Nintendo's relationships with Atari

[ElectricTroy]

There's a difference between the PS2 and the 7800 ... well, a couple.

There are more similarities than differences:

1) The PS1/2600 were number one systems.

 

2) The PS2/7800 had a large library of games and many of them were decent at launch.

 

3) The PS2/7800 were backwards compatible with the #1 console of the last generation.

 

The ONLY difference that matters is how Atari and Sony used their dominant position. Sony capitalized on the success of the PS1 and immediately launched PS2 to hold onto its customers.

 

Atari snoozed, thereby allowing Nintendo to grab the old 2600 customers.

 

In business, snoozing=losing. Atari had exactly the same opportunity to spinoff their previous dominace as Sony had in 2000... but Atari chose to abandon ship.

 

 

 

ASIDE: Nintendo made the same mistake in 1989. Sega Genesis stole the show when it released in 1989, while Nintendo did nothing. Even when Super Nintendo arrived, it was almost too late...

.

.

.

Also, what's with you guys who want to end the discussion? Alternate history conjecture is FUN. Please don't shut it down.

[ElectricTroy]

What's an Atari Falcon computer? (Another flaw of Atari: Too many difference machines instead of focusing on just one.)

 

Actually, the salesman at the Honda dealership I went to was so smarmy, arrogant, and weasel-ly that he ended up pushing me into a no haggle, no pressure, fixed price Saturn four-door

I had the same problem with I purchased my Honda Insight! The saleman was a new guy, so he was nice, but his boss who I negotiated with was a royal ass. I said I would offer him $100 over invoice, and that's it. 3 hours later, I was still at $100 over invoice and he finally gave up. THEN, I had to waste an hour with the Extended Warranty guy who would not except "No" for an answer.

 

Bottom Line: I got my Honda Insight at my price, and they got nothing but "0" on their feedback reviews. They called me, and they were FURIOUS. So I just hung up. I've never returned to them.

[DracIsBack]

"1) The PS1/2600 were number one systems. "

 

Yes. However, the 7800 didn't follow the 2600, the 5200 did.

 

"2) The PS2/7800 had a large library of games and many of them were decent at launch."

 

The 7800 had three games available at launch. And none of them were games that weren't on other systems. Although they were good games, they weren't 7800 exclusives.

 

"3) The PS2/7800 were backwards compatible with the #1 console of the last generation. "

 

 

"The ONLY difference that matters is how Atari and Sony used their dominant position. Sony capitalized on the success of the PS1 and immediately launched PS2 to hold onto its customers. "

 

Different markets. Sony was walking into the PS2 with 80% of the market. The market was doing gangbusters business and the PS1 was the biggest selling console in history, with worldwide success. The PS2 also brought compatability with DVDs -- another hot, emerging consumer item -- to consumers out of the box. PS1 and PS2 co-exist amidst computers and many families have both.

 

Atari had lost some of their marketshare with the 5200. They'd also pissed off 5200 owners by releasing a new console within two years and discontinuing the 5200 fairly quickly. Game prices were falling through the floor and retailers were refusing to carry products because they were losing money hand over fist. Many developers were abandoning the consoles. Computers like the Commodore machines are taking away console revenue.

 

It really is quite a different beast. The markets are not the same.

 

Again, I don't doubt that Atari would have been more successful with the 7800 had they released it widely in 1984 instead of 1986 like they did, but I don't see them dominating. Maybe they would have given Nintendo a tougher fight, had similar types of games earlier and snagged some of the developers, but it's not as 'cut and dry' as "releasing the 7800 in 1984 would have meant domination"

 

"ASIDE: Nintendo made the same mistake in 1989. Sega Genesis stole the show when it released in 1989, while Nintendo did nothing. Even when Super Nintendo arrived, it was almost too late... "

 

But Sega had a better story than Atari:

 

1. Video games were doing record business in 1989/90 whereas video games in 1984 were at the lowest level in years.

 

2. Sega came out with a solid library of games at LAUNCH and a really aggressive ad campaign. Atari had three games that had already appeared on other systems.

