7800 Atari Corp. Revival

[Retro Rogue]

Just thought I'd address this commentary from another older thread, since I just got done with a lengthy phone interview with Michael Katz that answers some of these questions and statements. The interview was for our books, and for a 7800 Retroinspection appearing in a future issue of RetroGamer magazine.

 

Not careing for games specifically doesn't mean he had no interest in selling game consoles though, if nothign else he needed to maket them to keep Atari afloat until the ST was established, starting by simply sellign remaining stock, but exmanding into releasing the Jr an dfinally straightening out the 7800, then there's the XEGS too. (granted, there were more than just Jack tied to these decisions too) I'm not positive what position Katz held at Atari Corp (iirc it was vice president), but regardless he was involved with marketing the game systems, namely the 2600 Jr and 7800, not sure about the XEGS -or if he was involved with marketign the ST as well. (they were on a pretty tight budget too, relatively limited advertizing -and basicly none for the initial 2600 Jr release if I read his comments correctly)

 

All true, but I'm sure Katz was the brains behind Atari [Consumer/Corp.] getting back into gaming.

 

Katz's official title was Executive Vice President. He was brought on as director/President of the new video games division, mktg and sales head of the computer division, and head of a new division (created as condition of him joining) called the Entertainment Electronics Division.

 

They started wooing each other because Katz was looking to move on from Epyx, and Jack was looking for Katz to bring back the 2600 (via the Jr.), and re-launch the 7800 and get timely games for it. They specifically wanted him for the job because they did not consider themselves knowledgeable in the video games market and wanted someone who was. The move to bring both to the market started with Jack, and these talks started in August/September - long before Nintendo even started a test market. As stated previously and now further corroborated by this, the 7800 deal with GCC was with Warner, not Atari. It did not come with the purchase. Jack spent summer of '84 in to fall of '85 going back and forth with Warner on who owed GCC for the MARIA development and 10 launch games. Jack finally capitulated to Warner's terms that in order to get the 7800 he'd need to pay GCC for the Maria development, and he paid for the MARIA chip that May. The next few months were spent negotiating for payment of the 10 launch titles, and by August/September he was looking at Katz to head up the re-entry.

 

Katz set the $50 price point for the intro of the 2600 Jr. that Christmas season and in the meantime started looking at getting newer and more relevant titles for the 7800 besides the 10 already done. He quickly found out that a) most of the newer console game publishers were now coming out of Japan, and b) They were already locked up with Nintendo, who were just going to be test marketing in the US. He instead leveraged his computer publishing connections and got licenses to popular computer titles to port over to the 7800. These were finished negotiating by late Winter/early Spring when development started. Meanwhile the 7800 relaunch was announced that early January at CES, and the '84 model backstock started being shipped to retailers who in turn started selling them that Spring.

 

None of it was in response to Nintendo, other than Katz having to go to computer publishers for game licenses.

[DracIsBack]

The interview was for our books, and for a 7800 Retroinspection appearing in a future issue of RetroGamer magazine.

 

Looking forward to both.

 

He quickly found out that a) most of the newer console game publishers were now coming out of Japan, and b) They were already locked up with Nintendo, who were just going to be test marketing in the US. He instead leveraged his computer publishing connections and got licenses to popular computer titles to port over to the 7800.

 

Interesting. I had assumed (incorrectly it seems) that the computer ports were on Warner's original agenda. At the time of the 7800's intended original launch, there was a lot of press noise about "cheap computers killing the console". As originally intended, the 7800 seemed to attack both new consoles like the Colecovision but also cheap computers with peripherals like the keyboard. I originally thought that some of the computer games were licensed to show that you could play computer ports on a console.

 

One thing Atari Corp did a lot was license and release games across their consoles. While I think this created confusion in the market place (do I get the version for the 7800 or the version marked 'for the 2600 and 7800'?), it makes sense from a license perspective.

 

Didn't Atari also get a bunch of licenses for 8Bit games for dirt cheap in 1986-7?

[Retro Rogue]

As originally intended, the 7800 seemed to attack both new consoles like the Colecovision but also cheap computers with peripherals like the keyboard.

 

The computer aspect was more of GCC's idea, and came from the origins in their computer project Spring. The idea with the 3600 was to correct a lot of the problems the guys at GCC saw in the 5200 while leveraging Atari's already existing computer peripherals (hence the SIO). The expansion port was their idea as well for adding and upgrading more computer resources/capabilities.

 

One thing Atari Corp did a lot was license and release games across their consoles. While I think this created confusion in the market place (do I get the version for the 7800 or the version marked 'for the 2600 and 7800'?), it makes sense from a license perspective.

 

Didn't Atari also get a bunch of licenses for 8Bit games for dirt cheap in 1986-7?

 

All the inroads to 8bit licenses were from Michael. He was President of Epyx computer software from 1983-1985, when it was rising to a top tier computer software company and had the contacts to match.

