Why Didn't The Intellivision CRUSH The Atari 2600?

I talk about back when it was Atari vs Intellivision, and how did the Atari manage to win the console war with such an inferior system in comparison.

[@8_Bit]

Atari 2600: 1) released first 2) less expensive console price 3) had more comfortable controllers 4) had a more open architecture due to 65xx processor, easier for 3rd party developers 5) arcade game licenses 6) fast 60 fps gameplay 7) bigger game library 8) cheap games 9) better pack-in game 10) more name recognition 11) lots of 3rd party controllers, easily replaceable

[@PuzZLeR_00]

Interesting subject. I think you covered it all. Atari had: -a head start on the market -strong branding and marketing -many more arcade licences -a cheaper price -a simple joystick controller (which at the time was the norm) Those that were into graphics, sophistication and sports titles were who Intellivision likely won over, but Atari was all about marketing which was hard to beat.

[@chrishensley5384]

Puzzler nailed it. Atari had a head start, more games and a better controller.

[@basketballsteve54]

I'm an old man so I'm an adult when these came out but for me it was first to market (Atari), price (Atari), more software titles, availability (after 84), and last Atari unlike Mattel and Coleco didn't get cold feet and bail during the "crash" (self sabotage). I think maybe if Activision, Imagic, Parker and others had throw more support to Intellivision earlier then that may have made a difference.

[@BriansManCave]

You make some great points there!

[@basketballsteve54]

@@BriansManCave Just imagine what would have happened if the programmers who left Atari and stared Activision had decided that instead of writing for Atari they devoted themselves to doing Intellivision only in revenge for not getting credit at Atari! Could've changed the game industry.

[@BriansManCave]

@@basketballsteve54 For sure man! Perhaps Mattel would have kept the division going longer!

[@allenhood4021]

My friends and I were the primary target market when Intellivision came out. The reason we all got one and the game we played the most: NFL Football. Why? It had a PLAYBOOK. The 80 different plays you could run made it the best game ever. Keep in mind we all started with the handheld games. The graphics and game play for all of us kids who played multiple sports year round was a perfect fit. Star Strike, Tron DD, Armor Battle, it was a great system now and a fun to play system today.

[@BriansManCave]

Yeah the Sports titles were their edge!

[@BillyinRetroNola]

I agree. The first game I saw with my own eyes was football. I was blown away by it!

[@geekconnoisseur]

While the Intellivision had better hardware specs than the Atari 2600, there were several reasons why it did not crush the competition. - Firstly, Atari 2600 had a strong foothold in the video game market: As the first major home video game console, the Atari 2600 had already established itself as the go-to console for gaming enthusiasts. By the time Intellivision was released in 1980, Atari had already built a strong brand, and the Atari 2600 had a large library of popular games. This made it difficult for Intellivision to gain traction, as gamers had already invested time and money in building their collections on the Atari 2600. - Secondly, Intellivision was more expensive: The Intellivision was initially priced at $299, while the Atari 2600 was priced at $199. This made Intellivision less accessible to the average consumer, who may have been hesitant to spend more money on a system with an unproven track record. - Thirdly, Intellivision's controllers were more complex: The Intellivision's controllers featured a disc that could be moved in eight different directions, as well as a keypad with numerous buttons. While this design allowed for more complex and nuanced gameplay, it also meant that the controllers had a steeper learning curve than the Atari 2600's joystick and single button. This may have turned off some gamers who were looking for a more casual gaming experience. - Fourthly, Intellivision's marketing campaign: Intellivision's marketing campaign focused heavily on the system's technical capabilities, emphasizing its superior graphics and sound. While this may have appealed to hardcore gamers, it may have turned off more casual gamers who were looking for a fun and accessible gaming experience. In contrast, Atari's marketing campaign was focused more on the games themselves, showcasing their fun and engaging gameplay. - Finally, Intellivision's lacked third-party support: Atari had an open architecture that allowed third-party developers to create games for the system, while Intellivision's closed architecture made it more difficult for developers to create games for the system. This meant that there were fewer games available for the Intellivision, and those that were available were often of lower quality than Atari's offerings. This lack of third-party support may have contributed to Intellivision's failure to gain traction in the marketplace. All of these factors contributed to Intellivision's inability to crush the Atari 2600, despite its superior hardware specs. www.RetroGamersHub.com

