Why the Atari 2600?

[wookiee777]

I watched a bunch of videos on Youtube called "20 Games that Defined the..." and noticed that a lot of consoles released at the time of the Atari 2600 seem to have better graphics and sound. They look more complex than the humble little Atari. I don't know about you, but as much fun as I've had with my 2600 the intelevision looks well...better. The controller may be slightly worse, but the games seem to have more going on in them, and I have to ask why was the Atari 2600 the console that ended up with the longest life and greatest legacy?

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Atari were just better at marketing, I suppose. Maybe it cost less, too?

I have an Intellivision collection for the PS2, it's quite fun.

 

[Bad Jim]

This wikipedia page has some answers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games_(second-generation_systems)

1) The Atari was launched 2-3 years earlier.

2) Atari held the rights to most of the popular arcade games at the time.

 

[wookiee777]

Snip Snip

Well yeah. Aside from the controller you are saying everything I was. What I want to know is why the Atari has the bigger legacy, why it endured in public consciousness.

You mention price, but that doesn't quite seem satisfying to me. The price didn't stop people from buying the PS3. I'm not saying that price wasn't a factor, but I don't think that would be enough to kill the Intellivision (or any of the other consoles out at the time) unless it was insanely high. And the Intellivision was only $300. Expensive, but not too expensive. Or am I completely off?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

This wikipedia page has some answers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games_(second-generation_systems)

1) The Atari was launched 2-3 years earlier.

2) Atari held the rights to most of the popular arcade games at the time.

This, basically. It was also cheaper than the competition, by virtue of being older technology. Kind of like how the Wii completely dominated in sales this gen, because the actual hardware is a slightly modified design from last gen.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Snip Snip

Well yeah. Aside from the controller you are saying everything I was. What I want to know is why the Atari has the bigger legacy, why it endured in public consciousness.

You mention price, but that doesn't quite seem satisfying to me. The price didn't stop people from buying the PS3. I'm not saying that price wasn't a factor, but I don't think that would be enough to kill the Intellivision (or any of the other consoles out at the time) unless it was insanely high. And the Intellivision was only $300. Expensive, but not too expensive. Or am I completely off?

See my post above. The PS3 is at the bottom of the heap this gen, the Wii absolutely dominated because of the price, with the 360 taking up most of the core gamers. People bought it, sure, but it's hardly a good comparison for the 2600. More like that system Sears made (which is barely remembered at all today, and pretty much only sold at the time because it was compatible with 2600 games.)

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Snip Snip

Well yeah. Aside from the controller you are saying everything I was. What I want to know is why the Atari has the bigger legacy, why it endured in public consciousness.

You mention price, but that doesn't quite seem satisfying to me. The price didn't stop people from buying the PS3. I'm not saying that price wasn't a factor, but I don't think that would be enough to kill the Intellivision (or any of the other consoles out at the time) unless it was insanely high. And the Intellivision was only $300. Expensive, but not too expensive. Or am I completely off?

Well, better marketing, more well known games, much earlier launch... it was almost inevitable, really. A lower price point would have just been the icing on the cake.

Also, the Atari 2600 had the very first digital distribution service. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameLine] It probably didn't help much since hardly anybody seems to know it existed, but, fuck, that's pretty cool.

 

[Shock and Awe]

More impact on a wider audience. Its the same reason the PS2 was way bigger then Xbox despite the latter having superior graphics and online capability.

 

[wookiee777]

This wikipedia page has some answers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games_(second-generation_systems)

1) The Atari was launched 2-3 years earlier.

2) Atari held the rights to most of the popular arcade games at the time.

This, basically. It was also cheaper than the competition, by virtue of being older technology. Kind of like how the Wii completely dominated in sales this gen, because the actual hardware is a slightly modified design from last gen.

Okay, I think I understand. Perhaps I underestimated the impact of console price. Thanks for the explanation!

Also...

Also, the Atari 2600 had the very first digital distribution service. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameLine] It probably didn't help much since hardly anybody seems to know it existed, but, fuck, that's pretty cool.

My mind=blown. My gray matter is all over the walls. Who would have thought that something so common today would have originated so long ago? I guess it proves that everything has roots in the past.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Coleco Vision actually had the best graphics but yea, Intellivision had the best games.
I can't tell you how many times my friends and I played Utopia: it was like a competitive version of Sim City.