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

[empsolo]

Just now, Leeroy ST said:

Why are you pretending one company is an indicator that this was common when it wasn't? You'd have to be blind not too pick up what MS was doing. Especially in the 80's. Your using a large obvious target.

 

I'm using a large obvious target because under your logic, Microsoft should have been able to throw its money, logistical and political power to get away with murder in this situation. Yet people did come forward and did give the government excruciating details that nearly led to Microsoft's breakup.

 

Quote

No Nintendo clearly brought space for the NES at retailers and stuffed stock in that space. Yes there's plenty of evidence. Your not separating WoW from Nintendo and are mixing them together.

Clearly bought space? Where is the evidence for this?

 

Quote

WoW didn't produced hundreds of thousands of NES to bring into retailers, including ones that had nothing to do with the test runs. Nobody saw those large shipments coming. 

This is only evidence that WoW purchased a large order for the NES because, after all, their execs had been on the ground NYC during the test run and had seen the promise of the NES.

 

Quote

There was no way for Sega or Atari to expand their stock availability without the work arounds after 86, which is why they used work around, which only brought some time in the end with temporary results.

Except we know both Sega and Atari had produced more than half a million units each with targets of selling 500,000 units each as a benchmark for success. Neither Sega nor Atari cracked more than 125,000 units sold for fiscal year 1986. So they certainly were on shelves but neither system had killer app that retailers could gravitate and promote.

[Leeroy ST]

1 hour ago, SoundGammon said:

I'll never believe that the "Tramiel Atari" wanted to do video games! Jack fought tooth & nail against Warner about who is going to pay for the 7800!  Also, he could easily put the 7800 on the shelves in the fall of 1984. They were all ready to go! All they had to do was put stickers over the Warner labels to Atari Corp! Like the one on my 7800 box! It also stickers over the text saying it it could become a home computer!

 

16 minutes ago, Matt_B said:

Yeah, Tramel Technology had one product in the shape of the ST. They needed a company with the engineering, production and distribution capabilities to bring it to market. Atari had all that and could be acquired for next to nothing.

 

The rest of the company was dead wood to them though, 

 

These beliefs were throughout debunked in this thread starting with page 1, but 2 is a good start:

 

 

And uh, the 7800 wasn't part of the initial deal with Jack, that was a separate deal.

 

 

[empsolo]

19 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

You literally just quoted me saying I never said buying space and stuffing channels was illegal.

 

But you keep saying it was anticompetitive which is illegal. So which is it?

 

Quote

Also Sears is one retailer, Atari didn't stuff channels across multiple retailerS and make it impossible for Mattel and Coleco to get space to sell stock. In fact Coleco was gobbling up share, and so did Mattel earlier.

Do we want to compare units shipped to retailers by Atari vs their competitors?

 

Quote

They didn't need an out of the box solution outside traditional norms to circumvent the issue. Unlike Atari and Sega. That was the only time in US gaming history that happened. It is a big part of why the NES was as big as it was and why many barely knew of the competition.

It's not the only time. Gamestop, for example, has struck deals with Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo for exclusive physical distribution rights over software,peripherals and even hardware. For example Sony just recently gave Gamestop first serve rights on PS5 restocks here in the US.

Edited August 31, 2021 by empsolo

[Leeroy ST]

6 minutes ago, empsolo said:

I'm using a large obvious target because under your logic, 

My logic is that it wasn't common, because it wasn't. Using a well known large target doesn't help your argument.

 

7 minutes ago, empsolo said:

This is only evidence that WoW purchased a large order for the NES because, after all, their execs had been on the ground NYC during the test run and had seen the promise of the NES.

This response is to a quote of me saying WoW "did NOT" produce the consoles, and was not involved with many of the retailers the shelves was stuffed in. Check the quote again.