 

3. Sega quickly lined up third party titles. Atari, even under Warner, only had the two lucasfilm games initially in the works.

 

4. Sega got EA games and a Sonic game ready to take on Nintendo when the SNES arrived.

 

.

Just releasing the 7800 in 1984 wouldn't have meant "domination".

 

1. Now - if Atari had launched the 7800 in 1984, developed a launch library as good as what was on the NES and had a distribution channel willing to carry the product, then maybe.

.

.

[AtariDude]

Actually they do exist but Nintendo ported them over to Atari and became a supplier of games for other systems (similar to what Sega is doing now in this universe).

[ElectricTroy]

Well, I'm not changing my opinion. I think the 7800, the only console on the 1984-5 market, would have sold like gangbusters.

 

That's all I have to say about that.

 

 

 

[Just one more thing: LEARN TO USE THE QUOTE BUTTON. It looks cleaner than your "quotation mark" method.]

[DracIsBack]

You say the 7800 would have sold like gangbusters?

 

Let me ask you this? Where would it have sold?

 

One of Nintendo's biggest battles was convincing retailers that a) they weren't Atari; and b) they weren't going to screw them over like Atari did.

 

Think about what the 7800 would have come to market under ...

 

1) Games that, for all intents and purposes, were slightly better looking than what were already on the 5200 and 2600.

 

2) The versions of those games on aforementioned systems being cleared out at prices so low that the 7800 couldn't compete. Remeber - the industry had collapsed from about 3 billion in 1983 to $100 million in sales in 1984.

 

3) All the major retailer chains refusing to stock it, citing all of the unsold inventory of Atari 2600, 5200, Colecovision, Intellivision inventory that they had to take a bath on.

 

4) Computers like the Commodore 64, TI994A, and Atari's own 8-bit computers being squeezed in at low prices.

 

5) A parent company that was so in fear of a hostile takeover that their support for Atari (the company, not the 7800) was in jeapordy.

 

Say what you like, but I don't think the evidence exists that the 7800 would have "sold like gangbusters in 1984, 1985, 1986 or 1987" based upon how it was going to come to market.

 

Nintendo didn't revitalize the industry with innovative hardware. They brought it back to life by bringing out games like Super Mario Brothers and Legend Of Zelda. These were types of games that previously hadn't been played in North America - be it on consoles or computers? Could the 7800 have handled games like those in 1985? Sure. Did it actually have a library like that in 1985? No.

 

There's other factors too - they distanced themselves from the mess that Atari created, they had control over the types of games that were released etc.

 

But in the end, it was the software that won people over. It always is.

[MegaManFan]

But in the end, it was the software that won people over. It always is.

 

And yet the SMS suffered, despite releasing innovative software that was the equivalent of (if not in some ways better) than NES; see Phantasy Star for example. Still I have to say "true dat" in general, because Atari fell victim to the same problem they had with the 5200 - rereleasing old arcade titles that were +slightly+ more arcade perfect. I don't know what's more sad - the fact that Centipede is on 26, 52 and 78 or the fact that I own all three versions because I'm a collector. Someday I should set up three TV's side by side and have one running on each at the same time just to compare the subtle nuances of difference between each.

[DracIsBack]

Being an avid SMS collector, I see your point and yes - there were some innovative games. But nowhere near as many big titles overall.

 

Phantasy Star did rock as did a lot of other RPGs. However, Nintendo had Zelda so that counteracted PS in terms of consumer appeal. Nintendo also had the Temco sports games, the big library of arcade hits, the mascot games etc. In North America, the number of games the NES had outnumbered the SMS something like 7:1. That in and of itself is a weapon for Nintendo. Sega also came to market after Nintendo had a foothold.

 

Now in Europe, it was a different story. The whole market seemed to get off to a late start so Sega managed to conquer that. Most of my SMS games are actually Euro titles that never came out over here ... the selection of games from Europe is much, much better.

[MegaManFan]

Now in Europe, it was a different story. The whole market seemed to get off to a late start so Sega managed to conquer that. Most of my SMS games are actually Euro titles that never came out over here ... the selection of games from Europe is much, much better.

