I think now I understand why the NES beat the 7800

[SpaceDice2010]

I believe this sums the NOA vs Atari issue the best...

 

Howard Lincoln said in regards to the Atari lawsuit, "Our defense is really simple. We are going to put Sam Tramiel on the stand and he is going to explain how, in 1985, he had 100 percent of the market for home video games, and [that] the home video-game business was synonymous with Atari and no one had ever heard of Nintendo. And then we're going to demonstrate how, through his own ineptness and idiocy and mismanagement, he took that franchise and shot it in the foot and killed it. We'll show how he was quite successful in doing it and literally went from 100 percent of the market to no market share, I think we will do just fine."

 

And NOA pretty much did just as Lincoln said they would as the court ruled on May 1, 1992 that NOA's licensing program had not hurt Atari.

[kool kitty89]

I believe this sums the NOA vs Atari issue the best...

 

Howard Lincoln said in regards to the Atari lawsuit, "Our defense is really simple. We are going to put Sam Tramiel on the stand and he is going to explain how, in 1985, he had 100 percent of the market for home video games, and [that] the home video-game business was synonymous with Atari and no one had ever heard of Nintendo. And then we're going to demonstrate how, through his own ineptness and idiocy and mismanagement, he took that franchise and shot it in the foot and killed it. We'll show how he was quite successful in doing it and literally went from 100 percent of the market to no market share, I think we will do just fine."

 

And NOA pretty much did just as Lincoln said they would as the court ruled on May 1, 1992 that NOA's licensing program had not hurt Atari.

Yep, Nintendo railroaded Atari in court as such with that grandstanding BS and Atari f*cked up in responding to it.

 

Still have someone on block, so didn't see the original post. The content of the quote is wildly inaccurate on so many levels, and even the context it's being presented in here is a bit off. The book it's taken from (Game Over) goes on right after that to say that even Lincoln was surprised when the jury ruled in favor of that one issue (there were three issues and the jury was deadlocked on the other two).

Yeah, sorry, I responded to the direct quote as if that was directly from the trial and without knowing what actually happened. (obviously if Atari DID lose over misinformation that simply, they'd have had to have absolutely terrible legal representation)

Are there even any public details on that case?

 

But obviously, that claim was ripe with errors and false accusations. (hence why I was citing it as grandstanding/BS/railroading if it actually happened like that in court)

 

OTOH, Sam did seem to drag Atari Corp down after Jack had built it up, but that's a totally different topic and unrelated to that court case. (though it might have come up if they'd tried to sue Sony)

 

1) They did not have "100%", and even then any percentage they had was of a drastically shrunken market consisting of clearance level older stock. Way different than having 100% of a large vibrant market with new product and active competition.

Absolutely, there's plenty of places to blame people/firms for the crash and situation of Atari Corp and the market in general in 1985, but that's a totally different issue than things that prevented Atari Corp from building itself up after the collapse of the market and Warner's liquidation of Atari Inc.

 

2) It was Jack in charge from '84 to '87.

Yes, and Mike Katz probably would have been a person of interest as well given he managed the entertainment division. (though Jack was the president/CEO of the company as a whole)

I can't imagine that Katz and Jack weren't brought into that trial as witnesses.

 

3) No one hearing of Nintendo is a bit stretching it. No retailers hearing of Nintendo as a manufacturer of consoles and initially not trusting them because of Atari Inc.'s issues is more accurate. Which then contradicts Lincoln's previous statements on a supposed market position and brand name recognition. You can't regularly claim as Nintendo, Lincoln, et. al. did, that Atari Inc.'s past mistakes and negative brand connotation with retailers represented a major hurdle for you to get past to get your product in to stores, and then turn around and claim it as an advantage for Atari Corp. as in that rant. Completely contradictory.

Yes, and also totally disregarding Nintendo's position and actions in Japan. (or how they'd actually done the same thing to Sega in Japan and the US with those policies -I'm not sure why Sega didn't sue, but I can only imagine it had to do with Japanese culture)

 

4) As has already been shown with clarifying what went on behind the scenes, there was no "ineptness", there was the issues of why they filed the suit in the first place. Lincoln's referring to his other claim of Atari Corp. trying to position itself as a lower cost competitor as it's only strategy. Which has nothing to do with why it was unable to secure licenses or hire the dev studios, which is actually related to points two and three that the jury deadlocked on.