 

9 minutes ago, empsolo said:

Except we know both Sega and Atari had produced more than half a million units 

This is completely inaccurate. Atari sold what they produced in 1986, and there's zero evidence Sega had 500k on shelves. Considering according to the LA times that's what they sold by 1988, that would mean it took two years for Sega to sell the first shipment.

 

 

 

 

[Leeroy ST]

12 minutes ago, empsolo said:

But you keep saying it was anticompetitive which is illegal. 

I never said that word either, I said it blocked/harmed the competition. That doesn't have to be illegal.

 

The only part that's illegal are the threats and ultimatums 

 

Quote

It's not the only time. 

Yes it is. Neither company in your example didn't have lack of a viable alternative and had to be unconventional to find a way to get consoles sold.

Edited August 31, 2021 by Leeroy ST

[empsolo]

14 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

My logic is that it wasn't common, because it wasn't. Using a well known large target doesn't help your argument.

 

This response is to a quote of me saying WoW "did NOT" produce the consoles, and was not involved with many of the retailers the shelves was stuffed in. Check the quote again.

 

This is completely inaccurate. Atari sold what they produced in 1986, and there's zero evidence Sega had 500k on shelves. Considering according to the LA times that's what they sold by 1988, that would mean it took two years for Sega to sell the first shipment.

 

 

 

 

Sega’s own internal forecast for units sold in 1986 was 500,000. That was their benchmark.

[Leeroy ST]

42 minutes ago, empsolo said:

Sega’s own internal forecast for units sold in 1986 was 500,000. That was their benchmark.

Well you're suggesting Sega made 500k units in 86.

 

it's hard to believe they would have 375k units on shelves by the end of the year but still produce more stock for themselves and with the Tonka deal in 87, and if LA times is accurate when it said Sega sold 500k by 1988, then that would indicate a large amount of Sega consoles sitting on shelves not being sold for near two years.

 

Sega retail access wasn't much better than Ataris, who sold 1 million 7800 consoles half year into 88(June) and 100,000 XEGS which was all they could produce, by start of 88. So if Sega had that much stock and retailer space in 86 then how did Atari outperform them in a similar two year period? 

 

This would suggest Sega was so unwanted that nobody wanted to buy the console. But then how would Sega sell that final 1.5 million ltd in 1992(US)? 1989 onward their sales were rapidly collapsing like Atari's, how would they suddenly pull 1 million extra sales when they had surplus stock on shelves they needed to move?

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by Leeroy ST

[DavidD]

13 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

A user already gave you an example of one way through WoW. Did you forget?

 

The evidence is literally Atari and Sega trying to find work around in 1987 specifically because they couldn't get shelf space in 1986. The year all 3 consoles launched. Both companies weren't doing that because they imagined they couldn't get on shelves, they couldn't, and Nintendo threw a crap ton of stock around which is why they sold beyond what people expected by end of the year

 

So why would you be confused if Nintendo stuffed stock and and brought space? If they didn't then all 3 consoles should have had at least suitable availability in 1986. Except they didn't and Sega and Atari had to change tactics in 87.

 

Remember, Sega and Atari were preparing since 1985. Yet they had limited presence and had to double down on what they had.

 

So if Sega and Atari couldn't get retailer space that far ahead what's the alternate explanation? Magic?

See, the problem I'm having with this is that nothing in that shows that Nintendo "stuffed shelves" nor did some sort of illegal/unethical thing to prevent Sega and Atari from selling stuff.  Nintendo didn't make any exclusive deals, Nintendo didn't threaten to pull stock, etc.  At the very "worst" you have Nintendo "forcing" stores to carry the NES -- but, again, both Atari and Sega could have done that, if they offered anything stores wanted.  I mean, it's true that Atari had miserable stocking at that point -- but why are we to believe it's due to Nintendo's plotting as opposed to stores not wanting to carry Atari products?

 

I guess I'm still puzzled at where the "smoking gun" is that shoes that Atari and Sega's failure is based on anything other than their software and hardware being less appealing to retailers and the general demand of the consumers.  So far it seems to amount to Nintendo offering more stock to stores than Atari and getting more shelf space -- but if Nintendo didn't force the stores NOT to carry Atari/Sega, I still don't see what the problem here is.

