Nolan Bushnell Appointed to Atari Board

[Tempest]

But see, there's the funny thing about Nolan, as I'm sure Curt and Marty will attest. You're just some guy at CGE to him, you don't further his career or help him gain the upper hand by him being nostalgic -- he doesn't think you important enough to warrant putting on that show, it seems.

Oh that's very true. When it was time to give his speech to the crowd he suddenly became the 'Father of Atari' that every seems to think he is. He really does put on a good show.

 

Tempest

[+wood_jl]

I guess I'm lucky that I got to meet Nolan several years ago at CGE (he even signed my program and took a picture with me). He was nice enough, but when I talked to him I got the feeling that Atari was just 'another thing he had done' and that it didn't seem to hold any special place in his heart like we all seem to think. He talked about it like it was another business he had started and sold off, proud of it yes, but not overly nostalgic. He was definitely more of a business man than the 'heart and soul' of Atari.

 

Somehow, that's not surprising, after reading this thread.

 

I do understand the emotional attachment people get to Nolan, as they are fans of Atari and his name has been inexorably associated with it.

What I don't understand is the mistake in thinking that the emotional attachment to him is a defensible position.

 

This kind of reminds me of the case of late singer Warren Zevon. It's been many years since he had the hit "Werewolves of London" and that's all anybody ever wanted to hear. I read an interview with him where it sounded like he hated that song and was tired of requests for it. I guess if that's the only hit you've ever had and you've spent the last 30 years without one, you're going to fantasize that you've still been successful and minimize past success.

 

I felt nostalgic about Nolan when I first read the headline, but then again I freely admit I know NOTHING of the man. These "accusations" against him are absolutely new information about him. A lot of it seems to ring true merely by common sense; has he really had any other success with all these companies, other than Chuck E Cheese, which didn't last? Hasn't there been a spirit of "gimmick" around everything else he has done? Pieces seem to fit. Still don't know much of anything myself, but should still be smart enough to know that an emotional attachment to Nolan simply because of name association with the word "Atari" is not a defensible position. At best I don't have enough information to go either way, but what I learned recently is interesting and seems to make sense.

 

 

BTW I just need to mention here that I got to go to a uWink last year. The food was pretty good, but the rest of it sucked. Having to order everything from a little kiosk at the table was cute at first, but after 80 button presses to order my burger I was starting to get annoyed. I was also quite dismayed that you had to pay to play any of the games at the table. If I'm paying three times what I should for a burger they should throw in the games for free.

 

This is the kind of gimmick that seems typical of his stuff since Atari. My "bullsh*t detector" started beeping like a geiger counter when I first read about this place. If they sold robot dogs in the lobby I wouldn't be surprised. Is anybody surprised that it's overpriced and you have to pay for the games? The only reason any of us even know about this place is because of the name association with Atari. Same for anything else he's done. Yet he tries to diminish the Atari thing?? Ego?????

[Cebus Capucinis]

But see, there's the funny thing about Nolan, as I'm sure Curt and Marty will attest. You're just some guy at CGE to him, you don't further his career or help him gain the upper hand by him being nostalgic -- he doesn't think you important enough to warrant putting on that show, it seems.

Oh that's very true. When it was time to give his speech to the crowd he suddenly became the 'Father of Atari' that every seems to think he is. He really does put on a good show.

 

Tempest

 

Exactly! I'm not casting judgment on him for it. It's part of the business world and part of "the big pitch" to everyone. He's not a bad person for doing it in my book, it just saddens me a bit to think that Nolan's PR is at work more than the genuine person behind it anymore.

[Atari2600Lives]

I think Atari2600Lives was referring to recent interviews in regards to what sounds like a lot of bad mouthing towards the man. Give him these determined facts as you present them and let him respond to them directly. Years (decades?) old interviews and responses to standard questions as you mentioned have been around for everyone to see, how about let the guy respond to allegations he sucks all around? I'd pay to read that.

