Regarding Busnell and Dabney

[Retro Rogue]

For those that were questioning mine and Curt's statements and research regarding the early period of Atari (and all but calling us liars and Nolan haters), vindication has arrived in the form of a wonderful podcast interview with Ted (one of our main sources for a lot of that period):

 

http://www.retrogamingroundup.com/shownotes/2010/roundup024_2010.10.htm

 

Thumbs up to the guys of retrogamingroundup, and to Ted for being so candid.

 

We look forward to expanding for you even more of what Ted has shared, and that time period in general, in our first book in the two volume set.

 

Until that time, enjoy retrogamingroundup's podcast - we sure are!

Edited October 7, 2010 by wgungfu

[mbd30]

The October podcast is out already! Wow. I wouldn't have even thought of checking for a new roundup until later this month. Thanks.

[Retro Rogue]

The October podcast is out already! Wow. I wouldn't have even thought of checking for a new roundup until later this month. Thanks.

 

 

Yah, AFAIK they released it early because of this sizeable interview.

[the-topdog]

Wondertwin powers activate!

 

form of a wonderful podcast

 

Shape of an ice gorilla!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry... couldn't resist

Edited October 7, 2010 by the-topdog

[desiv]

Regarding Busnell and Dabney

and all but calling us liars and Nolan haters...

 

So there's no latent, maybe subconscious, hostility from you over Mr. Busnell then?

 

desiv

[Cebus Capucinis]

We look forward to expanding for you even more of what Ted has shared, and that time period in general, in our first book in the two volume set.

 

One question:

 

 

WHEN?

 

These book monies are burning a hole in my pocket!

[+jeremiahjt]

For those that were questioning mine and Curt's statements and research regarding the early period of Atari (and all but calling us liars and Nolan haters), vindication has arrived in the form of a wonderful podcast interview with Ted (one of our main sources for a lot of that period):

 

http://www.retrogamingroundup.com/shownotes/2010/roundup024_2010.10.htm

 

Thumbs up to the guys of retrogamingroundup, and to Ted for being so candid.

 

We look forward to expanding for you even more of what Ted has shared, and that time period in general, in our first book in the two volume set.

 

Until that time, enjoy retrogamingroundup's podcast - we sure are!

 

 

Why is it that if Nolan and Ted have two contradictory statements we should all believe Ted and not Nolan?

 

Also as one of the people I think you are talking about here "all but calling us liars and Nolan haters" I would like to point out I never did either of these things. In fact I don't recall having any problem with anything Curt said at all and my big complaint with you was that I felt you had a lot of bias against Nolan. I think this thread and your first post kind of show a little bit of it.

[jaybird3rd]

Why is it that if Nolan and Ted have two contradictory statements we should all believe Ted and not Nolan?

Well, unfortunately, Bushnell's "selective memory" is already a known issue, so that affects his credibility right off the bat. Bushnell's accounts also seem to be intended to bolster his PR, whereas Dabney doesn't have any such motivation. Plus, the subsequent research that Curt and Marty have done has apparently corroborated Dabney's statements and not Bushnell's.

 

Also as one of the people I think you are talking about here "all but calling us liars and Nolan haters" I would like to point out I never did either of these things. In fact I don't recall having any problem with anything Curt said at all and my big complaint with you was that I felt you had a lot of bias against Nolan. I think this thread and your first post kind of show a little bit of it.

I don't interpret it as a personal issue with Bushnell at all. People sometimes allow "hero worship" to affect their ability to view the past objectively. I certainly can't speak for them, but my impression is that Curt and Marty are simply trying to counteract that by insisting on getting (and giving) the full story.

[+jeremiahjt]

Why is it that if Nolan and Ted have two contradictory statements we should all believe Ted and not Nolan?

Well, unfortunately, Bushnell's "selective memory" is already a known issue, so that affects his credibility right off the bat. Bushnell's accounts also seem to be intended to bolster his PR, whereas Dabney doesn't have any such motivation. Plus, the subsequent research that Curt and Marty have done has apparently corroborated Dabney's statements and not Bushnell's.

 

 

You're probably right, I just thought it was kind of funny that Ted=truth and Nolan=lie.

