Atari Founds Slams Former Company, PS3

Nolan Bushnell, the founder of Chuck E. Cheese and Atari, spoke out against Sony's upcoming PS3 and his former company.

Bushnell was dismissive of Sony's PS3, predicting dark times ahead for the company. "I think Sony shot themselves in the foot... there is a high probability [they] will fail. The price point is probably unsustainable. For years and years Sony has been a very difficult company to deal with from a developer standpoint. They could get away with their arrogance and capriciousness because they had an installed base. They have also historically had horrible software tools. You compare that to the Xbox 360 with really great authoring tools [and] additional revenue streams from Xbox live ... a first party developer would be an idiot to develop for Sony first and not the 360. People don't buy hardware, they buy software."

He went on to suggest that Sony's success with the hugely successful Playstation brand was nothing more than a stroke of luck. "It wasn't anything brilliant that they did. With the PS and PS2 it was timing. They had the right pricing at the right time [and were] almost the accidental winner. It would not surprise me if a year from now they'll be struggling to sell 1 million units. [Factoring in the PS3's price], I think in the U.S. the number of early adopters you have is actually around 300,000."

Bushnell also scoffed at the current rendition of the Atari brand. "It really isn't a part of today's gaming world in any meaningful way. They lost the cachet of being a leading technology company in the games space."

Finally, the Chuck E. Cheese founder applauded the Wii and Microsoft's Xbox Live as both having great potential in the future. "I'm very curious and interested in the Nintendo Wii. I think it may expand the market beyond the hardcore [18- to 24-year old]. Xbox Live is interesting because it potentially becomes the platform for the living room."

Source: Red Herring

Permalink

Ummm, why should we listen to the guy who founded Chuck E. Cheese? Why should we listen to someone who abandoned the video game industry years ago? What credibility does he have aside from being the founder of Atari more than a decade ago, and making Pong (I think)? All he has is name recognition. He has no current standing in the video game industry. Sounds like he just wants to remind everyone he's still alive or something...

mgsmanda:
Ummm, why should we listen to the guy who founded Chuck E. Cheese? Why should we listen to someone who abandoned the video game industry years ago? What credibility does he have aside from being the founder of Atari more than a decade ago, and making Pong (I think)? All he has is name recognition. He has no current standing in the video game industry. Sounds like he just wants to remind everyone he's still alive or something...

I don't understand this sentiment, and completely disagree with your conclusions. His standing in the game industry is that he made it. He made it. He may have some wrong-headed ideas from time-to-time, but he's earned the right to voice them.

He made it, and left it. He hasn't worked in the industry in years. He doesn't do anything. He's just working on his restaurant franchise. When was the last time he worked on a console? It's been a long time.

My point is that I don't see him as having a worthwhile voice on todays industry. He doesn't know todays industry. He doesn't work in it. Why should we care about what he has to say. His time is past. He doesn't produce within this environment anymore.

I do not doubt that he was once important, but he isn't today. Why should anyone care about his opinion on the next generation console war? Because he formed Atari years ago? Because he used to work in the industry? What magical power has his previous work and successes given him that enable him to so accurately assess the video game industry of today? I think we can all agree that the video game industry has changed quite a bit since his reign. So what makes his comments worth listening to?

I respect Bushnell for the same reason I repsect Einstein, Chaplin and Hendrix. It's true that he's not making a ton of the games you see on shelves today, but without what he did make, those games wouldn't be there. A person either respects that or they don't. Apparently you don't. Fair enough.

I didn't say I don't respect him. He's done great things for the industry. But his say in today's industry doesn't matter to me. Would you care about Chaplin's opinion of film today? Would you care what Hendrix would say about today's music industry, especially if he goes about bashing them while not doing anything to change it? Would you care if Einstein were to come back today and claim that today's science is a failure, even if he were not to be working on science anymore?

I'm not saying that what he did wasn't great, but that's exactly it: a part of the past. I don't think that he is deserving the credibility articles like this give him. "He's the mighty Bushnell! See what he said? He must be right! Doesn't matter if he hasn't worked in the industry for years. What matters is that he once worked in it, and made Atari!"

I'm not trying to disrespect him or his accomplishments. I'm trying to say that his opinion is no more credible than any other observer of the industry. I'm saying that his opinion at this point is of the same value as yours and mine. It's not worth an article.

mgsmanda:
Would you care about Chaplin's opinion of film today? Would you care what Hendrix would say about today's music industry, especially if he goes about bashing them while not doing anything to change it? Would you care if Einstein were to come back today and claim that today's science is a failure, even if he were not to be working on science anymore?

Yes, yes I would. When someone is generative of an entire school of thought or industry, their opinion always matters. Saying he doesn't have credibility is like saying your grandfather, who hasn't exactly been out of touch with you, holds just as much critical dominion over you as his buddy at the nursing home.

Joe has the right of it here. There is no statute of limitations on being influential.

