Atari Founder Likes Xbox360, Disses PS3

[Flojomojo]

http://www.redherring.com/PrintArticle.asp...ctor=Industries

 

I think Sony shot themselves in the foot… there is a high probability [they] will fail. The price point is probably unsustainable. For years and years Sony has been a very difficult company to deal with from a developer standpoint. They could get away with their arrogance and capriciousness because they had an installed base. They have also historically had horrible software tools. You compare that to the Xbox 360 with really great authoring tools [and] additional revenue streams from Xbox live… a first party developer would be an idiot to develop for Sony first and not the 360. People don’t buy hardware, they buy software.

 

Didn't expect him to be so vocal!

[AtariJr]

pretty vocal indeed. i wasnt aware that the 360 was so much easier to deal with. i still am curious to see how well the system will take off though ((ps3)). i wonder if people will eat the price this holiday with the in most repsects just as powerful 360 sitting right next to it, with more systems in stock, with more games available, with a cheaper price tag. well see i guess.

[Atari Master]

pretty vocal indeed. i wasnt aware that the 360 was so much easier to deal with. i still am curious to see how well the system will take off though ((ps3)). i wonder if people will eat the price this holiday with the in most repsects just as powerful 360 sitting right next to it, with more systems in stock, with more games available, with a cheaper price tag. well see i guess.

 

 

He also likes the direction the Wii is headed in.

[Tempest]

Who cares what Nolan Bushnell thinks these days? What was the last successful idea he had anyway? I'm not exactly sure Nolan giving my system his seal of approval would make me a happy camper...

 

Tempest

[+remowilliams]

I'm not exactly sure Nolan giving my system his seal of approval would make me a happy camper...

I was just going to say, is he giving MS the kiss of death?

[Jess Ragan]

Hey, Atari was making money back when Nolan Bushnell was calling the shots. It was only after he left the company that things went to hell in a handbasket.

 

For what it's worth, I don't totally agree with him. The first million PS3 units will be a breeze to sell... practically every game system sells like hotcakes when it's first introduced, as the Nintendo 64 and Dreamcast proved. However, what's going to happen in a year? What about the year after that? When that new car smell wears off and consumers find a two hundred dollar difference in price between the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, sales are going to go downhill quickly.

 

This generation is Microsoft's to lose. There's no guarantee that they can stay on top, but if they play their cards right, giving gamers what they want, courting third party developers more aggressively, and putting the heat on Sony in advertisements, they're sure to emerge victorious in 2011.

 

JR

[jedijeff]

First, when was that last time he made a game?

Second, Is he getting kickbacks from XBL or something?

[Paranoid]

Hmnn. I've heard some pretty negative things about Bushnell from people who are arguably pretty close to him, especially about his business and technology saavy, so I'd be inclined to agree with those who are wondering if Nolan's endorsement is a GOOD thing.

 

I'd also question just how relevent the opinion of a restauranteer is to video game console markets. That is like getting my opinion on the current crop of porn films because I happened to be the head of a porn company 35 years ago, but haven't touched the business since. One successful venture hardly makes him an expert opinion, or even any more qualified than any of us, for that matter.

 

Although I do agree, XBox might do well to really embrace the market and place themselves as a grossly consumer friendly company on the XBox 360, basically doing everything possible to encourage sales by letting the consumers have their way. This might include embracing all but givinig away downloads on XBox Live for the next couple of years and otherwise really sweetening the pot for potential consumers.

[ninjarabbit]

Calling the PS1 and PS2 'almost accidental winners' pretty much nulifies Nolan's opinion on the modern video game industry. The PS3 will sell over a million unitseasily just on the strength of the Playstation brand name, however I don't think the PS3 will sell even close to the 100 million units that the PS1 and PS2 did.

 

As far as Microsoft goes having almost no presence in the Japanese market will mean that they'll never be the #1 company.