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by DavidD

[empsolo]

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

Well you're suggesting Sega made 500k units in 86.

 

it's hard to believe they would have 375k units on shelves by the end of the year but still produce more stock for themselves and with the Tonka deal in 87, and if LA times is accurate when it said Sega sold 500k by 1988, then that would indicate a large amount of Sega consoles sitting on shelves not being sold for near two years.

 

Sega retail access wasn't much better than Ataris, who sold 1 million 7800 consoles half year into 88(June) and 100,000 XEGS which was all they could produce, by start of 88. So if Sega had that much stock and retailer space in 86 then how did Atari outperform them in a similar two year period? 

 

This would suggest Sega was so unwanted that nobody wanted to buy the console. But then how would Sega sell that final 1.5 million ltd in 1992(US)? 1989 onward their sales were rapidly collapsing like Atari's, how would they suddenly pull 1 million extra sales when they had surplus stock on shelves they needed to move?

 

 

 

I don’t know how you can be this fucking stupid when it comes to facts this mundane. The charge given by Hayao Nakayama to Michael Katz for the Master System launch in NA was to sell between 450,000-750,000 units. This a fact not in dispute by anybody. Bruce Lowry in an interview with the AP was quoted as expecting that number sold for fiscal year 1986.

 

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QBhcAAAAIBAJ&pg=2846,1271636

 

edit: The answer to your dumbass question is this: They massively over estimated the impact the master system would have on the NA market. They only sold 125,000 units, a paltry sum to their expected half a million number. Nobody gave a shit about the Master System. The launch titles were abysmal choices and just more of the same with brighter colors. Maybe if they had rushed to get Alex Kidd out the door instead of releasing in November/December, that master system hype could’ve been salvaged. But as it was, it had a fucking abysmal underwhelming launch despite Sega’s internal predictions.

Edited August 31, 2021 by empsolo

[Leeroy ST]

15 minutes ago, DavidD said:

See, the problem I'm having with this is that nothing in that shows that Nintendo "stuffed shelves" 

There's pretty much undeniable evidence they stuffed the shelves in 86 which they could only do if they brought space to put the stock. I also never said that was illegal, I addressed this with Emp a few posts ago. Your mixing that up with the threats and ultimatums.

 

18 minutes ago, DavidD said:

again, both Atari and Sega could have done that, 

Not they couldn't have, your ur making yourself believe Atari and Sega were loaded. Not only is that not true, but Nintendo also had additional help from WoW.

 

21 minutes ago, DavidD said:

I guess I'm still puzzled at where the "smoking gun" is that shoes that Atari and Sega's failure is based on anything other than their software and hardware being less appealing to retailers and the general demand of the consumers.  

 

The problem is your ignoring the events of the time and what was explained to you, this is why you're "puzzled" because your time frame is different from what actually happened.

 

Nintendo had space and stock stuffed across numerous retailers by the time all 3 consoles launched. Nintendo barely had a presense in 85, outside two questionable test runs. The last one may have impressed a select few retailers based on performance in one city, this wouldn't apply to the rest of the retailers, so they had to have brought the space, this "demand" stuff doesn't hold water and Atari wasn't the only company impacted.

 

In addition the 7800 sold out and was working on fulfilling increased orders but that increase was a blip, and they still could barely expand to get more shelf space. Separately neither did Sega, so again they both had to find a way to get on more shelves. In Sega's case Tonka helped them (initially) get into retail they couldn't before. So it's not "Demand" or "Appeal" it's about access, and Nintendo basically brought all the access.

 

Even when the Genesis and TG16 were first out this was still a problem for a short time. Stagnation and hubris ended it.

