That is correct, as far as in regards to them being different industries. That's a myth though as far as them being the major reason for the market crash. Atari was 80% of the market when the crash first started, so when Atari imploded over a year and a half period, investor confidence in the market as a whole also declined - especially when there had been constant calls by some in the financial market that video games had just been a fad and a bubble waiting to burst. Atari's implosion had more to do with it's dual management with Warner, caring more about it's own stock prices vs. Atari's long term viability.
As someone who was there as well, and has actually taken the time to research market figures and reports, I can say hogwash. The c64 had very little impact on the 2600, what it had an impact on was Atari's 8-bit computer line. Two completely different markets. Likewise the 2600 was never killed, Atari Inc. and Atari Corp. continued to have and rely on strong 2600 sales. In fact when Atari Corp. found the magic price point of $50 in the Christmas season of '85 (the same time the NES was being test marketed) it came to dominate the low end console market during the NES/7800/SMS's lifetime. And likewise, none of the consoles had "floppy drives". A few had simplistic keyboard/computer "expansions" if you could call it that. Coleco's Adam was a standalone computer that was also sold in a CV "attachment" model that simply used the CV for it's A/V out As for the Intellivision never really catching on, sales during it's lifetime would say otherwise. It was the number 2 player behind Atari.
Atari's issue was simply it's dual management with Warner. Warner management often superseded Atari's own management, and made decisions to ignore warehouses full of stock and the overcrowded console market and 3rd party games market to falsely create higher stock earnings for itself. It was a bubble that burst. This first signs of what had been going on appeared to the public in early December of '82, foreshadowing the market wide crash that was to come when most of the video game industry also suffered big market value dips after Atari's announcement Interestingly, it was a problem Morgan could have rectified with NATCO if given a chance.
Little off on that. February was first the LA test release, it was not available in LA before that - just the NY area test launch. Interestingly according to some of the press covering the Winter CES, word from retailers in the NY area was that the NY test market was a failure. The LA one obviously did better. The actual official national launch of of the NES was in Sept. of '86, though they slowly started spreading it to other major cities over Spring and Summer.
"Officially unofficially" means this guy jadoon88 stole the source code material from Curt Vendel's atarimuseum.com site, and presented it as his own - including posting said announcement here. Curt, who has a working relationship with the current Atari, has the original mainframe tapes these were archived off of and put them up as an educational resource for 7800 homebrewers. They have not been released to the public domain in any capacity.
Too bad people still can't figure out that its a different Atari than the one 25 years ago. Or that that ET and Pac-Man (among other things) did distroy the company - it was split up and sold off back in '84. I guess after all these years, people still haven't learned to do a little research before making comments like that in public forums. But then, what would slashdot be if every single person put thought in to their comments here - you'd have nobody posting.
Wow, way off.;) It was a full touchscreen display built in to the desk and looked a lot like this (though the one in Tron was of course just a prop that simulated it through scripted images and projection on the glass).
The keyboard was actually displayed on the touch screen and tapped, and the "graphics" were full color multimedia (i.e. what we have now), not VT100.
This is the same sort of thing that happened before the Chicago CES (Summer CES) died. Open to the public, and then hotel rooms only.
I'll stick with the Midwest Gaming Classic.
Actually, the original GenCon Midi-Maze display is still around here in Milwaukee. I own it now (rescued it from the group who is still around but no longer Atari orientated), and we actually had it up and running at the 2003 Midwest Gaming Classic (picture GenCon for console, arcade, and computer gamers).
I'll probably see about bringing it back this year if I have the room/space (I co-run the museum area).
If its stating that all the paddles failed within hours of play, it is not a simplification, it is incorrect and a missquote.
I do not have all day to rant on about the oxydization of the membrane keys,
Oxidization happens over a short (over hours) time? I'd love to see that trick.
the POTs not being clipped down (the POTs would often pop out, causing another failure in a very short period of time), the lack of springs, or the variety of other little issues that stopped the 5200 controllers from being decent.
Not being decent is a far cry from all the 5200 controllers "breaking down in a matter of hours". I completely agree on the "not decent" view.
They could have been good controllers, but they weren't. For a one-sentence explanation, "failed within hours of use" is accurate; albeit not precise.