Yes, perhaps not handling things ideally (even aside from the problems caused by Warner), but hardly inept. (and as best as one tries, it's hard to say how they could have done things better without digging into hindsight).

 

 

 

5) The jury stated that Atari Corp.'s lawyers hadn't adequately showed how Nintendo's policies (points 2 and 3 of the lawsuit) represented a willful intent to monopolize and therefore harm Atari financially. Because of the way the motion was entered, they had to prove on those specific grounds - anything else is irrelevant. Including Mr. Lincoln's statements, which the jury's decision and resulting deadlocks most certainly did not back up his argument either. The jury's decision was "Nintendo had monopoly power in the United States, which is not by itself illegal, but had not been shown to have an intent to monopolize. It deadlocked on two other questions: whether the exclusive-rights contracts were an unreasonable restraint of trade and whether Nintendo had illegally maintained a monopoly through exclusive or restrictive practices." The fact was that Atari's lawyers didn't prove Nintendo intended to monopolize - and therefore do willful harm to Atari Corp., which is what they had to show. Having monopoly power by itself is not illegal in the US, and Atari's lawyers failed to show the jury that Nintendo didn't reach it's monopolistic position simply because it was a better competitor, which in turn failed to show it's direct impact on Atari's losses. That's also why they were then deadlocked on the restraint of trade and restrictive practices - which also would have been key towards the intent of the suit. That in turn ultimately then lead the judge to take the partial decision and dismissing the suit. Neither side was vindicated, and in fact Nintendo dropped the policies under the deadlocked portions during the case because they were already facing a separate antitrust investigation by the US government. And even shortly after both of these they lost an antitrust case on price fixing of their consoles - something else Tramiel (and others) had complained about in relation to unfair competition from them, i.e. an unfair relationship with dealers.

Would it be inaccurate to label that case as Nintendo railroading Atari with their greater resources for legal support?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank You, wgungfu, for coming in to counter some of this bullshit. What you have written is pretty-much undeniable, and demonstrates an actual understanding of the lawsuit, which is uncommon.

 

Although a certain know-it-all-tell-it-all (and get it wrong, obviously, with preposterous, idiotic opinion presented as "fact") shitter (whom you have on block, wisely) will SIMPLY IGNORE THE FACTS and continue to spout vitriol, your information is certainly not in vain, as it appeals to a much wider audience; the truth frequently has this effect, to the good fortune of many.

Spacedice doesn't seem like a troll at times, and maybe he's not formally (at least all the time), but I'm definitely getting frustrated with parts of the discussion. (and distracting from more useful areas of the discussion)

 

Hmm, it also seems like he rejects any hypothetical suggestion (or historical reference) that deviates from pushing for an apple-like business model. (or that Apple's business model, while successful, was/is also flawed and limited them to a niche when they had the potential to be the dominant player of the home computer market with the Apple II -or that going for the low end with the Apple II could have been a good idea, among other things)

But that's another topic.

Edited March 23, 2011 by kool kitty89

[SpaceDice2010]

I believe this sums the NOA vs Atari issue the best...

 

Howard Lincoln said in regards to the Atari lawsuit, "Our defense is really simple. We are going to put Sam Tramiel on the stand and he is going to explain how, in 1985, he had 100 percent of the market for home video games, and [that] the home video-game business was synonymous with Atari and no one had ever heard of Nintendo. And then we're going to demonstrate how, through his own ineptness and idiocy and mismanagement, he took that franchise and shot it in the foot and killed it. We'll show how he was quite successful in doing it and literally went from 100 percent of the market to no market share, I think we will do just fine."

 

And NOA pretty much did just as Lincoln said they would as the court ruled on May 1, 1992 that NOA's licensing program had not hurt Atari.

[SpaceDice2010]

It all boils down to Game Selection. Nintendo licensed their wares to many programmers and took ricks. Atari couldnt or just didnt get other involved til it was too late. The activision games were great, but you need Sega to do more for your system...maybe bring back Konami..Give them something to work with...Contra on Atari 7800 would have been sick!