 

I guess I still don't see the difference to what I've already stated. He's been directly interviewed by Curt before, we contacted him regarding some of Ted's statements and got answers back, his other statements and claims (multiple versions in direct interviews) have also been out there both past and present, not just decades old interviews. They're what we initially all started with before seeking everyone else that was around at the time to give their side in counter. It's the opposite, it's been his badmouthing and claims over others that needed another side presented, not the other way around. I'm not sure what more he can state regarding things like Pong and Al actually being the designer, or the fact every company of his has failed or gone bankrupt (which is a matter of public record), etc. Unless you're referring to some of Curt's comments of his business dealings with Nolan, which is between Curt and Nolan to go back and forth on.

 

 

In my humble opinion........... I believe you should not go by past interviews when dealing with new revelations.

 

Talk to Nolan and give him a chance to respond to each new revelation that cast a bad light on him. This not only would be the right thing to do but I think this will make your book even more spectacular.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Also , going by the title of your thread it is clear to me that you are 100% biased against Nolan or at the very least you have made up your mind about him before giving him a chance to specifically respond to each new revelation.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Atari2600Lives

[brojamfootball]

All I'm thinking is that maybe, just maybe, this is some PR for a reinvigoration of

manufacturing/marketing/selling "classic" Atari toys, games, merch, schwag, etc.

 

With the recent Taco Bell retro promotion, the FB2+ cereal promo thing, and now Bushnell...

seems to me something is brewing. A lot of coincidence going on there.

Recent Atari schwag/shirts/pajamas/shot glasses for sale at Target also.

 

I tried to read through all of this thread and was too much to read it all,

but I didn't see anyone else mentioning this.

I'm just saying MAYBE, that's all.

[moycon]

In my humble opinion........... I believe you should not go by past interviews when dealing with new revelations.

 

That was exactly my point, and the way wgungfu was responding wasn't making it clear (at least to me) that Noland was being engaged any time recently. Who cares about past interviews if you have new questions was what I was thinking and there was no indication these allegations were being brought up until this one...

 

"Past" refers to direct interviews and emails from late 90's through to just last year, and yes that includes the material brought up here.

 

It seems to suggest that Noland is being given the chance to defend himself...hopefully on every point and not just one or two. Even if he lies, give him a chance to talk. Lies can eventually catch up with people. My guess is, like wgungfu suggested, he just won't respond. That's fine, as long as an attempt was made.

 

With the recent Taco Bell retro promotion, the FB2+ cereal promo thing, and now Bushnell...

 

Don't forget Atari games showing up on Live. Of course there are Intellivision games on Live as well so I dunno if that means anything..

[homerwannabee]

Warner was anything but professional either. Personally I don't think garbage games like Pac-Man, and E.T. get made under Nolan's watch. Lets see, we will spend millions, upon millions in licensing fees for these two games, but we will only give our programmers 6 weeks tops to produce the games. Sounds like a total recipe for disaster. Hey did it ever occur to anyone that the reason why Warner was so much more succesful with Atari is because they had this thing called CAPITAL, and great distribution, and great PR?

Edit: one more thing. Warner did a great job of making the work environment so bad that their best programmers make another company. So good job losing your best programmers.

 

Then you have Tramiel who came in later. Lets see, Mr. We Are Not a Video Game Company, We are a Computer Company." Yep we saw how well that worked out for him. Had the chance to bring the Atari 7800 to market a full year before the NES, and he lets the Atari 7800's rot in storage. Than had the chance to tag team with Nintendo to produce the NES, and he blows them off completely. Treated all third party programmers for the 7800 with absolute disrespect, and to top it off throws away a sure thing with the Atari Jaguar with extremely bad marketing, and very poor distribution.

 

Nolan at the time did the best with what he had. And he was pretty good at doing that.

[+wood_jl]

All I'm thinking is that maybe, just maybe, this is some PR for a reinvigoration of

manufacturing/marketing/selling "classic" Atari toys, games, merch, schwag, etc.

 

With the recent Taco Bell retro promotion, the FB2+ cereal promo thing, and now Bushnell...

seems to me something is brewing. A lot of coincidence going on there.