It is not accurate or precise. Curt's comment would be more accurate, which precisely relates the failure with hours of use to the cheap rubber guard failing. Simply stating that "the 5200 controllers failed within hours of use" paints the inaccurate picture that the entire controller itself and all the controllers released at the time failed within hours of use. Unless you have some Atari Service summation that backs up either one of those, it's a gross oversimplification that missrepresents the product.
BTW, is that you Martin? You're being waaaay too nitpicky.
Yes, see other reply. Wanting accuracy is hardly being "nitpicky". You can be accurate without needing to "rant" or post a "ton of details".
He's still around, in the middle of interviewing him in fact.
Ralph Baer single-handedly created video games. The Magnavox Odyssey was a complete failure, making Atari responsible for creating the Video Game industry.
Again incorrect, and more quoting from fansites rather than accurate sources. The Magnavox Odyssey sold about 375,000 units in its US release alone, with that ammount doubled including world wide released. This is during a 4 year run ('72-'75) with US sales limited to Magnavox stores only. That's hardly a "failure", and in fact is considered high sales for a pioneering product. Once again you can't claim to create an industry that was already there. If there's someone making and manufacturing a console before yours, there is an industry before yours - very simply. Actual historians actually refer to Atari as I stated - creating the video arcade indistry and jumpstarting the home console industry.
If that were true, then the Odyssey wouldn't have failed. (It was released to the market the same year as Pong.) Yet it failed. Utterly. Thanks to the Odyssey's failure, when Atari tried to market a home Pong, they couldn't find any stores that wanted to carry it! Atari eventually found an outlet for Pong through the sports section of Sears. It was a hit, thus creating the home console industry. Magnavox later released several other "Odyssey" (e.g. Odyssey 200, 1000, etc.) units that were merely Pong clones.
Again, more regurgitation of incorrect info. The Odyssey was not a failure (and certainly Magnavox and Ralph don't consider it that - Ralph has told me himself). And that is simply not true about not finding stores wanting to carry it because of the Odyssey (which was *only* carried in Magnavox stores and sellers), that's more heresy. They were initially looking for someone to sell the design to and none of the established arcade game companies wanted to enter the consumer market. So they went to the toy show that year in hopes of finding a toy company to OEM through and had no luck (once again, because it was considered a fad). Tom Quinn happened to visit their booth at the time. Atari approached a number of department store chains, and while at Sears (whome the executives also initially declined), ran across Tom Quinn again. Still impressed by the original demo at the toy fair, he convinced the Sears execs to let him take it on and do a Sears OEM version through the sporting goods department (which is where he was from). Likewise, the Odyssey 100 and 200 were not released later - they were already in the works and released at the same time as Atari's OEM'd Tele-Games PONG. Read Ralph's book for more info.
He ran the company. He made the decisions. Ergo, he was responsible for what the company did.
He was one of several who "ran the company", which initially was a small engineering firm (with a partner) and by the time of the 2600 had a full executive board and middle management that approved and dissaproved projects. Likewise, simply stating that someone elses idea can be pursued does not make you anything except responsible for the project being supported and released. The actual products themselves (including its inception, and design) are the creation of others, to which Nolan is usually (incorrectly) given sole credit for.
This is true. But this is way more detail than I got into above. It's also completely irrelevant to the topic.
It is *completely* relevant because of those details, which you self admittedly "left out". The show your "less detailed" claim to be irrelevant.
Incorrect. The Atari 8-Bit hardware was intended as the next generation of game console hardware. Warner forced it to be used for the 8-bit computers, and started the 10-bit Stella project for the next game console. When th
And the 2600 was definitely an instance of nothing but good timing
I don't know where you got that idea from - the 2600 was released at a time that was anything but good. The winter of '77 saw the first video game crash, with a deluge of low end Pong consoles at closeout prices in stores as well as big competition from the emerging electronic handheld market. Within the next year it also faced competition from the Odyssey 2, APF M1000, and Bally Professional Arcade. There's a reason in fact that the release of Space Invaders (also the first licensing of a game) for the 2600 was considered the savior of the console, giving players a reason to buy it.
As a former 2600 game programmer I disagree. It was the brilliant low-cost, deeply flexible design of the 2600 that kept it dominant when there were plenty of competitors around.
As someone whose spoken with and interviewed some of the designers, I have to say I partially disagree with you. It was not seen as a deeply felxible design at the time of its inception - it was created for a limited scope of games. If anything it was the brilliance of later programmers (such as your self) to squeeze more out of the hardware and realize its limitations also included latent flexibility, that kept it a dominant development platform.
