Who was the worst CEO in Atari's history?

[JPF997]

3 hours ago, Jess Ragan said:

Wade Rosen!

(looks behind him, notices Wade Rosen tapping a baseball bat in his palm)

Uh oh.

If this is your best attempt at being funny then I'm afraid I'm not impressed.

[JPF997]

9 hours ago, Flojomojo said:

This is a very negative topic. Each of these men faced different challenges at different points in the history of the old company. 
 

Ray Kassar probably lost the most money for the company, so wouldn’t he be objectively, quantitatively worst?

 

Fred Chesnais brought the bones of Infogrames Atari back into profitability, but he was prone to desperate, stupid gimmicks while the company failed to do anything interesting with games or the legacy. 
 

But I think the premise of this topic is shortsighted, mean, and stupid. 

So  what you only want to engage in discussions that are bland, unoriginal and safe, then you should have gone somewhere else . There is nothing mean spirited about discussing the failure's of previous leader's of Atari, we have the right to critique the business decisions of CEOs of any other companies but for some reason Atari CEOs are off limits? Sorry but I have no intention of playing  the game by your made up rule's.

[JPF997]

2 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

He's also Soylent Green!

I'm also someone not fond of the  dumb/cringe/sarcastic reddit style  humor that you two are currently engaging with.

[Jess Ragan]

You're kind of new to be picking fights with other users. I've been here for twenty years so people are more tolerant of my crap, but charging out of the starting gate with guns blazing is probably not going to work out for you.

[JPF997]

8 minutes ago, Jess Ragan said:

You're kind of new to be picking fights with other users. I've been here for twenty years so people are more tolerant of my crap, but charging out of the starting gate with guns blazing is probably not going to work out for you.

Picking fights? Sorry but when someone's only contribution to a discussion is flooding the comment section with this insufferable millennial/zoomer style humor then they should look somewhere else to post they're cringe takes    (keep in mind this is a zoomer speaking, I'm just tired of this  current mainstream soyboy culture most of my contemporaries engage with).

[roots.genoa]

To be fair, my first (and only) topic didn't go very well either (and partly because of Flojomojo as well 😝). In my experience, if you're new here, try to participate to other topics (I know you already do) rather than create new ones, unless it's for introducing a game or project you're working on. Especially since that kind of topics (what if Atari did differently, what's the worst game/system/publisher, etc.) usually spirals into digressions and/or aggressive posts. Just my two cents.

[JPF997]

1 hour ago, roots.genoa said:

To be fair, my first (and only) topic didn't go very well either (and partly because of Flojomojo as well 😝). In my experience, if you're new here, try to participate to other topics (I know you already do) rather than create new ones, unless it's for introducing a game or project you're working on. Especially since that kind of topics (what if Atari did differently, what's the worst game/system/publisher, etc.) usually spirals into digressions and/or aggressive posts. Just my two cents.

Thanks for the advice friend, in my mind I thought that this would make for a good topic of discussion, I guess I was wrong.

[+splendidnut]

This could be a good discussion.  Asking for the 'worst CEO' is a very generic question and doesn't necessarily lend itself well to deep discussion unless effort is made to push the discussion deeper.  It's all a matter of how much effort you want to put into steering the discussion to keep it 'on topic' and push it deeper.

 

Ask the harder questions:

 

What actually defines a good CEO?

What are the good and bad qualities of each CEO mentioned?

What were the goal's of Atari during each CEO's reign?

Did they meet/exceed those goals or did they flounder?

[digdugnate]

[JPF997]

1 hour ago, splendidnut said:

This could be a good discussion.  Asking for the 'worst CEO' is a very generic question and doesn't necessarily lend itself well to deep discussion unless effort is made to push the discussion deeper.  It's all a matter of how much effort you want to put into steering the discussion to keep it 'on topic' and push it deeper.

 

Ask the harder questions:

 

What actually defines a good CEO?

What are the good and bad qualities of each CEO mentioned?

What were the goal's of Atari during each CEO's reign?

Did they meet/exceed those goals or did they flounder?

Since most people are clearly not interested in this discussion is there anyway to close or delete this topic?

[+splendidnut]

Closing/deleting is completely unnecessary.

[digdugnate]

@jerseystyle might have some good input since they've been in a CEO role, if i remember correctly. 

 

I think these qualities define a good CEO:

 

Strong leadership skills: A good CEO must be able to inspire and motivate their team to achieve great things. They should be able to set a clear vision and direction for the company, and they should be able to effectively communicate that vision to their employees.

 

Strategic thinking: A good CEO should be able to think ahead and develop plans for the future of the company. They should be able to identify opportunities and threats, and they should be able to make decisions that will help the company succeed in the long run.

 

Decision-making skills: A good CEO must be able to make quick and decisive decisions, even when faced with uncertainty. They should be able to weigh the pros and cons of different options and make the choice that is best for the company.

 

Communication skills: A good CEO must be able to communicate effectively with a variety of stakeholders, including employees, customers, investors, and the media. They should be able to clearly articulate their vision for the company, and they should be able to build relationships with key people.