Recent Atari schwag/shirts/pajamas/shot glasses for sale at Target also.

 

Alternatively, absolutely nothing is brewing, so why not cash-in on what remains of the days when something was brewing, since there's nothing else to offer?

[+wood_jl]

In my humble opinion........... I believe you should not go by past interviews when dealing with new revelations.

 

Talk to Nolan and give him a chance to respond to each new revelation that cast a bad light on him. This not only would be the right thing to do but I think this will make your book even more spectacular.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Also , going by the title of your thread it is clear to me that you are 100% biased against Nolan or at the very least you have made up your mind about him before giving him a chance to specifically respond to each new revelation.

 

But didn't he say he was going with multiple sources for information, and corroborating each piece of information with documents and talking to several other people? If that doesn't hold a candle to misplaced nostalgia for Bushnell, then what will?

[Reaperman]

Then you have Tramiel who came in later. Lets see, Mr. We Are Not a Video Game Company, We are a Computer Company." ...

all true, I suppose. But I'd still rather see him in the headline than the current choice.

 

Who would actually be good for Atari? Granted I would rather see atari fade away gracefully, but since that doesn't seem to want to happen, I figure a really good choice would need to be a person with the business sense to run their own company, but somebody who hasn't become a total rockstar in the field so they may be willing to give atari a try. Somebody with a fair bit of history in gaming/electronics too. My list was pretty short. Chris Roberts and Sid Meier were about all I could think of on the gaming side. Though I'll confess to not having put any real investigation into it.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Reaperman

[VectorGamer]

To wgungfu and Curt Vendel, the two guys "in the know":

 

Turning things around to the positive, what did Nolan Bushnell bring to the table for Atari and although pure speculation, how successful do you think Atari would have been without his involvement?

[figgler]

Also , going by the title of your thread it is clear to me that you are 100% biased against Nolan or at the very least you have made up your mind about him before giving him a chance to specifically respond to each new revelation.

 

But didn't he say he was going with multiple sources for information, and corroborating each piece of information with documents and talking to several other people? If that doesn't hold a candle to misplaced nostalgia for Bushnell, then what will?

 

Why would he warrant a chance to specifcally respond to a new revelation and why should anyone suspend judgement or change their minds based on those responses?

 

Did anyone read the Nolan Bushnell Missile Command interview that was posted here in this thread and elsewhere at AA?

 

Dude is a fucking liar, plain and simple, no one who knows the facts can deny it. To me that's enough. You don't get a second, third, fourth chance to dispute any new revelations or give "your side" when you are a documented liar and your word means nothing.

[Cebus Capucinis]

Personally I don't think garbage games like Pac-Man, and E.T. get made under Nolan's watch.

 

Good games like, oh, I don't know, Galaxian were licensed and made under Warner. Quoting two bad games amongst a sea of good ones doesn't make your point effectively. You also can't qualify those games as "bad" under certain criteria, like numbers sold, etc. but that's an argument for another day. My point is that you're cherry picking two examples to make a point about the whole, and that's just bad logic.

 

For someone who is also big on numbers, you seem to be ignoring the definition of 'profitable'. I didn't say Warner was a 'better' company, per se. They were more PROFITABLE. There are company statements and profit and loss margins in documentation to prove this. Though if you want to make that stretch, in the basest definition of what makes a company good or bad, then yes, Warner was a better owner for Atari, because "whether a company makes money or not" is ultimately the only thing that matters in the barest definition of what a company is and does.

 

Great distribution and great PR you say, as well? You don't get those things smoking bongs in the office and bringing hookers to work. Great distribution and great PR are all cornerstones of, you guessed it, a good and profitable company. So what if they had deep pockets? The pockets got even DEEPER through their management techniques and ownership, something that Nolan Bushnell cannot claim. They MADE MONEY, plain and simple. Bushnell did anything but make money, and there are reasons for that, IMO.

[homerwannabee]

Personally I don't think garbage games like Pac-Man, and E.T. get made under Nolan's watch.