[@BriansManCave]

Yeah the Intellivision disc has 16 directions, but probably most games only utilized 4 and 8 directions :)

[@edgeofeden7583]

I was in my mid-twenties when I bought the Intellivision. Who convinced me? George Plimpton showing Atari Football (1978) vs Intellivision Football -- flickering ghost-like blobs on the screen vs actual characters running plays. I never knew that programmers would get so much better with game development on the Atari 2600 because I lived in the INTV world--better graphics, better sound, and a controller that could play way more complex games. Boxing on the INTV was far more fun and realistic than on the Atari 2600. Yes, the hand cramping was worse, but you had feinting, jabs, head punches, gut punches and a varied selection of boxers with different skill sets. I can't even imagine playing Cloudy Mountain on the Atari 2600 without the INTV controller. That said, I also now own an Atari 7800; so I can play Atari 2600 games and I have to admit some of the games are quite good. All the original consoles had their strengths: Colecovision: Superior Arcade games; Intellivision: Sports, Strategy, and Intellivoice; Atari 2600: Arcade and breadth of fun simple games. I marvel at what Home Brewers are now able to produce for all these consoles. It's simply amazing. Hey, Brian, imagine trying to play Napoleonic Wars on the Atari 2600. Could it even be done? I'm still loving the game.

[@BriansManCave]

The Atari 7800 is a great machine and would have made things much different if it came out when it was supposed to... I believe it got shelved for a while. As for NW on Atari 2600... it would have to be completely stripped down to the basic Stratego game I assume :)

[@MaximumRD]

Atari was well established with many big titles and Intellivision with superior graphics and all knew this full well so they used the strategy of trying to market themselves, even if tongue in cheek, as the adult / sophisticated system. From the style of the console to yes titles like Poker Black Jack they went for a different crowd which was probably a good idea because they were not going to compete with Atari's "Arcade" console right off the bat. Which is why they made their "versions" of the arcade hits later and again doing so while pointing out the superiority of their graphics in comparison to the 2600. I admit the graphics back then did get my attention but as much as they looked nicer they did seem a little more sluggish moving around overall whereas with the 2600 you popped in your favorite game and BAM you instantly got going with the familiar joystick in hand engaging in quick action that maybe didn't look as fancy but were just fun. Of course it was nice to see Intellivision games like Burger Time because at least for me, wasn't looking to play games like Microsurgeon or titles that employed full use of the number pad etc, it just seemed overly complicated to some degree, oh we may have come to appreciate those titles more at some point but again it was really a different type of audience for those games that I would come to appreciate more as n adult. Anyway that's my 2 cents at least how I recall it having lived through the entire history of it (I am 55 years old) I only owned my own Intellivision for a couple weeks, well more like borrowed from a friend an INTV II with Lock n Chase which was pretty cool if I am honest but I didn't mind too much when I had to return it and go back to my 2600 🤷‍♂

[@BriansManCave]

Well said! They both had their merits. I didn’t have an Atari growing up to compare it to but I did have a lot of fun playing on my Intellivision until I got my Commodore 64!

[@DangerousDaveyBoy]

I had an Intellivision. My favorite game was Astrosmash. But I loved Night Stalker, Lock -n- Chase, and the incredible version of BurgerTime. We had Baseball and Frog Bog and, of course, Blackjack and Poker. But my Dad wanted to surprise us with an Atari. (Because that’s what all the kids were talking about). The lady at Toys R Us immediately said, NO! Intellivision is better than Atari. Get a Nintendo”.

[@BriansManCave]

Smart lady 😁

[@Halbared]

Love those original cart designs, very utilitarian.

[@RayChiTown]

I've never had a Combat cartridge. We had a Sears Tele-Games Video Arcade. It came with Target Fun (Air-Sea Battle) instead of Combat. I was actually happy to have Target Fun instead of Combat.

