How would you run atari after buying it from Nolan

[8th lutz]

I would've kept the arcade devision and try to make the 2600 a success. Atari wouldn't been into computers in the 70's. I would only due it if the 2600 was a failure. I didn't want the computer games and the console games to have the same games in the future. The second is not having people thinking the system after the 2600 is based off an existing computer. The third thing is streeching atari to thing at that point. I would've been concerned in making the programmers happy to a point. I think that a programmer getting a certain amount of money based how a game sells is fair. The atari cosmo wouldn't get much of a chance to get released. I would've consider hiring more programers in the 70's for the 2600. My thinking is that there should a certain amount of games that would be for the 2600 be arcade and some that are not. I would've allowed 8k games for 2600 in 1980 or 81. There wouldn't be no pac-man for 2600 due it being a lunching title for the system after the 2600. I would've limit the amount of 2600 games by first party in 83 and 84. The 2600 would be gone after 1985. There wouldn't be no swordquest contest. I would've allowed 3rd parties for making games. The catch is the 3rd party games boxes would say atari's approval with a contract being signed. The talks of e.t being turned into a game would end by april 82 at the latest. If Hollywood would've wanted the game to be released at the same time as the movie, there needed to be a reasonable amount of time for e.t being programmed well.

Edited March 6, 2006 by 8th lutz

[8th lutz]

I would've allowed the start the R&d for the next system in 1979 or 1980 with the system being 2600 capatability and having programmers having a say in it. The controller would've been checked for all movement that would be fine for games. There only would be a two players system. I would release the system in Japan in fall 1981. The U.s released being in spring 1982. I wouldn't have the same titles that were already relased for 2600 such as space invader. Games like crazy Climber would be lunch titles for the system after the 2600. There would've been talks with sega, konami, and epyx at least for making 3rd party games or atari having the right make the games for the system after the 2600. 16k games would be allowed in 1982 for that system with 32k games in 83 or 84. 48k games would've been allowed in 1985. 64k games in 1988. The key for this system would've been to build on the games that were made for the 2600 like adventure or pitfall by making the games deeper along with adding elements or challenges like bosses. It would've been the main focused intill 1987. The system will stop having games after 1990. I would post more on it tomorrow.

Edited March 6, 2006 by 8th lutz

[mos6507]

What management should have done is have faith in its people, not second-guess them. The industry was new and Warner had already invested a lot of money in the 2600 project. They really didn't know if the console business would be a flash in the pan or not.

 

The 2600 only really took off after Space Invaders in 1980. By then, Warner Atari had already lost Jay Miner's team, and the Activision guys.

 

Jay should have been the Ken Kutaragi of his day. He should have been given more autonomy. When the Playstation 1 became a huge hit, they pretty much gave Ken the keys to the kingdom. But the 2600 really didn't take off the way the Playstation 1 did during Jay's day and the 400/800 had just been completed so Atari maybe didn't realize what they were losing. Same deal with the Activision guys. They left before Space Invaders really made the 2600 a hit.

 

Still, if Warner felt they were in the consumer business for the long haul, if they had confidence in the industry, and if they knew talent, they wouldn't have let these guys go because once they did, they were never able to replace them.

[mos6507]

I would've allowed the start the R&d for the next system in 1979 or 1980 with the system being 2600 capatability and having programmers having a say in it.  The controller would've been checked for all movement that would be fine for games.  There only would be a two players system. I would release the system in Japan in fall 1981.  The U.s released being in spring 1982.  I wouldn't have the same titles that were already relased for 2600 such as space invader.  Games like crazy Climber would be lunch titles for the system after the 2600.  There would've been talks with sega, konami, and epyx at least for making 3rd party games or atari having the right make the games for the system after the 2600.  16k games would be allowed in 1982 for that system with 32k games in 83 or 84.  48k games would've been allowed in 1985.  64k games in 1988.  The key for this system would've been to build on the games that were made for the 2600 like adventure or pitfall by making the games deeper along with adding elements or challenges like bosses.  It would've been the main focused intill 1987.  The system will stop having games after 1990.  I would post more on it tomorrow.

1028770[/snapback]

 

Your timescale is all wrong. Atari was bought from Nolan circa 1976. So Activision may never have happened. Also, R&D on the Atari 400/800 was started right after the 2600 came out and was already done by 1979. Releasing that system in 1981 would have been way too late. That hardware was ahead of its time and had to come out early enough to still feel way ahead of its time.

[8th lutz]

Your timescale is all wrong.  Atari was bought from Nolan circa 1976.  So Activision may never have happened.  Also, R&D on the Atari 400/800 was started right after the 2600 came out and was already done by 1979.  Releasing that system in 1981 would have been way too late.  That hardware was ahead of its time and had to come out early enough to still feel way ahead of its time.