 

Nintendo may not have taken a huge risk in the US. Though some may argue that spending $50 million on the NES was huge. One thing no one can fault Nintendo for was their tenacity. They looked for a US distributor at first. Brought the NES to show after show and refined its market positioning and finally pulled it off. All the video game companies knew that Nintendo was coming to the US and what they had. If other game companies had shown even some of the tenacity that Nintendo did...

Edited March 23, 2011 by SpaceDice2010

[+wood_jl]

HA HA HA none of wgungfu's points acknowledged by that dude. As predicted. Change the subject, ignore counterpoints, keep blathering. Laughable.

[DracIsBack]

wgungfu - thanks for typing this up. I've long wished there were more detailed reports of the arguments and jury's verdict available. What I have seen has sadly been limited to simple press reports and really simplistic fanboy interpretations of what happened.

 

For my own information: Were there actually TWO Atari Corp lawsuits against Nintendo? I seem to remember reading about a $250 million lawsuit and a $160 million lawsuit.

 

Also: Didn't Atari and Nintendo reach a deal that Atari wouldn't 'appeal' in return for Nintendo not coming after court costs? I kind of remember that being reported at the time.

 

In poking around, I found this article

 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bIEzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ejIHAAAAIBAJ&dq=atari%20nintendo&pg=5599%2C264117

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SpaceDice2010]

Reading that is almost like reading the Onion...

 

A lawyer for Atari insisted the case was not over and said the jury had apparently gotten confused.

[Retro Rogue]

For my own information: Were there actually TWO Atari Corp lawsuits against Nintendo? I seem to remember reading about a $250 million lawsuit and a $160 million lawsuit.

 

The press were routinely confused about which "Atari" they were talking about. Atari Games Corp. was suing them at the same time as Atari Corp. Plus Nintendo also had it's own suit against Atari Corp. over the lockout chip fiasco during that time as well.

 

So you had the press often stating simply "Atari" or "Atari Corp." when they meant Atari Games Corp. If you look at the details of whatever article you're looking at, it should clear up which company they mean to be talking about.

 

 

 

 

[kool kitty89]

It all boils down to Game Selection. Nintendo licensed their wares to many programmers and took ricks. Atari couldnt or just didnt get other involved til it was too late. The activision games were great, but you need Sega to do more for your system...maybe bring back Konami..Give them something to work with...Contra on Atari 7800 would have been sick!

 

Nintendo may not have taken a huge risk in the US. Though some may argue that spending $50 million on the NES was huge. One thing no one can fault Nintendo for was their tenacity. They looked for a US distributor at first. Brought the NES to show after show and refined its market positioning and finally pulled it off. All the video game companies knew that Nintendo was coming to the US and what they had. If other game companies had shown even some of the tenacity that Nintendo did...

Of course, Nintendo's success in Japan fueled all of that; they'd have been nothing without it.

 

However, I do wonder how they managed to enforce their licensing contracts in Japan with absolutely zero hardware lockout (all it would take is leaking of the hardware documentation to go unlicensed), but in the west, they obviously had more to back that up. (maybe it's something to do with Japanese business/culture; I highly doubt Atari could have pulled off anything close to that in the US with the VCS, even is doing things as well or better than Nintendo).

 

They also largely maintained their success by illegal/anticompetitive tactics . . . of course, they got away with that too until competition really pushed hard enough to break them in the early 90s (NEC and then Sony in Japan, Sega in the west).

 

 

Granted, if Atari had managed to push into Japan (via Namco, or another prominent company they could license to), Nintendo would have been forced to really compete on the market rather than cheat like they did. (and Sega probably would have done far better with the SG-1000, especially as a lower-end alternative to the FC that was still better than the 2600)

[Matthew]

I was about 10 years old when the atari 7800 was released. I remember the day I saw it first, like it was yesterday.

I was at a friends house (Robert) and he was playing the built in game "Asteroids", I thought WOW, I really want this.

 

......Until later, another friend was inviting people over to his house to play NES, he had the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" game.

 

As a 10 year old, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles wins every time!.

 

 

My logic is undeniable!.

