• 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.

The Atari NES ...pivotal moment..

JP

Member
Fantastic video, I knew absolutely nothing about this until watching it.

I watched it late last night and completely forgot about posting it so I'm glad that somebody else here did post it.
 
This is a cool find. I subscribe to a lot of the retro game channels on YouTube but I missed everything about this. The production quality on this is fantastic as well.
 

KellyNole

Member
Nintendo sure seemed to love backing out of deals in those days.

I don’t blame them, Atari and Sony were looking to screw over Nintendo. Not that Nintendo is a Saint, the deals were crap from Nintendo’s side. Heck, if I remember correctly, Anything made on a cd for the Sony Nintendo console, they wanted rights too. That means Nintendo ips too.
 

mango drank

Member
Nintendo sure seemed to love backing out of deals in those days.

For anyone skimming and/or not watching the video, the spoiler is: Atari backed out of this one. They weren't doing well financially and decided they couldn't afford the deal. There's a conspiracy theory tacked on that says Atari never intended for the deal to go through, and instead just wanted to stall Nintendo so they wouldn't get a big foothold in the US, and so that Atari's upcoming 7800 would perform better in the market. That theory's unconfirmed.
 

RAIDEN1

Member
From that point on 1983/84 Atari were in the shadows compared to the competition, ultimately... be it the Atari ST up against the Amiga, the Lynx up against the Gameboy or the Jaguar up against the PSX....and even the Saturn maybe..
 

wondermega

Member
A crazy story from a time when the industry was in its infancy, and all players involved were quite different. But that's how it goes! Fascinating to consider that Nintendo could have had such a dramatically different presence than it did outside of Japan, and what that post-crash foundation could have meant for all involved. We may still have seen Mario and Zelda, but what about licensees? (Konami, Capcom, Rare, Square..) Impossible to guess. I seem to remember Atari nearly selling the Sega Genesis as well..
 

goldenpp72

Member
Really enjoyable video, enjoyed the pace and execution of it. I rarely subscribe to YT stuff but i'll give it a shot, thanks for the heads up.
 

AmyS

Member
Atari - Nintendo 1983 Deal

http://www.atarimuseum.com/articles/atari-nintendo-deal.htm

DATE: 6/14/83

SUBJECT: Nintendo

As we discussed with Dave Stubben yesterday, I am to remove
myself from any further involvement with the Nintendo project
..... and Dave has indicated that you are the one to take it
over.

I have provided you with a copy of my file containing my previous
memos on the subject (with corrections); the approach letter from
Nintendo; all of the schematics and mechanical drawings of the
Nintendo machine which we have received to date; and Ed Levy's
mechanical drawings which attempt to fit the Nintendo machine
into the 2100 plastic.

We spent the latter part of the afternoon yesterday discussing
the history of this deal and what needs to be done next by both
sides. Let me review those points here and expand upon them for
your reference.

Mr. Henricks received a letter from Mr. Arakawa and Mr. Lincoln
of Nintendo America on April 4, 1983. In that letter, Nintendo
provided us with some preliminary specifications on their new
home video game machine. A couple of days later they came to meet
with Mr. Kassar to explore whether Atari had any interest in this
product. In addition to Messers Arakawa, Lincoln, Henricks, and
Kassar; Messers Groth, Malloy, Moone, Bruehl, Ruckert, and myself
were invited to attend. Mr. Malloy and I framed some of the
initial questions which needed to be answered about the
capabilities of the machine; and Mr. Lincoln promised to get the
answers to me within a few days. Those answers were sufficiently
intriquing to Mr. Groth that Alan Henricks, Dave Remson, and I
were asked to travel to Kyoto immediately to see their TTL
emulator in action and get more details about the final product.

On the 11th of April, 1983, we met with Nintendo at their
headquarters in Kyoto. By happenstance (fortunate or
unfortunate), a large contingent of Atari executives were in the
Far East for other reasons .... and they all decided to come to
Kyoto to have a look, too. In attendance from Atari were Messers.
Bruehl, Moone, Malloy, Lynch, Hennick, Mitoh, Henricks, Remson,
and myself. Attending on Nintendo's behalf were Messers. Yamauchi
(President), Takeda (Manager of R&D, Coin-Op), Arakawa (Pres.
Nintendo America), Lincoln (internal attorney for Nintendo
America), Uemura (Manager of R&D, Consumer Products), Todori
(Export Manager), and two of their electrical engineers.

We were shown working (but not complete) versions of Donkey Kong
Junior and Popeye running with only minor display glitches on
their TTL emulator. A VHS video tape (without sound) of that demo
is attached to this memo. Please keep in mind that the actual TV
image is significantly better than could be captured on tape. In
fact, there is a noticable difference when viewing the composite
video output on a monitor as opposed to the RF output on a
standard TV receiver.