 

Integrity and ethics: A good CEO should be honest and ethical in their dealings with others. They should set a good example for their employees and they should uphold the company's values.

 

Resilience: A good CEO should be able to handle stress and adversity. They should be able to bounce back from setbacks and keep moving forward.

 

Continuous learning: A good CEO should be willing to learn new things and adapt to change. They should be curious about the world around them and they should be open to new ideas.

Edited September 14, 2023 by digdugnate

[+Stephen]

7 minutes ago, JPF997 said:

Since most people are clearly not interested in this discussion is there anyway to close or delete this topic?

 

3 minutes ago, splendidnut said:

Closing/deleting is completely unnecessary.

Just ask everyone to ignore the thread, that always seems to work well.

[+bent_pin]

14 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Just ask everyone to ignore the thread, that always seems to work well.

Ignore this thread you say?

 

[zzip]

8 hours ago, jeremiahjt said:

I will go with Wade Rosen. I mean how are you going to buy a forum and not even come by and say hello. Wait a minute... Atari just bought AtariAge and @JPF997 is a brand new member... JPF997 is Wade Rosen!

Haha,  for a minute I thought TrogdarRobusto was Wade Rosen,  

 

11 hours ago, stirrell said:

It humanized them quite a bit. Leonard comes off as a pretty relatable guy in interviews.

Yeah Leonard is more of an engineer, definitely doesn't come off as cutthroat like his father.

 

15 hours ago, PlutoniumPasta said:

Ray was a business man, not a gamer. Or at least that's the way I veiw him.

True but he made a fundamental business error assuming everything is a commodity like bananas or textiles.    Bananas are essentially the same no matter what plantation grew them.   But for videogames, you want hits, and want developers who can produce hits, definitely not interchangeable! 

 

[digdugnate]

1 minute ago, zzip said:

Haha,  for a minute I thought TrogdarRobusto was Wade Rosen,  

 

Yeah Leonard is more of an engineer, definitely doesn't come off as cutthroat like his father.

 

True but he made a fundamental business error assuming everything is a commodity like bananas or textiles.    Bananas are essentially the same no matter what plantation grew them.   But for videogames, you want hits, and want developers who can produce hits, definitely not interchangeable! 

 

 

There's always money in the banana stand!

[JPF997]

 Ok you guys win this one, feel free to screw around in this thread, but remember this

[zzip]

1 hour ago, splendidnut said:

What actually defines a good CEO?

What are the good and bad qualities of each CEO mentioned?

What were the goal's of Atari during each CEO's reign?

Did they meet/exceed those goals or did they flounder?

I think too often a CEO is judged by the bottom line.   By that measure Ray Kassar would be the best ever (Atari became the fastest growing company in US history under his tenure)  and worst ever  (losses of $1 million per day before his ouster).    But I don't think there was a vision for that era, the company was in the right place at the right time to ride the early 80s videogame wave.   But they couldn't have planned for the boom, they didn't know it would be so short-lived there's lots of signs of them flailing around trying to figure out what worked and doing things seem dumb in retrospect.   Still someone at the company had the foresight to license Space Invaders and Pac-man, which put them above their competition.

[BassGuitari]

35 minutes ago, digdugnate said:

 

There's always money in the banana stand!

NO TOUCHING!!!

[jerseystyle]

58 minutes ago, digdugnate said:

@jerseystyle might have some good input since they've been in a CEO role, if i remember correctly. 

 

I think these qualities define a good CEO:

 

Strong leadership skills: A good CEO must be able to inspire and motivate their team to achieve great things. They should be able to set a clear vision and direction for the company, and they should be able to effectively communicate that vision to their employees.

 

Strategic thinking: A good CEO should be able to think ahead and develop plans for the future of the company. They should be able to identify opportunities and threats, and they should be able to make decisions that will help the company succeed in the long run.

 

Decision-making skills: A good CEO must be able to make quick and decisive decisions, even when faced with uncertainty. They should be able to weigh the pros and cons of different options and make the choice that is best for the company.

 

Communication skills: A good CEO must be able to communicate effectively with a variety of stakeholders, including employees, customers, investors, and the media. They should be able to clearly articulate their vision for the company, and they should be able to build relationships with key people.

 

Integrity and ethics: A good CEO should be honest and ethical in their dealings with others. They should set a good example for their employees and they should uphold the company's values.

 

Resilience: A good CEO should be able to handle stress and adversity. They should be able to bounce back from setbacks and keep moving forward.

 

Continuous learning: A good CEO should be willing to learn new things and adapt to change. They should be curious about the world around them and they should be open to new ideas.

In my opinion, I’d say Ray was probably least suited for the role. He didn’t seem to understand Atari at all and (imo) didn’t have much interest in doing so, which ties into the “continuous learning” mentioned above. The worst thing someone can do in leadership is stick to a “one size fits all” mentality. Every business is different, every team of people is different. He failed to understand that and it did long term damage to the company.

