This 2600 Mystery Has Puzzled Atari Collectors For Decades 

Knowing how Atari worked they probably got very stoned or did some LSD and forgot about it.

I think the thing I’m most surprised about is how long the 2600 lasted - you’re telling me they were still making the things up to two years after the Mega Drive came out?!

I always thought Atari's numbering of systems to be strange but never really realised their games were numbered in such a bizarre way too. Interesting investigation!

Pong was long in the tooth by 1977 but _Video Olympics_ was nonetheless half of the formula when Atari were engineering the VCS's features. They wanted a system that could competently run the aforementioned _Tank,_ as well as a sort of "Pong to end all Pong clones" with more variations than even the most ambitious Pong clone on the market. That's why the system supports two player sprites, two bullets (for Tank), a ball (for Super Pong), and the ability to double- or triple-up the player sprites individually (for special paddle modes in Super Pong, although the feature was kind of mindlessly taken advantage of in Combat as well). The platform was already vastly superior to everything else on the market just from this laundry list, but there were two things that pushed it beyond into "ahead of its time" territory. The first was multi-channel audio-something which only exists because of an abandoned idea about having stereo speakers built into the console itself so both players could hear sound from "their side" of the unit. And of course the item which ensured the VCS would forever be the most ahead-of-its-time console ever released was the decision to forego VRAM and force devs to build graphics one scanline at a time. The fallout of which was that 1) almost every single 2600 game is 60fps, and 2) the harsh sprite limitation could be more or less ignored, and in fact even the second game in the catalog, _Air Sea Battle,_ does just this. Matter of fact, there's an abandoned homebrew Space Invaders in the wild which demonstrates, in effect, more simultaneous non-flickering sprites on screen than 1983's Famicom (also decently ahead of its time) is capable of. It is suggested that because of the genre allotment of only ten titles that Atari perhaps didn't expect them to get filled. This is true. The assumption at the time of development was that the console would have a shelf life of perhaps three years. The designers didn't understand the full potential of the platform they'd created, imagining that it would get by on games of roughly the quality of Combat and nothing much better than that, and _nobody_ understood the potential impact of a "killer app", which came in 1980 with Space Invaders-the world's first killer app. They had been planning to develop a successor to the VCS at around that time, but Space Invaders, and the VCS's subsequent boom in popularity, changed those plans. You could make a solid case for Space Invaders dooming Atari's future.

Actually Hunt & Score as well as -Basic Math- Fun WIth Numbers were the Sears Tele-Games versions. Both versions of those games were released in the US, just that Sears & Atari agreed to make a Sears-exclusive version of the 2600.

Atari 2600 games have the best and most beautiful box art ever. Get the book "The Art of Atari", its a gorgeous tribute to these wonderful pieces of art.

10 games in six or however many genres would have seemed like a lot in those days. I don't believe any other console to that point had come close to that - the Fairchild Channel F, for example, had just 26 games. I don't think anyone had an idea yet of how long a console could really last; most were on the market for a couple years and then either petered out or were quickly replaced by something new. So I think it fits in with what was assumed at the time that 60 game slots actually would allow for plenty of space in the lineup. I also think the idea at that time was that most owners of a console would buy most or all of the games that actually came out for it. Even today, you don't see a lot of people with 60-game libraries for the PS5 or Xbox Series X. So I think Atari assumed every game would have a pretty high attach rate and everybody would end up with about 30 games in their library, so putting out 60 of them probably seemed like overkill.

Just saying, Video Olympics pretty much contains enough Pong variants to last you a lifetime. lol

They never thought they would make more than 100 games!

Great video and very interesting part about the CX numbers. Also, love the rainbow color-code of the games ✨

Take into account that Atari had changed hands three times in the 2600's lifetime. Nolan Bushnell's Atari was sold to Warner Brothers, then sold to Jack Tramiel after the market crash. There were a lot of people coming and going, and I'm sure whoever was in charge of their odd numbering system in 1977 wasn't there just a few years later, let alone until the final 2600 game release. And besides, Bushnell was ready to replace the 2600 with a newer console in the late '70s (which Warner Brothers opposed, hence his leaving the company), so they didn't expect to have the 2600 out on the market for so long that they'd need more than 100 number codes for games.

This was very very interesting. But now I have a problem. I suddenly want boxed copies not just loose carts. Thanks Rees. Thanks! 😂

Love it, great overview! I think I never owned an Atari, but I do remember playing on a unit in front of the tv with switches like on on the 2600, but I believe these were for a few pre-selected games on-board. Mainly pong. Didn't remember what the machine was though.