 

[DavidD]

19 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

There's pretty much undeniable evidence they stuffed the shelves in 86 which they could only do if they brought space to put the stock. I also never said that was illegal, I addressed this with Emp a few posts ago. Your mixing that up with the threats and ultimatums.

Okay, so Nintendo didn't do anything illegal when it came to whatever they did in 1986. Sorry, I must have misunderstood you earlier.

 

19 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

The problem is your ignoring the events of the time and what was explained to you, this is why you're "puzzled" because your time frame is different from what actually happened.

 

Nintendo had space and stock stuffed across numerous retailers by the time all 3 consoles launched. Nintendo barely had a presense in 85, outside two questionable test runs. The last one may have impressed a select few retailers based on performance in one city, this wouldn't apply to the rest of the retailers, so they had to have brought the space, this "demand" stuff doesn't hold water and Atari wasn't the only company impacted.

 

Again, at the risk of sounding annoying, where is the evidence that during the general release of the NES, it was only carried in stores due to Nintendo buying shelf space?  If it is true -- er, what's the point, again?  Stores wouldn't provide shelf space unless someone paid for it?  If that were the case (which I, again, am slightly skeptical of), doesn't that more readily imply that stores were "burned" on video games, which would easily explain a reluctance to carry Atari?

19 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

In addition the 7800 sold out and was working on fulfilling increased orders but that increase was a blip, and they still could barely expand to get more shelf space. Separately neither did Sega, so again they both had to find a way to get on more shelves. In Sega's case Tonka helped them (initially) get into retail they couldn't before. So it's not "Demand" or "Appeal" it's about access, and Nintendo basically brought all the access.

Look, I know this seems really clear to you, but I don't get how we're making the leap from "Nintendo filled store shelves with products" to "Nintendo used tricks to prevent Sega and Atari from selling product."  Isn't it far more logical to assume that the new video game (with a "toy robot" and gun) was better stocked because, oh, it sold better?

 

If we agree Nintendo's production and shipment to stores wasn't illegal in any sense, then I'm confused as to what the issue here is other than "Nintendo was better at convincing stores to carry Nintendo."  If Nintendo was "blocking" Atari, it sounds like it was only because retailers wanted Atari less than Nintendo.  I suppose there could have been some sort of silent majority of US video game buyers pining for Atari and disappointed to see so much Nintendo everywhere, but it seems like retailers did feel more comfortable with Nintendo that Atari.

 

...tied to that, wasn't the 7800 released in early 1986, and the NES's national release wasn't until late 1986?  If so, how was Nintendo preventing Atari from getting shelf space during all the months Nintendo had no product?

Edited August 31, 2021 by DavidD

[Leeroy ST]

1 hour ago, empsolo said:

 Michael Katz for the Master System launch in NA was to sell between 450,000-750,000 units. 

That doesn't actually mean they actually produced those units:

 

 

This was in end of 86, Sega had some demand outstrip supply so I can't see 375k on the shelves.

 

However into 87, there does seem to be a demand drop at some point:

 

 

But this also touches on the distribution issue from before.

 

 

[Leeroy ST]

1 hour ago, DavidD said:

Look, I know this seems really clear to you, but I don't get how we're making the leap from "Nintendo filled store shelves with products" to "Nintendo used tricks to prevent Sega and Atari from selling product."  

Never said it was a trick

 

You keep bringing up demand before there was evidence of real sales performance. The Nintendo channel stuffing and and space access was BEFORE all 3 consoles launched in 86 and increased quickly.

 

Neither of the two had much of a foothold from the start, just like how Nintendo had jp third parties locked before even the AVS was released. You keep skipping this over and over. There is no "demand" yet. 

 

By the time there is demand involved no one even knows there's competition. 2  million consoles sold in 86, 1 million of that was NES, that means Intellivision/5200/2600/7800/SMS and what ever else sold 1 million all together, a chunk of that was cheap 2600 and 2600 jr stock which was the second most sold console as 2600 already had channels it was already in from 85 and before. I dont think that's a coincidence. The retailers moving 2600s had NES surrounding it on shelves. The 2600 moved enough as a cheap entry level console and was doing better than 7800 and SMS so some channels kept the 2600.