 

Good games like, oh, I don't know, Galaxian were licensed and made under Warner. Quoting two bad games amongst a sea of good ones doesn't make your point effectively.

 

For someone who is also big on numbers, you seem to be ignoring the definition of 'profitable'. I didn't say Warner was a 'better' company, per se. They were more PROFITABLE. There are company statements and profit and loss margins in documentation to prove this.

No, if I am not mistaken, Galaxian was actually ported by Namco. Warner just distributed the game under the Atari name.

 

Now Adventure, Space Invaders, and Yar's Revenge were made by Warner. Waner seemed be to decent with what they were doing from 1978 to 1981, then around 1982 they become totally greedy.

[accousticguitar]

Then you have Tramiel who came in later. Lets see, Mr. We Are Not a Video Game Company, We are a Computer Company." Yep we saw how well that worked out for him. Had the chance to bring the Atari 7800 to market a full year before the NES, and he lets the Atari 7800's rot in storage. Than had the chance to tag team with Nintendo to produce the NES, and he blows them off completely. Treated all third party programmers for the 7800 with absolute disrespect, and to top it off throws away a sure thing with the Atari Jaguar with extremely bad marketing, and very poor distribution.

Ray Kassar was the one who let the Nintendo deal get away.

[Tempest]

No, if I am not mistaken, Galaxian was actually ported by Namco. Warner just distributed the game under the Atari name.

Galaxian was ported by GCC: http://www.atariprotos.com/2600/software/galaxian/galaxian.htm

 

Tempest

[Cebus Capucinis]

My point still stands firm anyway. It happened under the guiding hand of Warner, not Nolan Bushnell. You can't bitch about Warner licensing E.T. without also accepting that they also licensed games like Space Invaders and Galaxian. Simply stating that "OH NO THEY MADE PAC-MAN SUCK" does not magically equate to "Nolan Bushnell was superior to Warner in every way, shape, and form", as you're implying there.

[Tempest]

I think we can all agree on one thing here. That picture of Nolan in the hot tub on the front page has to go! It's mega creepy, it's like he's giving you 'the eye'.

 

Tempest

[Emehr]

I think we can all agree on one thing here. That picture of Nolan in the hot tub on the front page has to go! It's mega creepy, it's like he's giving you 'the eye'.

What's disturbing to me is not knowing if he's going commando in that hot tub. Or is that what you meant by 'the eye'?

[moycon]

What's disturbing to me is not knowing if he's going commando in that hot tub. Or is that what you meant by 'the eye'?

 

Oh no, you had to go there!!??

Too funny Emehr!!

[Tempest]

He is so going commando in that picture. You can just tell.

 

Tempest

[Cebus Capucinis]

Gross.

[Retro Rogue]

Warner was anything but professional either. Personally I don't think garbage games like Pac-Man, and E.T. get made under Nolan's watch.

 

LOL, then you're hardly familiar with some of the coin-op games that almost sunk the company, or half the other stunts he pulled. What executive under the Warner era would moon the camera the first time they're being shown an advanced video conferencing system? Yup, that wreaks of professionalism.

 

 

Lets see, we will spend millions, upon millions in licensing fees for these two games, but we will only give our programmers 6 weeks tops to produce the games.

 

That was Spielberg's demand, not Warner's. And Warner's issue was the dual management they laid by the early 80's, many times circumventing Atari's management decisions including Ray's. We're adequately covering that as well. That's exactly how the E.T. deal happened, Atari Inc. (Ray and company) had already declined it, Steve Ross decided to go after it anyways because he was trying to woo Spielberg to make movies at Warner Bros. Once Atari hit the 1 billion mark, Warner was treating it as it's personal cash cow vs. just a subsidiary and letting the guy who brought it to the 1 million mark (Ray and his staff) do his job.

 

You seem to just want to refer to the whole thing as "Warner", which is inaccurate. It was Atari Inc. and Warner, two separate management staffs. Atari Inc. made the deal on Space Invaders, not Warner. Warner made the licensing deal on E.T., not Atari Inc.

