If Atari would have

[DanOliver]

I know Atari also did computers so why did they not continue with those as a household ad on? I know they were pricey back then but could that part of their business created more success? Comparatively with IBM and Apple at the time I wonder if they could have held on better with that portion. So long as they did not call it the Atari "Pac" computer.

Why didn't Xerox come out with the Mac? Why didn't Microsoft come out with the Mac OS? Why didn't IBM use CP/M instead of MS DOS? I think it's because they couldn't. Companies require real visionaries at the top to see possibilities and have a passion that enables risk.

 

Atari had Jay Miner. If Atari had any vision they would have allowed Jay to do great things. The Amiga could have been produced at Atari before the crash. Amiga was considered a break through computer when it finally did come out after getting very little corporate support. Imagine if Amiga had come out a year earlier with the full support of Atari and a marketing team that understood the market. Would have been kick ass. And they could have gone on from there. But they just didn't have the management to ever allow that to happen.

[+TwentySixHundred]

There is two main arguments either "Pac Man and E.T" (Product of Atari themselves) or "Overly saturated market" from 3rd party titles. Personally i think neither, IMO the system ran it's course! I really don't think there is a system ever produced that didn't have bad titles from the dawn to present of gaming. Even to this day the overly saturated market continues with sub par first person shooters yet the industry still keeps afloat.

 

Thing is the systems themselves have a hype lifespan of around five years give or take a few then consumers loose interest, just as they do with all technology. Dont get me wrong there is many like us that are the exception and continue to cherish our systems for years to come but lets face it we are a small minority. My two cents anyway

Edited April 18, 2016 by Tony The 2600

[Keatah]

The 5200 and not advancing the computer line is what sank Atari IMHO. They sat on the 2600 cash cow way too long. The 5200 adn 1200XL rollouts were a disaster and there was no way forward for Atari on the console and computer line after that.

 

Atari had to reset back to the 800XL and 7800 which were no real advancement while the C64 took off.

 

I was dumb and young at the time and it would take me playing several games (and several hundred dollars) to recognize I had been duped when I got my 5200. The games all looked like what I previously had on the 400/800. WTF!!

 

Some smart people told me it was just a 400 inside, and I didn't want to believe that. I told myself the games would get better. But they didn't. My heart sank. Whatever the 5200 could do, my 400/800 could do. And my then awesome collection of videogames was showing the first signs of pollution and dilution.

 

Meanwhile on the C64, there were unique and better ports like Gyruss and so on and so forth. And I could get games for free on the 400/800 and 64. To say nothing of the vast selection on the Apple II. So there was no need for 5200 whatsoever. I encouraged my buddies to get a C-64 or Apple II or 400/800 because of this.

 

I never really trusted Atari after that. I felt suckered in and I began to hate the company. Soon I was recommending only C-64 and Apple II. Atari fell off my radar.

 

Then I got into the 16-bit machines like the MAC, Amiga, Apple IIgs. I ended up with the Amiga because of price and marketing and found myself being taken advantage of (and duped even harder) even more. Shoulda went with the Mac - but couldn't afford it.

 

But, today, I like ALL the classic systems, more or less and in different ways.

[Keatah]

Why didn't Xerox come out with the Mac? Why didn't Microsoft come out with the Mac OS? Why didn't IBM use CP/M instead of MS DOS? I think it's because they couldn't. Companies require real visionaries at the top to see possibilities and have a passion that enables risk.

 

Atari had Jay Miner. If Atari had any vision they would have allowed Jay to do great things. The Amiga could have been produced at Atari before the crash. Amiga was considered a break through computer when it finally did come out after getting very little corporate support. Imagine if Amiga had come out a year earlier with the full support of Atari and a marketing team that understood the market. Would have been kick ass. And they could have gone on from there. But they just didn't have the management to ever allow that to happen.

 

Sometimes it's not about vision. Sometimes these are just random actions or actions geared toward next quarter's gains. And they happen to be right. It is when they are right and morph into something large that the general populace then bestows "wows" and "he's so visionary" and other assorted forms of praise.

 

When they fail, they are forgotten about or used as examples of what not to do.