[Paranoid]

As far as Microsoft goes having almost no presence in the Japanese market will mean that they'll never be the #1 company.

 

Globally.

 

But the DOMESTIC market is critical, and there is the possibility that the XBox 360 could grab that.

 

Even so, I think it is more likely that we'll see a mini-crash. They've exploited all the fresh concepts that they can and there isn't any significant WOW factor with the new titles. Spyro in 3D is Spyro in 3D. Call of Duty or Medal of Honor... or Quake or Unreal... GTA or Scarface... Whatever driving game you pick... or extreme sports game, there is a platform franchise rut and the games all only vary by degree in content and quality. I just don't see that being sustainable in holding gamers attention. The Wii claims to be revolutionary, and it may just be that Nintendo is in the best position to really redefine the gaming industry and shake things up, and their family friendly platform *may* be the best way to really achieve this goal. But it may be a not ready for prime time gimmick, too.

 

I personally see modern console gaming subsiding in dominance again for at least a few years. The machines are too expensive (especially as powerful PCs come down in price even more), they're not significantly differentiated from the previous generation, and they're feeding the same titles back to you once more.

 

The good news is, I think this will leave an entertainment void that classic gaming efforts may be able to partially fill. It might encourage companies like Atari to continue to put out top quality retro products like the FB2. (And it sounds like Bushnell *is* kind of on the same page here, at least. Simple, quick games that are not niche market-centric and are quick and easy to pick up and encourage direct social interaction. Really if you look at Atari products and literature, that was a core philosophy of their product during their golden days. Families having fun, playing together, cooperative and competitive games that anybody could play.)

 

I doubt hardcore console gaming will go away. I think it will not grow, and it will not sustain the numbers it does today... i.e., 3 console contenders, countless publishers, and thousands and thousands of different titles, but I don't think it will disappear as "completely" as it did during the 80s crash. The difference there was the emergence of PC gaming platforms. Right now consoles co-exist with gaming PCs, so it isn't like there will be a SHIFT. The hardcore gamers generally have both, because they realize a gaming PC is good for certain things, a console is good for others. So we're not going to have that dynamic here, which means that hardcore console gamers won't migrate somewhere else. But I think the remainder of casual gamers are probably going to go somewhere else for entertainment, again, especially with the prices of the modern consoles. There is no way I'm paying anything more than $250 for a system that is exclusively a gaming console that doesn't have significant value added features (a REAL robust media entertainment integration center, for example, which I feel I already have in XBMC, anyhow). At $600, I can have a bitchin desktop or a very decent laptop that does unrestricted gaming and has all of the multimedia capabilities of a console/set top box combo.

 

And Vista and WinXP Media Center are liable to really close the gap on the ease of use factor that gives a dedicated box the current advantage outside of a study/home office.

 

I guess it will be interesting, whatever shakes out.

[Flojomojo]

But the DOMESTIC market is critical, and there is the possibility that the XBox 360 could grab that.

That makes a lot of sense. There's also room for multiple systems. I'm reminded of the Genesis/SNES situation. Sega was massively popular in the USA, but a relative dud in Japan. Nintendo was a hit in both territories, but the net market share in the USA was about 50-50 Sega-Nintendo for that period.

[Paranoid]

What we need are some fresh new franchises that really bring something innovative. The NES succeeded by introducing Mario Bros. in a new and unique format that was a kind of platformer/adventure/frp hybrid (especially as it evolved into the later titles). Sega introduced Sonic which put a new spin on that with the Sonic character and the pinball like interludes, speed, and relatively non-sequential levels.

 

The PS-1 introduced us to new graphics capabilities unseen on a console until that time, and well executed extreme sports and driving games.

 

The GTA series, even the first, crude, overhead ones like GTA2, really blew the doors open on "Games That Go Too Far". They were the Jerry Springer of video games. They succeeded with shock and awe.

