Would Atari had been better off if Bushnell hadn´t sold it?

[zzip]

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

It had nothing to do with gaming itself being dead, or people not buying. Millions were still buying and looking for games, those near retailers that dropped them couldn't buy them but that doesn't mean no one wanted them. The $100 million was actually lower earlier that year, gaming was already recovering and sales were jumping up, same with computers the same year, look at C64 sales across the year. New console entrants, new game releases after a drought, it was alive.

It's not a binary that people either buy games or they don't.   Some people were still really into it as a hobby.  Some were still mildly interested,  but there were still a lot of people who lost interest in games when it stopped being the cool thing.   Computer sales were growing, but did not make up for the lost revenue of console sales.

 

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

But the 2600 was second best selling console post crash era and sold some 5-6 million more consoles....So nobody wanted Atari or "arcade games" doesn't hold water. Not to mention most NES best sellers were also arcade style software.

 

Then the press twisted it again, made nonsense claim that NES introduced new genre like rpg (lol?) because didn't exist before anywhere. Hmm?

 

Then Pacman and ET were thrown in. Its all just an ongoing pile of misinformation.

I don't buy the media narriatives.  They don't add up.  To believe them,  ET destroyed it all.  What?  So people stopped buying Colecovision, Intellivision games and stopped going to arcades all because Atari released ET on the 2600.   That makes no sense whatsoever.  

 

But the arcades did start to die off, so did the Intellivision and Colecovision.  Popular videogames magazines were folding.   Something was affecting the entire games industry that couldn't be simply explained by ET or bargain bin carts.  Demand started to fade across the board.   Not completely, but enough that it turned big profits into big losses in a short space of time. 

Edited August 23, 2021 by zzip

[zzip]

27 minutes ago, Xebec said:

So I was curious on both of these statements because I'd like to learn more about what really happened in that 1982-1987 period.

 

Hopefully the graphic shows, but this shows what change happened when in video game hardware+software from Wikipedia.  You can see 83 overall wasn't actually a bad year (it was ahead of 1980) in terms of total $$ volume, but 84-88 were pretty terrible the entire year.  I take a few observations from this, please feel free to comment or correct - this is off the top of my head:

 

This chart aligns with my experiences pretty well.   I remember games were still a huge deal in 1983, we were still hanging out at the arcades.  But something happened either late 83 or early 84.   Games stopped being the "cool" topic of conversation.   The Arcades that were outside the mall or Chuck E Cheese/Showbiz were closing.  

 

By 85/86, it was very uncool to be a gamer.   This was when I was in high school, and you didn't advertise your game hobby out loud except with other kids who you knew shared your hobby.    Then 88/89 it seemed like suddenly everyone is buying NES and consoles are hip again.

 

40 minutes ago, Xebec said:

1.  Lack of innovation and new content driving demand, and Saturation of Early Adopters to technology

There was lots of new innovation in the 84/85 timeframe.    Arcades saw laserdisc games, and 16-bit games with better graphics.   Computers were seeing all sorts of new genres rise in popularity-  RPGs, strategy games, Interactive Fiction to name a few.    Neither of these helped existing consoles though,  and the industry didn't have new games with the popularity of Pac-Man/Ms Pac Man/Donkey Kong to keep the party going.  Dragons Lair/Gauntlet weren't enough to cut it

[Lord Mushroom]

3 hours ago, zzip said:

There was still Odyssey 2

I don´t know how many Odyssey 2s were sold in 1979, but they sold only 2 million over 6 years. Whereas Atari sold over 1 million in the 1979 holiday season alone. If they weren´t beaten, they were being beaten.

 

3 hours ago, zzip said:

Because subsequently they grew at a slower, sustainable rate.   Nowadays, you won't see an industry-wide crash,

If the video game crash had left Atari financially crippled, you could argue that. But Warner had the money to maintain their position as industry leader after the crash as well, and they didn´t.

 

Nintendo was even able to carve out a major niche (if there is such a thing) when Sony and Microsoft essentially had beaten them. So Nintendo´s management wasn´t just not bad, but (very) good.

 

4 hours ago, zzip said:

in 1981, the entire videogame industry was like this.  Very rapid rise, which meant a rapid fall was inevitable.

