Atari and Chucky Cheeze founder bashes Sony

New Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
423
Best answers
0
He went on to categorize Sony's domination of the market with the first and second PlayStation as resulting from timing as opposed to superiority.
Atari and Chuck E. Cheese founder Nolan
Interesting. You know your in some deep ****, when the Chuck E. Cheese founder, actually has the time to give a negative impression, on a company their not even in competition with--this is kinda amusing. I do agree with that categorization statement he made though. But either way, success is still success. Just because it was a timed business decision, doesn't make their success--any more or less justified.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,960
Best answers
0
Before anyone says that he has no permission to speak because Atari tanked, let me say that he left Atari BEFORE they tanked. If anything, they went under because he left.

Anyway, I agree with him
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
4,022
Best answers
0
Diamond Princess said:
Interesting. You know your in some deep ****, when the Chuck E. Cheese founder, actually has the time to give a negative impression, on a company their not even in competition with--this is kinda amusing. I do agree with that categorization statement he made though. But either way, success is still success. Just because it was a timed business decision, doesn't make their success--any more or less justified.
Atari's in game development. I think he has some faint idea of what he's talking about.

I'm with Sub on this.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,960
Best answers
0
Not only that, but the guy has made not one, but two start up companies, and successful ones at that.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,626
Best answers
0
Atari and Chuck E. Cheese founder...
 
New Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
58
Best answers
0
I really don't see the reason why it matters that he put down Sony. I could care less who he worked for or what he knows, the fact of the matter is, is that there is only one thing that honestly matters, Money. And to get money you need customer satisfaction, the more you satisfy the more money you will get in return.

In other words people need to wait till it's all said and done to speak.
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Kudos to Dragondude for having a clue, for the rest of you morons who zeroed in on Chuck E Cheeze, read up on some history and tell me which video game system existed first.

I think Mr. Nolan Bushnell knows what he's talking about.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Messages
2,490
Best answers
0
That's like saying the dinosaurs are the top of the food chain because they were here first.

For the record Chuck E. Cheese, at least here in MA., is doing pretty crappy. All four that I know of have become run-down dumps.

Atari isn't anything special either. They made a machine once, when the industry had no competition and no real need for any sort of market strategy, and now they're a publisher--using reisiduals from other investments to mass produce cheap CDs for a cut.

I ain't impressed. Besides...the timing isn't any better this time around--they share a release week with their prime competitor and most of the major titles of their other competitor.

What will the excuse be in five years--when it's three for three?
 
New Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
423
Best answers
0
Atari's in game development. I think he has some faint idea of what he's talking about.
Who said anything about Atari ? As a matter of fact, who said that he didn't have any idea what he was talking about ?(I didn't even leave room to imply that)--neither of that was in my post. Hell, I even agreed with the guy in one area.

for the rest of you morons who zeroed in on Chuck E Cheeze, read up on some history and tell me which video game system existed first.

I think Mr. Nolan Bushnell knows what he's talking about.
That wasn't very nice. Your calling us morons, and yet, your mistaking a pinch of humor(on my part anyway)--(this being the fact that he's the Chuck E. Cheese founder) for a serious matter of what you and a few others, saw as an attack on this man's intelligence regarding the gaming industry. Right. Whatever. Lighten up, if you told the majority of the gaming fans online, that the Chuck E. Cheese founder, gave an negative impression on one of the three competing gaming companies, alot of them would fail to take you seriously(some would ignore the Atari area all together). Even then, that doesn't make anyone morons. Just more or less, simply uninformed and(or) lacking in careness for the most part.
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
I'm merely pointing out that your own dissection of my news posting wasn't kind in the least. Moron should have been ommitted, but my point remains the same. Both of you zoomed in on Chuck E Cheeze without a grain of intelligent observation, and felt the need to crap on what he said. No need to actually discuss what he said, god, that would be asinine. You at least commented on it, I was more annoyed at Frsblch.

Pride, Atari started the industry, that is something special, and they've made their share of mistakes. If anything, that probably shows that he knows more than any of the other players why it's a bad idea to abuse developers (something that Atari and Nintendo did far too much of clear through to the 64 bit era.)

Not to mention, you clearly don't remember anything about Atari. They produced 5 systems, not just one, and all of them were hits except the Jaguar, which cost it it's corporate life. The Atari we all grew up with folded, and was sold off in chunks to Infrogrammes, which perhaps realising that they had the second ***est company name ever, changed their name to Atari.

Atari as it once was ceased to exist sometime in the 90s.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Messages
2,490
Best answers
0
That is sort of my point.

