• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Knowledge Deck #1: The Video Game crash was not the reason Atari nearly collapsed. It was their computer division that killed them.

Knowledge Deck will be a series that aims to remove decades of misinformation that has spread in the video game industry, as well as present facts the average gamer doesn't know. This series will be fun and educational for all ages until we get to Japan's Visual Novel industry which was the deciding factor for why the N64 shipped with cartridges instead of CDs. More on that later.

It is common to hear that the video game crash destroyed Atari. Atari was huge back in the late seventies and early eighties becoming the face of video gaming. The current understanding of gaming history will tell you that the video game crash was the primary cause for Atari's collapse, ultimately resulting in Warner selling Atari's consumer division to Atari Corporation.

But that's not why Atari collapsed. The 2600 was still selling millions in software and sold over 1 million consoles in 1985 without any advertising. Profits did see a major decline, but Atari was already worth billions in 1983, so what caused Atari's rapid collapse?

The answer? Atari's computer division, aided by the Commodore 64, is what caused the destruction of what was once the fastest-growing company in the United States.

While Atari had lost tens of millions of dollars on the 2600 during the crash, which is in no way insignificant, that slowed by late 1984. Not to mention, by 1982 Atari had billions in reserves, and the 2600 itself was dirt cheap to make costing $40 to produce before the crash, and $30 to produce after. So clearly something else had to make a company worth billions sink to the bottom in only 2 years, but what?

101909_360W.png


That something was Commodores insane price war. C64's were flying off shelves costing $300 to as low as $200. Atari responded by deciding to race Commodore to the pits of hell. The Atari 800XL went from a $950 introductory price with rebate, to $175 in less than a year and that was just one model, the whole line was dirt cheap costing less than $300. Atari lost $700 million in the last 5 months of 1982, and lost over $500 million in the first 9 months of 1983. Overall, Atari lost BILLIONS between 1981 and 1985. No wonder Warner was looking to sell and gave up on supporting Atari.

That is what destroyed the biggest name in gaming, the computer industry. Yes, the 2600 had a part in it, but if Atari just held out they would have been fine and only suffered minor losses. Kind of an embarrassing end really.

Where would Atari be if they had disbanded its computer division or declined to race to the bottom with Commodore? Who knows, but it's something to think about.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
I like the spirit behind this thread. Lots of misconceptions and urban myths about gaming in the 70s and 80s.

My first computer was an IBM 5150 (green monochrome monitor) and my first console was the NES + Game Boy. Atari's failure was meaningless to me since I grew up in that post-Atari era.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
The Atari 800XL went from a $950 introductory price with rebate, to $175 in less than a year and that was just one model, the whole line was dirt cheap costing less than $300. Atari lost $700 million in the last 5 months of 1982, and lost over $500 million in the first 9 months of 1983. Overall, Atari lost BILLIONS between 1981 and 1985. No wonder Warner was looking to sell and gave up on supporting Atari.
I'd guess that any idiots running the company into the ground like this in about 12 months would be fired.

Were Atari execs fired?
 
Yeah, that makes sense.

My household went from the 2600 to the C64.

That was a crazy time in the industry - from consoles to PCs. It was the wild, wild west in a burgeoning industry - both technically and in terms of large-scale cultural adoption. I'm glad I got to witness it unfold.
 
D

Deleted member 738976

Unconfirmed Member
I'd imagine they would suffer from the eventual lack of third party support. Still I would have liked for them to been with the SNES and Genesis anyways with a 16-bit console of their own instead of the Jaguar.











Of course some wouldn't look exactly the same but I'm sure they would have look better than their Lynx ports if any.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Yeah, that makes sense.

My household went from the 2600 to the C64.

That was a crazy time in the industry - from consoles to PCs. It was the wild, wild west in a burgeoning industry - both technically and in terms of large-scale cultural adoption. I'm glad I got to witness it unfold.
Wild west was right. lol

Attempt #1
Disk_Muncher_v1.0_1983_The_Stack_Corrupt_Computing_screenshot.gif


Didn't work? Bring out the big gun... but took like half an hour.
Locksmith_6.0_Fast_Disk_Backup__Label_Maker_screenshot.gif
 
I'd guess that any idiots running the company into the ground like this in about 12 months would be fired.

Were Atari execs fired?

It's a curious case.

Commodore, while it took them forever to do so, did eventually remove their top executive toward the end of the price war along with several department leads.

Atari didn't remove diddly squat, which is why they kept chasing Commodore to their own demise. The fact Warner didn't intervene until it was too late is very confusing to me.

I'd imagine they would suffer from the eventual lack of third party support. Still I would have liked for them to been with the SNES and Genesis anyways with a 16-bit console of their own instead of the Jaguar.

Atari computers had substantial 3rd party support. If you are taking about later products like the 7800 that was due to a combination of Nintendos illegal lock-in policies, and Atari lacking money since they just lost billions in a pointless computer price war and just got brought out by another company that assumed Atari's name, leading to massive skepticism. One could argue the ST saved Atari from going bankrupt.

The Jaguar will be covered in another part of this series, but there's a lot of misinformation about it. The Jaguar is actually an extremely powerful device that blew the 32-bit Panther prototype out of the water. It suffered due to a disconnect between IBM, the manufacturer, Atari, the designers, and several companies that made the development tools.

It became difficult to make games for the Jaguar unless they were in 2D, which Atari wanted to abandon because their $700 competition was running circles around them. Sadly due to how poor the architecture was, and how buggy it was, you couldn't get much out of it. Still much more powerful than an SNES or 32X, but wasn't able to do much better than the latter.

What you're asking is for Atari to have abandoned the Jaguar and release the Panther instead, even though the Jaguar was a much more powerful console. In hindsight, I can see that logic, but for the time I don't think any company would have gone with the weaker machine. If Atari had ironed out the flaws, and the Jaguar released fully tested, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
 
Top Bottom