 

Also as one of the people I think you are talking about here "all but calling us liars and Nolan haters" I would like to point out I never did either of these things. In fact I don't recall having any problem with anything Curt said at all and my big complaint with you was that I felt you had a lot of bias against Nolan. I think this thread and your first post kind of show a little bit of it.

I don't interpret it as a personal issue with Bushnell at all. People sometimes allow "hero worship" to affect their ability to view the past objectively. I certainly can't speak for them, but my impression is that Curt and Marty are simply trying to counteract that by insisting on getting (and giving) the full story.

 

 

I never really thought I had any kind of hero worship for Nolan, but maybe I am guilty of it and just don't realize it. It still doesn't change the way I view Marty when he is talking/writing about Nolan, I get a real strong feeling that he just doesn't like the guy and he isn't trying to hide it.

[carmel_andrews]

Whatever happened to the old saying 'water under the bridge', or do people really hold grudges many years after such events took place

 

 

Perhaps now, retrogaming radio should strike a balance between the two stories about atari's early years and get both bushnell and dabney in the same interview so that ataridom can have a much better picture of the real history of atari's early years instead of hearsay and conjecture (since there must be at least some 'common ground' between bushnell and dabney's 'perspective' on those events), or would WW3 ensue (and we all know what that means, namely global thermonuclear war)

 

 

Just OOI, whats the difference between the first file and the two subsequent files in the OP's link (or is the 2 subsequent files, splitted versions of the first file)

Edited October 10, 2010 by carmel_andrews

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

Whatever happened to the old saying 'water under the bridge', or do people really hold grudges many years after such events took place

 

 

Perhaps now, retrogaming radio should strike a balance between the two stories about atari's early years and get both bushnell and dabney in the same interview so that ataridom can have a much better picture of the real history of atari's early years instead of hearsay and conjecture (since there must be at least some 'common ground' between bushnell and dabney's 'perspective' on those events), or would WW3 ensue (and we all know what that means, namely global thermonuclear war)

 

 

Just OOI, whats the difference between the first file and the two subsequent files in the OP's link (or is the 2 subsequent files, splitted versions of the first file)

 

You mean Retro Gaming Roundup, Retro Gaming Radio is another podcast that has not existed for sometime.

[jaybird3rd]

Whatever happened to the old saying 'water under the bridge', or do people really hold grudges many years after such events took place

 

Perhaps now, retrogaming radio should strike a balance between the two stories about atari's early years and get both bushnell and dabney in the same interview so that ataridom can have a much better picture of the real history of atari's early years instead of hearsay and conjecture (since there must be at least some 'common ground' between bushnell and dabney's 'perspective' on those events), or would WW3 ensue (and we all know what that means, namely global thermonuclear war)

But it isn't "hearsay and conjecture": Curt and Marty are researching and cross-checking multiple sources. It isn't "holding grudges" years after the fact, either; Bushnell has repeated these stories several times, and it has affected the way that many others have interpreted and written about the events of that era.

 

Just to give you one example, Bushnell repeated the "blocking strategy" story on Back In Time (Mike Stulir's old webcast) in the April 2000 episode. Here is a rough transcript:

 

... I think you need to be strategic. For example, I knew that there would be a lot of people who wanted to copy the success of the video game business, particularly the Video Computer System (the VCS). What I determined was that there were really only four major fabrication houses that had the inchannel capacity to be able to create competitive chips. So, what I did was I went around to each one of those houses and set up a relationship with them in which we would pay for the development of the next-generation Atari chip in return for an exclusive, and I had all these exclusives, essentially freezing out anybody else who wanted to have a VCS chip. So, I had the market totally to myself for, probably, five years. After I sold Atari to Warner, the guy who came in after me looked at all these contracts, thought that I was a stupid idiot, and said "hey, we only need one of them" and canceled the contracts on the rest of them, and in that brilliant stroke, created the chip that went to Texas Instruments, the chip that went to the Bally game player, the chip that went to ColecoVision ... he could very easily have kept those contracts alive on various products and kept the market to themselves for at least another three or four years.

Without a strong rebuttal supported by counter-evidence, we're in danger of all of this becoming "documented historical fact."

