you consider it flawed doesn't change that it was an accurate representation of the facts known at the time.  Do you have a source that 500,000 7800s and 500,000+ were sold in 1987 & 1988 respectively?

Yes, internal Atari sales reports have been shared. If you want wikipedia to be accurate to 1986 information than I guess it's okay. I don't consider the 1986 article flawed. The writer is expressing his oppinion in the console's first year based on available information. But that opinion doesn't necessarily apply to the following years. And we have better information than the writer had when the article was written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.46.177 (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Atari sales reports that have been shared show just over 400,000 units in each of those two years. And please don’t bring that 3.77 million figure in that Gamasutra pulled out of that data: it is actually a mixed list of hardware and software sales as my previous post on this talk page clearly illustrates.


 * Nintendo’s exclusivity contracts are a convenient whipping boy, but the fact is that they did not prevent ports of games to other systems. Indeed, Activision ported Rampage and Double Dragon to the 7800 because it was not the publisher of the NES versions and thus not bound by exclusivity.  Also, the US computer game industry rejected the NES entirely in the 1986-87 time frame, and the 7800 consequently enjoyed licensed content from most of the major publishers in that field, including Brøderbund, Epyx, and Electronic Arts.  Furthermore, when the Sega Genesis became successful in the US a few years later, Japanese publishers found ways around exclusivity by releasing slightly different versions of their bigger hits (See, for example, Street Fighter II: Champion Edition). But no one was going to provide much support for a system being outsold on the order of well over 10-1 (7800 sales in North America in 1987: 400,000 NES sales in the region that same year: 7 million), and Japanese publishers were never going to throw support behind an American system when there was such an excellent selling Japanese system exclusivity or no. Install base really was a huge factor. Indrian (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

We are discussing the statement about the install base being only 100k being the reason for lack of third party games. We know the install base was over half a million by 1987 and double that a year later. The sales report is US sales only by the way. Sales increased five times from 1986 to 1987 according to the report. Yes it's small compared to nes but a publisher would be happy to sell a few hundred thousand cartridges per title back in the 1980s. Didn't say games couldn't be created for both nintendo or other systems, obviously nes had lots of conversions that already existed elsewhere. But the fact is some games didn't get created for other systems because of nintendo policy. Your point about US game publishers focusing on computer platforms is a good one. But the statement in question doesn't reflect it either. While it's true that someone made a statement in 1986 and is therefore cited in this wikipedia article; it doesn't mean it should be. Do you want to improve this article or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.46.177 (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I understand what you are saying, that it is possible without that restriction a company would just do a quick port to the 7800 as a cash grab, but that having to sublicense or make other changes was not worth the effort due to exclusivity. If you have a source that puts any of these companies on the record on that point, it would certainly be an appropriate addition to the article.  It does not, however, contradict the existing statement, because if the 7800 had an install base large enough for software sales to be highly lucrative, then these companies would have found a way to support the system, just as they ultimately did with the Sega Genesis despite facing the same exclusivity hurdles.  You are more than welcome to strive to improve the article.  Removing this statement does not achieve that goal, but supplementing it certainly could. Indrian (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The article can be improved by removing inaccurate statements like saying it's install base is 100k. It was typical for a game system to have no third party cartridges in it's first year. So saying it doesn't mean anything. In fact for a publisher to develop a cartridge for a first year console it would have to start doing so when there is practically no install base. And as has already been said 7800 console sales hit the target the article said would be needed to attract third party publishers. And as you pointed out there are more relevent reasons, like game publishers focusing on computer platforms. Imagic stated in 1985, before going out of business, that they will no longer produce games for consoles. Which brings up another point that game publishers were hurting. Mattel Electronics closed in 1984, Imagic closed in 1986, Activision was in trouble in 1986. Many others were also out of business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.46.177 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I see the problem here, which is the wording of the article and not the quality of the source. Computer Entertainer was not claiming that the system had so few games at the moment the article was written due to its small install base, but merely opining that 100,000 systems on the market was not going to get anyone excited. The publication then opined that the system would need to reach 600,000 to 900,000 units in 1987 to be viable going forward.  Atari did, in fact, miss that target in 1987, only getting to just over 500,000 units. I believe CE is correct that failing to hit a robust install base was an issue. BUT, as you point out, that is not what our article is saying about these facts.  Our article currently states that the lack of third-party software in 1986 was due to a small install base.  That statement is silly on its face for a variety of reasons, many of which you articulate above.


 * I was focusing on CE being a reliable source of information and not paying enough attention to what the publication actually said versus how Wikipedia was interpreting it. That was my mistake, and I now support the removal of this sentence.  Sorry we ended up talking past each other there for a bit. Indrian (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Launch pricing needs clarification
Both the introductory paragraph and sidebar list the 7800 as "considered affordable at a price of US$140 (equivalent to $327 in 2019)," but the Launch section of the article claims "The console was released nationwide in May 1986 for $79.95." The first two instances do not have citations, and the scan of a sales comparison table from an 1986 issue of Computer Entertainer provided as a citation for the second instance does not include any launch pricing information. I do not have access to citation 14 (Semrad, Edward (1986-06-26). "Atari's "Jr Pac-Man" scores for looks, sound". The Milwaukee Journal), which is listed as another source of verification for the $79.99 figure. Anyone with corroborating information for either of these price points is encouraged to edit the article for clarity and add new citations. Lil jordo (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

SALLY can be halted
From the article: "Unlike a standard 6502, SALLY can be halted to let other devices control the bus." I was under the impression that a memory controller could pull RDY low on an ordinary MOS Technology 6502 to get the processor to halt starting at the next read cycle. How does SALLY differ? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)