 

the evolution of the FPS through ID's efforts and a handful of imitators and contenders isn't hard to trace, and each generation of this type of game has made significant improvements over the last, up UNTIL the visual mastery that is Doom 3... which provides a far richer viewing experience than anything before it, yet, only improves on the previous generation in a fairly insignificant way.

 

And that brings us to today... where the market is seeing the same KIND of games, with modest improvements but nothing really NEW, innovative or exciting.

 

If one of these companies come up with a new title with a killer hook that catches on big time (and it could be something as simple as a Soduku type game... think of what Tetris did for the original GB sales), I think a lot of the current console gamers aren't going to be in a HUGE hurry to move on to the next generation. I hear this too much, since the XBOX 360 release. Gamers going, "It is pretty cool, but what I have does it almost as well, so why should I dump what I have for it"...

 

And I just don't think that bodes well for the console industry.

 

Another thing I've noticed... for awhile 3D FPSers really drove an AGGRESSIVE upgrade path for PCs and GPU cards. And at some point, a lot of the PC gamers started going, "Man, staying on the bleeding edge so that I get max FPS in Quake 20 is getting ridiculious when the GPU card costs as much as the CPU"... CPU speeds and graphic cards got so far ahead of the software, also... that these HUGE increases didn't really amount to much difference in the games. And people just took a reality check on this. Everyone but the most hardcore, anyhow.

 

I think there is a similar thing here with consoles. The upgrade path is so expensive, and the past generation was pretty good itself, and people find themselves questioning if they want to get on that cycle of throwing the baby out with the bathwater ever few years just to be on the bleeding edge.

 

The thing that is going to help differentiate and sell systems is tightly integrated media convergence, but I don't think the different industries are on the same page yet to make it a reality for the home consumer. For the uber-geek that is willing to mod, it is already available and works real well (although it could be improved in areas). But most home consumers aren't going to soft or hard mod an Xbox. People want those kind of features, XBMC type features, in a consumer ready package. But Sony and Paramount and Virgin and EA and NBC and commercial advertisers and cable stations and... those companies can't all get together and agree or even figure out how to address their concerns, so they're not doing anything. It isn't that they COULDN'T do it right now, it is that they don't WANT to, because they've got these concerns.

 

And that might be another reason this generation flops. It doesn't change the paradigm of gaming much, and it doesn't expand the flexibility and viable use of the set top box much, which in the end results in a product that isn't compelling. Then you add several competitors, and a flood of titles, many of which are just not very interesting or well executed... and, yeah... we're ripe for a crash, in my opinion.

 

I could be wrong, though.

[Pixelboy]

And that might be another reason this generation flops. It doesn't change the paradigm of gaming much, and it doesn't expand the flexibility and viable use of the set top box much, which in the end results in a product that isn't compelling. Then you add several competitors, and a flood of titles, many of which are just not very interesting or well executed... and, yeah... we're ripe for a crash, in my opinion.

 

I could be wrong, though.

You bring up valid points, but still, I don't see the next crash happening with this new console generation. I foresee a shift in dominance, where Sony isn't the giant that it used to be, Microsoft taking a bigger piece of the pie, and Nintendo still playing catch-up in terms of sales and business strategy (will third-party developers/publisher commit to the Wii or will Nintendo's new console lose steam fast like the Game Cube did? Time will tell, but it's really up to third-parties themselves to decide.)

 

One secondary, yet important issue to consider are the handheld machines, namely the DS and the PSP. They offer some alternate gaming avenues when there's nothing interesting on the radar for the current home consoles. This creates a certain variety in gaming platforms, which help to maintain consumer interest. This variety did not exist back in 1984, and even worse, companies like Atari didn't quite understand the value of upgrading hardware back then. Today, the gaming industry and the media in general are much more mature. They have to be, since the consumers of today (of all ages) are so much more sophisticated in terms of what they expect out of the games they buy.