[+x=usr(1536)]

30 minutes ago, JPF997 said:

 Ok you guys win this one, feel free to screw around in this thread, but remember this

Needs background music.

 

 

[zzip]

37 minutes ago, jerseystyle said:

In my opinion, I’d say Ray was probably least suited for the role. He didn’t seem to understand Atari at all and (imo) didn’t have much interest in doing so, which ties into the “continuous learning” mentioned above. The worst thing someone can do in leadership is stick to a “one size fits all” mentality.

Likewise, Jack seemed to have only one play in his playbook:  "undercut the competition on price!".    It worked for the C64, but didn't work quite as well other times he used it.

[+x=usr(1536)]

7 hours ago, JPF997 said:

So  what you only want to engage in discussions that are bland, unoriginal and safe, then you should have gone somewhere else .

Uh, no.  You put the thread out in public.  By doing so, you're inviting commentary from the public.  If you received commentary other than what you hoped to receive, too bad.  That's just the risk involved with inviting opinion: it may not always be what you want to hear.

7 hours ago, JPF997 said:

There is nothing mean spirited about discussing the failure's of previous leader's of Atari, we have the right to critique the business decisions of CEOs of any other companies but for some reason Atari CEOs are off limits?

By that logic, it seems as though critiquing your posts is off-limits.  Again, when inviting public opinion you're not safe from that.

 

As others have stated, the issue isn't the subject matter, but rather how it was presented - and there are ways that the thread could have been started that wouldn't be likely to ultimately devolve into the mass of bickering, argument, and acrimony that we've seen play out again and again in threads like these.

7 hours ago, JPF997 said:

Sorry but I have no intention of playing  the game by your made up rule's.

Nobody's making up rules.  They're stating an opinion, and, ultimately, trying to give you the benefit of their experience.  Related to that:

7 hours ago, JPF997 said:

Picking fights? Sorry but when someone's only contribution to a discussion is flooding the comment section with this insufferable millennial/zoomer style humor then they should look somewhere else to post they're cringe takes

Perhaps looking to see if there's a germ of truth to the replies you're receiving rather than taking them as personal attacks would be something worth considering.

7 hours ago, JPF997 said:

(keep in mind this is a zoomer speaking, I'm just tired of this  current mainstream soyboy culture most of my contemporaries engage with).

Here's the thing: you're receiving pretty much the exact opposite of the 'soyboy culture' to which you are referring.  People are being straightforward with you and not softening their commentary; they want their point to be clearly understood.

 

Humour is used to soften that blow somewhat.  Sure, it can be snarky at times, but so what?  There are far worse things in life to have to deal with than some sarcastic guy sitting in front of his keyboard.  Besides, he's probably wearing only a stained pair of tighty-whities and is shoveling Cheetos open-palm into his mouth as orange corn-based styrofoam snack crumbs rain down into the depths of his keyboard from above, irretrievably jamming the 'j' key to the point where he has to press it so hard it crunches in order for it to work.  Roll with the punches and worry about things that are worth worrying about.

 

There is one thing I am genuinely curious about, however:

9 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

He's also Soylent Green!

When I wrote this, what did you think I was referring and/or alluding to?  Again, genuinely curious.

[Crazy Climber]

7 hours ago, JPF997 said:

Ha ha very funny, I can tell you right now if I was Wade I would be spending more of my leasure time at the golf club then wasting it responding to your sarcastic drivel.

Ummmm

7 hours ago, JPF997 said:

If this is your best attempt at being funny then I'm afraid I'm not impressed.

Ahh...

7 hours ago, JPF997 said:

So  what you only want to engage in discussions that are bland, unoriginal and safe, then you should have gone somewhere else . There is nothing mean spirited about discussing the failure's of previous leader's of Atari, we have the right to critique the business decisions of CEOs of any other companies but for some reason Atari CEOs are off limits? Sorry but I have no intention of playing  the game by your made up rule's.

Hmmmm....

7 hours ago, JPF997 said:

I'm also someone not fond of the  dumb/cringe/sarcastic reddit style  humor that you two are currently engaging with.

Uhhhh

7 hours ago, JPF997 said:

Picking fights? Sorry but when someone's only contribution to a discussion is flooding the comment section with this insufferable millennial/zoomer style humor then they should look somewhere else to post they're cringe takes    (keep in mind this is a zoomer speaking, I'm just tired of this  current mainstream soyboy culture most of my contemporaries engage with).

No, you're not picking fights, not at all 😆 

1 hour ago, JPF997 said:

Since most people are clearly not interested in this discussion is there anyway to close or delete this topic?

 

1 hour ago, splendidnut said:

Closing/deleting is completely unnecessary.

I think its the taking my ball and going home thing...

[+splendidnut]

10 minutes ago, Crazy Climber said:

I think its the taking my ball and going home thing...

To be fair, people pushed him into that position.  You only quoted one side of the conversation, but both sides are at fault.

 

I do agree with you though.