 

As far as why they had to do the same games across consoles - remember the market was different. When the 2600 was at it's heyday, titles were licensed to mutliple console formats (such as Atari having Donkey Kong computer rights and Coleco having both console and handheld/tabletop electronic game rights). Likewise publishers made games across multiple consoles and platforms (i.e. Activision or Imagic making the same game for the 2600, Colecovision, and Intellivision). That all changed with Nintendo because during and after the crash a lot of the publication switched to Japan, and in the interim (during the Famicom) Nintendo locked them in with their exclusivity contracts. This was of course even greater expanded under the NES. There weren't multiple licenses spread around, and there weren't 3rd party publishers releasing games on multiple consoles. There was just Nintendo, and being locked in to Nintendo.

 

Sega was able to have a somewhat steady flow because their arcade division was just hitting it's stride (i.e. golden years) in the mid through late 80's, so they could go in house. Atari Inc.'s bread and butter towards the end there had been licenses and licensing properties from people, which is all Tramiel was left with by that time. If you need new titles for both consoles, there's no one to license from any more, and not the large pool of available 3rd party developers because of the lockout from Nintendo, the only place to go is titles that were formerly exclusive to computers. And by '85 (according to coverage of the time), the 8-bit home computer game publishing industry was beginning to enter it's own slump and shakeout. Hence the dirt cheap licenses in '86 onward.

Edited May 28, 2010 by wgungfu

[DracIsBack]

[As far as why they had to do the same games across consoles - remember the market was different. When the 2600 was at it's heyday, titles were licensed to mutliple console formats (such as Atari having Donkey Kong computer rights and Coleco having both console and handheld/tabletop electronic game rights). Likewise publishers made games across multiple consoles and platforms (i.e. Activision or Imagic making the same game for the 2600, Colecovision, and Intellivision). That all changed with Nintendo because during and after the crash a lot of the publication switched to Japan, and in the interim (during the Famicom) Nintendo locked them in with their exclusivity contracts. This was of course even greater expanded under the NES. There weren't multiple licenses spread around, and there weren't 3rd party publishers releasing games on multiple consoles. There was just Nintendo, and being locked in to Nintendo.

 

My issue I think was more how they were positioned, and it's a data point of one! :-) I had the 2600 before the 7800. When the 2600 was close to its end, I had several games that were labelled "for the 2600 and 7800". When I was deciding to upgrade to the 7800, I thought (incorrectly as a kid would) that these games would look different or be more advanced when plugged into the 7800. Specifically, I remember looking at the back of the 7800 box and seeing WINTER GAMES. The graphics were way better in that shot than appeared in my Winter Games cartridge (marked as 'for 2600 and 7800') . I expected to plug this cart into my brand new 7800 and see it transform into what I saw on the 7800 box.

 

Didn't happen. :-)

 

Instead, I learned quickly that Atari (and others) had games marked as "for the 2600" and "for the 2600 and 7800".

 

Probably a marketing/positioning problem but it bugged me then.

[doctor_x]

excellent thread.. the 7800 has always intrigued me as it was certainly an underdog at a very bad time in the market segment. looking forward to the forthcoming books and following all of these threads.

[SoundGammon]

Why wasn't there any ports of the Atari Games arcade games ported to the 7800? Like Cyberball, Xybots and the rest? They made it to the LYNX!

[ApolloBoy]

Why wasn't there any ports of the Atari Games arcade games ported to the 7800? Like Cyberball, Xybots and the rest? They made it to the LYNX!

I think the reason for that is because the 7800 was essentially dead by the time those games made it to the Lynx.

[DracIsBack]

Why wasn't there any ports of the Atari Games arcade games ported to the 7800? Like Cyberball, Xybots and the rest? They made it to the LYNX!

I think the reason for that is because the 7800 was essentially dead by the time those games made it to the Lynx.

 

He's right. Though when the Lynx was announced, Atari held a developer interest session for both it and the 7800, so they were thinking that way initially.

 

A couple of Atari Games prototypes have been found for the 7800 ... Klax and Pit Fighter. Klax was almost done while Pit Fighter is *REALLY* early.

[82atari5200]

The 7800 always struck me as a bit of an oddity, a throw back to a bygone era. It could have come out instead of the flashback 2 and probably made sense. Instead it's that 30 year old guy hanging out the college dorm still thinking he's 20.

[OldAtarian]

Just thought I'd address this commentary from another older thread, since I just got done with a lengthy phone interview with Michael Katz that answers some of these questions and statements. The interview was for our books, and for a 7800 Retroinspection appearing in a future issue of RetroGamer magazine.

 

Not careing for games specifically doesn't mean he had no interest in selling game consoles though, if nothign else he needed to maket them to keep Atari afloat until the ST was established, starting by simply sellign remaining stock, but exmanding into releasing the Jr an dfinally straightening out the 7800, then there's the XEGS too. (granted, there were more than just Jack tied to these decisions too) I'm not positive what position Katz held at Atari Corp (iirc it was vice president), but regardless he was involved with marketing the game systems, namely the 2600 Jr and 7800, not sure about the XEGS -or if he was involved with marketign the ST as well. (they were on a pretty tight budget too, relatively limited advertizing -and basicly none for the initial 2600 Jr release if I read his comments correctly)

 

All true, but I'm sure Katz was the brains behind Atari [Consumer/Corp.] getting back into gaming.

 

Katz's official title was Executive Vice President. He was brought on as director/President of the new video games division, mktg and sales head of the computer division, and head of a new division (created as condition of him joining) called the Entertainment Electronics Division.

