What Would Have Saved Atari?

[poofyhairguy]

When we look back on console gaming history, it is obvious that Atari had the first successful console in how we define success in a modern sense. The 2600 was huge, their games were a hit in the arcades, and then they crashed.

The common reasons of ET and Pac Man are the go-to to describe their decline. I get that if each game would have been better, or if they would have ordered less carts for each, that things would have been different.

But was that really enough?

It seems like the biggest issue is Atari lost control internally and externally. The 2600 was "off the shelf hardware" so they had no control of the eco-system and no econosystem protection like the Colecovision or NES would have had. There was no way to put the horses back in the 2600 barn, and at some point all they had was market momentum that they managed poorly.

I wonder: Would a backwards compatible 5200 that replaced the 2600 have saved the day? Instead of being a high-end option along with the 2600, replace it completely and move on? I mean, there was a five year gap between each which is the acceptable hardware replacement cycle for consoles. It seems like part of what made 2600 games so crappy is that it was hard to program for. I know they made a two port 5200 after launch, but that was too little too late I think.

Or was there something else you think that would have saved Atari? Maybe something long before the 5200 or the 80's?

 

[lamedude]

1 million 5200's sold vs 3.7 million 7800's so I would say it would've helped, but not sure if that would've been enough.
Doing the deal with Nintendo would have saved them, and with their mindshare intact the Jaguar would've have done better.

 

[clok1966]

I dont think anything would, keep in mind the Nintendo deal came long after the crash. I don't think it would have saved Atari during the crash (if they had accepted it which they did not). The crash was bigger than ATARI, it was kinda the same reason the Wii died out (very lose comparison) shovelware. Far to much crap had alienated the buyers, and they didn't trust the products they where getting. YOu have to include that Arcade ports where hot and they where charging some big licencing fee's which where hard to justify with the poor sales at that time of even big name games.

It was one of those cycles most industries need to go through, almost any "NEW" industry does, make a new product everybody wants, keep shoveling the same crap , but more of it till the people staert to come around and understand its just that, crap. then re-evaluate and make a better product and go on. Video games needed time to re-evaluate. Not to say the 7800 was a bad machine, it just had some pretty sub standard games, you licence a game you make some of the profits, you create the game, you make all the profits. Its possible if Atari spent a little more time on Arcade games they could have hung on a bit longer.. but kangaroo (short term liked game in Arcade) and bad choices like that did no good.

 

[xantub]

I lived through that age. It wasn't really graphics or technology that killed it really, I don't remember me or any of my friends saying "these graphics are outdated" or anything. I guess we just burned out on them. Also, between Atari and Nintendo, there was a new kid in the neighborhood... PC gaming.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Back then the arcades were the big draw and when that market dried up, the home market took a massive hit from the ripple that industry's death created. Atari was a victim of bad timing as much as any bad business they did, probably more.

 

[zerocool84]

It seems they and Sega made similar mistakes that led to their downfall. Sega didn't know what they wanted by the end of the 16-bit era and it stayed with them to the end. Sega CD, 32x, Saturn, Sega didn't know what they were doing, it seemed once the Jaguar hit, Atari was left with no confidence, just like Sega.

 

[JamesV]

Two things - lower cost on the 5200, and backward compatibility would have saved Atari.

For a single mother in 1977, the 2600 at $200 + $60 for a game was a big investment. If it hadn't been for my great aunt, I probably wouldn't have gotten one. Almost all the new games were $60, but by the time the 2600 had been around for a few years, you could find games for $.99 (crappy usually, or used).

Then the 5200 comes out, and how do you convince your mother to buy an even more expensive console, and that those hundreds of games you have will not work, so you have to buy games all over again?

If I knew that answer, I'd probably would have had a 5200.

 

[clok1966]

I lived through that age. It wasn't really graphics or technology that killed it really, I don't remember me or any of my friends saying "these graphics are outdated" or anything. I guess we just burned out on them. Also, between Atari and Nintendo, there was a new kid in the neighborhood... PC gaming.