[carmel_andrews]

Jaybird, i wasn't referring to curt and marty, i am referring to the constant ding dong between Mssrs Bushnell and Dabney

Edited October 10, 2010 by carmel_andrews

[jaybird3rd]

Jaybird, i wasn't referring to curt and marty, i am referring to the constant ding dong between Mssrs Bushnell and Dabney

Well, it hasn't exactly been "constant": Dabney has kept his silence for years, while Bushnell has omitted Dabney's contributions in all of his "recollections" of the early Atari years.

 

Besides, if somebody I worked with years ago had the gall to show up on a discussion forum and claim--either personally or through an anonymous intermediary--that my grown daughter never existed, I think I'd be pretty upset, too.

[carmel_andrews]

Jaybird, i wasn't referring to curt and marty, i am referring to the constant ding dong between Mssrs Bushnell and Dabney

Well, it hasn't exactly been "constant": Dabney has kept his silence for years, while Bushnell has omitted his contributions in all of his "recollections" of the early Atari years.

 

Besides, if somebody I worked with years ago had the gall to show up on a discussion forum and claim (either personally or through an anonymous intermediary) that my grown daughter never existed, I think I'd be pretty upset, too.

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps caused by the same immaculate conception that bought the late JC into the world (j/k)

 

Or perhaps she was created 'species' like (if you remember the film)...j/k

Edited October 10, 2010 by carmel_andrews

[jaybird3rd]

Besides, if somebody I worked with years ago had the gall to show up on a discussion forum and claim (either personally or through an anonymous intermediary) that my grown daughter never existed, I think I'd be pretty upset, too.

Perhaps caused by the same immaculate conception that bought the late JC into the world (j/k)

 

Or perhaps she was created 'species' like (if you remember the film)...j/k

In case you don't remember, I was the one who pressed "Nolan" into giving out that little tidbit of information, and it's still my favorite example of his blatant historical revisionism. Given that, I think the work that Curt and Marty are doing is essential to setting the record straight. Bushnell has been the only source (or has at least been regarded as the most "authoritative" source) of information on the events of those years for too long.

[carmel_andrews]

Fair Do's jaybird, not arguing here, but just to remind you, history as we all know it lies only in the hands of the victors not the vanquished and the forgotten (after all, remember larry bryan, if you want to go back that far)

 

I guess that Larry Bryan was the 'Hanne' of the threesome (and the only one of the original 3 names that were submitted for consideration as a company name that hasn't been used yet by any of the 3 some)

 

to make a case in point lets take things like the vietnam war or world war II, the likes of me and you only know one side of the story.... if we both lived through those times and experienced the actual scenarios being played out, we would have witnessed, seen and experienced a totally different (or somewhat different) version of (that) history then the one that we are dolled out with day in day out

 

I guess the point i am making here is, the story of history is like any story, namely there's always 2 sides to any/that story, and you are going to have supporters for each version(s) of the story, therefore what we need to do is treat the story of history at face value and with a pinch of salt (i.e not to be taken literally or as gospel)

Edited October 10, 2010 by carmel_andrews

[Retro Rogue]

Fair Do's jaybird, not arguing here, but just to remind you, history as we all know it lies only in the hands of the victors not the vanquished and the forgotten (after all, remember larry bryan, if you want to go back that far)

 

I guess that Larry Bryan was the 'Hanne' of the threesome (and the only one of the original 3 names that were submitted for consideration as a company name that hasn't been used yet by any of the 3 some)

 

What are you talking about? Larry wasn't around when they filed for the name, nor was he part of Atari. Larry was a programmer around for a weeks in 1969 when they were all at Ampex and considered using an actual PDP8 to run a game (which eventually was done via Galaxy Game). When they decided not to and go the non-software (discrete logic) route instead because of the obvious expense of using a PDP, Larry was dropped. They simply didn't need a programer anymore. His contributions? Hosting the first meeting (and only meeting he attended) and coming up with Syzygy becaues he liked the way it looked when he saw it in a dictionary. He hadn't even paid in to the partnership (each was to put in $100).

 

Unless you're going by yet another one of Kent's many errors in UHoVG? Where he completely skewers the timeline of events and has the partnership and naming of Syzygy after Computer Space?