 

Sounds like a total recipe for disaster. Hey did it ever occur to anyone that the reason why Warner was so much more succesful with Atari is because they had this thing called CAPITAL, and great distribution, and great PR?

 

Did it ever occur to you that you're really not that familiar with the inner workings? Warner's capital *was from Atari* by that time, not the other way around. Fully half of Warner's earnings and 65% of it's profits. Likewise, the great distribution, PR, decisions to stick with the 2600 and sell it all year around, the licensing deal with Space Invaders, the other great products, etc. were all things built up under Ray - not Nolan. Making it sound like they simply inherited something that ran great under them is completely irresponsible research and simply silly - almost like you're poking in the dark with a stick hoping you hit something.

 

Edit: one more thing. Warner did a great job of making the work environment so bad that their best programmers make another company. So good job losing your best programmers.

 

Nope. It was simply some of their 2600 programmers that left. And while they were the most experienced on the 2600, stating they were Atari's best programmers (as if they only had this one lot of people for the whole company) is completely off. They still had great (if not better) programmers in coin (where the 2600 programmers originally came from), the rest of consumer, and a company full of engineers and programmers that continued to build up.

 

Then you have Tramiel who came in later.

 

Nope, different company. Tramiel simply bought the Consumer Division properties and holdings, and folded them in to his already formed Tramel Technology Ltd. (TTL), which was then renamed in to Atari Corporation. Atari Inc. still existed separately for a good year later to deal with legal matters.

 

Lets see, Mr. We Are Not a Video Game Company, We are a Computer Company." Yep we saw how well that worked out for him. Had the chance to bring the Atari 7800 to market a full year before the NES, and he lets the Atari 7800's rot in storage.

 

Nope, completely out of context and based on incorrect information. We have the internal emails from Atari's mainframe, documents, and direct interviews with the people at GCC and on the Atari Corp. sides. They started up the 2600jr project again immediately that August of '84, and entered in to negotiations between Warner and GCC over the 7800 project. They also fully intended on using the the video games properties and back stock they purchased to keep the company afloat during the ST development. The context of the alleged statement happened during a meeting with one of the guys on the Atari side who was pushing the 7800 during when the negotiations were going on, and was fired for a number of reasons. As Curt mentioned in the past, this ex-employees memories might be a big jaded because of this. Jack did not "let the Atari 7800 rot in storage", and in fact was in direct negotiations with Warner and GCC for the rest of the year. The question was who still owed GCC for the Maria chip development. Warner held on to a number of projects it had originally initiated, that were still considered "open accounts", to satisfactorily recoup and/or close any monetary dealings. Jack wanted the console but not the payment to GCC and insisted Warner was responsible. Warner wanted Jack to pay for any sort of ownership of the 7800. GCC just wanted their money or nobody was getting it. It was finally settled in May of 1985 when Jack paid GCC for the Maria development. Then negotiations started for access to the 10 launch titles, which finally reached conclusion by the Fall, which is when active 7800 development started up again. By early January '86 they were already launching the 7800 again.

 

Than had the chance to tag team with Nintendo to produce the NES, and he blows them off completely.

 

Completely inaccurate, that was Warner's Atari Inc. that was working the deal with Nintendo, not Jack. And it had fallen through long before the split occurred. Likewise, we also have the internal discussions going on between the engineers regarding the pros and cons between the 7800 and Famicom (both were still in development and had yet to be released) and why they leaned towards the 7800 instead.

 

Treated all third party programmers for the 7800 with absolute disrespect,

 

Nope, what it was is they had trouble getting third party programmers because of Nintendo's lock-in. So he spent little in finances to woo and support the ones he could get. Mike Katz verified this when I interviewed him, and in fact he was pretty much an office of one for most of his time there.

 

and to top it off throws away a sure thing with the Atari Jaguar with extremely bad marketing, and very poor distribution.

 

Again incorrect, that was Sam, not Jack. Jack had retired active leadership by '88 and left it to Sam, simply remaining on the board. He left the company profitable (what's termed in the black) having cleared all debt they took on from the Warner sale. He came back after Sam's heart attack.