 

They started wooing each other because Katz was looking to move on from Epyx, and Jack was looking for Katz to bring back the 2600 (via the Jr.), and re-launch the 7800 and get timely games for it. They specifically wanted him for the job because they did not consider themselves knowledgeable in the video games market and wanted someone who was. The move to bring both to the market started with Jack, and these talks started in August/September - long before Nintendo even started a test market. As stated previously and now further corroborated by this, the 7800 deal with GCC was with Warner, not Atari. It did not come with the purchase. Jack spent summer of '84 in to fall of '85 going back and forth with Warner on who owed GCC for the MARIA development and 10 launch games. Jack finally capitulated to Warner's terms that in order to get the 7800 he'd need to pay GCC for the Maria development, and he paid for the MARIA chip that May. The next few months were spent negotiating for payment of the 10 launch titles, and by August/September he was looking at Katz to head up the re-entry.

 

Katz set the $50 price point for the intro of the 2600 Jr. that Christmas season and in the meantime started looking at getting newer and more relevant titles for the 7800 besides the 10 already done. He quickly found out that a) most of the newer console game publishers were now coming out of Japan, and b) They were already locked up with Nintendo, who were just going to be test marketing in the US. He instead leveraged his computer publishing connections and got licenses to popular computer titles to port over to the 7800. These were finished negotiating by late Winter/early Spring when development started. Meanwhile the 7800 relaunch was announced that early January at CES, and the '84 model backstock started being shipped to retailers who in turn started selling them that Spring.

 

None of it was in response to Nintendo, other than Katz having to go to computer publishers for game licenses.

 

I don't understand this. I just found a letter that says that as of the meeting with Nintendo in Japan that they had not yet produced a prototype of their proposed game system. That was on 4/11/83 as shown here http://www.atarimuseum.com/articles/atari-nintendo-deal.htm

 

In the wiki entry for the NES, it says the Nintendo Famicom, as it was called in Japan, was released there on July 15, 1983. So somehow Nintendo managed to go from not yet having a prototype for Atari to look at in April, to a full scale release in Japan 3 months later? I think somebody has their facts wrong. Nintendo had to have had a working prototype of the NES long before the April meeting with Atari in order to release in July which means it had to be in development before the 7800. Nintendo clearly lied to Atari about how far along they were in order to release so soon after. In order to release three months later, not only should they have had prototypes, but to make sure they had sufficient stock on hand for the release they should have already been in production.

 

I found a source that says that Nintendo sold over 500,000 Famicoms in Japan in the first two months. How far back would production have had to have started for them to have had over 500,000 units sell out from July to September 1983. Think about it. The Famicom clearly had to be in production at the time of the meeting with Atari.

Edited October 8, 2010 by OldAtarian

[carmel_andrews]

Link doesn't work

 

Anyway Atari's situation had changed since the initial discussion with nintendo and when there was a deal to be signed (at that summer's CES) coleco decided to spoil things (or shitstir) by releasing DK for the Adam Computer and Atari pointed the finger of blame at nintendo, whilst that situation only took a month to resolve (according to some text's i've seen) it was during that month that Atari dropped Kassar as CEO and subsequently things began to really unravel at Atari leading to the eventual deal with Tramiel

 

I don't think tramiel would have been in any position to try ressurecting the propsed deal with nintendo anyway, due to the fact he was more interested in getting the ST of the ground and selling in big numbers

 

I think Atari caused most of the problems around the 7800 themselves, if you look at why nintendo and sega were successful with their consoles is mostly due to the fact that anyone developing for sega/nintendo only had to support thast particular console, i.e the NES and the SMS, which meant that sega/nintendo could maximize not only the amount of games on their platform(s) but also maximise licensing profits for each game sold/released on their platform(s), Atari simply didn't read the market properly, after all Atari were'nt top dog anymore so why did Atari do 3 gaming systems aimed at the same market (bearing in mind that nintendio had already sewn up most of the US publishers for publishing/development on it's console) and that what remained were'nt so interested in supporting any Atari platform, perhaps if Atari had only focused on one platform in the gaming hardware market (like the 7800) in the same way that Nintendo and Sega did with the NES and SMS/II I think the 7800 might have been more successful, since Atari and 3rd party publishers would only have to support one Atari gaming platform and not 3

Edited October 8, 2010 by carmel_andrews

[OldAtarian]

Link doesn't work

 

Anyway Atari's situation had changed since the initial discussion with nintendo and when there was a deal to be signed (at that summer's CES) coleco decided to spoil things (or shitstir) by releasing DK for the Adam Computer and Atari pointed the finger of blame at nintendo, whilst that situation only took a month to resolve (according to some text's i've seen) it was during that month that Atari dropped Kassar as CEO and subsequently things began to really unravel at Atari leading to the eventual deal with Tramiel

 

I don't think tramiel would have been in any position to try ressurecting the propsed deal with nintendo anyway, due to the fact he was more interested in getting the ST of the ground and selling in big numbers

 

I think Atari caused most of the problems around the 7800 themselves, if you look at why nintendo and sega were successful with their consoles is mostly due to the fact that anyone developing for sega/nintendo only had to support thast particular console, i.e the NES and the SMS, which meant that sega/nintendo could maximize not only the amount of games on their platform(s) but also maximise licensing profits for each game sold/released on their platform(s), Atari simply didn't read the market properly, after all Atari were'nt top dog anymore so why did Atari do 3 gaming systems aimed at the same market (bearing in mind that nintendio had already sewn up most of the US publishers for publishing/development on it's console) and that what remained were'nt so interested in supporting any Atari platform, perhaps if Atari had only focused on one platform in the gaming hardware market (like the 7800) in the same way that Nintendo and Sega did with the NES and SMS/II I think the 7800 might have been more successful, since Atari and 3rd party publishers would only have to support one Atari gaming platform and not 3

 

 

Link fixed. It was the period at the end of the sentence that broke it.