 

If you're serious about SMS gaming, you almost +have+ to start importing games from the UK and Australia sooner or later. There's really no way to get around it. How else can you get titles like Rampart, Pac-Mania, and Dragon Crystal? You can't!

[DracIsBack]

Even some hard to find North American titles are easier to find abroad. I snagged a copy of the relatively rare GOLDEN AXE WARRIOR from a vendor in Australia who (mistakenly) listed it as being a PAL version. :-)

[MegaManFan]

Even some hard to find North American titles are easier to find abroad. I snagged a copy of the relatively rare GOLDEN AXE WARRIOR from a vendor in Australia who (mistakenly) listed it as being a PAL version. :-)

 

Funny how I got mine from a trader in Australia too. PAL, schmal when it comes to SMS. I've only had one game ever not work perfectly, and that was New Zealand Story (plays fine on a Power Base Convertor though).

[ElectricTroy]

One of Nintendo's biggest battles was convincing retailers that a) they weren't Atari; and b) they weren't going to screw them over like Atari did..

I can't help laughing when I read that sentence. Nintendo did some serious backstabbing against retailers 86-91.

 

As for Atari, what did Atari do to retailers? I have not heard this story before. Tell it to me.

 

 

 

(And no, I have not changed my opinion. I still think 7800 would have sold gangbusters in 84-85 had it been released. You might as well just give up Drac. I'm not changing my opinion.)

[DracIsBack]

Nintendo did indeed screw over resellers in terms of telling them how to do business if they wanted to carry Nintendo products.

 

However, there's a huge difference between Nintendo in 1986-1990 and Atari in 1983-4:

 

Nintendo product was selling at record levels. As much as they bullied the channel, they were the hottest thing on the market and retailers were willing to listen because not getting Super Mario X meant not selling as much at Christmas. Nintendo counted for a big chunk of Toys R. Us business.

 

Atari, at the time of the 7800's proposed introduction, had a reseller channel stuffed full of video game inventory that they couldn't move, even at bargain basement prices. The who industry had collapsed from 3 billion in sales in 1983 to $100 million in 1984. The 7800 would have been introduced to a channel already stuffed with unsold Atari systems and games and would have had a hard time getting space on the shelves. Sears almost didn't carry the NES because they had been so badly burned by Atari and the video game crash.

 

Let me toss something back at you:

 

Why do you think the 7800 would have "sold like gangbusters"? The only evidence you've presented was "they would have beat Nintendo to the punch". You haven't addressed the state of the market, the perception of Atari among resellers, the types of games Atari had vs. what Nintendo had, the support of Warner communications for video games, the failure of the 5200, the onset of personal computers etc.

 

It's not as simple as "Atari releasing the 7800 in 1984 = wild success for 7800". Nintendo released a new console but it was the different type of game and the efforts they undertook to appease the channel to get buyin that caused the NES to succeed. Remember also something about the 7800 - it was a really unusual system to write games for. It was unlike pretty much any system before or since. How easy is it to quickly develop good games for a system like that?

 

I realize it's a futile cause, but just trying to show you the facts. I disagree with your assessment based upon what I know about the industry, its history and marketing in the retail channel.

[AtariDude]

I think releasing the 7800 in 1984 would have resulted in a slightly larger market share for Atari but I don't think it would have been enough to compete with the NES. Good games sell systems and the Atari 7800 did not have significantly better games.

[Joey Kay]

AAAACK!!!

 

I can't stay out of this conversation much longer. Although nobody can be sure how history could have been different, one thing is for sure. It wasn't the NES that revived the home game market - it was Super Mario Bros. I whole-heartedly agree with DracIsBac.

 

Why on earth would anybody buy Warner's 7800 in 84 or 85 to play Pole Position II or Galaga? Atari learned absolutely nothing from the flop of the 5200. What were the games that kids talked about the most on the Colecovision? The platform games and side-scrollers- DK, Smurfs, etc on the Colecovision were the games kids were frothing for in 83.