 

This was a result of poor distribution and shelf access. The 2600 still wouldn't have been as "big" as it was if there were more access given to 7800 and SMS.

 

Heck, XEGS used the few 7800 channels to sell. Sold out, became an even more rare product than 7800. There was no where to put it XEGS. Either pay your first born son to steal space or do a work around.

 

Article talking about Sega:

 

Distribution  issues and shelf access are commonly cited in articles for both. Sega went to Tonka for this reason.

[empsolo]

18 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

That doesn't actually mean they actually produced those units:

 

 

This was in end of 86, Sega had some demand outstrip supply so I can't see 375k on the shelves.

 

However into 87, there does seem to be a demand drop at some point:

 

 

But this also touches on the distribution issue from before.

Wait a second, your first article is talking about a single area's retailer outstripping demand. Thus tells me that the local retailer didn't order much supply in the first place.  Also thanks for cropping this article to the point of useless. Stripping articles of their context is such an honest debate practice.

[empsolo]

Here is an academic source repeating the 475-750,000 units in 1986  number.

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=IExnDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT236&lpg=PT236&dq=sega+750000+1986+master+system&source=bl&ots=LqtKGy-b2_&sig=ACfU3U1HcBKKQPEXP75RdBOKy7ntaktiKg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-7bnoudryAhWInOAKHWC6BS04ChDoAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=sega 750000 1986 master system&f=false

 

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

[Leeroy ST]

Just now, empsolo said:

Wait a second, your first article is talking about a single area's retailer outstripping demand. Thus tells me that the local retailer didn't order much supply in the first place.  Also thanks for cropping this article to the point of useless. Stripping articles of their context is such an honest debate practice.

I didn't crop anything, that's how it was.

 

But anyway I noticed you skipped the second one.

 

I just find it very strange Sega would have 375k+ units on the shelves when they had limited space like Atari to put them.

 

Then make more supply in 87, and only get through that first 500k 86 shipment by 88?

 

Yet with declining sales 89 onward some how had an ltd of 1.5 million? It doesn't add up. Where did the 1 million sales come from? And Genesis was announced in 88 and released in 89 too.

 

And there was a point Tonja talked about sales flattening in 88, from Star Tribune:

 

 

So considering they already weren't doing too hot before, that's the canary in the coal mine for 89. 

 

I mean if you still want to believe Sega actually made 500k consoles to each their own. But that really paints the Master System as a pretty bad and unwanted machine, and there are people on this forum that are very sure SMS did better than 7800.

[empsolo]

24 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

I didn't crop anything, that's how it was.

 

But anyway I noticed you skipped the second one.

 

I just find it very strange Sega would have 375k+ units on the shelves when they had limited space like Atari to put them.

 

Then make more supply in 87, and only get through that first 500k 86 shipment by 88?

 

Yet with declining sales 89 onward some how had an ltd of 1.5 million? It doesn't add up. Where did the 1 million sales come from? And Genesis was announced in 88 and released in 89 too.

 

And there was a point Tonja talked about sales flattening in 88, from Star Tribune:

 

 

So considering they already weren't doing too hot before, that's the canary in the coal mine for 89. 

 

I mean if you still want to believe Sega actually made 500k consoles to each their own. But that really paints the Master System as a pretty bad and unwanted machine, and there are people on this forum that are very sure SMS did better than 7800.