[CPUWIZ]

Link doesn't work

 

Anyway Atari's situation had changed since the initial discussion with nintendo and when there was a deal to be signed (at that summer's CES) coleco decided to spoil things (or shitstir) by releasing DK for the Adam Computer and Atari pointed the finger of blame at nintendo, whilst that situation only took a month to resolve (according to some text's i've seen) it was during that month that Atari dropped Kassar as CEO and subsequently things began to really unravel at Atari leading to the eventual deal with Tramiel

 

I don't think tramiel would have been in any position to try ressurecting the propsed deal with nintendo anyway, due to the fact he was more interested in getting the ST of the ground and selling in big numbers

 

I think Atari caused most of the problems around the 7800 themselves, if you look at why nintendo and sega were successful with their consoles is mostly due to the fact that anyone developing for sega/nintendo only had to support thast particular console, i.e the NES and the SMS, which meant that sega/nintendo could maximize not only the amount of games on their platform(s) but also maximise licensing profits for each game sold/released on their platform(s), Atari simply didn't read the market properly, after all Atari were'nt top dog anymore so why did Atari do 3 gaming systems aimed at the same market (bearing in mind that nintendio had already sewn up most of the US publishers for publishing/development on it's console) and that what remained were'nt so interested in supporting any Atari platform, perhaps if Atari had only focused on one platform in the gaming hardware market (like the 7800) in the same way that Nintendo and Sega did with the NES and SMS/II I think the 7800 might have been more successful, since Atari and 3rd party publishers would only have to support one Atari gaming platform and not 3

 

[carmel_andrews]

No thanks CPU....too sickly

[Retro Rogue]

I don't understand this.

 

I just want to clarify, this is a new question right? Because none of this has anything to do with the material of mine you quoted.

 

 

I just found a letter that says that as of the meeting with Nintendo in Japan that they had not yet produced a prototype of their proposed game system. That was on 4/11/83 as shown here http://www.atarimuseum.com/articles/atari-nintendo-deal.htm

 

That's not what it says. It says they saw the TTL emulator (i.e. wirewrap) version, as Nintendo had just gotten the first run of their VLSI custom chips. Unless you're confusing emulator for the software (computer) version vs. electronics sense? You're reading correspondence from some of Atari's engineers. By proto, they're referring to final production proto vs. how you're taking it to mean nothing at all. There's usually several stages of protos in development, the 7800 went through the same process of multiple revisions including multiple runs of the MARIA chip itself. Usually a logic based wire wrap model for the custom chip development, then runs of the custom chips in VLSI to test in a full single board PCB, and then multiple revisions of that before freezing for production. AMIGA showed hardware emulated versions (i.e. large multi-board wirewraps) of their custom chips at CES as well for instance when they first started. Very common process.

 

In the wiki entry for the NES, it says the Nintendo Famicom, as it was called in Japan, was released there on July 15, 1983. So somehow Nintendo managed to go from not yet having a prototype for Atari to look at in April, to a full scale release in Japan 3 months later?

 

See above.

 

I think somebody has their facts wrong. Nintendo had to have had a working prototype of the NES long before the April meeting with Atari in order to release in July which means it had to be in development before the 7800.

 

What eventually became the 7800 has it's origins at GCC back to around Fall of '82. I'm not sure what it matters who began developing their systems first though, other than an interesting side note. And that certainly has nothing to do with the re-relaunch of the 7800 and initial release of the NES in '85.

 

Nintendo clearly lied to Atari about how far along they were in order to release so soon after.

 

No, they didn't. You're just misinterpreting the letter and drawing speculation based on that. We have all the internal emails as well (that's Curt's site you got the letter from) regarding this, including the arguing process going on at Atari (there were different people who wanted to go with the Famicom, and others that wanted to go with the MARIA). Nothing was misrepresented.

 

Nintendo stayed with their planned Summer Japan launch and wanted to go with Atari for the national launch that Fall, for whom they'd OEM the console PCB's for. It's all covered in my article.

 

I found a source that says that Nintendo sold over 500,000 Famicoms in Japan in the first two months. How far back would production have had to have started for them to have had over 500,000 units sell out from July to September 1983.

 

Considering there's no custom or shipping involved since it was Japan only, not that far in advance. You're talking about local manufacturing as well. Big difference from say Atari needing to coordinate manufacturing and shipping of items from Taiwan and deal with an international materials market.

Likewise, all the letter says was their custom chips had just arrived for testing and they couldn't put them in yet to produce a full proto (full meaning the single VLSI based PCB version vs. the earlier multiple part wire wrap versions).

