Atari 7800 Hardware - Another Reason for Failure?

[atarian1]

Much later on, the 7800 project was resurrected when it became apparent that it could be a profitable endeavor at a time when Atari was falling behind in the computer space.

Uh no. Atari was flying high in 1986-7 in computerdom. The Atari ST was selling like hotcakes in Europe and overseas and doing OK here. Lots of software support with new software coming out every week. Computers were winning awards and new more powerful machines were coming out. Atari had their IPO and stock was rising high. That doesn't sound like falling behind in computer space to me. Maybe you need to review your history....

[high voltage]

Yep, not forgetting STs were (are) used by musicians all over the world.

Atari even had a famous musician working for them.

Edited October 16, 2012 by high voltage

[jlanier]

Uh no. Atari was flying high in 1986-7 in computerdom. The Atari ST was selling like hotcakes in Europe and overseas and doing OK here. Lots of software support with new software coming out every week. Computers were winning awards and new more powerful machines were coming out. Atari had their IPO and stock was rising high. That doesn't sound like falling behind in computer space to me. Maybe you need to review your history....

 

I remember it differently. I will certainly give Tramiel credit for taking a company losing millions per month at the time and stopping the losses, but when you look at what he did to make that happen, and the changes it had on the staff and the company - this was a colossal change. The Tramiel Atari (Atari Corp.) was in my opinion a reboot. The first thing they did was lay off more than 1000 workers and halt production on everything for an evaluation period. The main focus of the new Atari was to be computers (Tramiel was quoted saying this himself, this should not be in contention). Now you will see lots of people arguing in favor of Tramiel saying he never meant to kill consoles, you will also see arguments saying he wanted to kill consoles. If you want to get beyond subjective you'd have to ask the man himself, but he's dead now, so all we have to go on are his words and his actions. It helps if you read up on the history of the man, how and why he was ousted from Commodore, and how he runs businesses. To Jack Tramiel, business was war. He was out to make money, pure and simple; he would certainly sell consoles if it were profitable but he knew the bigger money in the long term was PCs, and that is the space he wanted to focus on. Which, one could argue, he did quite rapidly, given the quick turnaround of the ST design.

 

Anyway, in 1985 Atari was just starting to sell the new systems but they were still losing money, so there was another second round of layoffs. The new Atari did not turn around overnight. He also instituted pay cuts for the people who were not layed off. This happened even as the money was coming in from sales of the new systems, the 2600 Jr, and eventually the 7800. Were employees or stockholders rewarded when money finally started coming in, when, as you say, the ST was taking off in Europe? No, Tramiel took the money and bought Federated Electronics chain, which history regards as a costly mistake. I don't recall the exact losses but I think I remember reports saying that the chain's net worth was misrepresented by many tens of millions of dollars. This was a huge blow to a small company like Atari. One also has to wonder why, if you have to get to the point of buying your own electronics chain to sell your own products, why anyone would think that would be sustainable in the long run. If you can't convince the likes of Target and Wal-Mart to sell your goods, you certainly aren't going to be able to out-compete them in the global retail space just by buying your own stores. Really bad idea, can't imagine what he was thinking when he did this. My guess is "power without the price" dug its own grave; computer stores of the day were not interested in selling discount computers. they left that to Target, etc. Tramiel was used to competing in that retail space with Commodore, but the ST computers were not appropriate for discount sales. They fit into a niche that didn't exist. I guess he thought he could create the market from thin air with Federated.

 

This is all from memory, so sure, I might have repeated information that was wrong from the source,.or misremembered the exact details. What I remember most was that I was an active Atari fanatic at that time, and I was eagerly awaiting the release of the 7800, and was crushed when the news reports indicated that it had been shelved. You can find interviews with Leonard Tramiel where he claims that GCC blew almost a year haggling over contracts. You can find comments from ex-GCC employees that will tell you that the Tramiels were haggling with Warner over who was stuck with the bill. Either way you look at it, the hardware was delayed and it was a costly delay. If Tramiel had believed in the 7800 as much as the ST, I'm certain he could have torn through any issues in shorter than 9 months. That's just a ludicrous amount of bureaucracy to expect me to believe in. And that was just for the hardware - not the software.

 

I also remember reading the Atari news frequently during that period. More layoffs, more cuts, more product delays... There was a point where I actually expected the company to fall apart. The ST undoubtedly saved the day - eventually, and to a point - but Atari Corp. never reached the scale nor greatness of Atari Inc. IMHO. It was a much smaller operation, with much less talent; almost everything was outsourced rather than engineered in-house. Gone were the days of Atari R&D where amazing tech was created in-house.

 

Feel free to disagree with anything I've said here. of course. Obviously I have bias like anyone would and I know my interpretation of events is based on what information I was fed at the time as it happened. I've always been really annoyed that Warner did such a poor job of managing Atari, and that they gave up on them so quickly. IMHO, Tramiel era Atari turned Atari into Commodore at a point where Commodore was turning into Amiga. In essence, a discount computer company making cheap items, the sort you'd see in a mail order catalog. One look at the build quality differences between the XL and XE 8-bit series is enough to underscore my point. The slogan "power without the price" says it all, and then some, because it also meant "power without quality", "power without support", and "power without warranty". Ask any ST owner who had to "fix" their Tramiel-era machines by doing the 6-inch drop, or any 130XE owner how many times their keyboards have failed or stuck. Please don't misunderstand - I am a huge Atari fan - but I will always have bitterness towards the Tramiels because I feel that they took one of my favorite computer companies and forever cheapened it. I have multiple Ataris, and all of my pre-Tramiel gear works as well today as when I bought it (that includes 2600s, 400s, 800s, and 800XLs). I also have a couple 130XEs that are basically doorstops and two Lynxes that don't work. The only functioning Tramiel-era Atari gear I have is my collection of 7800s (which is technically pre-Tramiel, in a way, especially since one is an EP unit) and my Jaguar stuff. Maybe I've just been "lucky" and I'm the only one with Tramiel-era gear failure. Maybe that biases me more against Tramiel than it should.

 

I'm off topic so I should clearly shut myself up now. Sorry if I offended anyone, but hopefully I've at least some people to not take Atari history for granted. Don't listen to me, do your own research if you weren't around back then, or even if you were and you missed the gory details at the time. My opinion is that the 7800 was an awesome piece of hardware made by some very talented people, that was the unfortunate victim of Tramiel-era bureaucracy and lack of vision on the part of Atari Corp. I think these flaws in Atari Corp. were systemic and affected the remaining hardware we saw up to the point where Atari faded away as a footnote within a disk storage company until the Infogramme reboot. I don't think that it is fair to compare the 7800 in terms of software library to any other platform because the 7800 never really got off the ground, it had so few games made in total for it. The crucial point I want to make regardless of whether or not you agree with any points I made about the history, is that there was a period of opportunity in North America and Europe that was key between 1984 and 1985, where NOTHING HAPPENED. American console gamers were desperate for cool new games and there were none. No developers would touch existing platforms after the crash, which was a shame because, for example, the ColecoVision had a lot of life left in it yet. The Nintendo was nowhere to be seen except in Japan. Atari, the king of consoles to that point, was silent after the Tramiel acquisition. No other console vendors stepped forth. One has to wonder what would have happened if some competitor to Nintendo had arrived during that key period from mid 1984 to mid 1985? One year could have made a big difference.

