What was the budget of Atari 2600 games?

[Paul Slocum]

I'm curious what kind of budgets 2600 games had, especially in the early 80s? Based on making my own games and on what I've read, I would think each game would take 3-6 months of programmer time -- plus graphic design and copy for the packaging. Running some rough numbers, I end up with a game costing maybe $30k-$50k in 2015 dollars (not counting marketing.)

 

Although the fact that Atari spent $20+ million on the rights to E.T. makes me wonder if that estimate is too low? Apparently the E.T. licensing deal was unusually high, but that still probably means that it was common to spend a million marketing a game. Parker Bros Frogger cost $5 million in marketing.

 

[high voltage]

David Crane once stated (I think it was the interview in Hi-Res magazine), a good game take almost a year to develop, but I can't remember if a budget was mentioned.

[accousticguitar]

At Atari one game every 6 months was about normal.

[Mr SQL]

I'm curious what kind of budgets 2600 games had, especially in the early 80s? Based on making my own games and on what I've read, I would think each game would take 3-6 months of programmer time -- plus graphic design and copy for the packaging. Running some rough numbers, I end up with a game costing maybe $30k-$50k in 2015 dollars (not counting marketing.)

 

Although the fact that Atari spent $20+ million on the rights to E.T. makes me wonder if that estimate is too low? Apparently the E.T. licensing deal was unusually high, but that still probably means that it was common to spend a million marketing a game. Parker Bros Frogger cost $5 million in marketing.

 

I think your numbers reflect only the developers salary for three to six months in 2015 dollars.

[+Random Terrain]

There is a little bit of information in this video:

 

randomterrain.com/atari-2600-memories-favorite-games.html#atlantis

[+slx]

Judging from various snippets of information there wasn't so much a "budget" in the early days as programmers being paid to program "something worth playing" in about six months. Given the programmer's salary figures quoted in connection with the walkout of the Activision founders 50K$ late 70's dollars probably on the high side. Later, there seem to have been "assistants".

[Major_Tom_coming_home]

Out of curiosity has there ever been a presentation / documentary / lecture about the nuts and bolts process of actually creating a VCS game? I think there was an hour long talk by David Crane about making Pitfall on the internet at some point, but that is the only thing I can recall ever seeing.

[Jinks]

6 hookers, 3 pounds of weed, 10 pounds of cheesies, all in the same underwear.

[Major_Tom_coming_home]

Please excuse me for digging up an old thread but I just had a thought on this topic I'd like to share:

 

I have to hard data, but my theory is that in the beginning of the VCS' life when the company was developer oriented, costs to produce a game probably wan't the highest concern as long as the programmers were productive and could make good games in a reasonable amount of time. The programmers were all self motivated and worked very had. If it took 6 months to produce a game that was considered 'good' and 'profitable', that was all the mattered. When Space Invaders is released the company becomes a cash cow, everyone is happy, and the programmers are given lots of creative freedom and games aren't released until they are polished.

 

Fast forward to the Ray Kassar error. Ray is brought in by Warner for the sole purpose of making lots of money. Ray has never played a videogame, doesn't know a good game from a bad game, and has nothing but disdain for the people actually playing Atari games - they are just a bunch of dumb kids, right?

 

Programmers are now being pushed to make as many games as possible in the shortest amount of time possible. It doesn't matter if the games are actually good. In Ray's mind, he can take a shit in an Atari box and the kiddies will buy it. The programmers still care about the games themselves, but managers do not. They just want to increase short term profit and nothing else.

 

Eventually, the quest for short term profit catches up to Atari. They won't negotiate with their best programmers and they leave. Management is not interested in developing new consoles at first, and when they do the quest for short term profits leads to problems with the 5200 controllers. The controllers are just another pile of shit in an Atari box, and producing games for the 5200 is not a priority due to sales and there is no long term plan. Management have gold parachutes and perform some insider trading to make even more money. The locusts move on, Atari is broken up after the warner sale, and the rest is history.

 

Lost story short, the cost to produce a game becomes less and less because volume and short term profit matters while quality does not. This will be a vicious cycle - the lower the cost to make the game, the more the company is hurt.

 

 

 

I'm curious what kind of budgets 2600 games had, especially in the early 80s? Based on making my own games and on what I've read, I would think each game would take 3-6 months of programmer time -- plus graphic design and copy for the packaging. Running some rough numbers, I end up with a game costing maybe $30k-$50k in 2015 dollars (not counting marketing.)

 

Although the fact that Atari spent $20+ million on the rights to E.T. makes me wonder if that estimate is too low? Apparently the E.T. licensing deal was unusually high, but that still probably means that it was common to spend a million marketing a game. Parker Bros Frogger cost $5 million in marketing.