Couple things I've noticed. You aren't actually reading your articles. The second article made mention that Sega was having distribution problems not manufacturing or supply problems. Meaning they had the stock on hand but had trouble of finding partners who knew distribution channels to get supply to retailers. Sega of America President Bruce Lowry, you know the guy actually in charge of the company in the US, made a bold prediction to the AP that Sega could sell 475,000-750,000 units. If he knew full well that Sega actually did not have units on hand, then he committed a crime because it is very illegal to mislead investors like that. Its more likely that as the summer progressed, not many stores placed orders for the Master System because Saga did not ha e connections to the main distribution channels in the US. It seems that only 375,000 units were able to be actually purchased by retailers. Of this number, only 125,000 units sold through to consumers. This bad launch causes Sega to withdraw from the Market and sell Master System distribution rights to Tonka, who proceded to screw the pooch harder. Thus in using Ockham's Razor, we a simple explanation that fits all relevant data points that doesn't involve Sega executives lying to pump investors.

 

 

 

 

Second, your third articles says that Sega sales under Tonka are flattening. No figures are given. We don't know whether this means daily, weekly, monthly or year over year and by what volume. Tonka itself was a notable failure when it gained sole distribution rights to the Master System after Sega left the market in 1987.

Edited August 31, 2021 by empsolo

[Leeroy ST]

On 8/30/2021 at 12:17 AM, DavidD said:

Could you possible source that Nintendo prevented stores from carrying competitors' products?  

On this subject (separate from the shelf space/stuffing issue)

 

@high voltagevoltage has made many posts in several threads about Nintendo pressuring or threatening retailers, harming the 7800/SMS.

 

He seems to hop on the site, so he may be able to pull the thread that shows it so we dont have to play mine sweeper.

[Leeroy ST]

3 minutes ago, empsolo said:

Couple things I've noticed. You aren't actually reading your articles. The second article made mention that Sega was having distribution problems not manufacturing or supply problems. 

I've been talking about distribution and shelf space for some time now. The second article has nothing to do with the first, it was backing up the distribution access issue.

 

5 minutes ago, empsolo said:

the US, made a bold prediction to the AP that Sega could sell 475,000-750,000 units. If he knew full well that Sega actually did not have units on hand, then he committed a crime because it is very illegal to mislead investors like that. 

There have been companies who have made a prediction and it didn't happen. Lost Dragon could pull some for C= and others. You seem to be giving a large benefit of the doubt for no reason these companies are following the "law" to the letter everyday.

 

Quote

It seems that only 375,000 units were able to be actually purchased by retailers. Of this number, only 125,000 units sold through to consumers. 

First you said 500k, where are you getting 375k to retailers from? My mention of 375k was taking 125,000 from your original 500k claim.

 

Quote

Second, your third articles says that Sega sales under Tonka are flattening. No figures are given. We don't know whether this means daily, weekly, monthly or year over year and by what volume. 

 

Mentioned as a drop in sales in 1989, Star Tribune:

 

 

A drop in orders and missed targets from the year before 1988. Genesis skipping Tonka and SMS partnership ending by the end of 89.

 

So again, it doesn't add up to me as you say, for Sega to have produced 500k consoles in 86, with 375k on the shelves, but getting more stock in 87, but only selling the initial 500k by 1988 per LA times, with declining sales, and some how have an ltd of 1.5 million in 1992.

 

Even you meant only 375k and not 500k in 86 that doesn't change anything else.

 

I mean if you believe it, to each their own, but there's 1 million or more SMS consoles unaccounted for and we have no idea where they came from. To reach that 1.5 million US ltd by 1992.

[Lostdragon]

On 8/29/2021 at 2:36 AM, Leeroy ST said:

The ST could have still made money as a cheap productivity or music computer. It only seems sane to kill it when looking at it "competing" but it still had the potential to make money by itself. Same with Falcon, it could have been a niche for many types of people, and a gaming machine for enthusiasts.

 

And considering where Apple ended up nearly going, slow and steady may eventually have been proven beneficial.

So 2 years after a portable ST was rumored, Atari launch the first model STacey at the UK PC show? 

 

A 2Mb machine with 20Mb HDD, yours at a snip for only £1,299

 

Nearly dropped my toast until I saw that 

Apple had just introduced it's own portable  around the same time, coming in at £4,500.