While I'm sure it had some effect, the crash was in 83 (it started early 82) and there had been successful home PC's in the early 80's (atari 400 came out in 79, the Vic-20 in 80). The Vic-20 was the best selling Home computer ever in 82 with 800,000 units (atari 2600 was selling 4 million in 82, this does not include none US sales (add 1-2 million more)).. which was pretty small compared to video game consoles. Also keep in mind the vic-20 crashed and burned in 83 .. it went to almost zero units sold (as did other home PC's at the same time video games did) And the C-64 (the best selling Home PC till the 90's) came out just after the crash started (late 82).. not before it.

IT could have had some effect but it was small (my opinion), even the Intellivision was selling many more units (in 82 right when the crash started) then the almost all home PC combined. I have purposely left INTEL boxes off this list as they costed about $3-5,000 at the time. But one never knows, maybe the public was seeing the big picture a lot more clearer then it does today. It could have had more impact then I saw. As i had almost all of them in 82 (vic-20, atari 400, 2600, Intellivision) but used the intellivision the most..

fun to discuss non the less

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

not having a controller with a million buttons on it.

 

[mmntech]

By 1982, I don't think there was much that could have saved Atari. It was the culmination of a lot of poor business decisions that sunk them.

1) Thought ET & Pac-Man would be run away hits. Manufactured more cartridges than 2600s that had actually been sold. I guess they assumed everybody who owned the console would want them, and everybody else would buy the console to get them. Even if they had been phenomenal games for the time, I highly doubt this strategy would have panned out. AFAIK, there's never been a non-pack in game that literally every single console owner had.

2) They launched a contest to try and improve their image. The prizes were $150,000 (close to $357,000 today) worth of legit golden, jewel encrusted swag. The company was already on shaky financial ground, which is why SwordQuest was never finished. They had still spent the money on the prizes though. Nobody knows where the last two went to this day.

3) The 5200 was plagued with manufacturing issues. Most of the controllers that shipped were faulty, rendering the console unplayable. Don't know who they had doing QC.

4) They had no control over their games. Literally anybody could make an Atari game and sell it. There was no system for vetting and approval of titles. That's how you got things like the infamous Mystique titles (aka Atari Porn). Games like Custer's Revenge attracted a lot of negative press for the company, even though it wasn't their game. I believe to this day that this is why sex in games is still frowned upon.

5) They angered early developers for not allowing them to put credits into the game. In other words, they thought the people actually creating and coding didn't matter. Sharp contrast for today when you can literally sit through 20min of credits for some titles. Assassin's Creed, I'm looking at you.


Aside from that, external forces were also putting pressure on them. Home computers were becoming affordable. While something like a Commodore 64 was more expensive, it could do a lot more. Game consoles were considered toys, where a computer was something that could help get your kids into college. Plus it could play games, often in better quality. So it was just an all around superior device. This is actually why Nintendo called their first console the Family Computer. Even though it was just for games, they wanted people to associate it more with a home computer.

Maybe had Atari gotten in some strong leadership when it was sinking, it could have been saved. Much like Steve Jobs did with Apple. Though despite numerous management changes, the company spent years treading water. Largely for the same reasons that led to the crash. The 7800 had limited software support. The Jaguar was billed as being 64-bit but was weaker than the PlayStation, and not demonstrably better than the SNES.

They bounced around from owner to owner. Last year they finally filed for Chapter 11. I'm surprised they're actually still around.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Great post mmntech. Let me refine my question then:

If Atari would have taken all that money dumped into ET, Pac Man, and expensive arcade flops (like that amazing I Robot) and instead created a 5200 that was backwards compatible, of solid construction, and had some sort of DRM to force licensing NES-style would that have saved Atari?

I guess what I am really wondering is- if Atari would have played Nintendo's game would they still be around? Or was the technology not there, or the market to immature to support a stable console industry?