When something is unsustainably high, it doesn´t mean there has to be a rapid fall. It could also be a long period of stagnation. The over-optimism of future sales, and relative absence of good console games, were not inevitable.

 

4 hours ago, zzip said:

Video games were a novelty- not quite a lifestyle yet, so people didn't move onto other games, they moved onto other (non game) things.

Here is a graph of gaming revenue for 1970-2020:

 

As you can see, there was a boom and a crash. But people were buying games even at the bottom of the crash.

 

4 hours ago, zzip said:

Bushnell could not have prevented the crash.  He could have either rode the wave like Warner Atari did, getting  the hot licenses,  or taken a different road which may have doomed them to irrelevance sooner.  Maybe he would have had foresight to see it coming and put Atari in a defensive position so that they aren't losing millions of dollars per day when it hit.

You are forgetting that Atari played a large part in making the crash as bad as it was. And given a crash of the historic magnitude, it is unlikely Bushnell´s Atari would have lost as much money because of it as Warner´s did: 

 

- They overestimated the 2600´s longevity and produced too many games. Bushnell didn´t, so he probably wouldn´t have.

- They fueled the computer industry, and lost money on it directly and indirectly (in reduced sales in their other areas). Bushnell wouldn´t have.

- They had few good games to offer due to a low quality- or delayed new console with low game development. Bushnell would probably have had better offerings to consumers.

[Leeroy ST]

19 minutes ago, zzip said:

It's not a binary that people either buy games or they don't.   Some people were still really into it as a hobby.  Some were still mildly interested,  but there were still a lot of people who lost interest in games when it stopped being the cool thing.   Computer sales were growing, but did not make up for the lost revenue of console sales.

Majority of the lost revenue was due to prices however. Not disinterest.

 

21 minutes ago, zzip said:

 or bargain bin carts.  Demand started to fade across the board.   

No it didn't. There was no significant drop in demand and post crash shows this before the NES even got off the ground.

 

Retailers freakeing out mixed with press narratives gave the perception in some places there was a major disinterest in gaming but that's not what happened. For those that wanted games but their local stores folded or removed stock, they couldnt buy anything if they wanted to. Retailers still had games in many places but it's more attention grabbing to write articles "the fad is over" and only cover the worst side, while some of the same fad games were continuing to sell on computers. So the Q*bert's crashed the industry and killed consoles so people brought computers instead, to buy more Q*bert's??

 

It was literally just the retailers going nuts because they couldn't make money along with rock bottom prices. The major drop in actual demand never happened.

 

30 minutes ago, zzip said:

and Colecovision.  

The CV was kept around along with new game releases specifically because it was always profitable.

 

Adam on the other hand...

 

 

[Lord Mushroom]

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

Cosmos was likely if true a separate game.

 

You're basically telling me that Mouse Trap was influenced by Wizard of Wor when it is clearly the same type of game as Pacman.

I am not saying Asteroids is a Space Invaders clone. What I am saying is that Atari´s desire to make a game similar to Space Invaders eventually led to Asteroids.

 

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

I'm curious what you think Space Invaders influenced in Asteroids?

Wikipedia has this to say about the development of Asteroids:

 

During a meeting in April 1979, Rains discussed Planet Grab, a multiplayer arcade game later renamed to Cosmos. Logg did not know the name of the game, thinking Computer Space as "the inspiration for the two-dimensional approach". Rains conceived of Asteroids as a mixture of Computer Space and Space Invaders, combining the two-dimensional approach of Computer Space with Space Invaders' addictive gameplay of "completion" and "eliminate all threats".^[8] The unfinished game featured a giant, indestructible asteroid,^[8] so Rains asked Logg: "Well, why don’t we have a game where you shoot the rocks and blow them up?" In response, Logg described a similar concept where the player selectively shoots at rocks that break into smaller pieces.^[15] Both agreed on the concept.

 

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

I believe if Warner didn't have Atari Fairchild would have more share. Whether they would win or not is unlikely due to their lack of pushing for more money and the whole controversy with the project lead. But having more share would give Atari less, and would benefit Mattel more later. 

I agree. Also, the quality of the 2600´s games was just so much higher.

[Leeroy ST]

59 minutes ago, Xebec said:

what really happened in that 1982-1987 period.