[DracIsBack]

that was the unfortunate victim of Tramiel-era bureaucracy and lack of vision on the part of Atari Corp.

 

Comments like this are human and I've made them them too. But it amounts to armchair CEOing and nothing more. You're making it with

 

1. The benefit of 25 years+ hindsight

2. Without the benefit of being in the middle of it and having Jack Tramiel's "to do" list at the time or dealing with the issues as they were unfolding.

 

Love him or hate him, he turned a company that was losing 2 million dollars a day, in an industry that was perceived dead and that almost everyone had written off ... and turned it to a half billion dollar company again.

 

He'd always have that on his resume. I certainly have nothing like that on mine. Do you on yours?

[carmel_andrews]

Drac is back, so what if nintendo had exclusives on arcade conversions and a small number of other games, there was still nothing to stop someone like atari signing up software companies to develop games for any atari platform

 

Also what you seem to forget, the original nintendo policy on 3rd party games pub./development actaully worked against nintendo in europe, which is why sega reigned supreme in the UK/EU markets

 

Also Atari missed one vital opportunity, whilst i accept that the games pub./development market for computers was pretty much sewn up by commodore and sinclair (with amstrad running 3rd) in europe (though the likes of the ST and amiga did open up that market somewhat), the games development and publishing market for gaming systems was still very much up for grabs by the time nintendo 'revived' the games market, mostly because Atari themselves along with the likes of coleco and mattel/milton bradley made a pigs ear of marketing their games systems in UK/EU and also failing to get 3rd party software support before the so called videogames crash

 

Now considering that nintendo had pretty much sewn up the US market (in as far as games pub./development for gaming systems was concerned, why didn't Atari just switch tracks since the ST was going down a storm in europe (i.e the had all the developers/publishers on their side) and release the 7800 in europe first and inplement similar 3rd party development/publishing policies that nintendo were doing (since Atari could feasibly get away with it since it was an established player in the market and very little chance of developers/publishers getting their fingers burnt) which would have totally blocked nintendo out of the european market, since atari would have had all the ST publishers/developers doing 7800 exclusives as well and not only that, offer these developers/publishers production and distribution deals where Atari would publish and distribute the US version of a 7800 title (which would have given US 7800 owners at least some games) which would have given these publishers/developers access to the US market without the headache of actually setting up there and when the 7800 (like the ST) had sufficient market share in europe then switch tracks and focus on building up the 7800's presence in the US (since the system would have already accumilated sufficent software via US ports of UK/EU 7800 titles) and also helping those very same publishers/developers set up operations in the US with the understanding that they supprt the 7800 exclusively, therefore basically cancelling out nintendo's policy on 3rd party development/publishing

[DracIsBack]

Drac is back, so what if nintendo had exclusives on arcade conversions and a small number of other games, there was still nothing to stop someone like atari signing up software companies to develop games for any atari platform

 

Sure. But if all their main titles are locked into a competitor, not sure how effective that would have been. Then there was also the subtle issue of Nintendo locking shelf space up if competitive hardware or software appeared. Not suggesting the Tramiels couldn't have done more, but again, it's not as simple as you suggest.

 

Also what you seem to forget, the original nintendo policy on 3rd party games pub./development actaully worked against nintendo in europe, which is why sega reigned supreme in the UK/EU markets

 

Actually, I have an SMS with a ton of European games. And almost all of them are from after 1989 when Nintendo's "seal of quality" started to crack due to the DOJ investigation. This would suggest that the policy had little impact there as much as a different market dynamic.

[Trebor]

...release the 7800 in europe first...

 

I could be off with this - but IMHO, this is the late 80's we are talking not about 2012, 2002, not even the 1990's. Forgetting how narrow focused companies can be at times, and if not that, at least how different both the economies and worldview was pre-Internet, there is no way I could imagine a US based company with such a US brand label, especially with the name "Atari" releasing a console first to Europe before America.

 

I understand the logic you are trying to relate for them in perhaps doing so, but I believe this goes back to Drac's earlier comment of "The benefit of 25 years+ hindsight"

 

It was late 80's for the US based game company "Atari".

[+Gemintronic]

At the time I had both the 7800 and the NES. The 7800 joysticks were hand cramp inducing. The graphics and sound were inferior. Third party games were rare.

 

All this could have been solved. The joystick could have been replaced with a joypad. The development tools and techniques could have leveraged the hardware better. Atari could have partnered with third parties better.

 

Coulda woulda shoulda.

Edited October 16, 2012 by theloon

[Jetboot Jack]

so what if nintendo had exclusives on arcade conversions and a small number of other games, there was still nothing to stop someone like atari signing up software companies to develop games for any atari platform

 

Shows just what a tiny amount you know about the reality of commercial development. Nintendo was a huge opportunity for publishers, a stable well managed platform with a large and well managed user base. Developers get work from publishers - so third party work was focused by publishers on attractive markets where there would be a good return on investment - that is what the NES offered. Atari could not attract publishers to their platform, it was a TINY market, with little or no marketing money behind the platform.

 

Also what you seem to forget, the original nintendo policy on 3rd party games pub./development actaully worked against nintendo in europe, which is why sega reigned supreme in the UK/EU markets.

 

Again you are not correct, SEGA hit Europe before Nintendo, they sold to independent games stores unlike Nintendo and their marketing operation in the UK was very savvy - they won Europe, but developers at the time did NES work for US and Japanese publishers - a few UK titles made it on to the SMS that were IP's that the UK market were keen on - a tiny splash in the ocean compared to the NES catalogue.

[desiv]

I've always thought (and I know it's been talked about a lot) that not including a pokey was a big mistake.

Yes, you could put a pokey in the cart.

But most developers, especially early in a system's career, are going to design for the "base" system.

 

But other than that, I think the graphics were more than enough to compete with NES and the same with the power of the system.

 

So, I do think that the hardware was "part" of the reason for it's "failure" (if it actually failed..).

But a small part....

 

I think marketing was a larger issue...

 

desiv

[DracIsBack]

So, I do think that the hardware was "part" of the reason for it's "failure" (if it actually failed..).

But a small part....