At that time, Nintendo had only just received their 1st pass
silicon (with some bugs) and were not able to show us a fully
assembled and working prototype. My memo of 4/16/83 (with
corrections) describes what we saw and were told in that meeting.

On 4/15/83, Messers Kassar, Groth, Moone, Bruehl, Paul, Henricks,
Remson, and myself met in Mr. Groth's office to view the videotape
and discuss what we had learned from the meeting on the 11th and
what we knew to-date on the MARIA chip being developed by General
Computer. As both systems were seen as being in the same price
range with graphics capabilities superior to the 2600 and
comparable (and in some features, superior) to the 5200, it was
felt that we needed to see what could be done with both machines
for an intermediate priced game machine .... the 3600.


I was asked to become as completely informed about the MARIA chip
as possible so that a reasoned choice could be made between the
two machines. To that end, I have spoken with the folks at General
Computer several times by telephone and have made two trips to
their offices in Cambridge, Mass. It appears to be a superior
machine, but the MARIA chip is not yet finished. First silicon is
not expected until mid-July (if there are no further schedule
delays). Also, since this chip is a VTI device there is some
question as to the manufacturability/testability/cost of the chip.
In other words, it will not be until mid-July (mid-August if the
first silicon is faulty) that we will be able to make a fully
informed choice between the Nintendo and the MARIA machines.
Therefore, it was decided by Executive Management that in any
negotiations with Nintendo we would need to string out the
signing until at least mid-July.

We were committed to respond quickly to Nintendo, however, as to
whether we were interested or not. So, Alan Henricks did contact
Nintendo with the word that we were interesting in continuing the
discussions; and the next negotiating meeting was arranged for May
17th in Kyoto. Skip Paul and Alan Henricks were to represent
Atari. Two or three days before that meeting, Nintendo informed
Mr. Henricks that they would be having their senior engineering
managers present in the negotiations, and Nintendo requested my
attendance as well.

That negotiating session began with a statement from Mr. Yamauchi
as to the terms and conditions which he demanded, namely:

1. that Atari would purchase the assembled and tested
main pc board for the FCS from Nintendo, for sale
outside of Japan. Nintendo would sell the FCS on its
own in Japan.

2. after some minimum purchase of assembled and tested pc
boards, we would be able to buy the 2 custom chips
from Nintendo without having to have Nintendo assemble
them into the final unit.

3. that Nintendo would only disclose the electrical specs
for the PPU and CPU, the circuit diagram of the FCS
system, the test programs, and the "cassette" specs
(meaning the ROM cartridge and cartridge edge
connector specs).

4. that there would be no disclosure to Atari of the
programming specs for the PPU and the CPU.

5. that Nintendo would program titles of our choice for
the FCS system and would sell us the assembled and
tested, unlabeled ROM carts at 1,500 Yen each FOB
Japan for retail sale by Atari. The minimum quantity
required by Nintendo per title would be 100,000 units
and at that level there would be no fee for
non-recurring engineering/programming expenses.

6. that Atari would hereby obtain a "right of 1st
refusal" on future Nintendo coin-op titles for use
worldwide (outside of Japan) only for the Nintendo FCS
system .... again, by programming and manufacturing
those carts themselves for sale to us.

7. that the cost of the assembled and tested main pc
board would be higher than the 5,300 Yen quoted
earlier to cover the cost of FCC compatibility. Also,
that the resulting new pc board would not fit into the
plastic being used by Nintendo for this unit in Japan.

By the time we finished the negotiations on that trip (5/17 -
5/20), the deal was changed to be as follows:

A. Nintendo would disclose all items called for in my
memo of 5/13/83 (to Henricks and Paul) except for item
13., namely, the LSI tapes for chip fabrication. This
disclosure would take place upon signing of the deal.
All items which are originally in Japanese are to be
furnished to us both in Japanese and in English.

B. Upon signing the deal, Nintendo would reassure Atari
about the source of supply of the 2 custom chips.

C. Any increases in the cost of the main pc board due to
FCC compliance will be a straight cost pass through
(no additional profit to Nintendo).

D. Atari and Nintendo would work together to attempt to
legal protect the CPU and PPU designs.

E. Nintendo would receive $5. Mil upon signing as an
advance against future payments.

F. Atari would have to commit to a minimum purchase of 2
million hardware units (some mixture of assembled and
tested pc boards and CPU/PPU chip sets) over the term
of the contract.

G. The term of the contract would be 4 years with a 4
year option to renew.

H. Nintendo would receive an additional $3.5 Mil in a
line of credit as an advance upon future payments upon
delivery of the 1st production-ready prototype of the
PAL West Germany version of the FCS (no later than
1/1/84). Similarly, an additional advance of $1.5 Mil
for SECAM.