 

Many random things. Lots of stuff was thrown at the wall. What stuck is today labeled as visionary. Only in hindsight.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Keatah

[Retro Rogue]

Regarding Jay Miner, Jay wanted to do a 68000 based computer back in early '79 when they had just finished development of the PCSs and before they had even been released.
With the amount of money they had already invested into the development of those computers, (and just coming off a big year of losses in '78 in it's the Consumer area) it's
not a surprise they didn't want to pursue the expense of development of a 68000 computer at that time. Keep in mind the 68000 was itself just being put on the market that year, so development of a 68K computer was extremely expensive not to mention as to how prohibitive the cost of said computer would have been when it hit the market in '81. The decision to not pursue a 68K computer in early '79 really didn't have to do with lack of "vision" but rather clarity of the market at that time. The home computer market in 1979 was anything but a sure thing (a point Joe Decuir brought up in his talk two weekends ago), and as stated they had yet to even begin sellings the PCSs. They had no idea how they'd perform or whether they'd even just wind up pulling out. (Ray claimed to us that he was even in informal talks with Jobs about buying Apple and possibly cancelling the PCS but that Ross at Warner had nixed that). The explosion of personal computers really didn't start until several years later driven chiefly by IBM's entry and Commodore's dominance on the low end. And as I said, it was a decision not to pursue one at that time. Not all together. Jay (mainly because of separate monetary issues going on at Atari) decided it wasn't worth it to stick around until it was. (And it wasn't as if he went right off to do his 68000 based computer elsewhere. He switched over into medical electronics). Joe Decuir stayed around until early summer to see initial manufacturing to completion and took off for the same reasons, though he separately brought up about a 68000 based computer as well in his exit meeting and was given the same answer. Atari did start working on high end 68000 based computers in 1983, when putting out 68000 based computers to the type of customer base Atari was serving became a bit more feasible. But even then they were going to be targeted more towards businesses.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Retro Rogue

[DanOliver]

The speed of change during that period was crazy fast and no doubt helped kill a lot of companies. By the time of the crash there was almost no margin of error.

 

Putting the Atari 400/800 into a consumer box was how management thought. New packaging. And not just the 5200, but the XLs too. It was all repackaging.

 

I of course have no idea if Atari supporting people like Miner would have made a difference. For sure common sense would say it would be too risky. And that's what Atari management had, common sense, good understanding of best business practices. Exactly the kind of people you want running a commodity established business like a cable company. But all the exciting innovations I remember were thought to be completely crazy initially, and though development, and though lots of problems and the few that made it through all that then proved successful. It takes a few lucky breaks and a whole lot of working through problems that seem impossible to virtually everyone else. It kind of has to be that way. If a spreadsheet could show management a product should be done then everyone would do it. Like when companies jump into markets after the market is a proven money maker. They can make a quick buck but long term not so easy.

 

If we had a time machine I would bet on Miner and like minded creators to have made Atari a market leader in home computers. And if that had happened, with Atari's consumer roots, I think Atari could be the Apple of today, maybe bigger, and we might barely remember Apple ever existed. Atari had the money, talent, name, but without management vision being a leader was never going to be possible. It's the one thing a successful company needs and seems impossible to acquire. Maybe if Warner had been able to let Nolan be the visionary and run the show. I don't know if he could have gained the needed experience to pull it off, but maybe.

Edited April 18, 2016 by DanOliver

[Keatah]

Pac-Man was a million seller..

 

Because "Pac-Man"..

[+save2600]

On the subject of 2600 Pac-Man being a little better BITD, never noticed this before... in at least one catalog ('82), they depict it as having a yellow maze with a black background!

 

[jhd]

I wonder if the catalogue illustrator actually saw an early/prototype screen shot, or if the picture was just based off of written specifications.

 

Notably, the colours for Super Breakout (grey background) and Adventure (a lime green castle!) also incorrect.

[Lynxpro]

 

The Tramiels had no love of games, so same deal.

 

The Atari coin-op people were way more serious about their games. They could have produced a kick ass console...BUT I don't think they really considered that market to be "real" so I don't think they would have actually taken on the task. And maybe creating a console would just be too far removed from their experience.