 

The estimated US$42 billion worldwide market in 1982, including consoles, arcade, and personal computer games, dropped to US$14 billion by 1985, with a significant shift away from arcades and consoles to personal computer software in the years that followed

 

 

This was literally because, Arcades aside, both industries were in price wars. The "rise" from lows started in late 84 going into 85, and recovering significantly in 86.

 

86 being when 7800/NES/SMS were all launching higher priced new systems and games and near a year after the launch of the ST and Amiga computers. In end of 1987, you had ST, Amiga and other computers having an increased presence, the three consoles producing more stock and software, and Arcades climbing back. In 1988 two of the 3 consoles peaked, one was near peak, computers were bigger than ever, and arcades were still recovering.

 

It's basically a solid diagonal line upright. 

 

Just like how many pretend other consoles dont exist outside Atari to make up strange theories about the crash, many dont take into account the computer price war was a virus that spread to consoles.

 

Instead the excuse is "demand" yet the games keep selling and as IGN lied about "the console that killed the industry (?)" Was still popular and selling millions of consoles. If the 7800 didn't exist I bet Atari could have sold even more (same with the other way around)

 

Even excluding that people were still buying CVs too. Heck,  later7800 sold out all it produced constantly. 2600 BC was an important part of buying one it's first couple years.

 

 

[Leeroy ST]

4 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

I am not saying Asteroids is a Space Invaders clone. What I am saying is that Atari´s desire to make a game similar to Space Invaders eventually led to Asteroids.

 

Wikipedia has this to say about the development of Asteroids:

 

During a meeting in April 1979, Rains discussed Planet Grab, a multiplayer arcade game later renamed to Cosmos. Logg did not know the name of the game, thinking Computer Space as "the inspiration for the two-dimensional approach". Rains conceived of Asteroids as a mixture of Computer Space and Space Invaders, combining the two-dimensional approach of Computer Space with Space Invaders' addictive gameplay of "completion" and "eliminate all threats".^[8] The unfinished game featured a giant, indestructible asteroid,^[8] so Rains asked Logg: "Well, why don’t we have a game where you shoot the rocks and blow them up?" In response, Logg described a similar concept where the player selectively shoots at rocks that break into smaller pieces.^[15] Both agreed on the concept.

 

I agree. Also, the quality of the 2600´s games was just so much higher.

Asteroids basically already existed. It doesn't match the old articles on it either.

 

Cosmos may have been a game but it had to be a separate idea. I can't see Asteroids doing something that was already done by mixing gameplay from space invaders. Asteroids basically already existed in some form already.

 

I wonder about the reliability of the original source.

[Leeroy ST]

36 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

 

Here is a graph of gaming revenue for 1970-2020:

 

As you can see, there was a boom and a crash. But people were buying games even at the bottom of the crash.

 

You are forgetting that Atari played a large part in making the crash as bad as it was. And given a crash of the historic magnitude, it is unlikely Bushnell´s Atari would have lost as much money because of it as Warner´s did: 

 

- They overestimated the 2600´s longevity and produced too many games. Bushnell didn´t, so he probably wouldn´t have.

- They fueled the computer industry, and lost money on it directly and indirectly (in reduced sales in their other areas). Bushnell wouldn´t have.

- They had few good games to offer due to a low quality- or delayed new console with low game development. Bushnell would probably have had better offerings to consumers.

 

Atari was also fudging numbers and misleading investors. 

[zzip]

12 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

If the video game crash had left Atari financially crippled, you could argue that. But Warner had the money to maintain their position as industry leader after the crash as well, and they didn´t.

They could have, but panicked and sold them.  Atari might still be an industry leader today if they had fought to keep their market position in those years. 

16 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

Nintendo was even able to carve out a major niche (if there is such a thing) when Sony and Microsoft essentially had beaten them. So Nintendo´s management wasn´t just not bad, but (very) good.

All three are better run than Atari often was.  They have long-term strategies.   To be fair though, Atari was finding its way before the rule book had been written, so they were always bound to make mistakes that look dumb in retrospect but seem reasonable at the time.  Plus they were dealing with a market where consoles and arcades are super hot, then they're not, computers are hot, then consoles are back..  Which way to go in an environment like that?

 

22 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

But people were buying games even at the bottom of the crash.