 

So here's Atari's new approach for the 7800... Hmmm... nobody's buying any more Pac Man games for the 2600 or 5200... let's make them for the 7800! And since the ADAM computer attachment was such a smashing success, let's make a computer add-on for the 7800! Who cares if a 600XL would be cheaper and have more software.

 

Absolute stupidity, and not only in hindsight, but there's even press articles from the day mentioning how Morgan was warned by MANY not to go ahead with the 7800.

 

And even if Tramiel decided to introduce the 7800 with a bang when they could afford to (87), there were no game licenses or distributors available thanks to Nintendo. The system was doomed twice.

 

Ray Kassar lost control and his replacement James Morgan didn't have a clue as to what he was doing. I hate to say it, but Nintendo re-invented the video game market, and Atari ended up a (failed) also-ran under Tramiel guidance.

 

As a footnote, I think there's a large contingent of people who like to blame the Tramiels for "ruining" Atari. Well, let's put it this way... although they didn't exactly succeed in the long run, Atari was about to implode under the 83/84 corporate structure. Why else would Warner literally have given away Atari for promissary notes and debt assumption in 1984?

 

Cheers!

 

Joey

 

ps - two articles of interest you may have already seen:

 

http://www.ataritimes.com/classics/feature...7800doomed.html

 

http://www.atari-explorer.com/articles-Tramiels.html

[angrybrit]

Nintendo's contracts with developpers killed off the competition. When the courts found Nintendo guilty, Square jumped ship to SonyLand and the rest is history. That's why and how Sega Master System never took off.

[DracIsBack]

Actually, the courts never found Nintendo "guilty" persay. Atari lost on most of the claims they made - after all - Atari made their own share of booboos which I've outlined above. The jury was hung on two points, but Atari agreed not to appeal and Nintendo agreed not to bill them for legal fees.

 

While Nintendo wasn't formally found guilty, the attention brought about by the lawsuits from Atari Corporation, Atari Games (Tengen), Toys R Us and the various states was enough to cause Nintendo to back away from their anti-competitive practices. That, in turn, gave rise to the Sega Genesis.

[ElectricTroy]

I'm repeating this question, because no one answered it:

 

One of Nintendo's biggest battles was convincing retailers that a) they weren't Atari; and b) they weren't going to screw them over like Atari did..

 

HOW did Atari screw retailers pre-1984?

[ElectricTroy]

Why on earth would anybody buy Warner's 7800 in 84 or 85 to play Pole Position II or Galaga?   What were the games that kids talked about the most on the Colecovision?  The platform games and side-scrollers-

Atari 7800 had some great platformers:

Donkey Kong and DK Jr.

Pitfall 1 and 2

Mario Bros.

(plus all the 2600 platformers like Montezuma's Revenge, Kangaroo)

 

The 7800 would have been as well-supported by Warner's Atari as the 2600 was, and the 7800 should have been released in 1984 as originally planned. IMHO it would have eclipsed the NES for two reasons: (1) It had a 2 year headstart (2) Atari was the dominant name in gaming and well-loved by the general population.

 

 

 

Also, we know the videogame industry was not dead. Computer games still sold like gangbusters. (Some of my all-time favorite games I bought during the 84-85 era to play on my Commodore=64.) Gamers didn't just stop playing...they were looking for better sound and graphics. All that Atari had to do was introduce a high-quality, but cheap console to make gamers drool. The Atari 7800 was it.

 

Since Atari was sleeping, Nintendo stepped in and took the glory.

[Agent X]

Why on earth would anybody buy Warner's 7800 in 84 or 85 to play Pole Position II or Galaga?

 

If it was available in '84 or '85 and I had the money (which I probably wouldn't, since I was 12-13 years old at that time), I would've bought one. I don't recall any other home versions of Pole Position II or Galaga being available at that time.

 

I never really felt there was a problem with the first batch of titles for the 7800. Back in 1987, I actually liked those games better than most of what was available on the NES. The NES did have a few great games like Super Mario Bros., Mega Man, and Castlevania, but most of the other games were "me-too" copycats that were quickly thrown on the market to make a quick buck. That Nintendo "Seal of Quality" meant nothing with regard to the actual quality of the game--it only meant that Nintendo "approved" of it so they could make a quick buck off of manufacturing and distributing the games. They lambasted Atari for not having a licensing program and letting quality slide, while being equally guilty of allowing quality to slide even with their licensing program in place.