Just reposting my response, had a messed div closing tag. This should be easier to read.
The number of inaccuracies and outright falsehoods is amazing
While I agree that there's been a lot of that here, you're not immune your self.
No, he's the guy who founded Atari, and single-handedly created the Video Game industry.
Actually, he's the guy who *co-founded* Atari and jumpstarted the video game industry. He did not "single-handedly create the Video Game Industry". He did create the video game *arcade* industry, however the console industry was created by Ralph Baer and Magnavox. PONG arcade sales simply helped sales of the Magnavox Odyssey, and later home PONG sales helped jumpstart the console industry (which existed beforehand).
Busnell was responsible for Atari's early arcade games, their Pong machines, and the Atari 2600. Save for the poor showing of the Space War arcade game, none of those were abject failures.
Actually, he was responsible for none of those save Space War and partiall PONG. He assigned the PONG concept to Alan Alcorn after visiting the Magnavox Odyssey preview, and Alan was responsible for PONG then. The PONG consoles were conceieved by other engineers (Bob Brown and Harold Lee) and finished by Alan Alcorn. The 2600 was conceived and designed by Cyan Engineering (Steve Mayer and company) with further development by Jay Miner and Joe Decuir. As reported by Alan in Steve Kent's book, if anything people had to *ignore* Nolan than listen to him or go to him for direction because he was often looking over people's shoulders and contradicting himself in his directions.
Bushnell left Atari in 1978, partly because of a disagreement over the 5200 strategy. Warner wanted to branch out into computers (the Atari 400/800) while Bushnell wanted to keep the 8-bit technology for the next game console. Warner effectively pushed him out of the company, at which point he went on to dedicate his energies to the highly successful Pizza Time restaurant. (Known today as "Chuck E. Cheeses".)
No, 5200 was a much later system (are you assuming that was the proposed console because of hindsite?) and that's incorrect about the computers (probably just repeating stuff on fan sites). Nolan wanted to do computers as well, and according to Joe Decuir the 400/800 project was started immediately after the 2600 - i.e. during Nolan's tenure. Where Nolan differed was on the lifespan of the 2600 (which was also 8-bit, your quote is missleading). The 2600 was intended for a short lifespan to create a more cost effective method of delivering Atari's then (1975-1976) popular arcade games to the home. It was only supposed to be on the market for a few years and replaced by a more capable console (and the design shows this). The plan (under his watch, and partially concieved by Jay Miner) initially called for a low end computer/game console to replace the 2600 as well as a higher end full fledged "business" computer. The idea of having an attached keyboard, etc. on the low end model was to allow game input and possibly direct programming on the console by game developers (which Jay later pursued after leaving Atari with his initial Hi-torro/Amiga concept). Warner management didn't want to simply throw away the 2600 and wanted to extend its life. So they changed the project to a regular low end "gaming computer" and a higher end "business" computer which became known as the Atari 400 and 800 PCS's respectively. That's where the differences occured.
After the launch of the PCS's, creation of a higher end game console to compliment the 2600 (rather than replace it) was pursued. Initially this was the Atari 3200 (a 10-bit system also refered to as System-X), and eventually became a retooling of the Atari 400 - the Atari 5200. In fact it was at the release of the 5200 that the 2600's name (Atari Video Comput
Actually, from a business perspective, he was quite successful. He sold Atari to Warner Brothers.
Actually he sold it because he was unsuccessful from a business perspective because of that. He sold to Warner *because* Atari was having financial problems at the time (1975-1976). The arcade division (the main source of income) was having problems (mainly due to a deluge of PONG sequels) and the consumer prouct line was just starting out. Warner was at the end of a list of companies to sell to, to get some cash influx and try and save it.
The number of inaccuracies and outright falsehoods is amazing
While I agree that there's been a lot of that here, you're not immune your self.
No, he's the guy who founded Atari, and single-handedly created the Video Game industry.
Actually, he's the guy who *co-founded* Atari and jumpstarted the video game industry. He did not "single-handedly create the Video Game Industry". He did create the video game *arcade* industry, however the console industry was created by Ralph Baer and Magnavox. PONG arcade sales simply helped sales of the Magnavox Odyssey, and later home PONG sales helped jumpstart the console industry (which existed beforehand).