 

 

I also found Atari refocusing the STE  as more educational machine, was nothing more than a knee jerk reaction, CBM had seen success with it's Commodore Class Of the 90"s Amiga pack, so they had to follow suit. 

 

 

 

Peter Stannard, Marketing Manager at Atari UK (another Atari UK source i have never seen interviewed when the ST was covered by Retrogamer Magazine) was quoted as saying:

 

 

"The strategy for the STE  will be quite different in 1991 to 1990.We will be concentrating on the benifit which the machine offers in terms of it's computing power, rather than it's ability to play games." 

 

 

 

I also found Atari Uk's spokesman, Peter Walker (yet another source you never saw likes of Retrogamer Use, it was always Darryl Still).. trying to be bullish about latest full price software sales in the UK from July 1990 to June 1991.

 

Source ELSPA:

 

Of some 2,439,058 games sold.. 

 

29% were Amiga sales.. 

 

12% were ST sales.. 

 

9% were PC sales. 

 

In July 1990 PC games sales were put at 6,700,12 months on they were 26,300..a reported increase of 389%.

 

The Amiga market share at time of the report, had increased to 38% in 3 months..

 

 

But PC growth was put at around 60% each month, going from a 6% market share in July 1990 to nearly 13% 

 

 

The ST by comparison which had a 15% market share at the start of the same period, had seen a month on month steady decline and now sat at around 11%

 

Since May 1991,PC game sales were reported to be beating ST game sales.. 

 

Walker commented :"Amstrad is not even in our market.. we don't feel threatened by the current taking up of the lesuire PC market, which is being heightened by the need to sell PC's..From what they are saying, it sounds like they've got to sell a lot of PC's, maybe they're being aggressive, because they're not happy price wise? 

 

 

Typical Atari, ignore the very real threat emerging 

 

 

 

The likes Virgin, Gremlin and MicroProse were making clear they saw the future lying with the PC and Consoles, the PC becoming the dominant force in the UK home micro market. 

Edited August 31, 2021 by Lostdragon

[Lostdragon]

23 hours ago, empsolo said:

This seems to be Atari Games v. Nintendo, not the Atari Corp v. Nintendo lawsuit. You can tell because the main complaint is over the lockout mechanism on the NES and Nintendo's control over their own platform. This suit was dismissed because without comment because of Tengen's boneheaded decision to raid the patent office. 

 

Edit:Seriously, who thought that would be a good decision in any circumstance?

I can never keep track of US Court cases.. 

 

System 3 had International Karate banned in the USA for 2 years, after the Apple, C64 and PC versions had only been on sale a few weeks.. they also had to destroy all copies sold by Epyx, after Data East gained an injunction saying it had ripped of Karate Champ...

 

 

But a Supreme Court Judge later over-ruled the earlier verdict, saying it was an error.. 

 

 

This led to System 3 seeking damages from Data East... 

 

 

Mark Cale said he wanted to make Dara East suffer the way they'd made him suffer, wanted money from lost sales, compensation for being branded a pirate, his legal costs (hundreds of thousands) repaid, he'd been humiliated.. 

 

He said the case has come down to to US Copyright law, the legal term being look and feel, if one product was too similar to another, it could be classed as a copy. 

 

He scoffed that of course 2 Karate games were going to be similar and that he was going to do everything in his power to smear Data East in the manner they had to him. 

[Lostdragon]

7 hours ago, DavidD said:

See, the problem I'm having with this is that nothing in that shows that Nintendo "stuffed shelves" nor did some sort of illegal/unethical thing to prevent Sega and Atari from selling stuff.  Nintendo didn't make any exclusive deals, Nintendo didn't threaten to pull stock, etc.  At the very "worst" you have Nintendo "forcing" stores to carry the NES -- but, again, both Atari and Sega could have done that, if they offered anything stores wanted.  I mean, it's true that Atari had miserable stocking at that point -- but why are we to believe it's due to Nintendo's plotting as opposed to stores not wanting to carry Atari products?

