Run PC

Have been having a blast with this gem since I received it from AA. However, I can't seem to figure out how to get two player mode. The box states 1 or 2 player. What am I missing?

I would also be interested in a couple.

Please add me to your list if product is still being made available. Thanks!

Please put me on the list for 2 cased units.

Please add me to any order list as well. THANKS!

I have talked about doing this for years but never made it happen. I would love to buy some from you. I would also be happy to help you resell them if needed.

Nope, it's correct. Per "Master of the Game: Steve Ross and the Creation of Time Warner" (pg 167) for example - "By 1982 it would be producing more than of of WCI's 4 billion in revenues and over 65 percent of it's profits." Atari itself accounted for a 350% growth within Warner in just one year alone. Are you deliberately leaving out part of the quote? Fill in the blank: "By 1982 it would be producing more than ____________ of of WCI's 4 billion in revenues and over 65 percent of it's profits." The answer is a third of Warner's income/revenue/ It's called a typo, you'll notice "of" twice where "half" should be. And no, the answer is "More than half of WCI's 4 billion in revenues and over 65 percent of it's profits." Regardless, as it states even in typo'd format it was just as I said: 65% of it's profits. And in fact that's all I ever stated is exactly that passage: No, you said: "They did not by actual accounting. 65% of Warner's earnings was Atari" One of the oldest business axioms is also one of the truest: It's not what you earn, it's what you keep. Not understanding the difference between earnings and profit is one of the biggest mistakes many new business owners make. From Wikipedia (4 whatever that's worth) "In 1976, Nolan Bushnell sold his Atari company to Warner Communications for an estimated $28–32 million. Warner made considerable profits (and later losses) with Atari, which it owned from 1976 to 1984. While part of Warner, Atari achieved its greatest success, selling millions of Atari 2600s and computers. At its peak, Atari accounted for a third of Warner's annual income and was the fastest-growing company in the history of the United States at the time." I will look 4 the data u seek. If you find it, I will also concede. Wow this was a lot of work for posting the original statement below. I will know better next time. Here it is again 4 my own peace of mind: I am hopeful that Nolan can help Atari. The timing may be perfect with the Atari/Bushnell Movie around the corner. Even if he becomes nothing more than a mascot or a PR puppet, I don’t see any downside to his new relationship with Atari. Americans love a comeback story, and the Atari/Bushnell relationship, along with the publicity it can draw, can’t hurt the future of Atari. The simple truth is without Nolan there would have never been an Atari, without Warner Brothers Atari may have never been the dominant force it became; without Jack Trammel Atari may not have risen form the ashes to become a fortune 500 company once again; and without Infogrames Atari would most likely now be a footnote in history. Each has played a role in the company that I have a strange affection for, and there are still possibilities!

Nope, it's correct. Per "Master of the Game: Steve Ross and the Creation of Time Warner" (pg 167) for example - "By 1982 it would be producing more than of of WCI's 4 billion in revenues and over 65 percent of it's profits." Atari itself accounted for a 350% growth within Warner in just one year alone. Are you deliberately leaving out part of the quote? Fill in the blank: "By 1982 it would be producing more than ____________ of of WCI's 4 billion in revenues and over 65 percent of it's profits." The answer is a third of Warner's income/revenue/

http://www.atarimuse.../natco_suit.pdf Basically, Morgan's plan was to dissolve Atari Inc. and split it in half and dissolve it. Two new corporations would be formed. The first, at the time still unnamed, would be used to encapsulate any outstanding debt and employees they weren't sure they wanted to keep on. The second, New Atari Company, would be a streamline company composed of only the money making products and top tier of committed employees. Earnings would only be targeted to the half a billion range instead of the unmaintainable multi-billion range that Warner had inflated it to, with 20% profit goal. Morgan had no idea about the appraisal or the looking of potential buyers, he kept right up with NATCO until the day he was ushered in to the Atari Inc. boardroom by Warner's people to sign papers transferring Atari Consumer to Jack. That's when he first found out about any of it. That's also the reason for the ex-employees doing the lawsuit over it. This is really cool! I remember when Morgan was hired and some of his public plans to turn around Atari, but never knew the inside story. I know he was not giving much time at the helm.

They did not by actual accounting. 65% of Warner's earnings was Atari, which when it started going also dramatically plunged Warner's stock. They didn't file for bankruptcy because they chose not to because they were dumping the companies that were causing the losses (i.e. Atari Inc.), not because of assets. Why have subsidiary you know you're going to be selling off file for bankruptcy? They simply chose to hash it out with creditors and the like on their own, likewise getting Tramiel to take most of the Atari Inc. debt with the purchase so they could write it off their own books. The whole reason for the sale was because they hired an appraiser in January of '84 to recommend what to do to get them out of the mess, and out of being a ripe target for takeover. After the evaluation, the firm recommended dumping Atari Inc. and a few other subsidiaries. 1. That is not correct Atari did not account for 65% of Warner's income. At its peak, Atari accounted for a third of Warner's annual income. 2. You just made my point the company did not collapse and did not need to file for chapter 7 because Atari as an asset was worth more the the accumulation of it's debt.

You mean the quoting and directly commenting on every single sentence of a persons post didn't tip you off before just now? (Just messing with you wgungfu) This thread has certainly made me, and I'm guessing others think differently about a lot of things. Sometimes people tend to look back at things and maybe view them through rose colored glasses. Probably because those were days when all of us were young, happy and carefree and now we're all old, bitter and anal and want to hold on to the "good ol days" lol!

I agree!

Actually, no - a financial collapse and what constitutes it is a pretty well defined business concept. Was happening long before Atari. Certainly agree. Morgan should have been allowed to follow his Natco plan. Which oddly enough also entailed splitting it in to two separate companies, wiping off Atari Inc. as well. Wow, you are even more anal than I , but this is fun, and I enjoy your work on Atari's history. SO, actually you did not use the term financial collapse, just collapse. And Atari did not collapse. However, if you are saying that Atari Inc. was near financial collapse I would agree. However, Warner & Atari Inc. still had more assets than debt when Warner sold Atari off, which is why Atari did not file for bankruptcy. (I am now plugging my ears and repeating la la la la la ) What was the Natco plan? Can you point me somewhere that I can read about that?

Since when do you have to file bankruptcy for a corporate entity to collapse? Bankruptcy is what you do to try and settle things after the collapse. Either to stave off creditors to make arrangements for liquidation, or to reorganize. In this case, Warner decided it was just better to liquidate parts of it and then close it all together. Atari Coin, which was incorporated under a different name for a short time before being formally named Atari Games. Then controlling interest was sold to Namco in '85. Warner still maintained part ownership, just as they did with Atari Corporation though Jack's stock offerings. Understood. A lot of people do imply that though, which is why I felt it important to clarify. Yes, collapse is a pretty generic term, and I too felt it important to clarify. Warner could have held Atari, if it had the for-site.