 

I'd say the next crash will happen when a combination of these factors occur:

1) One of the major players drops out of the console business (Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft)

2) A general apathy about new games sets into the heart of consumers (more so than what we see now)

3) Some important third-party companies go bankrupt (Capcom or Konami going bankrupt would send negative waves across the entire industry).

4) Major retail outlets lose interest in devoting their valuable shelf space to new video games.

 

#1, #2 and #4 occured in combination in 1984, which led to the crash. It might happen again in the future.

[JamesD]

Hey, Atari was making money back when Nolan Bushnell was calling the shots. It was only after he left the company that things went to hell in a handbasket.

Atari was making money because arcades were making money. Once the Arcades hit the skids the poor organization of the company almost killed it. Warner had a terrible mess to clean up. There were branches of Atari all over the place with each branch doing their own thing and one branch turned out to be a single programmer that liked where he lived and didn't want to move. Nolan was too busy partying to manage the company. Check the video on the web that tells the story. If the company had been well managed I don't think there would have ever been a problem.

 

BTW... remember Chuck E Cheese? He started that and it was booming until he screwed up and the company had to file for bankruptcy. He is an idea guy but he has a habit of ignoring the numbers while he goes out and has fun.

 

For what it's worth, I don't totally agree with him. The first million PS3 units will be a breeze to sell... practically every game system sells like hotcakes when it's first introduced, as the Nintendo 64 and Dreamcast proved. However, what's going to happen in a year? What about the year after that? When that new car smell wears off and consumers find a two hundred dollar difference in price between the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, sales are going to go downhill quickly.

Well, you have the speculators that are buying them just to resell them, early adopters that just want the latest thing and hard core gamers. The first half million to a million are easy... after that you have to sell to mom n pop getting the kids a game system for Christmas and that's a lot of money.

 

This generation is Microsoft's to lose. There's no guarantee that they can stay on top, but if they play their cards right, giving gamers what they want, courting third party developers more aggressively, and putting the heat on Sony in advertisements, they're sure to emerge victorious in 2011.

 

JR

Not going to argue with that. I think the games are what's important. If Microsoft can score some killer titles from new developers that aren't available anywhere else it could tip the scales in their favor.

So far the Final Fantasy, Mario and similar unique titles have kept interest in Sony and Nintendo. The more Microsoft can chip away at the unique franchises the more they will gain market share.

One problem with that is that the market in Japan will always favor Japanese systems.

[Hyper_Eye]

pretty vocal indeed. i wasnt aware that the 360 was so much easier to deal with. i still am curious to see how well the system will take off though ((ps3)). i wonder if people will eat the price this holiday with the in most repsects just as powerful 360 sitting right next to it, with more systems in stock, with more games available, with a cheaper price tag. well see i guess.

 

The 360 is much easier to develop for according to statements I have seen. It is quite comparable to developing for PC (minus the differences in the PPC architecture.) I am not sure if Microsoft has finished it yet but I know they were in the process of developing a PC/360 SDK that would allow developers to develop the PC and 360 version of their game in one environment very easily. They would simply run a compile for 360 to output the 360 binary and run a compile for PC to put out the PC binary. I do not remember if this is specific to the Vista platform or if it would work for all Windows operating systems. I don't like the idea simply because that means less Linux games for me (as the SDK is geared towards DirectX undoubtedly.)

 

All Playstation consoles have been considered incredibly hard to develop for. From what I have read it keeps getting more difficult as opposed to easier. This is where XBox and Playstation3 heavily differ. If I were to jump into console development (as opposed to defense software) I am sure I would be able to transition into an XBox 360 developer much quicker and more easily then I would into a PS3 developer.

[Murph74]

I'm reminded of the Genesis/SNES situation. Sega was massively popular in the USA, but a relative dud in Japan. Nintendo was a hit in both territories, but the net market share in the USA was about 50-50 Sega-Nintendo for that period.

 

Keep in mind, the Genesis had a full 1 year head start then too...