[@mrtoon4197]

I think it's the arcade titles. It was all about having those arcade ports at home

[@Halbared]

I think marketing had an impact. Atari got itself into films. The ET tie-in was immense.

[@AutismRocksOfficial]

The controller, the controller, the controller. The Intellivision controller staaaaank. Side buttons gave blisters.

[@Boswd]

I was born in '69 so I was in the prime age when these came out. The bottom line is everyone wanted an Atari... Nobody wanted an intellivision because everyone had an Atari... They had the cooler games. Everyone would go to each other's houses with your bag of cartridges.... You would borrow games...... Trade games... There was a whole ecosystem among kids..... The 2 kids who had the intellivision were basically left out..... Yes they would always be the ones. That would say . " Look at football and baseball it's so much better.". ok what else do you have? Astrosmash? At that point in time all the cool arcades and the Activision games where just so popular .... Nobody. I mean . Nobody cared Intellivision s baseball looked better.

[@derkikkirshaw6411]

I was lucky enuff to have both, was 7 in 1984 and it held us over untill we got a nes in 1989

[@BriansManCave]

Nice!

[@thegougeman]

Intellivision doesn't get enough credit for being the first 16-bit gaming system. They dared to use the CP1610 processor (which wasn't very popular at the time), and the power of the Intellivision with that 16-bit processor clocked in 2 MHz, vs. the 8-bit chip running at 1.19 MHz for the Atari. What's weird is that in retrospect, there is something very nostalgic about the Intellivison games that seem to hold up way better than the Atari 2600 games even though Atari was more popular back in the day. The sounds the Intellivision could make with it's sound card were incredible (i.e. Night Stalker, Tron Deadly Disc etc). Maybe it's like the Intellivison machine had more personality? Kind of hard to put into words, but I was glad I grew up with the Intellivision (yes I am that old) and that my parents had it waiting for us Christmas of 1980, plugged up in the living room (and they were playing Armor Battle against each other). I'll never forget it....

[@BriansManCave]

Same here... OLD.. lol ... but ya, we got the Intellivision for x-mas too! I don't know how many times I played Astrosmash!

[@decle]

Yeah... the processor argument quite complex. Although the 2600 is clocked at ~1.2MHz it typically processes a simple instruction every 2-3 clock cycles (complex ones take up to 7), meaning it can chew through about 500,000 simple instructions/second. However, the 2600 video sub-system means that a good chunk of these instructions are typically spent drawing the screen (I believe 75% is a reasonable number). So actual game play code gets roughly 125,000 instructions per second. Looking at the Intellivision, its CPU is clocked at ~1.8MHz, it should win hands down. However, although the CP-1610 has 16-bit registers, internally it processes maths operations in 8-bit chunks, meaning every maths operation has to be done in two passes and takes twice as long (the Z80 does this too, with its 4-bit ALU). For this and other reasons most CP-1610 instructions take about 16 clock cycles, and some take up to 24! Suddenly the CP-1610 can only get through about 110,000 instructions/second and it looks to be in trouble relative to the 6507. The good news is that the STIC graphics chip in the Intellivision takes much of the screen drawing load off the CPU. It does steal about 10% of the CPU's instruction cycles to access memory, but it's nowhere near as bad as the 2600. Of course, the raw numbers ignore the fact that the CP-1610 has more and 16-bit registers, so theoretically each CP-1610 instruction could potentially do "more" useful work than a 6507 instruction, but the impact of that is hard to quantify, and is probably typically less than you might think. Overall it's quite a complex trade off, but it's probably fair to say that the usable CPU performance is roughly similar on both systems. So then the question is "if the platforms are broadly similar in CPU performance, why do Intellivision games consistently "feel" more sluggish?" That is largely down to the Intellivision's "operating system", the EXEC. This programming framework was used on almost all Mattel titles because it saved significant development time and cartridge space, however, it caps the effective frame rate of games to 20Hz. This results either in slower games, or slightly choppy animation when the pace picks up. To see what the Intellivision is really capable of, you need to look at games like Masters of the Universe that don't use the EXEC and run at 60Hz.