Busnell was responsible for Atari's early arcade games, their Pong machines, and the Atari 2600. Save for the poor showing of the Space War arcade game, none of those were abject failures.
Actually, he was responsible for none of those save Space War and partiall PONG. He assigned the PONG concept to Alan Alcorn after visiting the Magnavox Odyssey preview, and Alan was responsible for PONG then. The PONG consoles were conceieved by other engineers (Bob Brown and Harold Lee) and finished by Alan Alcorn. The 2600 was conceived and designed by Cyan Engineering (Steve Mayer and company) with further development by Jay Miner and Joe Decuir. As reported by Alan in Steve Kent's book, if anything people had to *ignore* Nolan than listen to him or go to him for direction because he was often looking over people's shoulders and contradicting himself in his directions.
Bushnell left Atari in 1978, partly because of a disagreement over the 5200 strategy. Warner wanted to branch out into computers (the Atari 400/800) while Bushnell wanted to keep the 8-bit technology for the next game console. Warner effectively pushed him out of the company, at which point he went on to dedicate his energies to the highly successful Pizza Time restaurant. (Known today as "Chuck E. Cheeses".)
No, 5200 was a much later system (are you assuming that was the proposed console because of hindsite?) and that's incorrect about the computers (probably just repeating stuff on fan sites). Nolan wanted to do computers as well, and according to Joe Decuir the 400/800 project was started immediately after the 2600 - i.e. during Nolan's tenure. Where Nolan differed was on the lifespan of the 2600 (which was also 8-bit, your quote is missleading). The 2600 was intended for a short lifespan to create a more cost effective method of delivering Atari's then (1975-1976) popular arcade games to the home. It was only supposed to be on the market for a few years and replaced by a more capable console (and the design shows this). The plan (under his watch, and partially concieved by Jay Miner) initially called for a low end computer/game console to replace the 2600 as well as a higher end full fledged "business" computer. The idea of having an attached keyboard, etc. on the low end model was to allow game input and possibly direct programming on the console by game developers (which Jay later pursued after leaving Atari with his initial Hi-torro/Amiga concept). Warner management didn't want to simply throw away the 2600 and wanted to extend its life. So they changed the project to a regular low end "gaming computer" and a higher end "business" computer which became known as the Atari 400 and 800 PCS's respectively. That's where the differences occured.
After the launch of the PCS's, creation of a higher end game console to compliment the 2600 (rather than replace it) was pursued. Initially this was the Atari 3200 (a 10-bit system also refered to as System-X), and eventually became a retooling of the Atari 400 - the Atari 5200. In fact it was at the release of the 5200 that the 2600's name (Atari Video Computer System) was actually renamed to the Atari 2600.
Unfortunately, the technology for the next console failed to work out, causing Atari to
Slashdot Mirror
With Matt Damon. One way trip.
...or just an exercise in how many times one can put "enlarge brain cells" in a single paragraph?
$15 million is enough to combat EA and Zynga?
It was a US crash, had nothing to do with the UK.
That is correct, as far as in regards to them being different industries. That's a myth though as far as them being the major reason for the market crash. Atari was 80% of the market when the crash first started, so when Atari imploded over a year and a half period, investor confidence in the market as a whole also declined - especially when there had been constant calls by some in the financial market that video games had just been a fad and a bubble waiting to burst. Atari's implosion had more to do with it's dual management with Warner, caring more about it's own stock prices vs. Atari's long term viability.
As someone who was there as well, and has actually taken the time to research market figures and reports, I can say hogwash. The c64 had very little impact on the 2600, what it had an impact on was Atari's 8-bit computer line. Two completely different markets. Likewise the 2600 was never killed, Atari Inc. and Atari Corp. continued to have and rely on strong 2600 sales. In fact when Atari Corp. found the magic price point of $50 in the Christmas season of '85 (the same time the NES was being test marketed) it came to dominate the low end console market during the NES/7800/SMS's lifetime. And likewise, none of the consoles had "floppy drives". A few had simplistic keyboard/computer "expansions" if you could call it that. Coleco's Adam was a standalone computer that was also sold in a CV "attachment" model that simply used the CV for it's A/V out As for the Intellivision never really catching on, sales during it's lifetime would say otherwise. It was the number 2 player behind Atari. Atari's issue was simply it's dual management with Warner. Warner management often superseded Atari's own management, and made decisions to ignore warehouses full of stock and the overcrowded console market and 3rd party games market to falsely create higher stock earnings for itself. It was a bubble that burst. This first signs of what had been going on appeared to the public in early December of '82, foreshadowing the market wide crash that was to come when most of the video game industry also suffered big market value dips after Atari's announcement Interestingly, it was a problem Morgan could have rectified with NATCO if given a chance.