[philipj]

Well that'll do it... Ninja Turtles will getcha everytime. lol

[ATARI7800fan]

Well that'll do it... Ninja Turtles will getcha everytime. lol

 

will agree, that's what got me to buy my SNES.

[kool kitty89]

Well that'll do it... Ninja Turtles will getcha everytime. lol

Yeah, except that first game (which was developed in parallel with -or slightly earlier than- the arcade game) wasn't especially good . . . but it was still Turtles. But then it also wasn't an NES exclusive either, at least not in Europe. (they even got a Spectrum port, actually one of the best looking games on the Speccy -it actually looks more like an EGA PC game . . . though that's also the sort of look CGA PC games could have had if RAM defied character modes had been present -8x8 cells with 2 indexed colors, though you could have 80x25 as well, for significantly smoother horizontal movement, and even 40x25 is slightly higher res than the speccy or MSX)

Actually, the speccy version even has dynamic animation for pseudo BG layers.

Oddly no music, though I'd thought it was a 128k specific game. (the Amstrad version also lacks music outside of the title iirc, but the C64 has music -and SFX, so not one of those "music or SFX" only cases)

 

Of course, there's also the Amiga and ST versions. (plus the arcade ports as well as that original console game)

 

Edit:

There actually was an EGA PC version too:

(with -somewhat mediocre- adlib support rather like castlevania . . . mediocre in the sense that it's not really a good remix of the NES tunes, the ST, Amiga, and C64 versions were better in that respect -it's not the worst example of Adlib use though, unfortunately)

 

I was going to say the instrumentation sounds a bit like Zero Wing (but just much less fitting for the arrangement), but that's really better instrumentation too:

(exact same sound chip, of course -the good ol' OPL2 err YM3812 )

 

 

 

 

Edit: actually, a bit ironic that the Amiga used sampled FM synth that the OPL2 could generally pull off pretty similarly. (if not better in some areas . . . well, at least with good analog circuitry -which many Adlib/SB cards lacked)

Edited May 24, 2011 by kool kitty89

[SpaceDice2010]

Does a 10 year old kid really care about all that?

 

Well that'll do it... Ninja Turtles will getcha everytime. lol

Yeah, except that first game (which was developed in parallel with -or slightly earlier than- the arcade game) wasn't especially good . . . but it was still Turtles. But then it also wasn't an NES exclusive either, at least not in Europe. (they even got a Spectrum port, actually one of the best looking games on the Speccy -it actually looks more like an EGA PC game . . . though that's also the sort of look CGA PC games could have had if RAM defied character modes had been present -8x8 cells with 2 indexed colors, though you could have 80x25 as well, for significantly smoother horizontal movement, and even 40x25 is slightly higher res than the speccy or MSX)

Actually, the speccy version even has dynamic animation for pseudo BG layers.

Oddly no music, though I'd thought it was a 128k specific game. (the Amstrad version also lacks music outside of the title iirc, but the C64 has music -and SFX, so not one of those "music or SFX" only cases)

 

Of course, there's also the Amiga and ST versions. (plus the arcade ports as well as that original console game)

 

Edit:

There actually was an EGA PC version too:

(with -somewhat mediocre- adlib support rather like castlevania . . . mediocre in the sense that it's not really a good remix of the NES tunes, the ST, Amiga, and C64 versions were better in that respect -it's not the worst example of Adlib use though, unfortunately)

 

I was going to say the instrumentation sounds a bit like Zero Wing (but just much less fitting for the arrangement), but that's really better instrumentation too:

(exact same sound chip, of course -the good ol' OPL2 err YM3812 )

 

 

 

 

Edit: actually, a bit ironic that the Amiga used sampled FM synth that the OPL2 could generally pull off pretty similarly. (if not better in some areas . . . well, at least with good analog circuitry -which many Adlib/SB cards lacked)

[SpaceDice2010]

I was about 10 years old when the atari 7800 was released. I remember the day I saw it first, like it was yesterday.

I was at a friends house (Robert) and he was playing the built in game "Asteroids", I thought WOW, I really want this.

 

......Until later, another friend was inviting people over to his house to play NES, he had the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" game.

 

As a 10 year old, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles wins every time!.

 

 

My logic is undeniable!.