 

And the Jaguar had plenty of marketing, and press coverage, and the same distribution as everyone else. The issue was Sam's poor support of, and inability to get, decent third party developers. Nobody wanted to do anything with the console, the development tools were bad as well as the fee for them, there were the bug issues for the console as well. That's just a summation, but feel free to talk to the active Jaugar coders over in the Jaguar area of AA, they've already more than hashed all the pitfalls out.

 

Nolan at the time did the best with what he had. And he was pretty good at doing that.

 

Nolan was an engineer with little to no management experience that tried to do the best with what he himself had - carny experience. Which is why he manged to do some great deals on one hand, and had the company facing bankruptcy multiple times during his 4 year tenure on the other hand. And rightly why they needed (as any startup company does), input and leadership from an experienced business source to take it out of the startup phase.

Edited April 21, 2010 by wgungfu

[homerwannabee]

Warner was anything but professional either. Personally I don't think garbage games like Pac-Man, and E.T. get made under Nolan's watch.

 

LOL, then you're hardly familiar with some of the coin-op games that almost sunk the company, or half the other stunts he pulled. What executive under the Warner era would moon the camera the first time they're being shown an advanced video conferencing system? Yup, that wreaks of professionalism.

 

 

Lets see, we will spend millions, upon millions in licensing fees for these two games, but we will only give our programmers 6 weeks tops to produce the games.

 

That was Spielberg's demand, not Warner's. And Warner's issue was the dual management they laid by the early 80's, many times circumventing Atari's management decisions including Ray's. We're adequately covering that as well. That's exactly how the E.T. deal happened, Atari Inc. (Ray and company) had already declined it, Steve Ross decided to go after it anyways because he was trying to woo Spielberg to make movies at Warner Bros. Once Atari hit the 1 billion mark, Warner was treating it as it's personal cash cow vs. just a subsidiary and letting the guy who brought it to the 1 million mark (Ray and his staff) do his job.

 

Sounds like a total recipe for disaster. Hey did it ever occur to anyone that the reason why Warner was so much more succesful with Atari is because they had this thing called CAPITAL, and great distribution, and great PR?

 

Did it ever occur to you that you're really not that familiar with the inner workings? Warner's capital *was from Atari* by that time, not the other way around. Fully half of Warner's earnings and 65% of it's profits. Likewise, the great distribution, PR, decisions to stick with the 2600 and sell it all year around, the licensing deal with Space Invaders, the other great products, etc. were all things built up under Ray - not Nolan. Making it sound like they simply inherited something that ran great under them is completely irresponsible research and simply silly - almost like you're poking in the dark with a stick hoping you hit something.

 

Edit: one more thing. Warner did a great job of making the work environment so bad that their best programmers make another company. So good job losing your best programmers.

 

Nope. It was simply some of their 2600 programmers that left. And while they were the most experienced on the 2600, stating they were Atari's best programmers (as if they only had this one lot of people for the whole company) is completely off. They still had great (if not better) programmers in coin (where the 2600 programmers originally came from), the rest of consumer, and a company full of engineers and programmers that continued to build up.

 

Then you have Tramiel who came in later.

 

Nope, different company. Tramiel simply bought the Consumer Division properties and holdings, and folded them in to his already formed Tramel Technology Ltd. (TTL), which was then renamed in to Atari Corporation. Atari Inc. still existed separately for a good year later to deal with legal matters.

 

Lets see, Mr. We Are Not a Video Game Company, We are a Computer Company." Yep we saw how well that worked out for him. Had the chance to bring the Atari 7800 to market a full year before the NES, and he lets the Atari 7800's rot in storage.