Little off on that. February was first the LA test release, it was not available in LA before that - just the NY area test launch. Interestingly according to some of the press covering the Winter CES, word from retailers in the NY area was that the NY test market was a failure. The LA one obviously did better. The actual official national launch of of the NES was in Sept. of '86, though they slowly started spreading it to other major cities over Spring and Summer.
"Officially unofficially" means this guy jadoon88 stole the source code material from Curt Vendel's atarimuseum.com site, and presented it as his own - including posting said announcement here. Curt, who has a working relationship with the current Atari, has the original mainframe tapes these were archived off of and put them up as an educational resource for 7800 homebrewers. They have not been released to the public domain in any capacity.
Too bad people still can't figure out that its a different Atari than the one 25 years ago. Or that that ET and Pac-Man (among other things) did distroy the company - it was split up and sold off back in '84. I guess after all these years, people still haven't learned to do a little research before making comments like that in public forums. But then, what would slashdot be if every single person put thought in to their comments here - you'd have nobody posting.
Wow, way off. ;) It was a full touchscreen display built in to the desk and looked a lot like this (though the one in Tron was of course just a prop that simulated it through scripted images and projection on the glass).
The keyboard was actually displayed on the touch screen and tapped, and the "graphics" were full color multimedia (i.e. what we have now), not VT100.
Which is exactly why it got kicked off Hollywood week on American Idol.
This is the same sort of thing that happened before the Chicago CES (Summer CES) died. Open to the public, and then hotel rooms only. I'll stick with the Midwest Gaming Classic.
Actually, the original GenCon Midi-Maze display is still around here in Milwaukee. I own it now (rescued it from the group who is still around but no longer Atari orientated), and we actually had it up and running at the 2003 Midwest Gaming Classic (picture GenCon for console, arcade, and computer gamers). I'll probably see about bringing it back this year if I have the room/space (I co-run the museum area).
If its stating that all the paddles failed within hours of play, it is not a simplification, it is incorrect and a missquote.
Oxidization happens over a short (over hours) time? I'd love to see that trick.
Not being decent is a far cry from all the 5200 controllers "breaking down in a matter of hours". I completely agree on the "not decent" view.
It is not accurate or precise. Curt's comment would be more accurate, which precisely relates the failure with hours of use to the cheap rubber guard failing. Simply stating that "the 5200 controllers failed within hours of use" paints the inaccurate picture that the entire controller itself and all the controllers released at the time failed within hours of use. Unless you have some Atari Service summation that backs up either one of those, it's a gross oversimplification that missrepresents the product.
Yes, see other reply. Wanting accuracy is hardly being "nitpicky". You can be accurate without needing to "rant" or post a "ton of details".
He's still around, in the middle of interviewing him in fact.
Again incorrect, and more quoting from fansites rather than accurate sources. The Magnavox Odyssey sold about 375,000 units in its US release alone, with that ammount doubled including world wide released. This is during a 4 year run ('72-'75) with US sales limited to Magnavox stores only. That's hardly a "failure", and in fact is considered high sales for a pioneering product. Once again you can't claim to create an industry that was already there. If there's someone making and manufacturing a console before yours, there is an industry before yours - very simply. Actual historians actually refer to Atari as I stated - creating the video arcade indistry and jumpstarting the home console industry.
Again, more regurgitation of incorrect info. The Odyssey was not a failure (and certainly Magnavox and Ralph don't consider it that - Ralph has told me himself). And that is simply not true about not finding stores wanting to carry it because of the Odyssey (which was *only* carried in Magnavox stores and sellers), that's more heresy. They were initially looking for someone to sell the design to and none of the established arcade game companies wanted to enter the consumer market. So they went to the toy show that year in hopes of finding a toy company to OEM through and had no luck (once again, because it was considered a fad). Tom Quinn happened to visit their booth at the time. Atari approached a number of department store chains, and while at Sears (whome the executives also initially declined), ran across Tom Quinn again. Still impressed by the original demo at the toy fair, he convinced the Sears execs to let him take it on and do a Sears OEM version through the sporting goods department (which is where he was from). Likewise, the Odyssey 100 and 200 were not released later - they were already in the works and released at the same time as Atari's OEM'd Tele-Games PONG. Read Ralph's book for more info.