 

Think about it. The Famicom clearly had to be in production at the time of the meeting with Atari.

 

Certainly it's cases were already done at that point, and a run of the PCB's to plop the first run chips in to for testing. But again, there was nothing being hidden here so I'm not sure what kind of conspiracy you're trying to insinuate by all this.

[Curt Vendel]

There are actually a full set of emails that deal with the 1983 discussions, I only posted the most relevant.

 

You are confusing several things, they had working proto's in the form of wirewraps using ttl (gate chips) and those gates would be integrated (logically) into a single chip that would make up the later unit, it just happened that Nintendo could only show Atari a proto unit, not a production unit, chips were most likely still in the process of fabrication and testing at the time.

 

There were several rough proto's of the MARIA as well going back into 1983 too, I have 2 of the sample chips and I have photo's up on my site as well. There was a major bug in the GCC1701 version, hence they went to the GCC1702 version, then A, B and eventually C versions...

 

Also if you examine the email I posted, essentially Nintendo wanted full control of manufacturing, at least initially, they wanted Atari to buy their boards and Nintendo would make them to accomodate Atari's own design of case for it.

 

 

 

Curt

 

Just thought I'd address this commentary from another older thread, since I just got done with a lengthy phone interview with Michael Katz that answers some of these questions and statements. The interview was for our books, and for a 7800 Retroinspection appearing in a future issue of RetroGamer magazine.

 

Not careing for games specifically doesn't mean he had no interest in selling game consoles though, if nothign else he needed to maket them to keep Atari afloat until the ST was established, starting by simply sellign remaining stock, but exmanding into releasing the Jr an dfinally straightening out the 7800, then there's the XEGS too. (granted, there were more than just Jack tied to these decisions too) I'm not positive what position Katz held at Atari Corp (iirc it was vice president), but regardless he was involved with marketing the game systems, namely the 2600 Jr and 7800, not sure about the XEGS -or if he was involved with marketign the ST as well. (they were on a pretty tight budget too, relatively limited advertizing -and basicly none for the initial 2600 Jr release if I read his comments correctly)

 

All true, but I'm sure Katz was the brains behind Atari [Consumer/Corp.] getting back into gaming.

 

Katz's official title was Executive Vice President. He was brought on as director/President of the new video games division, mktg and sales head of the computer division, and head of a new division (created as condition of him joining) called the Entertainment Electronics Division.

 

They started wooing each other because Katz was looking to move on from Epyx, and Jack was looking for Katz to bring back the 2600 (via the Jr.), and re-launch the 7800 and get timely games for it. They specifically wanted him for the job because they did not consider themselves knowledgeable in the video games market and wanted someone who was. The move to bring both to the market started with Jack, and these talks started in August/September - long before Nintendo even started a test market. As stated previously and now further corroborated by this, the 7800 deal with GCC was with Warner, not Atari. It did not come with the purchase. Jack spent summer of '84 in to fall of '85 going back and forth with Warner on who owed GCC for the MARIA development and 10 launch games. Jack finally capitulated to Warner's terms that in order to get the 7800 he'd need to pay GCC for the Maria development, and he paid for the MARIA chip that May. The next few months were spent negotiating for payment of the 10 launch titles, and by August/September he was looking at Katz to head up the re-entry.

 

Katz set the $50 price point for the intro of the 2600 Jr. that Christmas season and in the meantime started looking at getting newer and more relevant titles for the 7800 besides the 10 already done. He quickly found out that a) most of the newer console game publishers were now coming out of Japan, and b) They were already locked up with Nintendo, who were just going to be test marketing in the US. He instead leveraged his computer publishing connections and got licenses to popular computer titles to port over to the 7800. These were finished negotiating by late Winter/early Spring when development started. Meanwhile the 7800 relaunch was announced that early January at CES, and the '84 model backstock started being shipped to retailers who in turn started selling them that Spring.

 

None of it was in response to Nintendo, other than Katz having to go to computer publishers for game licenses.

 

I don't understand this. I just found a letter that says that as of the meeting with Nintendo in Japan that they had not yet produced a prototype of their proposed game system. That was on 4/11/83 as shown here http://www.atarimuseum.com/articles/atari-nintendo-deal.htm

 

In the wiki entry for the NES, it says the Nintendo Famicom, as it was called in Japan, was released there on July 15, 1983. So somehow Nintendo managed to go from not yet having a prototype for Atari to look at in April, to a full scale release in Japan 3 months later? I think somebody has their facts wrong. Nintendo had to have had a working prototype of the NES long before the April meeting with Atari in order to release in July which means it had to be in development before the 7800. Nintendo clearly lied to Atari about how far along they were in order to release so soon after. In order to release three months later, not only should they have had prototypes, but to make sure they had sufficient stock on hand for the release they should have already been in production.

 

I found a source that says that Nintendo sold over 500,000 Famicoms in Japan in the first two months. How far back would production have had to have started for them to have had over 500,000 units sell out from July to September 1983. Think about it. The Famicom clearly had to be in production at the time of the meeting with Atari.