 

Me too. But I'd place it behind (in no particular order):

 

- The limited marketing

- The awful positioning

- The competing systems in Atari Corp sapping resources

- The lack of big licenses

- The lack of killer exclusives

- The lack of ongoing investment in game development and cartridge enhancements compared to the competition

[Retro Rogue]

No, your version of history is not correct, sorry. At the point Tramiel took over Atari, the 7800 was the #1 project that was going to turn the company around. There was an outstanding contractual obligation from Warner Atari to GCC for their development costs for software and hardware (read: bill, they were owed money for their services). Tramiel, in typical Tramiel fashion, decided he wasn't going to pay the bill. Read up on the history of Commodore if you want to know more about Jack Tramiel's business philosophy of lying and sticking suppliers with unpaid bills. Anyway, GCC eventually forced Tramiel to pay them something just to "go away". The 7800 was dead on arrival as far as Tramiel was concerned; he bought Atari to exact revenge on Commodore in the computer market, he had no interest in consoles whatsoever.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting your info from, but no, it seems your info is incorrect. According to our talks with people on both sides, and the internal documentation, the GCC contract was with Warner Communications. It did not come as part of the purchase, and Warner would not give it to Jack without him paying for the development of MARIA and the launch titles. Jack fully intended to keep the video games portion going (we have the internal emails), including asking some of the game programmers to stay on via contract, and wanting to keep the cost reduced 2600 project (the Jr.) going as well. There was no decision to exit video games, no decision the 7800 was dead, no decision that he wasn't going to pay the bill. What happened was there were on again and off again negotiations through May on who owed what and how much, with Jack not wanting to pay the full priced that was asked because the new company simply couldn't afford it. Besides the mass amounts of debt he took on from Warner, he also took on debt owed to Atari Inc. which wasn't being paid either, and he was having to sink his own money in to Atari Corp. He was finally able to negotiate for a fair amount by Spring '85 at which point the 7800 was Atari Corp.'s and then negotiations on the launch titles happened.

 

Neither were Atari Inc.'s Consumer assets purchased to "exact revenge on Commodore," that's a myth propagated by some of the press at the time. First off, Warner is the one who contacted Jack to sell off part of Atari Inc. Secondly, Jack came out of retirement specifically because of the Japanese, and the threat he thought they posed to the U.S. computer market. At the time he did not feel any company was up to the task, including Commodore, so he formed TTL. When he agreed to purchase the Consumer Division assets after Warner called him, he did so to get at the manufacturing and distribution network, not out of any short sighted revenge plan. He was also planning on using the consumer video game assets to keep the company afloat during the development of his RBP computer. Which is also why the notion that he wanted to get out of video games was completely silly.

 

I remember it differently.

 

The problem is going purely by memory can be faulty, besides being based on one person's perspective.

 

I will certainly give Tramiel credit for taking a company losing millions per month at the time and stopping the losses, but when you look at what he did to make that happen, and the changes it had on the staff and the company - this was a colossal change. The Tramiel Atari (Atari Corp.) was in my opinion a reboot. The first thing they did was lay off more than 1000 workers and halt production on everything for an evaluation period.

 

And therein lies that perspective problem as stated - yours is incorrect. First of all it was two different companies, Atari Inc. and Atari Corporation. Granted the press sometimes made the same mistake as you, but that doesn't make it accurate. Atari Inc. was Warner's company, they split off the Consumer Division and sold it to Jack. He did not buy Atari or Atari Inc. The Consumer Division assets were folded in to TTL, and TTL itself was then renamed Atari Corporation. Likewise, Atari Inc. continued on as a separate entity for a time, even after Atari Games was spun off. Likewise Jack did not layoff everyone and halt production, that was again how some of the press unfamiliar with the details reported it. In fact, many of the people in Consumer we talked to carried on business as usual well through July, not even knowing there was going to be any sort of transition or what exactly was going on. To set it straight: Jack had bought the assets and IP of Atari Inc.'s Consumer Division, not the people. They were all still employees of Warner and Atari Inc. What Jack did while evaluating the assets was evaluate what people he wanted to *hire* over to Atari Corporation, and those that were not hired were given their final checks by Warner (also directly verified).

 

Now mind you, a lot of the misconceptions that sprung up at the time (and continue to survive) were Warner's fault. There was no real transition plan, just turn the keys for the assets and IP over to Jack and let him go. The entire thing was negotiated quickly over 6 weeks and turned over in a day.

 

The main focus of the new Atari was to be computers (Tramiel was quoted saying this himself, this should not be in contention).

 

No, what he was quoted as saying in August '84 was that he was planning on introducing a lot of the great new efforts in computers that he wanted to pursue under Atari Corporation. With regards to any "focus," what he clearly stated was (according to the Jul 2nd '84 AP article that quotes him) "Both the home-computer and video game marketplaces, in my view, continue to offer great opportunites."

 

 

Now you will see lots of people arguing in favor of Tramiel saying he never meant to kill consoles, you will also see arguments saying he wanted to kill consoles. If you want to get beyond subjective you'd have to ask the man himself, but he's dead now, so all we have to go on are his words and his actions.

 

No, there's internal documentation, emails, the other people directly involved, etc. Though we did get a brief phone conversation with him in January before he died, verifying about the hiring not firing part.

 

You can find interviews with Leonard Tramiel where he claims that GCC blew almost a year haggling over contracts. You can find comments from ex-GCC employees that will tell you that the Tramiels were haggling with Warner over who was stuck with the bill. Either way you look at it, the hardware was delayed and it was a costly delay. If Tramiel had believed in the 7800 as much as the ST, I'm certain he could have torn through any issues in shorter than 9 months. That's just a ludicrous amount of bureaucracy to expect me to believe in. And that was just for the hardware - not the software.

 

See above, we spoke to both, and I've spoken enough with Leonard over the years to consider him a friend actually. Jack was in no position to lay that much extra money on the line, and in fact had to renegotiate his overall purchase deal with Warner that Fall because none of the expected collections he was supposed to generate revenue from were able to come through.

 

I also remember reading the Atari news frequently during that period. More layoffs, more cuts, more product delays... There was a point where I actually expected the company to fall apart. The ST undoubtedly saved the day - eventually, and to a point - but Atari Corp. never reached the scale nor greatness of Atari Inc. IMHO. It was a much smaller operation, with much less talent; almost everything was outsourced rather than engineered in-house. Gone were the days of Atari R&D where amazing tech was created in-house.

[jlanier]

I'm not sure where you're getting your info from, but no, it seems your info is incorrect.

 

Multiple sources over a long period of time, many of whom had obvious bias. As I said, feel free to disagree. I didn't work there at the time and neither did you, apparently, but I've known people who did and I know there are always at least 2 sides to every story, sometimes more.

 

According to our talks with people on both sides, and the internal documentation, the GCC contract was with Warner Communications.

 

That is not in dispute.

 

It did not come as part of the purchase, and Warner would not give it to Jack without him paying for the development of MARIA and the launch titles. Jack fully intended to keep the video games portion going (we have the internal emails), including asking some of the game programmers to stay on via contract, and wanting to keep the cost reduced 2600 project (the Jr.) going as well.

 

This is where it starts to get subjective. By taking on Atari, by your own admission further down in your comment, the debt was taken on as well. IANAL, but part of reorganization would be reconciliation of debt owed. My understanding is that this was not a bankruptcy, therefore the debt could not be written off. It had to be paid, and the question is who owned the bill. Until the bill was paid, nobody had the rights to use any of the GCC technology. My sources indicated that there was a long period of argument over who owned the bill that added a considerable amount of delay. Depending on how you interpret that, it isn't even necessarily in conflict with your version of history.

 

There was no decision to exit video games, no decision the 7800 was dead, no decision that he wasn't going to pay the bill.