 

I guess I'm still puzzled at where the "smoking gun" is that shoes that Atari and Sega's failure is based on anything other than their software and hardware being less appealing to retailers and the general demand of the consumers.  So far it seems to amount to Nintendo offering more stock to stores than Atari and getting more shelf space -- but if Nintendo didn't force the stores NOT to carry Atari/Sega, I still don't see what the problem here is.

 

Found this from Tom Kalinske, talking of how stores didn't like Nintendo due to their arrogance, but then they didn't like Sega either.. 

[high voltage]

6 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

On this subject (separate from the shelf space/stuffing issue)

 

@high voltagevoltage has made many posts in several threads about Nintendo pressuring or threatening retailers, harming the 7800/SMS.

 

He seems to hop on the site, so he may be able to pull the thread that shows it so we dont have to play mine sweeper.

Yes, I remember these threads/magazines. 

I sold/dumped my ~5000 computer and gaming magazines, and all those magazines regarding that info was all put on Photobucket.

I think I deleted my three Photobucket accounts, as I cannot find any info about them nowadays. I checked my HDDs, and I have nothing regarding that info.

I will check my AA attachments.

Gosh, that was all years ago....

Edited August 31, 2021 by high voltage

[zzip]

On 8/26/2021 at 4:11 PM, Leeroy ST said:

You need to take wars into consideration for why the 5200 was expensive and was at some point more costly than a computer. Ny saying the 600 indicated they "could" have made a smaller unit you're basically saying they "could" have bled more millions of dollars.

Besides having the built-in storage compartments, what was the reason the 5200 needed to be so large?

 

On 8/26/2021 at 4:11 PM, Leeroy ST said:

Keep in mind the 5200 was winning at it's higher price and growing, despite that and the CV being cheaper. People will pay for quality. Controllers excluded of course.

It was probably more due to name and selection of games overall rather than quality.  The 5200 had several quality-control issues.   But Atari had many more big name arcade games than Coleco.   Outside of DK/jr, Zaxxon and maybe a couple of others,  most of Coleco's exclusive arcade titles were minor arcade hits, while Atari had the likes of Defender, Asteroids, Space Invaders, Dig Dug, Pole Position, Joust, Pac Man, etc, etc.

 

On 8/26/2021 at 4:11 PM, Leeroy ST said:

I can't think of another time in gaming where the Company A was winning and the company just made nonsensical moves and basically handed the victory over to Company B. (PSP is the closest but not the same imo)

Part of the problem was Atari happened to be in the right place at the right time when things blew up.  They didn't really understand the market that well yet.   They didn't understand what consumers actually wanted.   They had no idea where the market was going.

 

With hindsight, we know that the secret to a winning console is good price + having the right games.   It also helps to build brand loyalty to make it that much easier to sell your next console.    Having the best tech on the market doesn't guarantee success, nor do things like backwards compatibility matter that much.    Atari's sudden transition from 5200 to 7800 got most of that backwards.   Only the price was better.

[Leeroy ST]

17 minutes ago, zzip said:

It was probably more due to name and selection of games overall rather than quality.  The 5200 had several quality-control issues.   But Atari had many more big name arcade games .

Yes but the perception of the games quality and reviewed were also part of the reason, because CV started catching up quick later even with 2nd running ips.

 

17 minutes ago, zzip said:

Part of the problem was Atari happened to be in the right place at the right time when things blew up.  They didn't really understand the market that well yet.   They didn't understand what consumers actually wanted.   They had no idea where the market was going.

 

The others did, so this is more of a Warner issue than an Atari one. There's also times where the next move was obvious but they ignored or went an alternate route making a left turn.

 

Even with the 5200 and post test 7800 they still weren't getting it so this is really just Warner heads being disconnected. 

 

Mattel and Coleco and even some more niche machines had things Atari still didn't implement or address with the 5200. 

Edited August 31, 2021 by Leeroy ST