I don't think anyone is arguing that they stopped completely, but just that fewer people were buying the games, 

 

32 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

You are forgetting that Atari played a large part in making the crash as bad as it was. And given a crash of the historic magnitude, it is unlikely Bushnell´s Atari would have lost as much money because of it as Warner´s did: 

 

- They overestimated the 2600´s longevity and produced too many games. Bushnell didn´t, so he probably wouldn´t have.

- They fueled the computer industry, and lost money on it directly and indirectly (in reduced sales in their other areas). Bushnell wouldn´t have.

- They had few good games to offer due to a low quality- or delayed new console with low game development. Bushnell would probably have had better offerings to consumers.

If Atari wasn't delivering what consumers wanted, someone else would have..  If the 2600 was too obsolete, there were more powerful consoles available.   But it still sold tons despite its weak graphics.   Bushnell thought it would be finished by 1980, and tech-wise he was right,   but the 2600 sales were just getting started in 1980!   Bushnell might have killed the golden goose.

 

I don't even think the 2600 had "too many games" compared to other console that came later.   Wikipedia lists just over 500 during its entire lifespan which doesn't seem unreasonable for a console with 30 million sales.   The Sega Mega Drive/Genesis sold about the same number of units and had over 700 titles.      The NES had over 700 too despite Nintendo trying to limit 3rd party support.

 

 The craziest year 1982 saw about 100 new VCS titles,  a third of which were fairly obscure and not commonly found in stores.  Bargain bins were long a phenomenon in record stores and book stores, so why would retailers assume videogames would be immune to them?

[Xebec]

18 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

 

This was literally because, Arcades aside, both industries were in price wars. The "rise" from lows started in late 84 going into 85, and recovering significantly in 86.

 

86 being when 7800/NES/SMS were all launching higher priced new systems and games and near a year after the launch of the ST and Amiga computers. In end of 1987, you had ST, Amiga and other computers having an increased presence, the three consoles producing more stock and software, and Arcades climbing back. In 1988 two of the 3 consoles peaked, one was near peak, computers were bigger than ever, and arcades were still recovering.

 

It's basically a solid diagonal line upright. 

 

Just like how many pretend other consoles dont exist outside Atari to make up strange theories about the crash, many dont take into account the computer price war was a virus that spread to consoles.

 

Instead the excuse is "demand" yet the games keep selling and as IGN lied about "the console that killed the industry (?)" Was still popular and selling millions of consoles. If the 7800 didn't exist I bet Atari could have sold even more (same with the other way around)

 

Even excluding that people were still buying CVs too. Heck,  later7800 sold out all it produced constantly. 2600 BC was an important part of buying one it's first couple years.

 

 

Since I love data, let's take a stab at volume / demand vs. $ and revenue: 

 

https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Second_generation_of_video_games

 

2600 Sales:

+1 million sold in 80

+4 million sold in 81

+4 million sold in 82

+9 million sold in 83-84 (no breakout)

+1 million sold in 85

+4 million sold 86-89 (~ 1 milllion per year)

 

Colecovision looks to have done well 84-86.  

 

So it looks like the 2600 demand definitely reset sometime in 85 or possibly 84 to pre boom levels (1980), but overall may have been flat looking at the whole console market.  

 

Computer demand definitely seriously boomed and kept rising, but gaming PC volumes appear to have peaked just after the crash (84).  Source:  https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/4/ 

 

Total computer market volume excluding the PC and other (i.e. business machines) appears to be:

1982 - ~ 1 million

1983 - ~2.5 million

1984 - 4 million 

1985 - 4 million (flattish)

1986 - 4 million

1987 - ~3.5 million

 

This definitely doesn't look like a crash, though it is a contracting market in terms of $ sold because volumes didn't really go up after 84 while cost for these machines went down substantially.  I bet the software for these computers did really well in 84-87 though.  

 

Do we have any data like this for Arcade sales volumes and prices?  

 

[zzip]

1 minute ago, Xebec said:

 

So it looks like the 2600 demand definitely reset sometime in 85 or possibly 84 to pre boom levels (1980), but overall may have been flat looking at the whole console market.  

This was right after the Tramiel sale, and it was kind of chaotic.   The story they told at the time was they were surprised how strongly the 2600 continued to sell, and that's why they released the 2600 jr in 86.   It might have just been that they ran out of stock in 85 leading to such a low number and they started cranking out new units in response.