 

As I said, if it was profitable, Tramiel would sell it. His plan was to use current sales of video game hardware to kickstart a reboot of the computer division. At least that's what I was told. That doesn't mean he liked the idea of making game consoles, or that he saw Atari's future as a hybrid game/computer company. His future focus was clearly computers, not games. If he really believed in games, the Commodore Ultimax would have been more than a tiny footnote in Commodore's history. As a businessman, he would do what he felt he had to do to make money, but if you learn more about the man personally, you'll find that he was quite opinionated and quite ruthless in his decision making. This is a guy that hired an company to make an entire custom calculator chip at their cost expecting to make royalties on the product only to have Tramiel pull the rug out from under them by not buying a single chip - he only wanted to prove he could second-source a critical component to get a discount from his current vendor. So if he thought he could make money selling 7800s for a few years, of course he would.

 

He was finally able to negotiate for a fair amount by Spring '85 at which point the 7800 was Atari Corp.'s and then negotiations on the launch titles happened.

 

So you are telling me that between Warner Communications, Atari Corp, and GCC, nobody could work that out well before Spring '85, considering that the product was ready for launch in '84? I find that level of incompetence that would be required on the part of all 3 entities for that to be the case to be ludicrous. The fact is that contract was done, it was ready to roll in '84, the only missing piece in '84 was Warner Communications paying the final bill, which they decided to hold off on when they managed to find a buyer for Atari. And yes, Warner was looking for a buyer, but that doesn't mean Jack Tramiel wasn't also looking to buy. If he had not been forcefully ejected from Commodore (the official "he left Commodore" statement severely distorts the truth about that incident), do you seriously think he would have had any interest in Atari whatsoever? You seem to have a lot of information about Jack on the Atari side, but I think you need to look at Jack's Commodore history to get a full sense of the whole picture.

 

Secondly, Jack came out of retirement specifically because of the Japanese, and the threat he thought they posed to the U.S. computer market.

 

That is a really strange comment, considering how much Commodore depended on their Japan division for some of their engineering, design and manufacturing. If he was worried about the Japanese so much why would he be working so closely with them?

 

He was also planning on using the consumer video game assets to keep the company afloat during the development of his RBP computer.

 

This, is truth.

 

Which is also why the notion that he wanted to get out of video games was completely silly.

 

Not at all. Again, for precedent, look at his history with Commodore. See how many product lines were created and then dropped. Commodore certainly wasn't making calculators anymore at that point, were they? Jack was all about profit. With a certain amount of resources you can make a certain amount of product that generates a certain amount of revenue. Jack had no problem sliding engineers around from project to project if he thought he could make a bit more on project than another. If his computers ever got to the point where their ROI significantly exceeded that of the games division, he certainly would drop them like a hot potato. He had no more love for games than he had for calculators; he was a businessman, plain and simple.

 

The problem is going purely by memory can be faulty, besides being based on one person's perspective.

 

Absolutely true. Again, feel free to disagree - I'm actually not trying to argue, though it may seem that way. I'm trying to share my perspective, which has been informed over the years by many people beyond just journalists. I've known people who worked at Atari and I've heard their stories as well as read a lot of history, especially on the Tramiel empire. If you have not read it, I highly recommend reading Commodore: A Company On the Edge (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0973864966/ref=oh_details_o03_s01_i00). It will give you a lot of information from outside the Tramiel inner circle, from people who worked with the man and have some very interesting stories to tell about how he manages a company.

 

And therein lies that perspective problem as stated - yours is incorrect.

 

Facts can certainly be incorrect, but how can perspective be incorrect? Perspective is by definition subjective.

 

First of all it was two different companies, Atari Inc. and Atari Corporation. Granted the press sometimes made the same mistake as you, but that doesn't make it accurate.

 

Huh? I made no mistake there - I cited Atari Corp when talking about Tramiel's era and Atari Inc and/or Warner Communications when talking about the former Atari. Go back and re-read my post if you don't believe me. Atari Inc. was split, and ceased to exist afterwards. The games division was retained and became Atari Games, a wholly owned subsidiary of Warner Communications. The rest was sold to Tramiel and became Atari Corp. My understanding of history is that Atari Inc. did NOT continue on for a time; in fact Tramiel was quite adamant, and had it written in as part of the deal, that the newly-formed Atari Games must always be referred to as Atari Games in whole, and could not enter the home game or computer markets.

 

Likewise Jack did not layoff everyone and halt production, that was again how some of the press unfamiliar with the details reported it. In fact, many of the people in Consumer we talked to carried on business as usual well through July, not even knowing there was going to be any sort of transition or what exactly was going on. To set it straight: Jack had bought the assets and IP of Atari Inc.'s Consumer Division, not the people. They were all still employees of Warner and Atari Inc. What Jack did while evaluating the assets was evaluate what people he wanted to *hire* over to Atari Corporation, and those that were not hired were given their final checks by Warner (also directly verified).

 

This is playing with semantics. At the end of the day, in plain simple terms, thousands were laid off at or near the point Atari Corp. was formed. Saying they were simply "not hired" instead of "laid off" is a bit of an insult to those people. Whether they were "laid off" by Warner or Tramiel is really quite irrelevant to the individual - they are equally unemployed either way you look at it. Jack was perfectly aware that anyone he didn't hire was going to get chopped. Having been personally "not hired" by Atari during Infogramme/Atari's buy-out of Hasbro/Atari, I know exactly what this feels like, and I'm telling you it is exactly the same thing.

 

Now mind you, a lot of the misconceptions that sprung up at the time (and continue to survive) were Warner's fault. There was no real transition plan, just turn the keys for the assets and IP over to Jack and let him go. The entire thing was negotiated quickly over 6 weeks and turned over in a day.

 

Yes, hemorrhaging millions of dollars made Atari a bit of a hot potato - I'm pretty sure Warner would have been happy to get rid of Atari any way possible at that point.

 

No, what he was quoted as saying in August '84 was that he was planning on introducing a lot of the great new efforts in computers that he wanted to pursue under Atari Corporation. With regards to any "focus," what he clearly stated was (according to the Jul 2nd '84 AP article that quotes him) "Both the home-computer and video game marketplaces, in my view, continue to offer great opportunites."

 

Sure, that's what he *said*. What would you say if you were in his position at that point? He's a shrewd businessman; he's not going to trash the main income stream from his new company before he can even get his plan off the ground. Why would he do that!?

 

Regardless of what he said, at that point Tramel Tech Ltd was like 90% done with the ST design but had no brand, manufacturing, marketing, or distribution channels. If there is any doubt at what Tramiel intended to do, and what his focus was, you don't have to look any farther than TTL. Were they making game systems? Nope, they were making computers. Did TTL have plans to make game systems? Nope. Did Jack Tramiel investigate or mention video gaming as any part of his business plan for TTL, or were any of the companies TTL contacted to investigate partnerships with video games companies? Nope.

 

I stand by my opinion, subjective though it may be, and I think history has more than enough circumstantial as well as anecdotal evidence to back me up on this. Like I said before, if you really want to know what Jack thought you'd have to ask him and hope for an honest answer, but he's dead now, so the only way to measure this is by analyzing his actions rather than his words. That's what I've done in the above paragraphs; I invite others to do the same.