 

[Oyeve]

Its funny. I was a huge atari supporter in the early 80s. I still had my 2600 and my friends were getting colecovision. I stood by atari. Then when I was into sex i gave it all to some girls. In the early 90s I was working for an investment company, I had gotten wind of the Atari Jaguar and I convinced my managers to buy a butt-load of atari stock. I myself bought 10,000 shares at $1.10 per share (I put in my 401k), then the jaguar hit, I actually bought it and it was complete and utter garbage. The stock shot up from a buck to $20 per share and I sold at around $16. My managers sold also. We made lots of moola but Atari just went under at that point. The Jaguar 64 could have saved it if they released it with great software. The system was actually capable of so much than what was seen. Jack Tramiel (RIP) bought Atari at the wrong time in 1984 and tho he tried his best to resurrect it, it was way too late by 94.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

competent management and competent employees were needed to save that train-wreck

the hardware was garbage and so was the software

 

[norseamd]

would be interesting to see what an atari console today would look like

 

[IndyColtsFan]

They bounced around from owner to owner. Last year they finally filed for Chapter 11. I'm surprised they're actually still around.

A point of clarification - Atari as a company finally died in the mid 90s, when they merged with JTS (a maker of some very poor hard drives.). The Atari that has "existed" since then is just the name and logo, sold to various companies throughout the years.

 

[Eug]

By 1982, I don't think there was much that could have saved Atari. It was the culmination of a lot of poor business decisions that sunk them.

1) Thought ET & Pac-Man would be run away hits. Manufactured more cartridges than 2600s that had actually been sold. I guess they assumed everybody who owned the console would want them, and everybody else would buy the console to get them. Even if they had been phenomenal games for the time, I highly doubt this strategy would have panned out. AFAIK, there's never been a non-pack in game that literally every single console owner had.

Pac Man on Atari was an absolutely terrible, terrible game. Why they couldn't see that I just don't understand.

3) The 5200 was plagued with manufacturing issues. Most of the controllers that shipped were faulty, rendering the console unplayable. Don't know who they had doing QC.

Plus it was expensive. I had no desire to get a 5200.

Aside from that, external forces were also putting pressure on them. Home computers were becoming affordable. While something like a Commodore 64 was more expensive, it could do a lot more. Game consoles were considered toys, where a computer was something that could help get your kids into college. Plus it could play games, often in better quality. So it was just an all around superior device. This is actually why Nintendo called their first console the Family Computer. Even though it was just for games, they wanted people to associate it more with a home computer.

I was hopeful for the Atari 400 computer, but it was really painful to use as a computer. It was cartridge based with a chicklet keyboard. May as well have been just a console, since you couldn't really compute much on it.

The 800 was better with a proper keyboard, but it was more expensive, and the extra slot was pretty much useless. Nobody built stuff for it because it wasn't on the 400.

I was tempted by the 1200XL, but it wasn't a cheap purchase and by the time it was to come out, it was too late. Atari seemed in bad shape, and there were superior machines out already.

P.S. About a decade ago, I met a very cute blond woman with an Atari tattoo, working in the local furniture shop. I asked her why she had that tattoo and she said she just loved video games as a kid.

 

[Oyeve]

I still play Star Raider to this day on my Atari 800XL. I also have the Atari Computer cartridge version of ET, he talks at the end of the game. Pretty cool back in the day. I recall playing it and when ET talked I was amazed. Game still sucked though.

I also remember paying $72 dollars for Pac-Man back in 1982, I was a junior in HS and worked after school for 2 weeks to pay for that POS. The store wouldnt take it back, I think it was at The Wiz, their policy was no taking back carts. That like 200 bucks today.

 

[Arkaign]

A lot of things could have helped. Not releasing 65 million different units would have been wise.

Keep 2600 to 82. Release consolized computer (Xegs) in 82 to merge game mfg. Make only 800 with single cart slot instead of 400/800/600xl/800xl/1200xl (they even had MORE coming like 1450xld!). Skip 5200/7800 entirely. Keep the Amiga project and don't give it to Commodore, launch that in '85 with a cart slot AND floppy drive, with bus for future CD drive. Pack in good mouse and stereo AV outputs.

Woo Nintendo to make games by offering full royalty and financing. Institute high QC on software. Make deals with schools to give education packages at discount and work to create curriculum as required.

Skip tape drives, make Atari branded USR modems to dial in to play game demos and play online games.

All this could have been done.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Skip tape drives, make Atari branded USR modems to dial in to play game demos and play online games.

That part was already being done outside of Atari. It blew my mind when I learned about this product last month:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameLine

Between that and I, Robot everything gaming has today was invented before 1985.