[carmel_andrews]

The question still remains, would atari's NES still have to comply with nintendo's initial/original policy on software development/publishing (either internally or 3rd party)

 

Such a policy would have countered and contradicted Atari's own attitude to 3rd party or internal publishing/development

 

Secondly, would an Atari NES have discontinued development of the Maria chip or would the maria chip have been salvaged into some upgrade for the A8 (i.e replacing the Antic/GTIA with Maria) or a third scenario that Atari do three versions of the NES, one with the Maria chip and 2600 support along with the NES hardware, one without the maria chip or one without the NES hardware and the maria chip only (a'la a 7800 only)

[SoundGammon]

According to the guys at CCG during their interview at the 20th reunion, Atari was planning to get an exclusive world-wide license of Nintendo's system and then moth ball it and NOT release it at all. All Atari wanted was to get the rights to all their games for Atari's systems. Would have been interesting if that would have happened!

[Retro Rogue]

According to the guys at CCG during their interview at the 20th reunion, Atari was planning to get an exclusive world-wide license of Nintendo's system and then moth ball it and NOT release it at all. All Atari wanted was to get the rights to all their games for Atari's systems. Would have been interesting if that would have happened!

 

Keep in mind though that the GCC guys will know more about their own company than the actual internal goings-ons of Atari, and some of which may be jaded or slanted to their take on things. Remember that according to Steve Golson (who was probably the 20th Reunion speaker you listened to), Jack wanted nothing to do with the 7800 or video games, which we've since found to not be the case.

[OldAtarian]

There are actually a full set of emails that deal with the 1983 discussions, I only posted the most relevant.

 

You are confusing several things, they had working proto's in the form of wirewraps using ttl (gate chips) and those gates would be integrated (logically) into a single chip that would make up the later unit, it just happened that Nintendo could only show Atari a proto unit, not a production unit, chips were most likely still in the process of fabrication and testing at the time.

 

There were several rough proto's of the MARIA as well going back into 1983 too, I have 2 of the sample chips and I have photo's up on my site as well. There was a major bug in the GCC1701 version, hence they went to the GCC1702 version, then A, B and eventually C versions...

 

Also if you examine the email I posted, essentially Nintendo wanted full control of manufacturing, at least initially, they wanted Atari to buy their boards and Nintendo would make them to accomodate Atari's own design of case for it.

 

 

 

Curt

 

Just thought I'd address this commentary from another older thread, since I just got done with a lengthy phone interview with Michael Katz that answers some of these questions and statements. The interview was for our books, and for a 7800 Retroinspection appearing in a future issue of RetroGamer magazine.

 

Not careing for games specifically doesn't mean he had no interest in selling game consoles though, if nothign else he needed to maket them to keep Atari afloat until the ST was established, starting by simply sellign remaining stock, but exmanding into releasing the Jr an dfinally straightening out the 7800, then there's the XEGS too. (granted, there were more than just Jack tied to these decisions too) I'm not positive what position Katz held at Atari Corp (iirc it was vice president), but regardless he was involved with marketing the game systems, namely the 2600 Jr and 7800, not sure about the XEGS -or if he was involved with marketign the ST as well. (they were on a pretty tight budget too, relatively limited advertizing -and basicly none for the initial 2600 Jr release if I read his comments correctly)

 

All true, but I'm sure Katz was the brains behind Atari [Consumer/Corp.] getting back into gaming.

 

Katz's official title was Executive Vice President. He was brought on as director/President of the new video games division, mktg and sales head of the computer division, and head of a new division (created as condition of him joining) called the Entertainment Electronics Division.

 

They started wooing each other because Katz was looking to move on from Epyx, and Jack was looking for Katz to bring back the 2600 (via the Jr.), and re-launch the 7800 and get timely games for it. They specifically wanted him for the job because they did not consider themselves knowledgeable in the video games market and wanted someone who was. The move to bring both to the market started with Jack, and these talks started in August/September - long before Nintendo even started a test market. As stated previously and now further corroborated by this, the 7800 deal with GCC was with Warner, not Atari. It did not come with the purchase. Jack spent summer of '84 in to fall of '85 going back and forth with Warner on who owed GCC for the MARIA development and 10 launch games. Jack finally capitulated to Warner's terms that in order to get the 7800 he'd need to pay GCC for the Maria development, and he paid for the MARIA chip that May. The next few months were spent negotiating for payment of the 10 launch titles, and by August/September he was looking at Katz to head up the re-entry.

 

Katz set the $50 price point for the intro of the 2600 Jr. that Christmas season and in the meantime started looking at getting newer and more relevant titles for the 7800 besides the 10 already done. He quickly found out that a) most of the newer console game publishers were now coming out of Japan, and b) They were already locked up with Nintendo, who were just going to be test marketing in the US. He instead leveraged his computer publishing connections and got licenses to popular computer titles to port over to the 7800. These were finished negotiating by late Winter/early Spring when development started. Meanwhile the 7800 relaunch was announced that early January at CES, and the '84 model backstock started being shipped to retailers who in turn started selling them that Spring.

 

None of it was in response to Nintendo, other than Katz having to go to computer publishers for game licenses.