 

See above, we spoke to both, and I've spoken enough with Leonard over the years to consider him a friend actually. Jack was in no position to lay that much extra money on the line, and in fact had to renegotiate his overall purchase deal with Warner that Fall because none of the expected collections he was supposed to generate revenue from were able to come through.

 

Leonard is a nicer guy than Jack, but he's still very biased. A lot of his comments have also been proven to be factually incorrect. Here's a quote from Leonard Tramiel on the 7800: "The 7800 was basically a 2600 with some things put into hardware that were done in software on the 2600. It was still quite a limited machine." Hmm. Really, does this sound like a well-informed source for 7800 information?

[Retro Rogue]

Multiple sources over a long period of time, many of whom had obvious bias. As I said, feel free to disagree. I didn't work there at the time and neither did you, apparently, but I've known people who did and I know there are always at least 2 sides to every story, sometimes more.

 

As stated, this is all by direct interviews with the people who did, actual internal documents, emails, logs, etc. A multitude of direct resources. I'm a professional industry historian and writer in the industry, so I take my research and vetting seriously. Likewise, Curt has pretty much all that's left of the Consumer Division.

 

This is where it starts to get subjective. By taking on Atari, by your own admission further down in your comment, the debt was taken on as well. IANAL, but part of reorganization would be reconciliation of debt owed. My understanding is that this was not a bankruptcy, therefore the debt could not be written off. It had to be paid, and the question is who owned the bill. Until the bill was paid, nobody had the rights to use any of the GCC technology. My sources indicated that there was a long period of argument over who owned the bill that added a considerable amount of delay. Depending on how you interpret that, it isn't even necessarily in conflict with your version of history.

 

It's in conflict when you put on the anti-Jack spin you had on it. Serious research demands that you remain neutral vs. trying to promote an agenda. We held some of the same views as you until we actually dug in to the facts and documented happenings. There's a lot of regurgitation about Jack that just isn't accurate. There are others which of course are. This isn't one of them.

 

 

As I said, if it was profitable, Tramiel would sell it. His plan was to use current sales of video game hardware to kickstart a reboot of the computer division. At least that's what I was told. That doesn't mean he liked the idea of making game consoles, or that he saw Atari's future as a hybrid game/computer company. His future focus was clearly computers, not games. If he really believed in games, the Commodore Ultimax would have been more than a tiny footnote in Commodore's history. As a businessman, he would do what he felt he had to do to make money, but if you learn more about the man personally, you'll find that he was quite opinionated and quite ruthless in his decision making. This is a guy that hired an company to make an entire custom calculator chip at their cost expecting to make royalties on the product only to have Tramiel pull the rug out from under them by not buying a single chip - he only wanted to prove he could second-source a critical component to get a discount from his current vendor. So if he thought he could make money selling 7800s for a few years, of course he would.

 

Again, no matter how you want to try and spin it, the fact is he did not intend to get out of video games as yourself and others have claimed. Not according to the internal emails, the documentation, nor the Atari Inc. game programmers we interviewed who were asked to stay on in a contract status.

 

Likewise, he did care about games while at Commodore, according to his assistant Michael Tomczyk - which is why they went off to license games for the ViC20 and C64.

 

Finally, he had nothing to do with the canceling of the Max, that was the board after he was forced out of Commodore. It was set to launch. Again per Tomczyk.

 

 

 

So you are telling me that between Warner Communications, Atari Corp, and GCC, nobody could work that out well before Spring '85, considering that the product was ready for launch in '84? I find that level of incompetence that would be required on the part of all 3 entities for that to be the case to be ludicrous. The fact is that contract was done, it was ready to roll in '84, the only missing piece in '84 was Warner Communications paying the final bill, which they decided to hold off on when they managed to find a buyer for Atari. And yes, Warner was looking for a buyer, but that doesn't mean Jack Tramiel wasn't also looking to buy. If he had not been forcefully ejected from Commodore (the official "he left Commodore" statement severely distorts the truth about that incident), do you seriously think he would have had any interest in Atari whatsoever? You seem to have a lot of information about Jack on the Atari side, but I think you need to look at Jack's Commodore history to get a full sense of the whole picture.

 

Basic business, the contract that was done was null and void. GCC's contract was with Warner, not Atari. It stayed with Warner when the Consumer Division was sold. Warner did that with a number of business dealings, negotiating their own contracts and throwing the work (and often the expense) on Atari, such as with E.T., GCC's work, and the Amiga contract. The later two stayed with Warner after the split, Jack had to renegotiate for them.

 

 

That is a really strange comment, considering how much Commodore depended on their Japan division for some of their engineering, design and manufacturing. If he was worried about the Japanese so much why would he be working so closely with them?

 

I'm sorry, but that's hardly strange to anyone who's familiar with Jack. His fear of the Japanese and need to dominate them is more than well documented, going back to the typewriter and calculator days. Likewise, don't confuse Commodore Japan and Hal with the Japanese competitors.

 

As for why he worked with the Japanese, that's also well documented. He believed in fully embracing your enemy to learn from and be better than them. As he stated when they decided to do the Vic-20, "Gentlemen, the Japanese are coming, so we will become the Japanese." The Vic-20 itself (according to Jack and Michael) was a stopgap gaming computer to keep the Japanese looking in the other direction while they finished their real intended computer, the Commodore 64. As Michael Tomczyk put it, "Throw the Japanese a low-cost, user- friendly computer, and when they stop to examine it you work like crazy to make an even better computer."

 

 

Not at all. Again, for precedent, look at his history with Commodore. See how many product lines were created and then dropped. Commodore certainly wasn't making calculators anymore at that point, were they? Jack was all about profit. With a certain amount of resources you can make a certain amount of product that generates a certain amount of revenue. Jack had no problem sliding engineers around from project to project if he thought he could make a bit more on project than another. If his computers ever got to the point where their ROI significantly exceeded that of the games division, he certainly would drop them like a hot potato. He had no more love for games than he had for calculators; he was a businessman, plain and simple.

 

Again, he did not want to get out of video games once he formed Atari Corporation. That's a myth, and not supported by any of the documentation or facts.

 

 

Absolutely true. Again, feel free to disagree - I'm actually not trying to argue, though it may seem that way. I'm trying to share my perspective, which has been informed over the years by many people beyond just journalists. I've known people who worked at Atari and I've heard their stories as well as read a lot of history, especially on the Tramiel empire. If you have not read it, I highly recommend reading Commodore: A Company On the Edge (http://www.amazon.co...ils_o03_s01_i00). It will give you a lot of information from outside the Tramiel inner circle, from people who worked with the man and have some very interesting stories to tell about how he manages a company.

 

Yes, I helped contribute to the book. My name is in the credits, Marty Goldberg.

 

 

Atari Inc. was split, and ceased to exist afterwards. The games division was retained and became Atari Games, a wholly owned subsidiary of Warner Communications. The rest was sold to Tramiel and became Atari Corp.

 

No on the last part. The Ataritel division was not sold to Tramiel, neither were some of the other smaller divisions that had been more recently started. Those were kept by Warner and then shut down, with their IP and assets sold off. Likewise, Atari Games was wholly owned for about 6-7 months before NAMCO bought majority ownership.