 

The 7800 did have a fair amount of repeats/sequels from 2600 and 5200, but so do the PlayStation 2 and the GameCube compared to their predecessors, but you didn't hear anywhere near as many complaints. Only very recently have some people finally voiced concern about Nintendo rehashing the same few game concepts over the last 10-15 years. Whoa, more Mario Kart, Mario Golf, and Mario Tennis games? What surprises!

 

DracIsBack, I don't completely agree with you with regard to the hypothetical 1985-1986 games not being gameplay competitive with NES games (using the alternate reality of the 7800 being launched in 1984 as originally planned). Of course games like Super Mario Bros. and Legend of Zelda (which, BTW, was 1987) would have eventually come along, but it's possible Atari under better management could have adjusted if they felt this was the direction games were going in. A game such as Impossible Mission had as much depth and complexity as anything released on the NES or SMS throughout the 1980's (too bad about that bug in the NTSC 7800 version). Like I said earlier, it wasn't like the NES had a big string of of hit game after hit game after hit game--just a few great games here and there, along with the other 90% of the library consisting of uninspired crap that only sold at all because there was nothing else on the shelves. Just about anybody could have competed with that lineup, if Nintendo wasn't given such an open opportunity to grab 80% to 90% market share and run anticompetitive business practices as a result.

[DracIsBack]

I'm repeating this question, because no one answered it:

 

One of Nintendo's biggest battles was convincing retailers that a) they weren't Atari; and b) they weren't going to screw them over like Atari did..

 

HOW did Atari screw retailers pre-1984?

 

They left them with piles and piles of inventory that they couldn't sell in 1983. That's what the 7800 would have gone up against in 1984.

 

Imagine:

 

Atari - "We've got this great game system called the 7800 we'd like you to carry!"

 

Sears - "Yeah - we'll - you've left us with tens of millions of dollars worth of Atari 2600 and 5200 games that we can't get more than a couple of bucks for and it ain't moving so forget it!"

 

"Atari 7800 had some great platformers:

Donkey Kong and DK Jr.

Pitfall 1 and 2

Mario Bros. "

 

Pitfall 1 and 2 were 2600 games ... as cool as they were, they were extremely out-of-date in terms of graphics and complexity. Mario Brothers was no match for Super Mario in terms of complexity and Donkey King/Donkey Kong Jr were old hat by then - and also on other systems including the NES and Colecovision.

 

"The 7800 would have been as well-supported by Warner's Atari as the 2600 was"

 

That explains why the 5200 has so many games, doesn't it?

 

:wink:

 

Remember something: in 1983 and 1984, many 2600 developers were going bust or losing money developing 2600 games.

 

"t would have eclipsed the NES for two reasons: (1) It had a 2 year headstart (2) Atari was the dominant name in gaming and well-loved by the general population."

 

Except for two little problems: 1) The 7800 had a year headstart, not two; 2) Atari had lost some of their "cool" when the Colecovision came along, annoyed customers with the 5200 and was blamed by retail for causing a 3 billion dollar industry to collapse to $100 million in sales in about a year.

 

"Of course games like Super Mario Bros. and Legend of Zelda (which, BTW, was 1987) would have eventually come along, but it's possible Atari under better management could have adjusted if they felt this was the direction games were going in."

 

The problem was that Super Mario Brothers was a pack in. That in itself immediately "raised the bar".

 

You make a good point, Agent X. I don't disagree that the 7800 could have been the dominant console provided a bunch of things happened IN ADDITION TO RELEASING THE SYSTEM IN 1984, which, in and of itself, would not equal success:

 

1) They had supportive, agile management ... which they weren't going to get from the Tramiels (who wanted to sell computers) or Warner (that was afraid of a hostile takeover because of Atari's collapse)

 

2) They were able to do a major makeover of the channel, quickly so retailers were even willing to carry the 7800. That would involve letting those resellers RMA their unsold goods, paying for major shelf presence, offering a lot of retail incentives and working a channel that was hit hard by the video game bust.