[Lord Mushroom]

28 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

I wonder about the reliability of the original source.

Well, here it is:

https://www.atarimagazines.com/hi-res/v1n1/atarihistory.php

[Lord Mushroom]

This discussion is starting to go around in circles, and I am trying to not repeat myself too much, so I won´t respond to a lot of the stuff I have responded to earlier.

 

20 minutes ago, zzip said:

I don't even think the 2600 had "too many games" compared to other console that came later.

I was imprecise. I meant cartridges.

[zzip]

12 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

I was imprecise. I meant cartridges.

Fair enough, but I hear the argument that the 2600 had "too many titles" cited a lot as a cause for the crash.   But lots of consoles/Steam can tolerate far higher rates of "shovelware" without issue.

[Leeroy ST]

1 hour ago, Xebec said:

Since I love data, let's take a stab at volume / demand vs. $ and revenue: 

 

https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Second_generation_of_video_games

 

2600 Sales:

+1 million sold in 80

+4 million sold in 81

+4 million sold in 82

+9 million sold in 83-84 (no breakout)

+1 million sold in 85

+4 million sold 86-89 (~ 1 milllion per year)

 

Colecovision looks to have done well 84-86.  

 

So it looks like the 2600 demand definitely reset sometime in 85 or possibly 84 to pre boom levels (1980), but overall may have been flat looking at the whole console market.  

 

Computer demand definitely seriously boomed and kept rising, but gaming PC volumes appear to have peaked just after the crash (84).  Source:  https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/4/ 

 

Total computer market volume excluding the PC and other (i.e. business machines) appears to be:

1982 - ~ 1 million

1983 - ~2.5 million

1984 - 4 million 

1985 - 4 million (flattish)

1986 - 4 million

1987 - ~3.5 million

 

This definitely doesn't look like a crash, though it is a contracting market in terms of $ sold because volumes didn't really go up after 84 while cost for these machines went down substantially.  I bet the software for these computers did really well in 84-87 though.  

 

Do we have any data like this for Arcade sales volumes and prices?  

 

What is included in "Gaming PC" in this case?

[Leeroy ST]

59 minutes ago, zzip said:

This was right after the Tramiel sale, and it was kind of chaotic.   The story they told at the time was they were surprised how strongly the 2600 continued to sell, and that's why they released the 2600 jr in 86.   It might have just been that they ran out of stock in 85 leading to such a low number and they started cranking out new units in response.

No Tramiel continued what would become the JR from warner. That was originally something they pulled back on.

 

As for everything else we need a more reliable set if numbers than from a vgwiki that commonly used vgchartz numbers.

 

1 hour ago, zzip said:

They could have, but panicked and sold them.  Atari might still be an industry leader today if they had fought to keep their market position in those years. 

Doubt it. They were getting wrecked by CV and were losing tons of money with poor mismanagement, fudging numbers and lying to investors. Quick cancelling the 5200 is what basically helped CV widen the lead as 5200 hit 1 million before CV did. 5200 pull back did so much harm CV was still outselling 5200 by a good margin after they temporarily stopped production to make a bunch of Adams.

 

Like Sega, I dont think Atari ever had a proper home console ever managed well and their one success were flukes.

 

Now on the computer and portable ends the story is a bit different.

 

1 hour ago, zzip said:

Atari was finding its way before the rule book had been written, so they were always bound to make mistakes 

No other competitors had this issue but Atari so I dont buy it. Coleco was more mismanaged than all the gaming companies before the CV came out, their one big long term success in electronics. CV was right as TP was taking off yet Coleco had software lock from the start, less shovelware, backed better rated project in average, or created as such, and got the addon/expansion port features popularised for consoles. 

 

Mattel started as a competent strong alternative that was dying off before any crash. Outside arguably proto dlc and downloading games via cable they were anywhere near as prepared. 

[The Usotsuki]

5 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

Then the press twisted it again, made nonsense claim that NES introduced new genre like rpg (lol?) because didn't exist before anywhere. Hmm?

Hmm indeed.  Us Apple ][ fans know that the computer RPG as we know it originated on our machine, with Akalabeth→Ultima and Wizardry - both originating on the ][ - becoming the ancestors of every JRPG in existence.