[Flojomojo]

I'm reminded of the Genesis/SNES situation. Sega was massively popular in the USA, but a relative dud in Japan. Nintendo was a hit in both territories, but the net market share in the USA was about 50-50 Sega-Nintendo for that period.

 

Keep in mind, the Genesis had a full 1 year head start then too...

Of course. I think Sega Genesis needed that head start to gain a foothold in the market. I like the 360 and hope it's destiny is more like the Genesis than that of the Dreamcast.

[misspent_youth]

It's interesting to note the parallels between the Genesis/SNES and the 360/PS3. Assuming that the end result will be the same, with MSFT & Sony sharing the market lead as this generation draws to a close, we should get to see if the fact that Sega released 3 competing consoles within a short period of time was what really killed Sega as a console manufacturer. MSFT will not make that same mistake, so we'll see what would've happened to Sega if they never had that brainfart...of course, that's ASSUMING that Sony does not fall flat, which I don't think they will.

[JamesD]

I think you'll see some small evolution from Microsoft but not a total revamp any time soon. I expect a version with lower power parts so it runs cooler, built in HD-DVD drive and maybe a new controller. Smaller size would also be welcome.

The thing with the 360 is that the API will be carried over to future game machines and porting titles to new machines should be easy.

I'm not sure the other systems were designed for that.

[King_Salamon]

The current events have a telling story. With Sony launching (globally, well North America and Japan) instead of Japan first then in North America, it shows they need to have a presence in North America.

 

MS has had a 1 year head start and they have been doing rather well. In Canada, they have brought out bundle after bundle to get people to buy. Some system sellers have come out and moved systems for them (Saint's Row, Dead Rising, and now Gears of War). I see these great games (and the future prospects of Halo 3) helping MS out alot more than what the Dreamcast had with the PS2 looming.

 

Sony has recognized this and has given North America about 80% of their launch systems. Meanwhile, Japan gets the shaft only because the 360 is not doing so hot there. Sony is feeling the pressure. (This is good for the industry)

 

The $600 price point will leave people (mainstream public) asking WHY? when they are in stores. Gaming enthusiasts may saw AWESOME! but the public will need something that makes them say MUST HAVE! or they will become apathetic and say they companies are getting greedy. (Or something to that effect)

 

The Wii could usher in new gaming blood but that may end up being their only crowd. Sure people will buy Zelda and Metroid but it's still pretty much a Gamecube (albeit faster with more ram) which thankfully should be near 100% compatible with GC titles. Things look good now but I'd like to see how many of these systems are sold in the new year. (or if all of them are indeed sold this Christmas). Having a strong presence in Japan and North America (and Europe) would bode well for Nintendo.

 

What can I see coming out of all this? I think the 360 has a shot (needs some more work - games) to capture the North American market and Sony pretty much has the Japanese market to lose. Nintendo can pretty well have both markets and cash in on some hefty profits.

 

Can a crash occur? Certainly, the prices of the PS3 are enough to piss people right off. There's a playstation magazine article where they were speculating on the price point of the system. One person suggested that $500+ was possible and rumored. The next writer for the magazine said "No way it's going to be more than $500. The would just be ludicrous; in fact, I'll be surprised if it's more than $400." I can only imagine the sticker shock people are seeing in stores now (with the banners and flyers promoting the system).

 

I say, just give me a Flashback 3 with some extra carts to buy and collect and I'll be a happy camper. The price will be decent and the ability to buy new carts will bring me back to the stores. (Atari Age should be a distributor of this... perhaps have exclusive releases like the old Atari Magazine did!) But I digress...

[Paranoid]

Heh. I'm down for the FB3, and screw all three of these next gen consoles, as well.

 

But... to be honest, the system that has me the MOST intriguied *is* the Wii. It is the only one that seems headed in a different direction, and one suited to console gaming, not some promise of media convergence that comes with a bunch of ludicrious built in IP/Copyright protection schemes that limit my rights as a consumer. I honestly doubt I'll go with the Wii either. None of them have me very excited.