He was one of several who "ran the company", which initially was a small engineering firm (with a partner) and by the time of the 2600 had a full executive board and middle management that approved and dissaproved projects. Likewise, simply stating that someone elses idea can be pursued does not make you anything except responsible for the project being supported and released. The actual products themselves (including its inception, and design) are the creation of others, to which Nolan is usually (incorrectly) given sole credit for.
It is *completely* relevant because of those details, which you self admittedly "left out". The show your "less detailed" claim to be irrelevant.
I don't know where you got that idea from - the 2600 was released at a time that was anything but good. The winter of '77 saw the first video game crash, with a deluge of low end Pong consoles at closeout prices in stores as well as big competition from the emerging electronic handheld market. Within the next year it also faced competition from the Odyssey 2, APF M1000, and Bally Professional Arcade. There's a reason in fact that the release of Space Invaders (also the first licensing of a game) for the 2600 was considered the savior of the console, giving players a reason to buy it.
As someone whose spoken with and interviewed some of the designers, I have to say I partially disagree with you. It was not seen as a deeply felxible design at the time of its inception - it was created for a limited scope of games. If anything it was the brilliance of later programmers (such as your self) to squeeze more out of the hardware and realize its limitations also included latent flexibility, that kept it a dominant development platform.
While I agree that there's been a lot of that here, you're not immune your self.
Actually, he's the guy who *co-founded* Atari and jumpstarted the video game industry. He did not "single-handedly create the Video Game Industry". He did create the video game *arcade* industry, however the console industry was created by Ralph Baer and Magnavox. PONG arcade sales simply helped sales of the Magnavox Odyssey, and later home PONG sales helped jumpstart the console industry (which existed beforehand).
Actually, he was responsible for none of those save Space War and partiall PONG. He assigned the PONG concept to Alan Alcorn after visiting the Magnavox Odyssey preview, and Alan was responsible for PONG then. The PONG consoles were conceieved by other engineers (Bob Brown and Harold Lee) and finished by Alan Alcorn. The 2600 was conceived and designed by Cyan Engineering (Steve Mayer and company) with further development by Jay Miner and Joe Decuir. As reported by Alan in Steve Kent's book, if anything people had to *ignore* Nolan than listen to him or go to him for direction because he was often looking over people's shoulders and contradicting himself in his directions.
No, 5200 was a much later system (are you assuming that was the proposed console because of hindsite?) and that's incorrect about the computers (probably just repeating stuff on fan sites). Nolan wanted to do computers as well, and according to Joe Decuir the 400/800 project was started immediately after the 2600 - i.e. during Nolan's tenure. Where Nolan differed was on the lifespan of the 2600 (which was also 8-bit, your quote is missleading). The 2600 was intended for a short lifespan to create a more cost effective method of delivering Atari's then (1975-1976) popular arcade games to the home. It was only supposed to be on the market for a few years and replaced by a more capable console (and the design shows this). The plan (under his watch, and partially concieved by Jay Miner) initially called for a low end computer/game console to replace the 2600 as well as a higher end full fledged "business" computer. The idea of having an attached keyboard, etc. on the low end model was to allow game input and possibly direct programming on the console by game developers (which Jay later pursued after leaving Atari with his initial Hi-torro/Amiga concept). Warner management didn't want to simply throw away the 2600 and wanted to extend its life. So they changed the project to a regular low end "gaming computer" and a higher end "business" computer which became known as the Atari 400 and 800 PCS's respectively. That's where the differences occured.
After the launch of the PCS's, creation of a higher end game console to compliment the 2600 (rather than replace it) was pursued. Initially this was the Atari 3200 (a 10-bit system also refered to as System-X), and eventually became a retooling of the Atari 400 - the Atari 5200. In fact it was at the release of the 5200 that the 2600's name (Atari Video Comput
Actually he sold it because he was unsuccessful from a business perspective because of that. He sold to Warner *because* Atari was having financial problems at the time (1975-1976). The arcade division (the main source of income) was having problems (mainly due to a deluge of PONG sequels) and the consumer prouct line was just starting out. Warner was at the end of a list of companies to sell to, to get some cash influx and try and save it.