 

But vIdEo GaMeS bArElY eXiStEd BeFoRe ThE nInTeNdO... (not you)

[Xebec]

42 minutes ago, The Usotsuki said:

Hmm indeed.  Us Apple ][ fans know that the computer RPG as we know it originated on our machine, with Akalabeth→Ultima and Wizardry - both originating on the ][ - becoming the ancestors of every JRPG in existence.

 

But vIdEo GaMeS bArElY eXiStEd BeFoRe ThE nInTeNdO... (not you)

OT - Which JRPGs made it to the A8?  Any?

[Matt_B]

53 minutes ago, The Usotsuki said:

Hmm indeed.  Us Apple ][ fans know that the computer RPG as we know it originated on our machine, with Akalabeth→Ultima and Wizardry - both originating on the ][ - becoming the ancestors of every JRPG in existence.

 

But vIdEo GaMeS bArElY eXiStEd BeFoRe ThE nInTeNdO... (not you)

It's a genre that pre-dates the home computer, even. There were RPGs running on mainframes and minicomputers as early as the mid-1970s.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_(video_game)

 

I'm pretty sure the early JRPG creators came via the Apple II though.

 

 

[SoundGammon]

I voted no because I believed Nolan wouldn't have went to Japan to license Space Invaders, or probably any other game, like Ray Kassar did!

[zzip]

15 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

No Tramiel continued what would become the JR from warner. That was originally something they pulled back on.

The JR was obviously a Warner-era design given the styling,  but it wasn't released until 86.   It was a surprise to the Atari community because the line had long been "consoles are dead, computers are the future", and here suddenly is the new Atari management rereleasing the 2600 because they were saying it is still in demand, and they sold all their stock despite no advertising.

 

15 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

Doubt it. They were getting wrecked by CV and were losing tons of money with poor mismanagement, fudging numbers and lying to investors. Quick cancelling the 5200 is what basically helped CV widen the lead as 5200 hit 1 million before CV did. 5200 pull back did so much harm CV was still outselling 5200 by a good margin after they temporarily stopped production to make a bunch of Adams.

I've long said that cancelling the 5200 was a huge mistake because it alienated the fans who bought it.    They should have invested in more compelling games, released fixed controllers and maybe eventually bundle the 2600 adapter as prices came down to help the remaining 2600 users upgrade.   CV may have pulled ahead, but the lead was not insurmountable, and console battles last years.

 

15 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

No other competitors had this issue but Atari so I dont buy it. Coleco was more mismanaged than all the gaming companies before the CV came out, their one big long term success in electronics. CV was right as TP was taking off yet Coleco had software lock from the start, less shovelware, backed better rated project in average, or created as such, and got the addon/expansion port features popularised for consoles. 

I never said they didn't.   They were all trying to figure this stuff out.   You can see it when they make moves based on what the competition does rather than what the consumer wants.  Well the competition didn't know exactly what they were doing either.   So we end up with sumb things like terrible keypad based controls on CV and 5200, inspired by Intellivision.

 

I was contrasting against the current companies.  Sony/MS/Nintendo.   They are so much better run.  But they have decades of experience to draw upon, including the mistakes of the early era of examples of what not to do.

[TwoShedsWilson]

Take a little vacation and suddenly I have 6 pages to catch up on.

 

This discussion is fascinating, but then almost everything to do with the early days of video gaming is. There are so many rabbit holes, obscure facts, and weird connections to seemingly unrelated events that a clear 100% accurate and inclusive recount of everything that happened seems somewhat unlikely. Even speaking to the people involved isn't always helpful as the details (shockingly) aren't always the same. The more I read and dig in for the book I'm working on the more I'm conviced Atari died a death of 1000 cuts. Some of those cuts were much deeper than others, but it's not accurate to point to any one that "did it."

 

I will say that I agree with @zzip that dropping the 5200 early was an extremely bone-headed move that hurt them far more than I think most people understand. It was too expensive and had terrible controllers sure, but those are both hurdles that could and should have been overcome. It was a solid bit of hardware and completely capable of competing with Coleco. Killing it so soon painted a picture of a company that maybe didn't know what they were doing and weren't going to support your purchase if they didn't feel like it. Even sticking it out with the platform and underperforming would have been less damaging to their image.