 

Nope, completely out of context and based on incorrect information. We have the internal emails from Atari's mainframe, documents, and direct interviews with the people at GCC and on the Atari Corp. sides. They started up the 2600jr project again immediately that August of '84, and entered in to negotiations between Warner and GCC over the 7800 project. They also fully intended on using the the video games properties and back stock they purchased to keep the company afloat during the ST development. The context of the alleged statement happened during a meeting with one of the guys on the Atari side who was pushing the 7800 during when the negotiations were going on, and was fired for a number of reasons. As Curt mentioned in the past, this ex-employees memories might be a big jaded because of this. Jack did not "let the Atari 7800 rot in storage", and in fact was in direct negotiations with Warner and GCC for the rest of the year. The question was who still owed GCC for the Maria chip development. Warner held on to a number of projects it had originally initiated, that were still considered "open accounts", to satisfactorily recoup and/or close any monetary dealings. Jack wanted the console but not the payment to GCC and insisted Warner was responsible. Warner wanted Jack to pay for any sort of ownership of the 7800. GCC just wanted their money or nobody was getting it. It was finally settled in May of 1985 when Jack paid GCC for the Maria development. Then negotiations started for access to the 10 launch titles, which finally reached conclusion by the Fall, which is when active 7800 development started up again. By early January '86 they were already launching the 7800 again.

 

Than had the chance to tag team with Nintendo to produce the NES, and he blows them off completely.

 

Completely inaccurate, that was Warner's Atari Inc. that was working the deal with Nintendo, not Jack. And it had fallen through long before the split occurred. Likewise, we also have the internal discussions going on between the engineers regarding the pros and cons between the 7800 and Famicom (both were still in development and had yet to be released) and why they leaned towards the 7800 instead.

 

Treated all third party programmers for the 7800 with absolute disrespect,

 

Nope, what it was is they had trouble getting third party programmers because of Nintendo's lock-in. So he spent little in finances to woo and support the ones he could get. Mike Katz verified this when I interviewed him, and in fact he was pretty much an office of one for most of his time there.

 

and to top it off throws away a sure thing with the Atari Jaguar with extremely bad marketing, and very poor distribution.

 

Again incorrect, that was Sam, not Jack. Jack had retired active leadership by '88 and left it to Sam, simply remaining on the board. He left the company profitable (what's termed in the black) having cleared all debt they took on from the Warner sale. He came back after Sam's heart attack.

 

And the Jaguar had plenty of marketing, and press coverage, and the same distribution as everyone else. The issue was Sam's poor support of, and inability to get, decent third party developers. Nobody wanted to do anything with the console, the development tools were bad as we as the fee for them, there were the bug issues for the console as well. But then, talk to the guys over in the Jaguar area of AA, they've already more than hashed all this out.

 

Nolan at the time did the best with what he had. And he was pretty good at doing that.

 

Nolan was an engineer with little no management experience that tried to do the best with what he himself had - carny experience. Which is why he manged to do some great deals on one hand, and had the company facing bankruptcy multiple times during his 4 year tenure on the other hand. And rightly why they needed (as any startup company does), input and leadership from an experienced business source to take it out of the startup phase.

So let me get this straight. Any wrongs Tramiel is accused of it seems that you are defending. Any credit given to Bushnell you are completely bashing.

 

So in your view you see Tramiel as this great manager, and Bushnell as just a huckster.

 

I think I have seen everything now. Bashing Bushnell is one thing but defending a guy who many people despise here is another thing. Tramiel screwed over Atari if you can't see that than oh well.

[Cebus Capucinis]

....and you're doing the exact opposite by turning a blind eye to Nolan's shortcomings while simultaneously villifying Tramiel. What's your point?

 

The entire history of video gaming seems to be like this -- very polarizing and very hard to get to the truth. All the lawsuits, all the companies going under, it all just leads to people to instantly take sides. "Nostalgia goggles" are one thing, "fanboyism" is another -- these are all factors that contribute to the polarizing nature of the history of companies like Atari.

 

The fact of the matter is that each person that owned Atari respectively did both positive and negative things. Nolan co-created it, but didn't run it particularly well; Warner made it profitable but sacrificed a lot of corporate culture to do so. Tramiel came along, rebuilt the company, but then ultimately failed.

 

Each side of that story has different things to say and each side of that story will have people ardently defending each individual. That doesn't make one version of the truth the actual truth, though.