Edited October 10, 2010 by wgungfu

[carmel_andrews]

Fair Do's jaybird, not arguing here, but just to remind you, history as we all know it lies only in the hands of the victors not the vanquished and the forgotten (after all, remember larry bryan, if you want to go back that far)

 

I guess that Larry Bryan was the 'Hanne' of the threesome (and the only one of the original 3 names that were submitted for consideration as a company name that hasn't been used yet by any of the 3 some)

 

What are you talking about? Larry wasn't around when they filed for the name, nor was he part of Atari. Larry was a programmer around for a weeks in 1969 when they were all at Ampex and considered using an actual PDP8 to run a game (which eventually was done via Galaxy Game). When they decided not to and go the non-software (discrete logic) route instead because of the obvious expense of using a PDP, Larry was dropped. They simply didn't need a programer anymore. His contributions? Hosting the first meeting (and only meeting he attended) and coming up with Syzygy becaues he liked the way it looked when he saw it in a dictionary. He hadn't even paid in to the partnership (each was to put in $100).

 

Unless you're going by yet another one of Kent's many errors in UHoVG? Where he completely skewers the timeline of events and has the partnership and naming of Syzygy after Computer Space?

 

 

 

 

 

I was referring to the whole Sente, Hanne, Atari thing, since syzygy was already out of the question as that name was being used by someone else

[Retro Rogue]

I was referring to the whole Sente, Hanne, Atari thing, since syzygy was already out of the question as that name was being used by someone else

 

Which had absolutely nothing to do with Larry. Likewise you attempted to try and liken Larry to Ted to make a point, and their involvement and contributions couldn't be further apart than the grand canyon. Likewise, the details surrounding the Syzygy name being used by someone else already is a bit suspect during fact checking: They (Nolan and Ted) were called (since their partnership at Ampex was formed) Syzygy Engineering at the time. According to the California business records, there was no other Syzygy Engineering registered. There was Syzygy Resteraunts Inc., Syzygy Resource Systems, and Syzygy Productions, but no Syzygy Engineering.

Edited October 10, 2010 by wgungfu

[jaybird3rd]

Which had absolutely nothing to do with Larry. Likewise, the detail surrounding the Syzygy name being used by someone else already is a bit suspect during fact checking: They (Noland and Ted) were called (since their partnership at Ampex was formed) Syzygy Engineering at the time. According to the California business records, there was no other Syzygy Engineering registered. There was Syzygy Resteraunts Inc., Syzygy Resource Systems, and Syzygy Productions, but no Syzygy Engineering.

I'm sure you already know this, but Nolan has claimed (in the video interview that was linked in the "blocking strategy" thread) that the name was already taken by "a candle maker in Mendocino." I'm sure there have been other accounts as well.

[Retro Rogue]

Which had absolutely nothing to do with Larry. Likewise, the detail surrounding the Syzygy name being used by someone else already is a bit suspect during fact checking: They (Noland and Ted) were called (since their partnership at Ampex was formed) Syzygy Engineering at the time. According to the California business records, there was no other Syzygy Engineering registered. There was Syzygy Resteraunts Inc., Syzygy Resource Systems, and Syzygy Productions, but no Syzygy Engineering.

I'm sure you already know this, but Nolan has claimed (in the video interview that was linked in the "blocking strategy" thread) that the name was already taken by "a candle maker in Mendocino." I'm sure there have been other accounts as well.

 

Well, the candle maker doesn't exist in the online records (and they go back through the 60's). Likwise, I don't know why a candle maker would call itself "Syzygy Engineering". And I also fail to see how a candle maker would be the deciding factor instead over something like a resteraunt chain or any of the other more prominent businesses above.