I've worked in the software biz for years, and in one of the places we actually dealt with part numbers. There was a list or spreadsheet that someone maintained and when a new piece of software came out, a new slot in the list was taken up. Which one depended on whoever was maintaining the list. I will say that the most important thing about these part numbers was that each one had an associated "Bill of Materials" which helped the manufacturing branch of the company to build the product. Thus a part number called out the box to be used in the product, the cartridge, the documentation, warranty cards, and the like. So, someone probably did start out with the idea that this range was for this sort of game, and the next range was for another sort of game, but eventually the inclination to just assign them sequentially probably became strong, and they just gave into the pressure. I'm sure manufacturing didn't care about what type of game it was. They probably preferred that there were no gaps in the numbers.

I purchased an Atari 2600 6 year's ago. It is in new condition including the controllers and works well. I started playing it a couple of days ago. It is a nostalgic blast! Makes me feel like a kid again 😎

Nice use of a heavy sixer as the set model for this video :) I never realised the numbers were consecutive so now I'm going to have to dig out all my games to see what I'm missing.

This was an awesome video! I feel like I should have figured this out on my own, but this is cool!

Great video mate , love any 2600 content 👍🕹

5:46 Poor Pac-Man and Surround get no respect. The throwing of the box, and the smack of the other falling, was quite unexpected and funny.

I remember the old catalogues, would show the games in categories. I've also read that they were so high back then, they apparently made a bong out of the shell!! Don't know if that was true but the early days were, 'Come as you are' It's a surprise anything got done.

This was a fantastic watch for us product number goobs. Thanks!

Hey, great video! I was just wondering if you collected the gatefold boxes, or may plan on talking about them? Would be a cool addendum! Take care, my Atari Brother :)

The launch title in the US was called Basic Math. Fun With Numbers was a later release.

Thanks for this interesting and entertaining video. All the best. Aside: If it was a system, it was flawed from the start. A better one would've been something along the lines of: 2600-10-1. 2600 designating the category, 10 designating the genre (although this can be problematic) and, finally, 1 being the release number. It could go on forever. There are certainly even better ways of creating a logical and efficient taxonomy.

There was clearly a pattern initially but, as with all things Atari, they couldn’t maintain.

Good sleuthing, and it makes some kind of sense sir! Arcade, Race games, Paddles, Educational... but who knows?

Nolan Bushnell left Atari in Nov 1978. Maybe that's when the CX model numbering system fell apart.

In the beginning they had no idea the system would have such a long life. They were expecting a two year lifecycle. Ad to that the fact atari was bought out early on and new management came in. That pretty much sums up why the numbers make no sense.

I'm picturing the same discussion for vitamin names. (A,B,B1,B2..,C,D,K)

I wonder if the box colors create a real, continuous spectrum if they are put in numerical order...

It's more like Atari decided they needed [amount] of [genre] games at any particular moment, and they allocated a slot of product numbers based on that need.

Numbering games was fairly common in the 70s. At least Atari envisioned the system library being big enough to categorize the numbers and box colors. If I were to guess why they'd dropped the category system, I'd assume it was simply staff turnover. A new person in charge of assigning the numbers probably didn't care about the nerdy "old way" of doing things, as often is the case with office politics. In the grand scheme, it didn't matter much. From the costumer perspective, the color scheme would have been more relevant anyway.

I think the same thing happened with the 400/800 software releases. A similar video for the computer would be fun to see as well !!!

I definitely expected it to be genre-based at the start, especially given they were also clearly colour-coded. So it could just be bias when I say I still think that was the original intent by the end of the video, but given it evidentially dropped off a cliff all at once there clearly was some kind of plan that was then abandoned. So being genre-based seems as good of a candidate as any. And yeah, I don't think it's at all surprising that they initially only made room for 10 titles in each genre in the system. If it was only popular for a year or two and then disappeared, like many commentators expected at the time ("this year's new toy fad is video games" appears in many contemporary publications), then 10 per genre could arguably have been described as fairly generous.

Marvellous stuff.

Don't forget Atari liked to confuse thier competition with nonsensical numbers. For example, serial numbers on arcade cabinets were not strictly sequential. They would leave gaps between one machine on the production like and the next deliberately, to give the impression of manufacturing and (more importantly, for appearances) selling more arcade units.. This is one reason why it's hard to find out the manufacturing date precisely an Atari asteroids arcade machine, for example.

Look at the vivid colours on those boxes! Doing something like that would probably be illegal nowadays.

I got my 2600 in 1979, the Sears branded version. I never gave the cartridge numbering any thought. None the less, I wasted countless hours playing Breakout and never became great at it. I think it’s still out in my garage, possibly the games and controllers too.

Watching at 3:05 and the box colours are the giveaway I am guessing.

I'm sure you're right. Only expecting 10 games in a category, for me, fits perfectly with the then-expected lifespan of the VCS (sorry, I can't call it the 2600!). I think I recall that Atari expected the VCS to be made obsolete by competitors after 2-3 years. I doubt even the most optimistic Atari (or Warner) suit would have predicted it to soldier on for 5 years, let alone 15. Since the chips developed for its successor ended up in the 8-bit home computers instead, there was an unexpected gap until the 5200 was released and, well, we know how that went.