 

I don't understand this. I just found a letter that says that as of the meeting with Nintendo in Japan that they had not yet produced a prototype of their proposed game system. That was on 4/11/83 as shown here http://www.atarimuseum.com/articles/atari-nintendo-deal.htm

 

In the wiki entry for the NES, it says the Nintendo Famicom, as it was called in Japan, was released there on July 15, 1983. So somehow Nintendo managed to go from not yet having a prototype for Atari to look at in April, to a full scale release in Japan 3 months later? I think somebody has their facts wrong. Nintendo had to have had a working prototype of the NES long before the April meeting with Atari in order to release in July which means it had to be in development before the 7800. Nintendo clearly lied to Atari about how far along they were in order to release so soon after. In order to release three months later, not only should they have had prototypes, but to make sure they had sufficient stock on hand for the release they should have already been in production.

 

I found a source that says that Nintendo sold over 500,000 Famicoms in Japan in the first two months. How far back would production have had to have started for them to have had over 500,000 units sell out from July to September 1983. Think about it. The Famicom clearly had to be in production at the time of the meeting with Atari.

 

 

The timeline just still doesn't seem to add up. 500,000 units isn't a lot taking today's manufacturing conditions into consideration, but in 1983 it was a lot and even if it was a domestic release only, it still takes time to build up an inventory of that many units. They have to be manufactured, boxes have to be designed, they have to be moved through the distribution channels to retailers shelves to sell. It just seems to me that for them to have sold over 500,000 units between July and September and for them to only have a wire wrap proto in April and not one that was closer to a production unit doesn't make sense. To go from wire wrap proto to a half million units sold at retail in just 3 months is too little time for them not have been further along than they were admitting to. I think they did a little pulling of the wool over the eyes of the Atari people.

 

It does make sense because Atari was still a potential competitor if the distribution deal fell through and could have taken what they learned from the demonstration and applied it to their own products and hurt the NES in the US. Holding back a little as insurance isn't an uncommon practice in business.

Edited October 9, 2010 by OldAtarian

[Retro Rogue]

The timeline just still doesn't seem to add up.

 

Of course it adds up, we've already explained everything. You keep going off this fringe theory of them trying to hide something. They were only looking at selling in Japan at the time, they had nothing to hide. In fact, they had to convince Atari they could meet their demanded minimum first order since as Curt also stated they were going to be OEM'ng everything for Atari. Atari was going to have to buy all the internals from them, Atari wasn't allowed to do their own manufacturing of anything besides the case and packaging.

 

500,000 units isn't a lot taking today's manufacturing conditions into consideration, but in 1983 it was a lot and even if it was a domestic release only, it still takes time to build up an inventory of that many units. They have to be manufactured, boxes have to be designed, they have to be moved through the distribution channels to retailers shelves to sell.

 

Time to build up parts to make inventory, which they had plenty of time for, and you're missing the point of. They already had the VLSI chips laid out and manufactured, with the first run coming in for testing just as they were talking to Atari. That in no way states they didn't already have runs of pcb's (which they would have needed before they could test) ready to go, the casework and molds for the cases already done, packaging already designed, etc. You seem to have this fantasy of a linear method of development here. It just doesn't work that way. Have you actually ever been involved in the design, production, and distribution of an electronics product? It just doesn't come off like it. Likewise, you're talking distribution around Japan - an island nation about the size of the state of Montana. How long do you think it takes to distribute something to stores in that small of a space?

 

 

It just seems to me that for them to have sold over 500,000 units between July and September and for them to only have a wire wrap proto in April

 

Whoah, whoah, whoah. They had a wire wrap proto to demonstrate games on to Atari. That in no way states what they did or did not have ready of the product itself, including any materials and design work done on other related aspects. As stated, they had the PCB's laid out, they had the custom chips already done - just not tested on that day the Atari people were visiting.

 

and not one that was closer to a production unit doesn't make sense. To go from wire wrap proto to a half million units sold at retail in just 3 months is too little time for them not have been further along than they were admitting to.

 

Again, you're really reading to much in to this and running off on a tangent based on faulty interpretation of a few facts.

 

I think they did a little pulling of the wool over the eyes of the Atari people.

 

No, there was nothing to pull the wool over about.

 

It does make sense because Atari was still a potential competitor if the distribution deal fell through and could have taken what they learned from the demonstration and applied it to their own products and hurt the NES in the US. Holding back a little as insurance isn't an uncommon practice in business.

 

More fantasy. 1) Atari was not a potential competitor at that time, and certainly did not see Nintendo as any such competitor. They had almost no operations outside of Japan, and NOA was simply a small distribution center for Nintendo coin-ops at that time. That's why they came to Atari in the first place, they needed help with world wide distribution. If the Atari deal fell through, they'd simply go to another competitor for help (though the closest with world wide distribution would have been Philips Magnavox). A scenerio Atari was considering blocking. Likewise why Nintendo did not consider itself as a potential competitor either. 2) There was nothing to learn from the demonstration or to be taken from it. Internal emails clearly show they were simply weighing the options against GCC's MARIA, with a good portion of the engineers simply not impressed by the video of the demonstration or the Famicom's given architecture and capabilities. It was really a split. 3) It wasn't until late '84, after Atari and the market had imploded, that Yamauchi considered enterting the US on his own. That's when the repackaging design of the Famicom for American consumption began, and the result - the AVS - shown at the January '85 CES (only once). Even then, by the time of the US national launch of the NES in September of '86 they still had to rely on other companies for distribution, relying on Worlds of Wonder in the US.