 

Additionally, Atari Inc. did not cease to exist, we have all the legal paperwork. As a company it continued on for a very short time until the splitting of Atari Games and the selling of the other divisions mentioned above, and then It continued as a legal entity for several years after for lawsuits.

 

My understanding of history is that Atari Inc. did NOT continue on for a time; in fact Tramiel was quite adamant, and had it written in as part of the deal, that the newly-formed Atari Games must always be referred to as Atari Games in whole, and could not enter the home game or computer markets.

 

You're confused, that has to do with the Atari brand name and logo, not Atari Inc. the company. Once again, there were three Atari corporate entities for a time after the split. Atari Inc., Atari Games, and Atari Corporation. That stipulation had to do with Atari Games and Atari Corporation, and their sharing of the Atari brand name and logo. Something that was renegotiated not long after and had Atari Games licensing the name and logo from Atari Corporation all the way up through to when Midway changed their names to Midway Games West.

 

This is playing with semantics. At the end of the day, in plain simple terms, thousands were laid off at or near the point Atari Corp. was formed.

 

Not in the least. There's a big difference between stating Jack fired people vs. Jack hired people. Whether or not thousands were laid off is sidestepping the point - you claimed he fired them all, and that is simply wrong. Warner is the one that let those people go.

 

Saying they were simply "not hired" instead of "laid off" is a bit of an insult to those people.

 

Grandstanding will not make your point any more accurate. It's hardly an insult, in fact I had this direct conversation with a good size group of them in April, none were insulted and were actually genuinely interested in hearing the actual details of what happened to them because they were just as confused by the experience.

 

Jack was perfectly aware that anyone he didn't hire was going to get chopped.

 

And that weighed heavily on him at the time. But he simply couldn't hire everyone to the new company. And again, has little to do with the point you claimed.

 

 

Having been personally "not hired" by Atari during Infogramme/Atari's buy-out of Hasbro/Atari

 

Big difference there. Just so you know, I've done work for the current Infogrames/Atari, as well as worked with their legal department on several issues. Curt is also on retainer with the company. So I'm more than familiar with the actual documentation and legalities behind the purchase. Infogrames literally bought Hasbro Interactive (what was left of it). Not a division of it, not some IP and assets, the entire company (which includes the employees). It was then renamed Infogrames Interactive, then Atari Interactive, and eventually operations in Massachusetts were shut down as everything was moved to New York. Though Atari Interactive does still exist as the legal end of Atari SA and the holding company for the Atari IP (and other IP collected by both Hasbro, GT Interactive, and Infogrames).

 

 

I know exactly what this feels like, and I'm telling you it is exactly the same thing.

 

Which, while I'm sorry you went through that, again has little to do with the facts presented. Only a division (IP and assets) were purchased, not an entire company as in Hasbro Interactive/Infogrames. The first does not include the employees, the latter does. Irregardless of what people may have felt was being done to them, that does not make it fact.

 

 

Regardless of what he said, at that point Tramel Tech Ltd was like 90% done with the ST design but had no brand, manufacturing, marketing, or distribution channels. If there is any doubt at what Tramiel intended to do, and what his focus was, you don't have to look any farther than TTL. Were they making game systems? Nope, they were making computers. Did TTL have plans to make game systems? Nope. Did Jack Tramiel investigate or mention video gaming as any part of his business plan for TTL, or were any of the companies TTL contacted to investigate partnerships with video games companies? Nope.

 

Which says absolutely nothing, that's playing context games. He started TTL to manufacture a new computer to fight off the Japanese. That says absolutely nothing with regards to his plans for Atari when he moved to that. One has nothing to do with the other. He did not plan to get Atari out of video games or quit video games, that's fact. You can't lay the impetus for creating a small startup for a specific purpose on his plans for the larger company formed afterwords. That's shoddy inference and research.

 

Like I said before, if you really want to know what Jack thought you'd have to ask him and hope for an honest answer, but he's dead now, so the only way to measure this is by analyzing his actions rather than his words. That's what I've done in the above paragraphs; I invite others to do the same.

 

Nope, actual vetting and research is done through cross-comparison through a multitude of sources, including directly talking to as many involved parties as posible, seeking out documentation, logs, other records, and other factual records. What he said is backed up by the internal documentation. What you said is not. What you said is, as you've stated, based on personal analysis of your understanding of what you remember of what he did. That's not serious research and vetting, and that's an insult to those of us who take the time to do that.

 

 

Leonard is a nicer guy than Jack, but he's still very biased. A lot of his comments have also been proven to be factually incorrect. Here's a quote from Leonard Tramiel on the 7800: "The 7800 was basically a 2600 with some things put into hardware that were done in software on the 2600. It was still quite a limited machine." Hmm. Really, does this sound like a well-informed source for 7800 information?

 

That's completely silly again. His personal off the cuff remark about the 7800 design in no way invalidates his insight in to their business happenings. One has nothing to do with the other. And on the latter, most of his comments have proven to be factually correct, not incorrect. And thanks for quoting my interview with him, I've had far deeper discussions with him on the 7800 to know that he knows the differences in hardware between the 2600 and 7800 and what he was referring to. He was not wrong in his statement, which is clear when you don't present it completely out of context like you are. What he was referring to being done in software vs. hardware was the differences in sprites, which are done in hardware on the 2600 and in software on the 7800/MARIA. MARIA, summed up, was designed to use a display list process similar to Atari's 8-bit computers for it's sprites, which allows it to have an extremely large amount of sprites. The 2600 uses hardware based sprites, of which it has a very limited number of.

 

Nor is Leonard the sole source of info as stated, and it's kind of funny that you gravitated to that one specific person and presented an ill-formed out of context counter to try and present what I've stated as less than reliable. I don't deal in opinions, my job is to get as many facts as possible and go through a rigorous process of vetting and analysis. When enough facts aren't available, then the remaining resources are presented in the proper context of 'this is that person's personal insight' or "these are the events as related by so and so." You don't present personal interpretation or opinion as facts and vice versa. That's how serious research and presentation is done.

 

Now, if you're going to continue on this line of maligned contextual analysis comparing personal memories and self-analysis based on those memories to a much boarder and more serious line of vetting and research, I don't see the point in continuing the discussion. It's just going to be more of this around in circles, and you'd hardly be the first newbie here to come on and do this. There's a long line before you over the years. It's just not worth the time anymore to the rest of us. And I've got more important things to work on, like the Atari books.

[+Gemintronic]

The argument I usually hear from the media is Atari stalled on releasing the 7800. Nintendo even came to them to license the NES as an Atari product. When competition heated up they trotted out the now underpowered 7800.

 

I'm not sure if that reflects reality but I do see that the 7800 seems to be oriented toward single screen/many sprite arcade games whereas the Nintendo excelled at scrolling games. It's the software edge that "failed" the 7800.

[Mayhem]

Finally, he had nothing to do with the canceling of the Max, that was the board after he was forced out of Commodore. It was set to launch. Again per Tomczyk.