Bushnell's opinion is considerably more informed than most anyone else's in the world when it comes to selling videogame consoles. He wouldn't be saying this if he wasn't seeing repeated mistakes he learnt lessons from 25 years ago. He's not talking about the differences in technology between the age of Atari and today; he's talking about selling consoles, and about that there are few who know more.
Time might well prove him wrong but his opinion is seriously worth factoring into an expensive decision like whether or not to buy a PS3.
He is still involved in videogames, too.

I said his credibility is no greater than anyone else who has been observing the industry. Your comparisson makes it seem like I've said his credibility is the same as any person, regardless of their connection to the game industry.

As for people who generate an entire school of thought, will the person who created a school of thought be significant if he departs from that school of thought? Will those who followed him earlier blindly jump boat to follow him? If Confucius had abandoned his idealogy and become a farmer, years later, would his followers have cared what he had to say about the idealogy that had developed for years in his absence? What right would he have to impose his opinion on them when they had been working diligently for years on the evolution of the idealogy into its complete form, while he was off working his farm?

Joe, there are people and companies who have worked hard to improve the industry since Bushnell left. Think about the size of market now in comparisson to Bushnell's time. This progress did not just occur magically. People had to work for it. Games have evolved. The industry has evolved. The market has grown exponentially. And these were done without Bushnell. While he was building his restaurant franchise, the game industry was moving forward. No doubt his games and system started the movement, but everything else occured without him.

Just because a worker laid the foundation of a building doesn't mean that worker has the right to comment on the the workings of the remaining building after he has left. And while Bushnell may have started rolling up that snowball that is the industry, he left. Why should we think that his opinion on the snowballs current state and size matters?

mgsmanda:
Why should we think that his opinion on the snowballs current state and size matters?

For the same reason any opinion matters. And, for that matter, to the same extent.

I understand your points, but still disagree with you. Bushnells opinion on videogames matters far more to me than that of others, including yours. And mine. And Joe's for that matter. Now that's not to say that I won't disagree with him from time to time, but I'll listen to what he has to say because I respect his opinion.

Saying that his opinion doesn't matter because he hasn't made a hit game in however many years is a bit short-sighted.

mgsmanda:
Why should we think that his opinion on the snowballs current state and size matters?

We should listen to his opinions on today's market because the fundamental properties of economics don't change. Just because Clinton isn't currently the president of the united states does not make his opinion on matters of foreign policy unfounded or somehow less than currently serving members of our government. There is a lot to be said for having been the person in place getting the experience. To do something is to truly know it, and he HAS done it.

mgsmanda:
Just because a worker laid the foundation of a building doesn't mean that worker has the right to comment on the the workings of the remaining building after he has left. And while Bushnell may have started rolling up that snowball that is the industry, he left.

I completely disagree with you here. A worker in a construction site with years of experience building finishes a job, he retires later and enjoys life at home. He walks by a construction site on the way to get groceries and is every bit entitled and deserving of respect if he comments on the lack of safety, or poor workmanship or failure to use good materials. His knowledge does not vanish because he's not currently working as a contractor. No - he like Bushnell has a much more educated opinion to offer, I'm not saying that he is correct. But it is foolish to ignore to words of people who have traveled the path you're on even if the undergrowth has changed over the years.

Graffiti Writer, what? "Time might well prove him wrong but his opinion is seriously worth factoring into an expensive decision like whether or not to buy a PS3." What does his opinion have to do with anything? Why should I care about his opinion? I care about games. I care about service. Why should people look to Bushnell for their purchasing decisions when they could look at what is being offered themselves?

And he's talking about selling consoles? I'll refer back to my previous post. The market has changed. The products have changed. The products capabilities have changed. Bushnell has never sold a console to a market of this size. Why should anyone care about his insight? What lessons has he learned that will help a company in today's market sell consoles? "Make it cheap and affordable"? Brilliant insight. "People don't buy hardware, they buy software"? Wow! Who knew that people didn't buy Playstations without buying games?

People, I'm just saying that his opinion is not worth much in today's industry. If Sid Meier or Warren Spector or Will Wright had commented, I'd care because they're active in the market. They are making stuff. Bushnell, I don't see a reason to care.

Fletcher, I'm saying that his opinion doesn't matter because he is no longer working in the industry. If he were active in the industry in some way, sure, I'll welcome his opinion. But he's not.

TomBeraha: Construction doesn't change. If that construction worker had worked for years on little cottages, would he have the credibility to comment on the building process of a skyscraper or a mall?

Remember, Bushnell was selling systems to kids (and teens) and geeks (essentially), while Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft are selling them to kids, geeks, jocks, girls, moms, dads, grandmas, granddads (especially Nintendo). Economics may not change, but when the definition of your market changes, their buying power changes as well. Think of the marketting behind the PS1 and Nintendo64, and compare them to the marketting for PS3, Wii, and X360. Things have changed. Markets have changed. His experience lies in the old market.