[@kromanaut]

Good point about the controllers. The 2600 joystick was much more reminiscent of real arcade games, which basically represented the gold standard of gaming at that time. However, in my personal opinion, I always disliked the Atari 2600 controller, it just didn't feel right to me. On the other hand, I really liked Intellivision's unique circular d-pad thing (not sure what it's actually called) and the different game cards you would put over the membrane keypad looked really cool.

[@BriansManCave]

Yeah the disc controller was quite unique for its day, it was probably the first D-pad concept. The overlays were a nice touch too, although many games really didn't require them.

[@EdTester]

@@BriansManCave Clearly when you talk with fans of the Intellivision you will get a better review of the controllers than if you ask people who aren't fans. That is really what you are asking is it not? Why did the people who disliked the system or rather prefered the 2600 feel the way that they did. Had you asked those people in that way "Intellivision controller" would have been a top if not the top answer.

[@Diskoboy1974]

Intellivision was originally supposed to have NFL Football packed in. Had Matell stuck to that idea, it would've sold a LOT more machines.

[@BriansManCave]

I can see that being more of a draw than Poker 😁

[@trayahzz537]

I remember playing the intellivision at someone's house, I hated the controller

[@BriansManCave]

Most that were used to the Atari would probably agree with you!

[@bmkretrogaming7634]

Nice video, and great topic Brian! You made a lot of excellent points. As many have already pointed out here it mostly came down to Atari having a more established brand, better price point, controllers which weren't awkward for those not accustomed to them, and better third party game support. Of course the IntelliVision did rule in it's own time as king of the sports game genre. With you well all know you grew up as a Commodore 64, and IntelliVision gamer whereas you also developed a great love of Atari down the road.

[@JohnHenrySheridan]

Very fun topic, thanks Brian !

[@BriansManCave]

Thanks man 👍

[@mjp29]

I had both systems. I liked Intellivision because the sports games were so much better!

[@SomeOrangeCat]

The 2600 had market saturation and a controller that needed no explanation on how to use.

[@JustMe99999]

The killer app for the VCS was Space Invaders. Once that was the pack-in (instead of Combat) the war was over. Also there is one advantage that the VCS had... although the graphics were not as good as the Intellivision, the games tended to be more playable, and the animations were much more fluid (Intellivision's animations are very choppy).

[@BriansManCave]

True, Intellivision missed the mark on that... including Poker and Blackjack was a mistake :)

[@Gaming-Enthusiast]

Great video buddy 👌👌👌

[@SnapCraft316]

Not mentioned yet (at least I didn't see): the library. Atari had a lot more games. Also, Intellivision was seen mainly as a 2-player "sports" console. Real fans knew better and loved the controller!

[@richardivey6945]

From my experience, less advanced or not, it seemed capable of MUCH faster gameplay.

[@BriansManCave]

I agree, Atari does have faster more advanced gameplay!

[@IntoTheVerticalBlank]

Too expensive and the controllers were not great (they were good though) . The Intellivision was for people with a lot of money. At the time it was far out of the reach of most people. Even the 2600 was expensive. The games were great though. The 2600 could easily compete in game play though and for the most part that counted for more. Plus licenses AND the best Activision games were on the 2600 (Intellivison got some too). Great video as always Brian. The 2600 was out in 1977 (didn't really start selling a lot until last '78) and the Intellivison was out in '79, BUT it really didn't start selling until 1980.

[@OldmanGamerYT]

All good points. Looking back, I don't ever remember seeing a commercial for the Intellivision. However, Atari was literally everywhere! Even though Atari didn't have a home console until 1977, it had been producing arcade games for a number of years prior - so everyone knew Atari - its brand was well known, and the idea of being able to play those arcade games at home was a compelling reason to buy a 2600. The Odyssey II was a competitor as well and was by far a superior machine to the 2600, but didn't have the brand recognition of Atari and eventually faltered - just like the Intellivision. So all very good points you made. I think Atari's success is a lesson in marketing and brand recognition. Thanks for sharing!