Who is he to tell the winner of the two previous biggest console wars in history they suck, when his company tanked the second there was a hint of healthy competition?

I don't know. I've read some stuff about him in my course of learning about video game history, I just really never liked the guy personally.

This uncorroberated dissing of a company, that's the sort of thing professionals don't do.

He talks big game but I bet my life that if Sony offered Atari a publishing deal OF ANY KIND he would eat it up like a pig to slop--if he doesn't ALREADY have one.

An important figure in the beginning of the industry--but times have changed. Cliff Bleszinski, Gabe Newell, Ken Kuturagi, even Miyamoto, all have exhibited a vastly better understanding of the modern game world then he has--as well as more professionalism (except Newell, he's a fat lazy slob, but hey--whaddaya gonna do?).

What was the last thing they even published, anyway? I haven't seen an Atari logo in a while, man.

I don't know. To say that PS and PS2 are console war champions of their generations solely because of the time of their release and their longevity is foolish, I think. The Dreamcast was better than either and came out prior to most of its direct competitors and it ended up failing badly enough that Sega bowed out of console manufacturing altogether. And even so, it still doesn't answer my question of how they think that the PS3 is possibly going to be "strategically released" in the middle of an impending war zone of insanely high quality titles and releases?

If anything it states, with certainty, that they are confident they can break through the defensive line of the 360 and push past the new threat of the innovative Wii. But other than the implied boldness, it honestly seems a little foolish to me to release it now.

Either way, to me hearing Nolan Bushnell diss Sony is like hearing John Romero diss Gears of War.
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Actually, they self destructed long before the competition even appeared. The point being that Bushnell knows exactly what it takes to meltdown, and Sony is treading on meltdown territory. The only thing that will save Sony through a bad console is the monster corporation backing it, which incedentally is being bled dry by it's in the red music and movie departments. Sony was lucky, you heard me, LUCKY, to win the first war. Had Nintendo played smart, and not destroyed it's own third party support by draconian, iron clad 3rd party agreements, or by choosing a costly and inneffective format, Sony would have lost the second next gen war. This is what Bushnell is pointing out, and he is suprememely correct. Kutaragi has made it a point to swtich to Blu-ray, costly format that has strict third party rules, sound familiar? Kutaragi has increased the cost of the licensing, sound familiar? Kutaragi has dictated the amount that 3rd party developers can manufacture, sound familiar? Ken Kutaragi has reaped the benefits of being on top for two wars, and learned none of the lessons of the past. This is Bushnell's point, and it's a very valid and suscinct one.

Atari has published plenty recently, and is the second biggest game developer behind EA, heh. Though that point is kinda foolish, since the atari that was is no longer, it's just Infogrammes with a different name slapped on it. And for that matter, Atari is a developer for the PS3, but Bushnell isn't involved with it any more. Bushnell is an idiot in his own right, but that doesn't invalidate his points. This isn't election day, character assasinations don't sell the truth ;)
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Messages
2,490
Best answers
0
Well, you raise some valid points. But I think enough groundwork has been laid that this time will be different.

The Nintendo issues of the past with exclusive formats came solely from the fact that the cartridges had almost no benefits, aside from load time absences. Blu-ray has many advantages, making it more worthwhile to pay for than the cartridges of the N64 style, which is why I think it will do better. Not supremely better, but I don't think the format is going to scare off all the third party support.

One thing is for sure, either way this year we are in for a slobberknocker of a christmas.... ***imagines the carnage***
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Indeed, but I will leave you with this Pride:

Atari, Monopoly, Dead, Nintendo, Monopoli, Severely Wounded, Sony, Near Monopoly, _______.


Complete the pattern, if you dare.

Atari had 90% market share, Nintendo had 70% (and a great deal more before the Genesis), and they layed plenty of groundwork. If history has shown us anything, it is that no empire is impervious.

Especially when people go, "oooooooooh shiny", and the industry responds in kind. At what point will alternative shiny be shinier than Sony? I'm seeing it already, but hey, I could be wrong.

Incedentally, Blu-Ray's outer casing makes it nearly as unappealing to developers as it does to consumers. A disk with an outer shell and moving parts means only one thing: Eventual physical damage and high manufacturing costs. Even though I doubt the PS will offer more than 10 titles with significant replay value, as I don't think I've spent more than 40 hours on any game outside the SDvR series for the PS2. If blu-ray games came sans shell, this would be a big victory for piraters, which is exactly why nintendo eschewed the CD Format. Illogical fear of piracy costs big media big time, far more than it costs them to shoulder it. Is it right? No. But then it should be expected that making unreasonable compromises for protection will cost them as well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top