 

What made me buy the NES were two things -

 

1. They had a baseball game.

2. Super Mario Bros.

[high voltage]

I still don't understand why the USAers gobbled up the NES like they did. I was sitting in the UK at the time, reading CGW, which actually introduced a console double spread in their magazine for a couple of months, but saying that Nintendo games looked and played far inferior when compared to Apple ][, A8, C64, PC/Amiga gaming. Of course, on those machines you had SSI, Microprose, Origin, EA, Omnitrend titles, with games which didn't appear on NES at the time.

 

Must have been the baseball, but even that was done far better on computers, eg from SSI.

Edited June 11, 2011 by high voltage

[Austin]

I still don't understand why the USAers gobbled up the NES like they did.

 

1. Fun games.

 

2. Super Mario Bros.

 

3. Computers weren't as prevalent in the average household as they were in the UK.

 

4. The platformer craze of the late '80s.

 

5. Fun games.

 

Personally in regards to #3, I didn't even know what a C64, Amiga, or ST was until I started collecting in the mid '90s, nor did I know anyone else that did either. I could just be generalizing, but back then it seemed everyone knew what a NES was. Not so much for home computers though..

[toptenmaterial]

Haven't read the thread in it's entirety, my apologies if this post is redundant.

 

The 7800 was not a commercial failure. It sold close to four million units and brought Atari Corp out of the red. It could have maintained a minority market share next to the NES had it have been promoted aggressively by Atari. The 2600 should have been dropped. Ok, sell off the old '84 stock, that makes sence. But after that was used up, perhaps discontinuing the 2600 would have helped. Giving primary attention to the 2600 (and the XEGS) was confusing and didn't make much sence.

 

Hindsight 20/20, I know.

Edited June 12, 2011 by toptenmaterial

[Inky]

Whistles. IT WAS ABOUT THE WHISTLES!

[kool kitty89]

Does a 10 year old kid really care about all that?

 

A 10 year old with a PC would care that there was a TMNT game available for their (family's) computer. . . . and care about the graphics/playability/sound, not so much the technical details . . . for MOST 10 year olds at least.

 

I wonder is there's a Tandy-1000 version. (most major PC games in the mid/late 80s got Tandy support, especially anything with EGA support -some games just catered to CGA+PC speaker as the lowest common denominator, I think few if any games had EGA support without tandy support, not until VGA support without EGA/CGA did that change)

 

 

 

 

Haven't read the thread in it's entirety, my apologies if this post is redundant.

 

The 7800 was not a commercial failure. It sold close to four million units and brought Atari Corp out of the red. It could have maintained a minority market share next to the NES had it have been promoted aggressively by Atari. The 2600 should have been dropped. Ok, sell off the old '84 stock, that makes sence. But after that was used up, perhaps discontinuing the 2600 would have helped. Giving primary attention to the 2600 (and the XEGS) was confusing and didn't make much sence.

 

Hindsight 20/20, I know.

Lots of factors for why the 7800 wasn't MORE successful (many discussed to death earlier), but it definitely was a business success for Atari Corp, and they could have done FAR worse . . . Sega did (in the US) in spite of much better software and funding. (and other things like what would Morgan+Atari Inc have done, or Tramiel and Co with a reasonable transition rather than the horrible mess Warner induced in 1984)

 

Aside from funding and market position issues (or factors of the 7800 design/release itself), there was the major software licensing lock-out by Nintendo, and Mike Matz took the very proactive route of computer licenses . . . but I wonder if he ever tried to push for Japanese and/or European computer licenses (especially since both had a wealth of good titles to pull from, many not locked up by Nintendo -and none in Europe, and some that were licensed by Nintendo and only released in Japan, so maybe more loop holes).

Edited June 13, 2011 by kool kitty89

[kool kitty89]

Whistles. IT WAS ABOUT THE WHISTLES!

Why does everyone forget about the BELLS, I'm sure those have got to be notable too. (Super Mario Land, anyone? . . . there's got to be some other unnecessaryily literal examples of bells and whistles too )

 

 

 

 

 

 

Haven't read the thread in it's entirety, my apologies if this post is redundant.