1028793[/snapback]

 

I wasn't sure it bought in 1976. It thought was bought in that year or 77. I was not refering to the atari 400/ 800 because it was a computer. I was talking about a game console for R&d like the atari 3200 as an example. I know the 2600 was released in 77. As far as activision. I knew that activision didn't exist yet. They were formed due to atari's treatment of employees. The computer would've been scrapped and I knew that the 2600 was done in 1976 but wasn't released then. The 2600 would be an experiment to see if it could sell and give 2 or 3 years. I knew the 400/800 was what the 5200 was based on. I'll grant you technology for the 400/800 would be great to be for a game console. I would've wanted the 2600 to grow and see what it could do if the sales were there by 1979.

[Zonie]

Well, a lot has to be said about giving the designers credit and bonuses based on sales volume. That should have happened from the beginning. People make a company great.

 

The 400 as designed was intended to be a console, and should have been released as such. Had that been the case when it arrived, the 2600 could have been put out to pasture by 1980, and we would all have had 400's instead, and there would have never been anything like the 5200. Think of what Atari would have become if the 400 replaced the 2600 completely before space invaders made it popular and the third party companies produced all the crap that they did that eventually killed it. Had Atari managed the third party stuff more like Nintendo did, things would have been better overall.

 

The 400 as a $200 console instead of a $400 computer would have trumped the colecovision's expandability as the SIO port was there already. The 400 was never really a serious computer anyway. The keyboard was more suited to that of a console's, like the Odyssey 2's was. Don't get me wrong, I love my 400. It gets the most play time of any system I have.

Edited March 6, 2006 by Zonie

[Atarifever]

How would you run atari after buying it from Nolan:

 

Poorly and then into the ground probably.

[8th lutz]

Well, a lot has to be said about giving the designers credit and bonuses based on sales volume. That should have happened from the beginning.  People make a company great.

 

The 400 as designed was intended to be a console, and should have been released as such. Had that been the case when it arrived, the 2600 could have been put out to pasture by 1980, and we would all have had 400's instead, and there would have never been anything like the 5200. Think of what Atari would have become if the 400 replaced the 2600 completely before space invaders made it popular and the third party companies produced all the crap that they did that eventually killed it. Had Atari managed the third party stuff more like Nintendo did, things would have been better overall.

 

The 400 as a $200 console instead of a $400 computer would have trumped the colecovision's expandability as the SIO port was there already.  The 400 was never really a serious computer anyway.  The keyboard was more suited to that of a console's, like the Odyssey 2's was. Don't get me wrong, I love my 400. It gets the most play time of any system I have.

1028997[/snapback]

In the case you, presented It would make great sense. I always considered it being computer along with it's 8 bit line including the xe. I never played the 400/800 or the 8 bit line or any atari computer for that matter. I only used apple 2e at school with no computer at home till 1994. I was aware of the xe by it being in a sears catlog in 88 and 89. I was treating it as computer as a commdore 64 (a gamers computer.) The xe tried being a game console, but it was computer.

[mos6507]

An Atari 400 style computer would have been different from what it turned out to be. It would probably have shipped with no operating system, for instance. Maybe it would have only had 4K RAM instead of 8K, meaning you couldn't have a full Gr.8 bitmap. I don't know if they could justify putting even a membrane keyboard on it. It would have been more limited than the 400 if positioned as a console in 1979. Hopefully they would have provided a good upgrade method instead of having a hard split between console and computer. I think doing a home computer was still worthwhile but it served two different markets at the time since home computers were so expensive. The game carts, however, could have been universal.

[8th lutz]

If the 400/800 was presented as a game console, I would've release by 1979. The 2600 would be gone by the end of that year. I would've tried to the 400 going through 85 or 86 before replacing it. I would've been after geting computer companies and get companies like sega to port their games over. I would've like too see if bank switching could happen a game console for it. It would've been the key when the next system should come. I would've liked 16k, 32k or 48k games by 84. It would've been commericaled as the ultimate gaming system. I am talking about having computer games, arcade games and true game console games on it. I would like the controller to have muliple buttons, such as 2 or 3. I wouldn't do an add for it. The reason for 2k or 4k games built in the 2600 was because of cost. By 79 it would be cheaper to due a 8k system. The key is can it be bank switched and have a reasonable price for the consumer. I had no idea what game prices were prior to 88.

Edited March 6, 2006 by 8th lutz

[8th lutz]

An Atari 400 style computer would have been different from what it turned out to be.  It would probably have shipped with no operating system, for instance.  Maybe it would have only had 4K RAM instead of 8K, meaning you couldn't have a full Gr.8 bitmap.  I don't know if they could justify putting even a membrane keyboard on it.  It would have been more limited than the 400 if positioned as a console in 1979.  Hopefully they would have provided a good upgrade method instead of having a hard split between console and computer.  I think doing a home computer was still worthwhile but it served two different markets at the time since home computers were so expensive.  The game carts, however, could have been universal.

1029134[/snapback]

I understand your thinking with having a home computer. I agree about having a home computer. I felt a computer would be good for office work or school work at home. As games it can be played on console if the console was able to play them by adaptor, or built in compatability. The issue would be price. I see your point with price with a computer since I didn't have one as a kid. I was lucky enough to get a console and was happy to get one. What would've of been interesting is how would the people who own a computer pay for a game console with the same tech?