Edited October 10, 2010 by wgungfu

[carmel_andrews]

Fair do's then, a couple of other things then

 

How many versions of computer space were being worked on, I know i should'nt be referring to the book 'zap', since according to some people it contains SOME errors or discrepancies, but anyway

 

It refers to Bushnell as developing a version of computer space that uses a 'minicomputer' to control/run the game, much in the same way that many online games today work, i.e you have one master game running on a master server and lots of computers interfaced with that master server running the same game , it then said that bushnell ditched that idea/version and thought 'why not just make a computer/machine that just runs computer space' (in the same way the first gen. of arcade games run)

 

Perhaps Bushnell was doing one version of computer space and Dabney another, Bushnell probably saw that his version was too complex and probably too costly or expensive to make and that Dabney's one 'why not just make a computer/machine that just runs computer space' was a better way to go....Or was Bushnell working on something completely different

 

The other apsect of this is Nutting Associates association with Computer space and Bushnell, did Bushnell sell Nutting associates only the rights to manufacter/market and distribute the game computer space or did Bushnell give the baby away with the bath water and sell Nutting the rights to the gam as well, the reason for asking this is because, various texts and books mention that Atari's first product lines included an Atari version of computer space (along with pong etc), the question is, what was the original situation between Bushnell and Nutting Associates over computer space and how did Atari come to do a version of the same game, after all, why would Nutting Associates sell back the rights to a game to what was essentially a competitor...Or was Atari's version illegal (i.e a re run/repeat of the whole pong/tele-tennis scenario)

Edited October 10, 2010 by carmel_andrews

[carmel_andrews]

lastly, The whole Atari/Bally thing...I am assuming that Bushnell had some working relationship with Bally prior to pong being a twinkle in his mothers eye, since according to the aforementioned book, Bushnell got a recently employed engineer (Alcorn) initially to work on some game (a driving game) that bally had contracted/commisioned bushnell to design and develop

 

However, Alcorn didn't have the experience in designing coin op games so instead of getting Alcorn to develop and design the game for bally, he got Alcorn to design and develop what eventually became PONG, now the question is, when Bushnell pitched Bally on the game PONG, why did Bally turn down PONG when they'd already contracted/commissioned Bushnell to design and develop their driving game, after all why would bally think that a driving game would be any more successful then a bat/ball type game like pong and considering that the reason why Bally turned down pong is because they saw no future in arcade videogames (seeming as though bally's driving game that bushnell was being tasked to do was also to have been an arcade videogame much in the same way as pong was/is)

Edited October 10, 2010 by carmel_andrews

[Retro Rogue]

Fair do's then, a couple of other things then

 

How many versions of computer space were being worked on, I know i should'nt be referring to the book 'zap', since according to some people it contains SOME errors or discrepancies, but anyway

 

There was the breadboard version that Ted did and the production version that Nolan did based off that.

 

It refers to Bushnell as developing a version of computer space that uses a 'minicomputer' to control/run the game, much in the same way that many online games today work, i.e you have one master game running on a master server and lots of computers interfaced with that master server running the same game , it then said that bushnell ditched that idea/version and thought 'why not just make a computer/machine that just runs computer space' (in the same way the first gen. of arcade games run)

 

Never even attempted. It was briefly considered in the beginning, which is why Larry was brought on board, and then quickly dropped because of the costs involved.

 

Perhaps Bushnell was doing one version of computer space and Dabney another, Bushnell probably saw that his version was too complex and probably too costly or expensive to make and that Dabney's one 'why not just make a computer/machine that just runs computer space' was a better way to go....Or was Bushnell working on something completely different

 

Nope.

 

The other apsect of this is Nutting Associates association with Computer space and Bushnell, did Bushnell sell Nutting associates only the rights to manufacter/market and distribute the game computer space or did Bushnell give the baby away with the bath water and sell Nutting the rights to the gam as well,

 

The game was sold to them, and Nolan came on board as "Lead engineer" to help them "finish" it with Ted coming as well not long after.

 

the reason for asking this is because, various texts and books mention that Atari's first product lines included an Atari version of computer space (along with pong etc), the question is, what was the original situation between Bushnell and Nutting Associates over computer space and how did Atari come to do a version of the same game, after all, why would Nutting Associates sell back the rights to a game to what was essentially a competitor...Or was Atari's version illegal (i.e a re run/repeat of the whole pong/tele-tennis scenario)

 

Most likely the authors were confusing Space Race, which has nothing to do with Computer Space. Computer Space remained with Nutting, and in fact Steve Bristow took over as lead engineer there and did the 2 player version of Computer Space for them after Nolan and Ted left.