Again, I'm not saying I don't respect him. Nor am I saying that his opinion is irrelevant. I'm just saying that his opinion is not worth as much as people seem to be putting on it (the supreme opinion, because he created it!!!).

mgsmanda:
Fletcher, I'm saying that his opinion doesn't matter because he is no longer working in the industry. If he were active in the industry in some way, sure, I'll welcome his opinion. But he's not.

Fair enough. Although I think you're selling yourself short by not respecting the opinions of the current industry's forefathers. And like Tom said, the game smay have changed, but the fundamentals of making and selling them haven't.

Something to keep in mind while you're whittling your "I hate my elders" voodoo doll.

I don't hate my elders. I just don't think my tribal elders' advice about how to win wars through great swordsmanship should be taken without question when the neighboring tribes are buying guns.

mgsmanda:
I don't hate my elders. I just don't think my tribal elders' advice about how to win wars through great swordsmanship should be taken without question when the neighboring tribes are buying guns.

That's a funny analogy, I have to hand it to you. But it misses the point. (A point which no fewer than four separate people have been making all day, mind you.) That point being, that Nolan is not talking about rendering awesome 3D graphics, or cell processing. He's talking about how innovative brands are destroyed by launching shitty consoles. And that's a subject with he is very familiar.

Ok, I will admit that I had not noticed anything about brands. But, he isn't saying that the Playstation was an innovative brand. He's saying that it was pure luck that made it successful, and not innovation. He is also not mentioning the product at hand. If you are going to say "He's talking about how innovative brands are destroyed by launching shitty consoles," where did he mention what makes a console "shitty"? He has said nothing of games, and nothing of system capabilities. He is essentially saying that the system will fail because:

a- Bad tools,
b- Bad price,
c- Not enough money potential for developers.

Do you think this is enough to call this system "shitty"? When you buy a console, is price all that matters? Am I getting the Wii only because it's cheaper, or do I think the games will be fun. Same goes here.

This is where my argument for the market comes in. The only people buying systems these days aren't geeks and kids. This generation is trying to expand the market. And it will do this through games and functionality. His main argument against the PS3 is price, but when the system hits, it's not only going to be parents buying the game for their kids. It will be the college kids. It will be the middle aged people who also invested in that pretty HDTV in their living room. It might even be the old grandma who a salesperson convinces that the PS3 is the next DVD player. This is the goal of this generation. Why are all three consoles shiny? Why do you think Sony is aiming at becoming a computer and media center? To appeal to more than just kids. To enter the living room as a legitimate appliance, and not just a game machine.

Atari never went this route. Bushnell never went this route. This is why I don't think his opinion is worth so much. He doesn't have experience doing what this generation of hardware is trying to do. He is still within the old console mindset of selling to parents who give it to kids.

I'm not trying to disrespect him. Really. I just don't think he is so credible when it comes to the current video game industry. Maybe "credible" is the wrong word. "Qualified"? Something along those lines...

Mgsmanda, there are two levers in life... Lever A and Lever B. Sometimes you just gotta leave 'er be. ;-)

I'll let you have the last word on this if you want it, bub, but I have to point out that all of the words you've thrown up in this forum so far amount to the same thing: you don't respect the man's opinion. And I've already acknowledged that you have the right to your own on that score. So let's just call it a day on that and move on, shall we?

Besides, regardless of how one might feel about Mr. Bushnell, I for one agree with his analysis 100%. And that's what we're really all here to talk about isn't it?

When Nolan Bushnell speaks, people listen. Is that not the very definition of influence?

'Sides, the guy's a good businessman with more insight and less bias than any other "analyst" who'd give this industry a second look. Leaving aside his first-hand experience, he's certainly been paying attention to it longer than anybody else. You gonna tell me that Nolan Bushnell can't imagine the differences between selling an Atari 2600 and selling a PS3?

There's something else that I think needs saying here: it is perfectly possible to respect someone's opinion and be very interested in what they have to say and still disagree with them.

That's how I feel about Nolan Bushnell's commentary in this case. It's interesting to me that he thinks this, but I completely disagree with him about the nature of the PS1 and PS2 successes. I'm not yet certain the PS3 will trump all in quite the same way but the idea that Sony have somehow lost the new gen battle already is an extreme viewpoint in support of which he makes a very weak case.

Dom Camus:
That's how I feel about Nolan Bushnell's commentary in this case. It's interesting to me that he thinks this, but I completely disagree with him about the nature of the PS1 and PS2 successes. I'm not yet certain the PS3 will trump all in quite the same way but the idea that Sony have somehow lost the new gen battle already is an extreme viewpoint in support of which he makes a very weak case.

I'm in agreement with you here, Sony has a logic behind their current actions (as convoluted and foolish as it may seem to me) and they have a plan. What remains to be seen is whether or not they've correctly identified what they need to do to be the market leader. I don't think they've drawn the correct conclusions about what the market wants (as opposed to says it wants) I think the PS3 will find a niche with some people who can afford to spend 800 on a system and 1200 on a tv and 400 on speakers to go around it and want to watch 1080p video/videogame on it. I don't think that they make up the majority of the gamer market.