[zzip]

4 hours ago, TwoShedsWilson said:

I will say that I agree with @zzip that dropping the 5200 early was an extremely bone-headed move that hurt them far more than I think most people understand. It was too expensive and had terrible controllers sure, but those are both hurdles that could and should have been overcome. It was a solid bit of hardware and completely capable of competing with Coleco. Killing it so soon painted a picture of a company that maybe didn't know what they were doing and weren't going to support your purchase if they didn't feel like it. Even sticking it out with the platform and underperforming would have been less damaging to their image.

Yeah, I don't understand why more people don't get why this was so damaging.  Imagine if Sony next spring announces that the chip shortage is making it too difficult to produce PS5's, so they designed a new PS6 that is easier to produce.   It's better than the PS5 in some ways, but worse in others,  it will be backwards compatible with PS4 but not PS5.   BTW they are discontinuing PS5 and won't be developing new titles for it.  Anyone who spent $400/500 on a PS5 is just out of luck.   That would be a huge scandal and the backlash would be fierce!

 

But it's essentially what Atari did in 1984.  We didn't have internet back then, so we didn't get the kind of backlash we'd see today.  Still the people who were 5200 early adopters were likely among the biggest Atari fans out there they are the ones who recommend systems to their friends, and therefore the ones Atari needed to piss off the least.

[Leeroy ST]

11 hours ago, zzip said:

The JR was obviously a Warner-era design given the styling,  but it wasn't released until 86.   It was a surprise to the Atari community because the line had long been "consoles are dead, computers are the future", and here suddenly is the new Atari management rereleasing the 2600 because they were saying it is still in demand, and they sold all their stock despite no advertising.

What became the jr was continued from the start after Jack got it, 2600 sales had nothing to do with it. Though helped.

 

Also in 86, Atari asked companies if they would rather have a computer or a game system and many said a game system which led to the XEGS.

 

People forget retailers in part were pissed off about the computer price wars, while some video games. Demand never had a significant drop for either, retailers were the middleman getting in the way. It's why many didn't stock ST or Amiga in 85-86 but we're still rushing out C64/128 etc inventory.

 

11 hours ago, zzip said:

I've long said that cancelling the 5200 was a huge mistake because it alienated the fans who bought it.    They should have invested in more compelling games, released fixed controllers and maybe eventually bundle the 2600 adapter as prices came down to help the remaining 2600 users upgrade.   CV may have pulled ahead, but the lead was not insurmountable, and console battles last years.

 

There clearly had to be an issue with fixing the controllers. Because technically they did refine and release multiple versions of the controller but never fixed the ONE core problem people had issue with.

 

Between the computer wars and the money spend on PR and customer service for the 5200 issues, plus them screwing up not moving as much software early on, they probably didn't want to bother with the costs for actually fixing the controller. Or the connector for the console itself (for awhile).

 

But Warner Atari was also heavily mismanaged so it could have just been they wanted instant success and pulled out because they were nuts. 

 

 

 

 

[Leeroy ST]

10 hours ago, TwoShedsWilson said:

Expensive, but those are both hurdles that could and should have been overcome. It was a solid bit of hardware and completely capable of competing with Coleco. Killing it so soon painted a picture of a company that maybe didn't know what they were doing and weren't going to support your purchase if they didn't feel like it. Even sticking it out with the platform and underperforming would have been less damaging to their image.

CV made it through the crash with games and was still modestly profitable even in 85.

 

The 5200 (or even just releasing the 7800) at the original date, would have likely done much better than the CV with more big name games and Warner money.

 

CV only smashed ahead because Atari slowed production and distribution of the 5200, then discontinued it at near the same time Coleco said in a few months they would temporarily freeze production to help mass produce Adam computers. 

 

That move would have killed any company but Coleco only got away with it because it became the cheapest and most accessible, and later ONLY, next generation option.

 

It's similar to the Jaguar screw ups giving 3DO room for early game delays and starting with a high price. When in almost any other case the Jaguar could have killed them and their "3DOA" campaign would have worked.

 

Initially the 5200 hit 1 million first by a good length of time and had a good variety of titles and was starting to bring in computer style games. It could have sold another million before the 84 holiday and who knows what after that. They basically gave CV the spotlight all of 84 and the last quarter of 83 for free. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Leeroy ST