[@BriansManCave]

Yes! Branding is what really counts’

[@mjp29]

TV commercials convinced me to give up my 2600 for the Intellivision, because I loved sports games so much!

[@catholicactionbibleonlyist1813]

may have born 1988 and only been aware of Intellivision for a few mouths, however more a fan of the Intellivision

[@DangerousDaveyBoy]

Intellivision was much better than Atari. But the Atari name was what made them prevail.

[@BriansManCave]

Yup

[@PlayStationPaul]

What about rentals too? Most rental places did Atari, could even find them for rent in local grocery stores and such. Intellivision not so much. If you were planning on renting most of your games, then you'd be more likely to get an Atari.

[@BriansManCave]

That is interesting. I only remember Nintendo games being for rent! I didn’t know that People did that earlier with Atari!! Do you recall what year that started happening?

[@PlayStationPaul]

@@BriansManCave I never had an Atari but always played on friends, and they'd often rent games. It would usually just be a section alongside the VHS rentals at a grocery store or something. We're talking early 80s, pre-NES, when Atari was big and current. We had a Pong System, a ZX81 and a TI-99 at the time, but no Atari sadly, always wanted one back then.

[@ethacade]

Imo it comes down to the controllers and the fact the Atari controllers were easier to use over Intellivision controllers

[@BriansManCave]

Could be, but that is assuming the buyers knew that from the beginning!

[@ethacade]

@@BriansManCave yh I suppose it also comes down to a large number of Atari arcade games getting ports to the 2600 and since the Intellivision had no arcade arm at the time they had to make new games from scratch

[@FredEinsle]

Intellivision II came with no game as I had it. Blackjack we had from Channel F (Fairchild), which at time seemed a better variation of Atari - built in Pong/Hockey. Blackjaek I more understood vs draw poker which seemed too hard and 7-card stud was not a thing yet in the 1980s. Atari just did better on price and number of games. Quality they were saved by Activision - first played that version of 2600 Skiing at a store - and was a decent rival to Intellivision US Ski Team Skiing which improved on it later. Imagic was the same for Intellivision, but came too late to the party - as was in the downfall of home video games time frame....

[@BriansManCave]

I don’t know why but I seem to recall an Intellivision 2 box that came with Burgertime! Maybe it was a later model or over seas!

[@danielespeziari5545]

I was born in 1984, so I didn't experience the early 80s, but I know arcades were huge at the time, and I believe people wanted their consoles to replicate the games they were playing in the arcades. That's why the 2600 really became a huge success after the release of the Space Invaders port, and started to decline after the horrible port of Pac Man. As you said, money was also a key factor, and you must remember that Atari in the early 80s was part of Warner, which certainly helped. So, arcade ports, money and marketing

[@BriansManCave]

Yup! Money makes the world go around ;)

[@marccaselle8108]

Luckily the Atari 2600 had better arcade ports than pac man. Check out defender, missile command, centipede, Mario bros, pole position, Ms pac man, asteroids, moon patrol. Etc

[@EdTester]

Intellivision controllers were horrible.

[@BriansManCave]

Some like them, some don't. I find it often comes down to what you grew up with. But even then some people still hated them!

[@PrimeRibb69]

I remember they had stick on joysticks for those discs.

[@basketballsteve54]

Intellivision controller are great for some games like Utopia.

[@PuzZLeR_00]

Whether they were horrible, or not, the Intellivision controllers were likely hard to market given that the average gamer then was likely used to using a joystick which was much more common in the arcades. I wouldn't blame the average consumer for being intimidated by the Intellivision controllers, even if they were terrific.

[@basketballsteve54]

@@PuzZLeR_00 Actually in that period of time multiple systems including Coleco and Atari made systems with number pad input following the lead of Mattel but IMO only Mattel created games where the number pad actually made sense for the depth of gameplay games like Utopia, Trucking, Horseracing, and others that were not fast twitch action games and the pad contributed to gameplay.

[@imaxjunior6531]

The execution of 2600 games felt faster and more arcade like to me, even though Int games looked nicer, the game play seemed slower more sluggish thus not feeling arcade like but more strategy. If that makes any sense.