 

This is alluding to one of my favorite "what if" scenarios since Curt and Marty made a lot of the mysterious facts of that era into public knowledge. Warner decides to quickly pay off GCC and transfers the 7800 to Atari Games. The "Tengen" [Atari Games] library is then exclusively available on the 7800 and not the NES. Tengen offers decent 3rd Party Developer terms to the various American and European software houses that were still sitting debating the devil's pact/bargain that was the NES licensing term

 

The what if becomes even more interesting to ponder had the Amiga contract had been yet another item turned over by Warner to Atari Games. Would Atari Games have decided to sue Commodore for several hundred jillion dollars - yes, I'm using Cal Worthington standard units of currency measurement - over Amiga's fraud? Would they have accepted arcade usage of it or gone for the jugular for complete ownership and then licensed the Lorraine chipset out to any other computer manufacturers interested in the tech? Or would they have pawned it off back to Tramiel's Atari Corp for 100% rights to use the "Atari" brand for consumer video game products? Hmmm.

[BydoEmpire]

Never gave two shits about the Nintendo seal BITD. Knew what it was all about back then... politics of the game industry.

Hard to remember now, but I'm pretty sure I felt the same way back then (although in hindsight it's really business of the game industry, not politics). There were good and band licenses and unlicensed games. I remember looking at ads for Tengen titles and thinking they looked really good.

[+davidcalgary29]

The speed of change during that period was crazy fast and no doubt helped kill a lot of companies. By the time of the crash there was almost no margin of error.

 

Putting the Atari 400/800 into a consumer box was how management thought. New packaging. And not just the 5200, but the XLs too. It was all repackaging.

 

I of course have no idea if Atari supporting people like Miner would have made a difference. For sure common sense would say it would be too risky. And that's what Atari management had, common sense, good understanding of best business practices. Exactly the kind of people you want running a commodity established business like a cable company. But all the exciting innovations I remember were thought to be completely crazy initially, and though development, and though lots of problems and the few that made it through all that then proved successful. It takes a few lucky breaks and a whole lot of working through problems that seem impossible to virtually everyone else. It kind of has to be that way. If a spreadsheet could show management a product should be done then everyone would do it. Like when companies jump into markets after the market is a proven money maker. They can make a quick buck but long term not so easy.

 

If we had a time machine I would bet on Miner and like minded creators to have made Atari a market leader in home computers. And if that had happened, with Atari's consumer roots, I think Atari could be the Apple of today, maybe bigger, and we might barely remember Apple ever existed. Atari had the money, talent, name, but without management vision being a leader was never going to be possible. It's the one thing a successful company needs and seems impossible to acquire. Maybe if Warner had been able to let Nolan be the visionary and run the show. I don't know if he could have gained the needed experience to pull it off, but maybe.

 

Do you mean that Atari could have been a hated Megacorp run by a benevolent dictator?

[Keatah]

Apple II systems survived the "crash" very well. All the way to 1989 when it was simply time to get more powerful hardware. And the PC went on for many more years. Only the smartphone revolution killed it recently.

 

They obviously did what others couldn't.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Keatah

[+davidcalgary29]

The A8 line survived until 1992! That's incredible longevity for a home computer.

[DanOliver]

Apple II systems survived the "crash" very well. All the way to 1989 when it was simply time to get more powerful hardware. And the PC went on for many more years. Only the smartphone revolution killed it recently.

 

They obviously did what others couldn't.

I don't think home computers were related to the game console market. Home computers were the next big thing and a lot of game developers transitioned to home computers, myself included.

 

This is a little hot button for me so here's my little peep at the Apple II market...again, I only have a very narrow view of what actually went on. But I remember being in a meeting at Apple where management was explaining why they were going to curtail the Apple II line and it had nothing to do with hardware power. They had a bell curve chart that showed profit margin and the Mac had more profit margin. Their thinking was when they sold an Apple II they lost money, meaning they could have sold that person a Mac for more profit. The Apple II was making money but they thought it cut into the Mac market. I think it became clear the problem with the Mac market had nothing to do with the Apple II.

 

Obviously at some point the power of the 6502 and 65816 wasn't going to cut it in home computers. But I think that line could have made money for Apple for a longer time if management had been smarter. And it could have transitioned too. There was a project that shank the Apple II down to a chip and they put it inside a keyboard. So you just had a keyboard and a monitor. If that path had continued Apple may have been able to get into the embedded market and today the Apple II could have been in your coffee maker, refrigerator, car, etc... But stuff like that was never sexy enough for Apple. And maybe they couldn't pull it off. Apple always needed big profit margins because they just don't have the kind of people, or mind set, that can produce at low margins.

[Keatah]

Yeh, I kinda forgot that computers were a little separated from the game console market. And yes I agree that Apple axed the II line in order to focus on the Mac.