[kool kitty89]

According to the guys at CCG during their interview at the 20th reunion, Atari was planning to get an exclusive world-wide license of Nintendo's system and then moth ball it and NOT release it at all. All Atari wanted was to get the rights to all their games for Atari's systems. Would have been interesting if that would have happened!

 

Keep in mind though that the GCC guys will know more about their own company than the actual internal goings-ons of Atari, and some of which may be jaded or slanted to their take on things. Remember that according to Steve Golson (who was probably the 20th Reunion speaker you listened to), Jack wanted nothing to do with the 7800 or video games, which we've since found to not be the case.

Yes, and nowhere in that presentation did I get the impression that Kassar was planning on securing licenses for Nintendo games at all. The idea (supposedly) was to get an exclusive contract for the HARDWARE and block them out of the market.

 

In hindsight it seems quite likely that such a blocking strategy would have been impossible to implement given Nintendo's management style (or unreasonably expensive) and that at best they would complicate and delay entrance of Nintendo in general. It seems like Kassar may have switched to simply using delay tactics to prolong negotiations as long as possible (which the BS outrage over the Adam playing CV Donkey Kong would be part of), but that fell through when Kassar stepped down from Atari after his stock scandal. (by which time Nintendo was apparently already getting impatient)

[Retro Rogue]

Yes, and nowhere in that presentation did I get the impression that Kassar was planning on securing licenses for Nintendo games at all. The idea (supposedly) was to get an exclusive contract for the HARDWARE and block them out of the market.

 

Yes, GCC was not privy to that. Fortunately we have the internal emails during the entire period, discussing all the aspects. They were seriously considering going with Nintendo, and in fact were weighing the benefits back and forth between the proposed MARIA and the almost ready to go Famicom hardware, as well as the possibility of locking them in to a junk contract so another manufacturer wouldn't be able to lock them in.

 

In hindsight it seems quite likely that such a blocking strategy would have been impossible to implement given Nintendo's management style (or unreasonably expensive) and that at best they would complicate and delay entrance of Nintendo in general.

 

What management style? Remember that except for Donkey Kong (which Atari already had a license for) they were nobody at the time, it was the Famicom and it's dominance in Japan that gave them the clout there. And that was yet to come out at the point they began negotiations. They needed other companies for possible introduction outside of Japan, which is why they approached Atari - Nintendo was looking to OEM the console hardware. I.E. the Nintendo name wasn't even going to be on the thing.

 

It seems like Kassar may have switched to simply using delay tactics to prolong negotiations as long as possible (which the BS outrage over the Adam playing CV Donkey Kong would be part of), but that fell through when Kassar stepped down from Atari after his stock scandal. (by which time Nintendo was apparently already getting impatient)

 

They were getting impatient because Nintendo's demand was for a Christmas '83 released console, and x amount of ordered populated console PCB's by that time from Nintendo. Nintendo was literally demanding that they had to manufacture all internal hardware as stated, and that Atari had to order the minimum amount Nintendo was stating. Likewise, the Donkey Kong thing was no BS, and everything was still on the table after Kassar stepped down. Atari/Coleco/Nintendo even had a three way meeting to hash things out that September, at which point things were supposed to move forward. Then Morgan decided to do his freeze of all projects so he could evaluate the company and Nintendo decided not to go with them or anyone else becuase of what stated the industry was moving towards.

[kool kitty89]

What management style? Remember that except for Donkey Kong (which Atari already had a license for) they were nobody at the time, it was the Famicom and it's dominance in Japan that gave them the clout there. And that was yet to come out at the point they began negotiations. They needed other companies for possible introduction outside of Japan, which is why they approached Atari - Nintendo was looking to OEM the console hardware. I.E. the Nintendo name wasn't even going to be on the thing.

I guess I was thinking more in terms of the minimum required hardware orders Nintendo was pushing. (any other management sided stuff didn't really come until much later)

 

Likewise, the Donkey Kong thing was no BS, and everything was still on the table after Kassar stepped down. Atari/Coleco/Nintendo even had a three way meeting to hash things out that September, at which point things were supposed to move forward. Then Morgan decided to do his freeze of all projects so he could evaluate the company and Nintendo decided not to go with them or anyone else becuase of what stated the industry was moving towards.

Hmm, maybe I'm mistaken but I'd thought the Adam was demonstrated playing Colecovision Donkey Kong (given it was fully compatible with the CV), is that incorrect? (was it a tape version specifically for the Adam?)

[Retro Rogue]

Likewise, the Donkey Kong thing was no BS, and everything was still on the table after Kassar stepped down. Atari/Coleco/Nintendo even had a three way meeting to hash things out that September, at which point things were supposed to move forward. Then Morgan decided to do his freeze of all projects so he could evaluate the company and Nintendo decided not to go with them or anyone else becuase of what stated the industry was moving towards.

Hmm, maybe I'm mistaken but I'd thought the Adam was demonstrated playing Colecovision Donkey Kong (given it was fully compatible with the CV), is that incorrect? (was it a tape version specifically for the Adam?)

 

I'm not sure what you're asking me? I didn't say anything with regards to the Adam not demonstrating Super Donkey Kong. And no it was not the CV version, but an Adam specific version with the extra level, screens, and additional animations, which they had to agree not to sell as part of the outcome.