Can't somebody just ask Nolan Bushnell? Seriously the dude is sitting right there.

The glare on the game boxes is severe. There was a Bridge game. The classic card game.

Maybe if they had only released 10 games for the 2600, a newer and more able console would have been created earlier. But instead this out of date machine continued way after its ability would normally have allowed.

They COULD have extended this better had they not went with a 1-10 numbering scheme. Instead they could have just made the next CX-261 game after 9, CX-26110 and so on to CX-26199 then jumping to CX-261100. It ain't pretty without zero padding, but would have allowed to keep the categorized numbering. BUT, in the long run just dropping it was probably for the best. Heck, Nintendo of America even tried the categorized thing with "Action Series", "Adventure Series", "Arcade Series" and so forth. Which, they quickly abandoned similarly.

And I just learned something new today. 😁

Maybe these numbers were related to dev teams. Initially they'd make games similar to other from the same coders, and diverge from that with time and experience.

I played missile command last night. Still fun as hell 40 years later.

If Atari was run like the software for the TRS-80 Color Computer, programmers were contracted to work exclusively for Atari, but they didn't write in particular programmers for particular projects. Instead, when something needed to be programmed, any one of the programmers currently available - he'd be assigned that project to do himself - complete with designing the graphics and animation. Rather than have a long list of games that would take several years to complete, a list of games were contracted to be written for that year alone ... or maybe even in just six months. Atari didn't have the figures to see what would sell in stores and what didn't, so they just wrote things up as they went along. Yes, there were game projects that had to be shifted over to other others without notice, and that happened - at least partly - because several programmers left Atari to form Activision. The deadlines were still there, so if the currently available programmers couldn't handle the job, things might get delayed or even cancelled. And since their contracts demanded the game be finished regardless, it got legally messy in a hurry. As bad as it was for Atari to declare bankruptcy, it did get them out of a lot of contacts that got them into so much trouble in the first place.

As a nerd with a math degree, i knew exactly where you were headed with the first few titles. My brain needs to just shut off sometimes but refuses lol

10 games in each category kind of makes sense to me. Remember, the hardware was only ever designed to play Tank and Pong. All the other games were down to some very talented programmers who figured out how to do things that the system was never meant to do.

26xy - 26 then the third number (x) corresponds to the box colour and the final number (y) indicates product number relative to box colour is my thought

Superman would be more of a movie tie-in category. Warner Brothers owned both DC and Atari at the time, and had the idea of using one subsidiary to promote the others. Superman the movie came out from Warner in 1978, and the Atari game in 1979. Superman comic sales went up slightly, but then dropped by a lot. They launched the Atari Force comics in 1982, then the video game crash happened in 1983. I think we can all agree that their cross promotion was not that successful.

The Gatefold games were the OG launch versions not the ones shown but if your in England im not sure you people got the OG Gatefolds.

The CX numbering system has confused me for over 40 years. I'm still pretty confused now. Good old Atari. They did it their way. 😅

I don't know if I would consider the 2600+ a console. It's more of an emulator box that plays cartridges.

I think box color played a part too if i understood correctly.

I thought I’d heard that Atari didn’t think the 2600 would last to the 80s. Didn’t they immediately start working on a successor as soon as the VCS/2600 shipped? AND then they did a course correction and said effectively “lookie what that former employee Steve did with his buddy (also) Steve? And Tandy and Commodore? We gots to get inta dee computR biz too” and thus they pivoted to the 400 & 800. Or I could be wrong.

I can't really fault Atari for a lack of imagination if they didn't anticipate getting more than a double-digit number of games. When most of their competition wasn't programmable yet, each presenting six whole variations on Pong, allowing for 10 releases for whole genres probably felt very generous at the time.

Great clickable title Rees! Pulled me in.

Why don’t we ask @HowardScottWarshaw?

I think Nolan would be the best to give insight into this issue.

Well, Nolan Bushnell is still alive, so perhaps you could ask when you interview him.

I hate to ask at this point, but what does the CX stand for?

CX262x would be possibly better categorised as sports games

I have this Atari with the 6 switches at the front, the cover for playing space shuttle was for a 6 switch, doesn't fit the four switch console.I still think having the 6 switches at the front is the best format, the four switch console is not as appealing it looks kind of cheap.

They are genres and box colours

COMBAT!! 😁

Or not

They were just enumerating them by category in slots of 10, no mystery at all.

Space invaders chaged everything

"Atari only planned to make 100 games" - don't you mean 99 games? 0 was already used for 2600 and 100 can't be used since that would be 2700.

DON'T throw Pac-man. As a 5 year old I was very happy with it :)

Can I please have these 8 minutes back?

I've seen 1,000 videos with the same info...this one with a guy attempting to make words with a mouth full of marbles..cool

Mystery? - Jesus, you really miss het out more 🙄