 

Many hobbyists and pioneers felt right at home using the II to control things.

[DanOliver]

It's a sweet machine imo.

[Lynxpro]

It's a sweet machine imo.

 

 

But would it have really been that sweet had the Atari 8-bit line had a computer with internal expansion slots?

[Keatah]

It would have been even better because of more competition to develop better expansion cards!

[The Usotsuki]

There was the Gemini chip on the emulator card that stuffed an Apple //e into a Mac LC...

[Keatah]

It wasn't the MEGA II ?

[high voltage]

It's a sweet machine imo.

I love the video Triumph of the Nerds, obviously not quite accurate, but still the spirit on 70s/80s was very well captured. A][ ruled in USA for sure, shame it was horrendous expensive in Europe.

[DanOliver]

 

 

But would it have really been that sweet had the Atari 8-bit line had a computer with internal expansion slots?

I was never too concerned about expansion slots. I assume the Atari computers could be hacked into whatever was needed.

 

I know this is probably heresy but...IMO, for me, the Apple II was way sweeter. The feel and sound of the keyboard, the case, the look, the way the drives and monitor fit on top, Basic built in. I even like the video memory scheme better even though the Atari had better graphics. The Atari computers always felt like a toy, and designed without taste. The XL line looked better and I liked their size. If I was a game player the Atari would be better to me I think. I did like programming the Atari ST, but again the Mac was way sweeter.

 

As a programmer, the Apple II was sweet. Same reasons I love the 2600. The look, case, joystick and as a programmer the 2600 is the most fun machine I ever programmed for.

 

What if Atari had produced the Apple II? The 2600 and the Apple II. Sweet. Where would that product line gone? But of course it's never about the products, products don't evolve. It's their designers who evolve the line. And there's the rub. It's so rare for a company's management to ever allow a great designer to do their best. Our corporate system is great for producing toilet paper, but horrible for producing innovation and well designed products.

[Lynxpro]

I was never too concerned about expansion slots. I assume the Atari computers could be hacked into whatever was needed.

 

I know this is probably heresy but...IMO, for me, the Apple II was way sweeter. The feel and sound of the keyboard, the case, the look, the way the drives and monitor fit on top, Basic built in. I even like the video memory scheme better even though the Atari had better graphics. The Atari computers always felt like a toy, and designed without taste. The XL line looked better and I liked their size. If I was a game player the Atari would be better to me I think. I did like programming the Atari ST, but again the Mac was way sweeter.

 

As a programmer, the Apple II was sweet. Same reasons I love the 2600. The look, case, joystick and as a programmer the 2600 is the most fun machine I ever programmed for.

 

What if Atari had produced the Apple II? The 2600 and the Apple II. Sweet. Where would that product line gone? But of course it's never about the products, products don't evolve. It's their designers who evolve the line. And there's the rub. It's so rare for a company's management to ever allow a great designer to do their best. Our corporate system is great for producing toilet paper, but horrible for producing innovation and well designed products.

 

Very interesting. I wasn't aware you were one of the former Atari Inc'ers who remained with Corp - for awhile at least - to work on the ST as it was being developed. I'm of the opinion that that type of information needs to be presented better because there's this online consensus, mainly from snooty Amigans, that the ST isn't a "Real Atari" product because, bla bla bla, Jay Miner and the Amiga. And yet the more I read, the more I find out that Atari Inc'ers did a lot of the lifting of the [T]OS. Sure, the Amiga had better custom chips - thanks to ex-Atari Inc'ers - but the ST had the nicer OS, apparently, thanks also to other ex-Atari Inc'ers. [but had only the AMY sound chip worked and ended up in the ST, ugh…]. I've [retroactively] given Dan Kramer grief about not sticking around Corp long enough to have been assigned to design the ST's Mouse and how much better it could've been had he been there. Or maybe it could've been a mini Trak-Ball instead.

 

Didn't you say in another thread that Sam Tramiel many years later invited you and other former 2600 programmers to make Jaguar games?

 

Looks like I need to get Final Legacy for my 5200! And I just watched a YouTube vid of Telepathy. That looks awesome! One of the levels reminded me of Space Harrier although that Sega classic came out a couple of years later. I'd say if anyone was interested in making a 2600 version of Space Harrier, piggy-backing off that level from your Telepathy would be the smart way to go.