When you say "set to launch", I presume you mean in the West here? After all, it was released in Japan with approximately 20 cartridges in total (most of which are in my possession). I presumed it was due to release this side of the world as an uber cheap version of the C64 (given it has no OS for starters) but never happened.

[DracIsBack]

The argument I usually hear from the media is Atari stalled on releasing the 7800. Nintendo even came to them to license the NES as an Atari product. When competition heated up they trotted out the now underpowered 7800.

 

Yeah - it's everywhere. "Atari turned Nintendo down". "Jack said video games were dead". "Jack threw the 7800 off the desk and said video games were dead". "Jack only paid attention when the NES took off and trotted out a 2 year old console to compete with a 'fresh out of the labs NES and its sparkling new tech".

 

The reality is coming clearer thanks to Marty and Curt and other's efforts regarding the Nintendo-Atari contract talks, the GCC-Atari contract talks, the Warner transition etc.

 

 

Looking forward to the BUSINESS IS WAR book. When is that coming?

 

I'm not sure if that reflects reality but I do see that the 7800 seems to be oriented toward single screen/many sprite arcade games whereas the Nintendo excelled at scrolling games. It's the software edge that "failed" the 7800.

 

That's fairly correct, though each can (and does) play the other type of game. Too often in forums, things like "The NES is strong on tiles, weak on sprites; the 7800 is strong on sprites and weak on tiles" get misconstrued as "The 7800 can't scroll!!!!!! The 7800 can't play Super Mario type games!!!!"

 

Which is silly.

Edited October 25, 2012 by DracIsBack

[+Gemintronic]

I hear alot of workaround sounding posts on NESDEV. Things like sprite 0 hits and reading the controller multiple times because something else you're doing doesn't allow for accurate readings. Not so much for 7800. That could also be that it's a smaller, less vocal group of programmers. Still.

[+GoldenWheels]

I have literally nothing to add except that I am finding all of this history somewhat fascinating.

 

I went from a 2600 JR straight to a NES in the 80s and was completely unaware the 7800 even existed. Buying one recently, it is a fun little system and I had wondered....why was this thing not even on the radar where I was?

 

EDIT: at risk of showing where my main loyalty and love lay then (and still lie), let me correct that. I went from a 2600 JR to an XEGS, because my dad thought it would be a good idea to learn programming. But I wanted a NES like everyone else had and was frankly embarrassed at the time to admit I was playing an Atari, especially the XEGS. I moaned enough I think I got the NES by next Xmas. i think that says something too. It was not "cool" to own an Atari where I was...it basically meant to most people I met that you were still in the dark ages or without enough funds to buy a NES.

Edited October 25, 2012 by GoldenWheels

[+Gemintronic]

It was poorly advertised where I was. Toys 'r Us let it sit around until they had to discount it. At which point I enjoyed many hours of Pole Position II

[GroovyBee]

I'm not sure if that reflects reality but I do see that the 7800 seems to be oriented toward single screen/many sprite arcade games whereas the Nintendo excelled at scrolling games.

 

The 7800 can handle a wide variety of game styles. Anything from colourful full screen scrollers to 3D wire frame (or filled polygon) games. It has a very versatile architecture.

[high voltage]

jlanier:

Absolutely true. Again, feel free to disagree - I'm actually not trying to argue, though it may seem that way. I'm trying to share my perspective, which has been informed over the years by many people beyond just journalists. I've known people who worked at Atari and I've heard their stories as well as read a lot of history, especially on the Tramiel empire. If you have not read it, I highly recommend reading Commodore: A Company On the Edge (http://www.amazon.co...ils_o03_s01_i00). It will give you a lot of information from outside the Tramiel inner circle, from people who worked with the man and have some very interesting stories to tell about how he manages a company.

 

Retro Rogue:

Yes, I helped contribute to the book. My name is in the credits, Marty Goldberg.

 

Hehe talking about shooting yourself in the foot, classic this one.

 

I'd give up now, jlanier, while you still have an ounce of credibility.

Edited October 25, 2012 by high voltage

[+wood_jl]

jlanier:

 

You should *seriously* consider listening to Retro Rogue. You're new here, so you haven't been around long enough to know he's been "vetted" here (and elsewhere) for many years (years before I got here), and is a known, reputable industry historian. Perhaps there's no way for you to know this if you're new here, but there you have it. I've actually learned a considerable volume from reading his replies, so although I like 'em, I don't see how he can find the time to repeat himself (over a period of years) for every newbie, much less multiple times per newbie. Surely, you recognize the replies are well-reasoned?

[jlanier]

jlanier:

 

You should *seriously* consider listening to Retro Rogue. You're new here, so you haven't been around long enough to know he's been "vetted" here (and elsewhere) for many years (years before I got here), and is a known, reputable industry historian. Perhaps there's no way for you to know this if you're new here, but there you have it. I've actually learned a considerable volume from reading his replies, so although I like 'em, I don't see how he can find the time to repeat himself (over a period of years) for every newbie, much less multiple times per newbie. Surely, you recognize the replies are well-reasoned?

 

I have listened to him. I also am capable of forming my own opinions. My replies have been polite and civil, and I have made no attempt to malign anyone else or deny them of their own opinion. I also don't see how one person being "vetted", or me being a "newbie", should or would change my subjective opinions; sorry, but I don't see the connection...

 

Retro Rogue:

Yes, I helped contribute to the book. My name is in the credits, Marty Goldberg.

 

Hehe talking about shooting yourself in the foot, classic this one.

 

I'd give up now, jlanier, while you still have an ounce of credibility.

 

I didn't shoot myself in the foot at all. If he's familiar with the book then he should be able to understand my point of view much easier, even if he doesn't agree with my conclusions. It's a good book and I don't regret recommending it in the least. If he contributed to it, I applaud him; I feel we need more books written with that level of detail applied to tech history.

 

 

Big difference there. Just so you know, I've done work for the current Infogrames/Atari, as well as worked with their legal department on several issues. Curt is also on retainer with the company. So I'm more than familiar with the actual documentation and legalities behind the purchase. Infogrames literally bought Hasbro Interactive (what was left of it). Not a division of it, not some IP and assets, the entire company (which includes the employees). It was then renamed Infogrames Interactive, then Atari Interactive, and eventually operations in Massachusetts were shut down as everything was moved to New York. Though Atari Interactive does still exist as the legal end of Atari SA and the holding company for the Atari IP (and other IP collected by both Hasbro, GT Interactive, and Infogrames).

 

Which, while I'm sorry you went through that, again has little to do with the facts presented. Only a division (IP and assets) were purchased, not an entire company as in Hasbro Interactive/Infogrames. The first does not include the employees, the latter does. Irregardless of what people may have felt was being done to them, that does not make it fact.

 

You realize that Hasbro did not sell their entire company to Infogramme...? They sold a wholly owned subsidiary, Hasbro Interactive, and all of the Atari-related IP and assets. To paraphrase your own statement: Only a division (IP and assets) were purchased, not the entire Hasbro empire. So please pardon me, but it seems very similar from my perspective. Of course I am biased because I was directly involved in that - I was there at the time. But this is digressing; the reason I brought it up in the first place was merely to point out that I have some personal experience "not being hired" and it felt just like being fired to me. I'm sorry if that doesn't help you relate to my perspective, but to each his own...