I meant to mention this earlier, but forgot to edit it yesterday, anyway:

Some other mixed (off)topics included XEGS/A8 in place of the 7800 entirely, 5200/derivative revived in place of the 7800, and possibility of a passthrough/lock-on cart add-on merging the 32kRAM+POKEY (both implemented on 1987/88 carts) as a one-time accessory. Though all of those merit separate topics if anyone's really interested. (and they've come up more than once, so I should probably dig up the old posts to reduce rehashing -I don't think the expansion module issue was discussed much aside from the general suggestion and opposition related to difficulty of marketing an add-on -and mention of it possibly displacing the "need" of the XEGS by being part of a 7800 computer expansion -POKEY could offer SIO and keyboard port a la XEGS -not to mention analog paddle inputs)

[philipj]

I still don't understand why the USAers gobbled up the NES like they did.

 

1. Fun games.

 

2. Super Mario Bros.

 

3. Computers weren't as prevalent in the average household as they were in the UK.

 

4. The platformer craze of the late '80s.

 

5. Fun games.

 

Personally in regards to #3, I didn't even know what a C64, Amiga, or ST was until I started collecting in the mid '90s, nor did I know anyone else that did either. I could just be generalizing, but back then it seemed everyone knew what a NES was. Not so much for home computers though..

 

I agree with number 3... I wish to God I'd had some kind of computer back in those days even if it was an 8bit. Computer just wasn't that popular where I came from. My friends had an NES so I got me an NES... I played the hell out of it.

[philipj]

Well that'll do it... Ninja Turtles will getcha everytime. lol

There actually was an EGA PC version too:

(with -somewhat mediocre- adlib support rather like castlevania . . . mediocre in the sense that it's not really a good remix of the NES tunes, the ST, Amiga, and C64 versions were better in that respect -it's not the worst example of Adlib use though, unfortunately)

 

I get a kick out hearing TMNT 1 music from something other than an NES... Didn't really consider other version of TMNT on other system considering I was an NES junky back in the day. I've been dabbling with TFmaker the past couple of weeks now so I becoming a big OPL fan these days.

Edited June 13, 2011 by philipj

[Rex Dart]

I still don't understand why the USAers gobbled up the NES like they did.

 

1. Fun games.

2. Super Mario Bros.

3. Computers weren't as prevalent in the average household as they were in the UK.

4. The platformer craze of the late '80s.

5. Fun games.

 

Personally in regards to #3, I didn't even know what a C64, Amiga, or ST was until I started collecting in the mid '90s, nor did I know anyone else that did either. I could just be generalizing, but back then it seemed everyone knew what a NES was. Not so much for home computers though..

 

Pretty much what he said. I don't know what the marketing/advertising situation was with home computers in the mid 80's, I just know that I saw Nintendo everywhere. Nintendo marketed the hell out of their system and I don't recall, like Austin here, ever seeing or hearing of a Commodore, Amiga, or Atari computer until the 90's. The funny thing is, it was my cousins' Atari XE that got me wanting a game system. Didn't know it was a computer until the past couple of years when I saw one again in a museum.

 

Oh, and I spent 1985-1990 in gradeschool with 6-color Apple II computers. Boy were those crap. What kid would want a computer if that's all they knew of them?

[high voltage]

I still don't understand why the USAers gobbled up the NES like they did.

 

1. Fun games.

2. Super Mario Bros.

3. Computers weren't as prevalent in the average household as they were in the UK.

4. The platformer craze of the late '80s.

5. Fun games.

 

Personally in regards to #3, I didn't even know what a C64, Amiga, or ST was until I started collecting in the mid '90s, nor did I know anyone else that did either. I could just be generalizing, but back then it seemed everyone knew what a NES was. Not so much for home computers though..

 

Pretty much what he said. I don't know what the marketing/advertising situation was with home computers in the mid 80's, I just know that I saw Nintendo everywhere. Nintendo marketed the hell out of their system and I don't recall, like Austin here, ever seeing or hearing of a Commodore, Amiga, or Atari computer until the 90's. The funny thing is, it was my cousins' Atari XE that got me wanting a game system. Didn't know it was a computer until the past couple of years when I saw one again in a museum.

 

Oh, and I spent 1985-1990 in gradeschool with 6-color Apple II computers. Boy were those crap. What kid would want a computer if that's all they knew of them?

 

Figures