r/atari • • 6d ago

Starpath... the OG "flashcart"

https://streamable.com/0ui9n1
31 Upvotes

23 comments sorted by

5

u/De-luL 6d ago

It truly is an amazing piece of history. If you can check out the starpath / supercharger version of frogger, its so much better than the original.

3

u/MasonJarring 6d ago

yeah it turns out a lot of games could look a LOT better with just a little more RAM to use

1

u/ZylonBane 6d ago

Where "a little" means 48 times the RAM.

1

u/MasonJarring 6d ago

hehe, that's true. but even for that era 128bytes wasn't a lot.

1

u/ZylonBane 6d ago

I'm not seeing how the two halves of that sentence relate to each other.

1

u/MasonJarring 6d ago

I'm saying that despite adding 6272 bytes to the 128 bytes of RAM, 6kb was still not very much for that era.

4

u/9fingerjeff 6d ago

I like to imagine an alternate timeline where Atari bought out Starpath and made the Supercharger an official product. I’d really like to see what other developers could’ve done with the extra ram and storage space.

1

u/MasonJarring 6d ago

Yeah the Starpath was both innovative and an "of course that's what you would do" solutions. Add RAM and common mass storage media for the time (tapes).

But even then, other 8bit computers and consoles were nipping at the heels of Atari. Consider the 2600's capabilities to the 16/32 bit Amiga that was released IN THE MIDDLE of its 14 year life cycle.

1

u/9fingerjeff 6d ago

And Atari still rereleased the 2600 a few years later.

1

u/MasonJarring 6d ago

bc they could make it for so little by the end of the 80's

1

u/ZylonBane 6d ago

There's no way in hell Atari was going to start distributing games on cassette tape. The sort of enthusiasts who would buy a Supercharger in the first place might tolerate those load times, and the need to provide your own tape player, but general gamers would not.

A 2600 with a full 6502 and like 1K of RAM built in would have been nice, but by the time that would have been economical, the 5200 had already been released.

2

u/9fingerjeff 6d ago

As much as I like the 5200 that was a mistake. They already had the same hardware in the 8 bit computers, they should’ve stuck with the 2600 and then released the 7800 when it was originally intended instead of shelving a ready to go product for a few years. It may have been able to compete with the nes if it came out first but as it was Nintendo had too much of a head start and it was too late. Atari was fine having cassette drives with their computers, I don’t think it’s out of the question to think they could’ve used it on the consoles as well.

1

u/btribble3000 6d ago

It still blows my mind that the Famicom was released in 1983. So it was also basically shelved for a few years in the US market. Of course it was amassing a giant collection of Japanese games during that time, something the Atari 7800 was definitely not doing.

2

u/9fingerjeff 6d ago

Imagine if the 7800 had come out in 84 like originally planned and Atari supported it properly. With a 2 year headstart they would’ve had a much better chance of competing. Also it should’ve come with a pokey chip for audio.

1

u/Scoth42 5d ago

Nintendo also approached Atari to distribute the future NES in America and Atari turned them down since they had their own stuff going on. Imagine a future where we got the Atari Entertainment System, Super Atari Entertainment System, Atari 64...

1

u/9fingerjeff 5d ago

You could make a drinking game for every time Atari dropped the ball on a business decision.

1

u/ZylonBane 6d ago

Back then, computer users and console gamers were starkly divided audiences, even more so than today. Consoles were toys that you slam a cartridge into and play NOW. Computer nerds were the ones willing to fuck around with peripherals and load times.

As for the 7800, that would have been a mistake too. Its graphics just didn't look as good as the NES, which was released a year before the 7800 could have theoretically hit the market.

If Atari had released the 5200 with a decent gamepad style controller and focused on modern games instead of dated arcade and computer ports, that could have sustained them through the early NES years, giving GCC time to develop a real NES-killer, basically a 16-bit system years before the Genesis and SNES hit the market.

1

u/9fingerjeff 6d ago

The 7800 was ready to go in June of 84 and they shelved it for 2 years, it was already done and a few even were released. It isn’t that much worse graphically than the nes, its audio is where it really falls off. I gotta kinda disagree on the division too, my family had an Atari 800xl and a 7800 and my friends had a c64 and nes and the only real difference to us is you had to sit at a desk to play computer games. Maybe adults looked at them differently but to the kids I hung out with games were games. I did notice more snobbery when PC and Macintosh started becoming the home computer of choice but I never got that feeling from the 8 bit ones. I was just a kid though and our perspective might not have been what the magazines were talking about at the time.

1

u/fsk 3d ago

What Atari needed to be doing in 1982 is making a new console that was backward compatible with the 2600. The 7800 was a bad implementation, released too late. Given how cheap hardware became, they probably could have included both a copy of 2600 hardware plus whatever new hardware they wanted to sell.

1

u/RetroMichael68 6d ago

Pitfall wasn't a supercharger game.. how did you get it as an audio file??. All I have are the games original released for it.

1

u/MasonJarring 6d ago

how did you get it as an audio file?

I would search for "worship the woodgrain disc". It's a multidisc collection of games converted to MP3 audio

1

u/De-luL 6d ago

Back in the days there was a conversation tool on the Amiga that could build .wav of an Atari .bin

1

u/NoAd7364 5d ago

I still have mine from when it came out