 

It's in conflict when you put on the anti-Jack spin you had on it. Serious research demands that you remain neutral vs. trying to promote an agenda. We held some of the same views as you until we actually dug in to the facts and documented happenings. There's a lot of regurgitation about Jack that just isn't accurate. There are others which of course are. This isn't one of them.

 

...

 

 

You can't lay the impetus for creating a small startup for a specific purpose on his plans for the larger company formed afterwords. That's shoddy inference and research.

 

...

 

Nope, actual vetting and research is done through cross-comparison through a multitude of sources, including directly talking to as many involved parties as posible, seeking out documentation, logs, other records, and other factual records. What he said is backed up by the internal documentation. What you said is not. What you said is, as you've stated, based on personal analysis of your understanding of what you remember of what he did. That's not serious research and vetting, and that's an insult to those of us who take the time to do that.

 

...

 

You don't present personal interpretation or opinion as facts and vice versa. That's how serious research and presentation is done.

 

I offer my most sincere and humble apologies if I have offended you. I assure you that was never my intent. I have great respect for history and historians. However, I am shocked and dismayed that you are asserting that my subjective opinion would, by definition, be insulting to you. I have not at any point attempted to impersonate a historian, nor have I declared my statements as objective. I've very CLEARLY stated, multiple times, that this is my own opinion formed from my own sources and experiences, and anyone is totally free to disagree with anything I've said. This is not some sort of cop-out on my part: I only ever intended to offer up a subjective opinion to a subjective question in a public forum. Surely you see that opinions are an important part of history, and during your research I'm certain you encountered a lot of them. I hope you didn't find them offensive and I would hope you'd give me the same kindness by allowing me my own opinions. I don't even disagree with most of your facts; it's just that I have a different perspective and therefore a different conclusion. Historians have a higher bar to meet than I do, but this topic isn't objective. This is like trying to compare real journalism with editorialism. Neither one invalidates the other, and it isn't remotely fair to compare the two, because they serve totally different purposes.

 

 

Now, if you're going to continue on this line of maligned contextual analysis comparing personal memories and self-analysis based on those memories to a much boarder and more serious line of vetting and research, I don't see the point in continuing the discussion. It's just going to be more of this around in circles, and you'd hardly be the first newbie here to come on and do this. There's a long line before you over the years. It's just not worth the time anymore to the rest of us. And I've got more important things to work on, like the Atari books.

 

You seem very intent about trying to put me on the defensive. Again, I don't understand why? What have I ever done to you? You don't even know me, and I don't know you. But, neither of us need to know each other to form perfectly valid opinions. This poll was about the 7800's reason for failure, which is a 100% subjective topic, and I gave a 100% subjective reply. Objectivity was never required nor implied in the topic of this thread. If it had been my response would have been different, in fact I probably wouldn't have bothered to reply.

 

Now, as a historian, I'm guessing that your focus is to research facts, and context, and put as much accurate information out there as possible to let people draw their own conclusions. So you have done; and I have drawn my conclusions. Apparently my conclusions are not the ones you would want drawn, and so you feel the need to berate me as a result. That doesn't serve you well, and it certainly doesn't make me any happier. Please, just chill out - there's just no reason to be that way.

 

Although I am not a historian, nor would I ever pretend to be, I assure you I find history a fascinating subject, and I have great respect for it as a student. I'm fascinated most of all by how fluid it can be. If it were static, and facts were absolute, then history books wouldn't need to be constantly rewritten. Case in point: Try to argue about facts in American History with a British person. US students are taught about the American Revolution, but UK students are taught about the American Insurgency. So what is the fact there - did the US have a Revolution or an Insurgency? Can't be both... or can it? Like most facts, the answer is that without context, a fact can be misleading. It can be even more misleading with context. Verifying what someone has said, what they've written down, these are all very important parts of historical research, but they don't necessarily reveal truth. Real truth is the most elusive goal for any student of history. I'm saying this not because I'm trying to challenge your view, because I'm not. I'm saying this because I think that if reading subjective comments like those I've written so grossly offends you, then you are possibly going to be missing out on some context that you otherwise might discard. You don't have to agree with everyone to collect data and to absorb public opinion. The people you talk to don't have to be "right". I don't have to be "right". I could be totally wrong, and it wouldn't matter because even if I am completely, totally, 100% wrong, the method by which I came to my conclusion is every bit as historically important as context as any real facts would be, especially if I am not alone in my opinion.

 

Again, I want to apologize if I have offended anyone. I think it's great that there are historians who care enough to apply themselves to game history, more power to Retro Rogue. But I will say that it is going to be difficult to change my opinion about things that I have personal or close personal information about; I think if any of you were in my position you'd probably feel as I do. I've been doing what I do long enough to know that there are many stories in the industry that will NEVER be told, and that's sort of the nature of the business. So I assure you, I respect the challenge of Rogue's task and acknowledge the difficulty of it, but I sincerely hope nobody would hate me - including Rogue - if I disagreed just because I don't come to the same conclusions that he did. What kind of world would it be if we all agreed on everything?

 

Peace.

[Retro Rogue]

You realize that Hasbro did not sell their entire company to Infogramme...? They sold a wholly owned subsidiary, Hasbro Interactive, and all of the Atari-related IP and assets.

 

That's what I said.

 

To paraphrase your own statement: Only a division (IP and assets) were purchased, not the entire Hasbro empire. So please pardon me, but it seems very similar from my perspective. Of course I am biased because I was directly involved in that - I was there at the time. But this is digressing; the reason I brought it up in the first place was merely to point out that I have some personal experience "not being hired" and it felt just like being fired to me. I'm sorry if that doesn't help you relate to my perspective, but to each his own...

 

 

Once again, two different things. The Consumer Division was not a wholly owned subsidiary, it wasn't a partial subsidiary, it was not incorporated, it was not even a one time spinoff. It wasn't anything except an internal organizational grouping for some of Atari Inc.'s assets and IP. One that was constantly in flux as to what it actually covered from 1977-1984. I understand you're biased, and that it's causing you to lay that bias on the wrong bit of history here, clouding the facts. And it has nothing to do with "well everyone is entitled to their opinions." Facts are facts. The Consumer Division was not a company in and of itself. Hasbro Interactive, was a literal company in and of itself (a wholly owned subsidiary, employees and all) and was bought in whole by Infogrames. At which point it was folded in to Infogrames' majority owned subsidiary Infogrames NA (formerly GT Interactive) in a process that layed a lot of you off. Again, I'm sorry you had to go through that. But laying the bitterness of what you had to go through on to something else to re-interpret history does not make it correct.

 

If you can't understand it based on these very verifiable facts, and still want to go with "well I just have a different opinion," this is precisely why I stated and will state again: it's not worth it on my end to continue the conversation.

 

I offer my most sincere and humble apologies if I have offended you.

 

Not offended, just tired of going around in circles with stuff like this with newer posters that come on here as stated. Welcome to AA, have fun here, become a part of the community if you like. But I'm done with the discussion.