 

3) Very quickly committing the resources to licensing, developing and manufacturing complex Atari 7800 games in 1985 when the Nintendo appeared, as opposed to 1989 when stuff like SCRAPYARD DOG, COMMANDO and ALIEN BRIGADFE finally wandered out to market.

 

4) Continuing to develop the 7800 development tools as well as looking for ways to expand the system perhipherals and cartridges.

 

5) They'd make POKEY a gaming standard. The sound in the 7800 was its biggest achilles heel.

 

6) They'd released the 7800 and had a library of at least 20 games by 1985.

 

7) They'd released a more compelling pack-in like BALLBLAZER

 

 

I'm not in disagreement that the 7800 couldn't have been a big hit that did dominate. I just think it would have been a helluva lot more work than merely "releasing it in 1984" as has been suggested. It would have needed to be a major push from a big company to get it on the right path and stomp away Nintendo.

 

ElectricTroy: You sound like you have quite an interest in video games. May I recommend that you grab a copy of Steven Kent's "complete history of videogames" and David Scheff's "game over" books. They give a facinating account of the mess Nintendo had clean up in Atari's wake in order to even get stores carrying the NES.

[A2600]

If the 7800 was released at its right time 1984....

 

The NES would come out a year after and Atari with a head start!

 

Then as 1988 came by the 7800 would have been 4 years old having 16Bit tech from the ST's.... make some sort of system like the XEGS but in ST (STGS) 16bit gaming system one year ahead of Sega 3 Ahead of Nintendo!

 

That would have made all the difference!

 

That my opinion of what would have had to happen if the 7800 was released in 1984

[NovaXpress]

That's some nice analysis from Drac, I'm in total agreement. Most people don't remember how bad the video game crash of 83-84 really was. Picture not seeing ANY video games on the shelves at toy stores. The market had been flooded with garbage and retailers simply did not want to hear about video games. The retailers needed that couple of years off before they would talk to a company such as Nintendo or Atari again. Everyone should know the story of Nintendo's R.O.B, that it only existed in order to trick retailers into thinking the NES was a conventional toy (the hot toy at the time was the Teddy ruxpin animated doll). Atari almost certainly couldn't have released the 7800 in 84 even if they wanted to. The market was DEAD.

 

Look at the great games released dyuring the crash for the 5200 and Colecovision. Nobody cared. No one would have cared about the 7800 library as well. Nintendo waited a couple years for the market to refresh, then launched with the best pack-in of all time. SMB was a true system-seller and not a single 7800 title comes close.

[tyranthraxus]

I wouldn't say that nobody cared... just that the people with money

didn't care (ie parents) 1984 was the big push for home computers.

Apple launched the Mac with pompous but slick ads, Commodore sold

a ton of 64s, Coleco delved into the Adam and 1985 revealed the

new 16 bit Amiga and ST. Kids still wanted games and Commodore's

computers became largely game machines. Getting one of those cheap

home computers was a bit of a trend among parents at the time. Much

like the way the Internet explosion a few years ago increased PC sales.

As parents didn't want to see their kids left behind.

 

I found this old interview with Leonard Tramiel:

 

http://www.classicgaming.com/features/arti...ticles/tramiel/

 

In it he says the 7800 delay was due to poor Atari sales, which

has been discussed quite well but he also mentions a problem

with the GCC contract that led to a delay. So what is the GCC?

 

John

[ElectricTroy]

They left them with piles and piles of inventory that they couldn't sell in 1983.

 

That's not Atari's fault. It's the *customer* that screwed the stores by not making purchases. The exact same thing is happening now with cars. Is it Ford or Dodge's fault that dealers' lots are full of unsold cars?

 

Atari didn't screw the retailers. The customer did. You shouldn't blame Atari for the crash. That's just dumb.

.

.

.

I'm ignoring the rest of your message Drac. It's a MESS. Why don't you learn to use *proper quoting*, so we can actually read your message? We don't want to have to plow through a pile of disorganized trash like your last message was.