[dwh]

I think I would have fired the idiot that said this about 2600 games,

"I could put s**t in those boxes and still charge $60"(PAC-MAN was crap)

This is why Atari got stagnant, too much greed by a few people;the usual BS.

[supercat]

Think of what Atari would have become if the 400 replaced the 2600 completely before space invaders made it popular and the third party companies produced all the crap that they did that eventually killed it.

1028997[/snapback]

 

There was a lot of third-party junk, to be sure, but third-party vendors are also responsible for most of the innovation that kept the 2600 going as long as it did. IMHO, Atari's willingness to release inferior products at premium prices was as responsible for their demise as was the willingness of third parties to release junk at rock-bottom prices. If Atari could have credibly suggested that one $50 Atari game offered more value than three competitors' $20 games, it might have staved off the crash somewhat. But when stuff like Pac Man got released, such claims didn't really hold water.

[8th lutz]

If the 400/800 isn't one the market in 1979, then there would be another game system in 1987. It would be for $200.00 back then. The technology would a better then the sms. It would have at least 256k before bankswitiching. Atari would be talks with capcom for making games for it, getting snk games on that atari system, with continuing getting games from sega and others with talking to ea for games. The launch would have Gauntlet, Marable Madness, Megaman, outrun at least. The games would be able go up to 8-20 megabits at least. It would be that big until 1992-1994, I think. Get the tetris rights instead of nintendo. Released the lynx with Tetris. I would also like to get rare as 2nd party for atari. That way the lynx and the game console would get games like the wizard& Warrior series, and R.c Po-am. Atari would also try to rights to the simpsons for games on consoles with atari working with konami for getting the arcade game as lunch title for 1992 with a new system. The system from 87 would continue till the end 95 if the 400/800 isn't released as a console.

[liveinabin]

I would have held on to the name for years and years, releasing poor quality 'new' versions of things like Centipede and Asteroids. After 20 or so years of that, I'd just release woeful titles based on defunct licenses (like The Matrix) just to finish it off.

[Zonie]

If the 400/800 was presented as a game console, I would've release by 1979.  The 2600 would be gone by the end of that year.  I would've tried to the 400 going through 85 or 86 before replacing it.  I would've been after geting computer companies and get companies like sega to port their games over.  I would've like too see if bank switching could happen a game console for it.  It would've been the key when the next system should come.  I would've liked 16k, 32k or 48k games by 84.  It would've been commericaled as the ultimate gaming system.  I am talking about having computer games, arcade games and true game console games on it.  I would like the controller to have muliple buttons, such as 2 or 3.  I wouldn't do an add for it.  The reason for 2k or 4k games built in the 2600 was because of cost.  By 79 it would be cheaper to due a 8k system.  The key is can it be bank switched and have a reasonable price for the consumer.  I had no idea what game prices were prior to 88.

1029135[/snapback]

I think that if they had the mentalitity they do today: "give 'em the console, make up the loss on the games" then a $200, 16K 400 complete with membrane KB would have been successful as a console. The 800 would still be available as a computer, but in a different price category. Having the carts compatible would be an incentive for a household to upgrade in the family since the library they already had was compatible. Maybe if this were the strategy, the 400 could have shipped without the SIO port, thus forcing the follow-on upgrade to a full 800 computer. Of course, we would have seen disk drive adaptors that plug into the cart port instead, possibly, and from third parties to boot.

 

Then the 5200 and 7800 would never have come along, and possibly by 1986, we would have had the next gen game console something like a 400-ish version of the ST, but probably with a real keyboard, as Commodore paved the way with the Vic-20.

Edited March 7, 2006 by Zonie

[JB]

I would hire Jesus for an extensive ad campaign.

[4ever2600]

Not only would I have followed through with REAL titles that got shelved, like TEMPEST and CLOAK AND DAGGER, after the crash when Nintendo offered me the opportunity to market the NES under Atari's name, I WOULD HAVE SAID YES!

[mos6507]

Not only would I have followed through with REAL titles that got shelved, like TEMPEST and CLOAK AND DAGGER, after the crash when Nintendo offered me the opportunity to market the NES under Atari's name, I WOULD HAVE SAID YES!

 

 

With an intact engineering team there would have been no reason whatsoever to license anybody else's console hardware other than to bury it by not releasing it.

 

If Atari made the right moves, there would have been no crash. Also, with Jay Miner's team on board they would have released the Amiga in 1984 which would have wiped the floor with the NES or Sega SMS.

 

I also feel that it would have been a mistake under any circumstances for Atari to have licensed the NES. It did not "feel" like an Atari system. You can trace certain design aspects of the 7800, the Lynx, or even the Jaguar back to the 2600, even though they were designed by different teams. Aside from the 6502, the NES is a totally different approach. I'm not even talking about the games, just the graphics and sound hardware. I think gamers would sense the difference and have a hard time accepting it as an honest-to-goodness Atari system.