I've never thought quite so much about these generations despite growing up during them. The reason why I don't much care about this lost 2nd generation is that it was too little too late. I was already on my Atari 400 8-bit computer (released in 1979) which had graphics comparable to the 5200 three years later.
A definition of a generation needs not only a technical differentiation but also impact in the way of sales volume. This lost generation had the former but not the latter and in fact existed during the decline prior to the NES. I remember this vividly as I worked at my family's computer/game store selling Atari and ColecoVision.
I really do like having this all documented and brought into awareness to all the interesting consoles that get mentioned in passing but not collectively discussed. The gen 2.5 naming is fitting.
I was very much in the Atari camp--I had C64 friends too. I felt like Atari really dropped the ball--when rolling in cash and had all the tech to release something like the Atari XEGS[0] in 1979/80 but instead they were milking the VCS/2600 profits.
A definition of a generation needs not only a technical differentiation but also impact in the way of sales volume. This lost generation had the former but not the latter and in fact existed during the decline prior to the NES. I remember this vividly as I worked at my family's computer/game store selling Atari and ColecoVision.
I really do like having this all documented and brought into awareness to all the interesting consoles that get mentioned in passing but not collectively discussed. The gen 2.5 naming is fitting.
I was very much in the Atari camp--I had C64 friends too. I felt like Atari really dropped the ball--when rolling in cash and had all the tech to release something like the Atari XEGS[0] in 1979/80 but instead they were milking the VCS/2600 profits.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_XEGS