 

Like you said, bring on the FB3.

[mos6507]

This Nolan bashing is just blaming the messenger. He's not saying anything that isn't common sense to a lot of people.

 

And BTW, had Atari not been managed the way it was initially, I don't think we'd have the things we love the most about it. They were products of a corporate culture that empowered its engineers, which largely went out the door in latter Atari. There was just as much "having fun" at other successful computer business like Apple and Activision. Work hard, play hard.

 

Other systems like the RCA Studio II or the Emerson Arcadia are what you got when you ran an early game business by corporate committee.

Edited November 14, 2006 by mos6507

[JamesD]

This Nolan bashing is just blaming the messenger. He's not saying anything that isn't common sense to a lot of people.

 

And BTW, had Atari not been managed the way it was initially, I don't think we'd have the things we love the most about it. They were products of a corporate culture that empowered its engineers, which largely went out the door in latter Atari. There was just as much "having fun" at other successful computer business like Apple and Activision. Work hard, play hard.

 

Other systems like the RCA Studio II or the Emerson Arcadia are what you got when you ran an early game business by corporate committee.

It's easy to say that the way Atari was organized was responsible for their success because there's no proof one way or the other. You could also say that if Atari had been better organized and focused that they might have done even more but we'll never know. Just how many million were waisted on useless ideas that were 'creative' but unmarketable?

 

Saying that Atari was superior because other companies tried to rush to market with crap is by no means proof of anything. The same thing happened with computers from lot's of companies that accepted the first design they saw just to get it on the market. It *is* possible to have a better organized company without stifling creativity. Besides, RCA and Emerson outlasted Atari. It doesn't do any good to be creative if you kill the company. Apple managed to survive and I doubt their engineers complain too much.

[ninjarabbit]

This Nolan bashing is just blaming the messenger. He's not saying anything that isn't common sense to a lot of people.

 

And BTW, had Atari not been managed the way it was initially, I don't think we'd have the things we love the most about it. They were products of a corporate culture that empowered its engineers, which largely went out the door in latter Atari. There was just as much "having fun" at other successful computer business like Apple and Activision. Work hard, play hard.

 

Other systems like the RCA Studio II or the Emerson Arcadia are what you got when you ran an early game business by corporate committee.

 

 

It's been about 25 years since Nolan has been relevant as far as video games go. While I do respect his place in video game history the guy has been pretty much out of the loop for the past 5 or so generations of the video game industry.

 

As far as his management style I'll agree that he was a great idea guy but he was horrible with the day-to-day stuff.If Nolan had been running the ship well or at least hired someone who could do the day-to-day stuff he wouldn't have had to sell out to Warner and Atari (as in the orginal Atari not the French company today) might even still be a real player today in the industry.

[mos6507]

Saying that Atari was superior because other companies tried to rush to market with crap is by no means proof of anything. The same thing happened with computers from lot's of companies that accepted the first design they saw just to get it on the market. It *is* possible to have a better organized company without stifling creativity. Besides, RCA and Emerson outlasted Atari. It doesn't do any good to be creative if you kill the company. Apple managed to survive and I doubt their engineers complain too much.

 

That makes sense in theory, but not so much in the context of actual history.

 

Nolan had a few years laying the foundation of the coinop business. Then, the seeds of Atari's greatest cash cows in the consumer division were sewn under Nolan's Atari before he left. That would be Home Pong, the 2600, and the Atari 8-bit chipset. Warner provided the cash to realize those initial visions, but Atari stopped making big engineering leaps after 1979. Nolan left, the Activision guys left, Al Alcorn left, and then the Imagic guys left. There was a complete brain-drain because the engineers no longer felt they had a sympathetic voice in management. When Atari countered by merely throwing money at the problem, you got things like E.T. and Pac-Man.