I. The 2 million unit commitment would be broken-up into
1 million NTSC, 700,000 PAL, and 300,000 SECAM. If
Atari goes over in one catagory, it would directly
reduce our requirement in any other catagory of our
choice. As Skip Paul likes to put it, "cross-
collateralization is the key!"

J. Nintendo would commit to produce 100,000 units of the
assembled and tested pc board by August 31st if the
new pc design (to include FCC and to fit whatever
plastic we choose) can be completed by Nintendo
and approved by Atari by July 20th. In essence,
unlimited quanities (in excess of 1 million/month)
thereafter .... upon 3 months notice from Atari.

K. Atari will have the right to program for this system
with the full assistance of Nintendo.

L. Nintendo will, in the interests of expediency for this
Christmas season, program 4 Atari titles of our
choice. Source and object code which meets our
satisfaction (with respect to basic design, tuning,
and bug-free) to be delivered to us no later than
Sept. 1, 1983. The fee would be $100,000./title or
no non-recurring engineering fees would be charged as
long as we buy a minimum of 100,000 carts.

M. Carts would cost us 1,500 Yen/cart if in plastic but
unlabeled or 1,350 Yen if not in plastic (F.O.B.
Japan). Rate of production would be max. 5,000
units/week/title
 
Is this the "Sony tried to deceive Nintendo by hypnotizing them into not reading the contract" myth again?

If you think the terms are unacceptable, simply say so. Don't pretend like a deal is moving forward, but then change your mind, saying nothing to your business partner, strike a deal with a rival company, and leave your original business partner standing on the show floor embarrassed when they discover the truth after being approached by a reporter. Because that's deeply unprofessional.

I think they initially overlooked the significance of that one part. But then Sony allegedly wouldn't let them back out since the ink was already dry.
 
I don’t blame them, Atari and Sony were looking to screw over Nintendo. Not that Nintendo is a Saint, the deals were crap from Nintendo’s side. Heck, if I remember correctly, Anything made on a cd for the Sony Nintendo console, they wanted rights too. That means Nintendo ips too.

Like Nintendo weren't fucking developers by keeping most of the profits, having unreasonable expectations and fees. All Sony were doing was moving that out of their hands and into a fairer licensing structure. Though admittedly the CD technology used would make Sony the most money.
 

Ubername

Banned
Would it have changed that much? The top publishers from that era were Electronic Arts and Activision.

They're just publishers, they only finance the games and have nothing to do with the creativity behind them, right? So who the big publishers are doesn't really matter because big corporate monoliths will outlive any industry trend, and will fund whatever looks like it's going to be big. So EA and activision could have been coaxed into greenlighting dog walking simulators, because that's what Atari wanted in my speculative history, and that could have been gaming. But still EA&Activision would be the names on the boxes.

Also that manifesto that one dude posted was awesome. Silicon not expected til mid july? Lol.
 
Like Nintendo weren't fucking developers by keeping most of the profits, having unreasonable expectations and fees. All Sony were doing was moving that out of their hands and into a fairer licensing structure. Though admittedly the CD technology used would make Sony the most money.

True. But Sony was much more dodgy about it. (The licensing structure on Sony's end is pure conjecture though.)
 
I knew about this some years ago. Atari backing away from the deal in 1983 led to Nintendo's own entry into North America in 1985. And Nintendo later backing away from its own deal with Sony in the early '90s led to Sony's own entry into the console hardware business in 1994.
 

KellyNole

Member
Is this the "Sony tried to deceive Nintendo by hypnotizing them into not reading the contract" myth again?

If you think the terms are unacceptable, simply say so. Don't pretend like a deal is moving forward, but then change your mind, saying nothing to your business partner, strike a deal with a rival company, and leave your original business partner standing on the show floor embarrassed when they discover the truth after being approached by a reporter. Because that's deeply unprofessional.

There are many things that happen before the finalized contracts on deals. Sony and Nintendo we working together on it for years. It wasn’t until the end when contracts were getting finalized that Sony threw the Bomb out there they wanted 70% of CD based games. Nintendo would never have agreed to that from the get go, they were he king at the time, they dictated companies not the other way around.
 

KellyNole

Member
Like Nintendo weren't fucking developers by keeping most of the profits, having unreasonable expectations and fees. All Sony were doing was moving that out of their hands and into a fairer licensing structure. Though admittedly the CD technology used would make Sony the most money.

I agree Nintendo were assholes, which is why I said Nintendo is no saint. But the way the deals unfolded for them, they would be stupid to take it.
 
Top Bottom