[@BriansManCave]

Yes, Atari games are much faster and more difficult in most cases :)

[@mjp29]

Did Intellivision really have better graphics?

[@BriansManCave]

In most cases it does!

[@mjp29]

@@BriansManCave Anyone know the maximum resolution that each system's graphics could do?

[@marklechman2225]

Because once you were done playing your first game on the Intellivision, you could never get it back out of the console.😁

[@BriansManCave]

haha!

[@JohnnyParrotJoe]

FIRST! Greetings from Venezuela!

[@BriansManCave]

Yo!

[@patkelley8293]

Intellivision controller was too floppy. That was it. Case closed.

[@BriansManCave]

Floppy? I haven’t heard that one before 😁

[@patkelley8293]

@@BriansManCave Well I might be confusing Intellivision with the CoCo or Colecovision. Bottom line the Atari controller was amazing and we used it on Atari 800 and Commadore. I remember these other systems being hard to play even though they had a crisp picture.

[@BriansManCave]

@@patkelley8293 I find the Coleco controller to be hard on the hands!

[@thweetiebird]

Why didn't the Intellivision Amico come out?

[@BriansManCave]

Poor marketing, bad timing, who knows?!

[@CaseyNydahl]

Oh boy…🤦‍♂️

[@thweetiebird]

@@CaseyNydahl how's the Amico forever show these days? Can you mention Amico or Tommy there without being banned?

[@CaseyNydahl]

@@thweetiebird I’m not there to cause trouble like some people lol

[@thweetiebird]

@@CaseyNydahl cool, a show where you can't mention one of the words in the title. That makes sense. Anyone heard from Tommy? Kinda seems like he F'd over a whole lot of people who trusted and believed in him. But hey, what to I know lol :p The Amico will probably release any day now and all critics will be silenced. Ps- Tommy was spotted on a Backgammon Cruise vacation lol, he has time for that but not time for the Amico Forever crew. What a good close-personal-friend he is! Lol you guys were wrong about Amico lol

[@DevSodDribble]

My mother pointed out that the intellivision games were too hard to learn, hence spoiled the fun for my small siblings and I. We broke down and got an Atari when intellivisions advertised keyboard module never appeared and gave up having a home computer.

[@BriansManCave]

Oh that is a shame!

[@nicolanobili2113]

A couple of minor corrections: Atari had both downloadable games and a keyboard, though they both come after their Intellivision counterparts, had a very limited diffusion and were quite low quality

[@BriansManCave]

Interesting!

[@8_Bit]

And importantly, they were 3rd party, not official from Atari. The Intellivision ones were official.

[@AchimderKiller12]

No game Videos? Hm

[@BillyinRetroNola]

In my eyes, Intellivision did crush Atari. I always thought that the Atari's drawback was its simple controller. There was only so much you can do with 8 directions and one fire button. The Intellivision controllers allowed them to do so much more with the games.

[@BriansManCave]

That is true… just think of games like Utopia 😎

[@dancero643]

nes>master system... is the same

[@xxnoxx-xp5bl]

Price. End of discussion.

[@mazurradio217]

arcade licenses

[@EdTester]

@@mazurradio217 If that was the only reason, then why not Colecovision? It too had a controller design that people were not used to.

[@xxnoxx-xp5bl]

@@mazurradio217 Price all the way. Games were often clones of one another back in the day. Keep in mind that the Intellivision was marketed as a high-end system. They by definition sell in lower numbers. It's not like the Intellivision failed, it was a profitable system, but with the crash Mettle (like a lot if others) got cold feet and somewhat shortsightedly left the market.

[@PrimeRibb69]

Atari did have a way to download games. CVC online.

[@BriansManCave]

Cool! I Haven't heard of that.

[@PrimeRibb69]

@@BriansManCave you should look it up. It wasn’t super successful. It was called the CVC 1000 Game line and came out around the time of the crash. You may remember the company that CVC eventually morphed into, AOL.

[@boostermcblast2197]

Nearly nowhere in the world.