Support NeoGAF

[theultimo]

Reading email from 1980's Atari from this website had me thinking: have we learned anything in the games industry?

First of all - do we care about the workers anymore then we did during the 80's? Here is a couple excerpts from the Coin-op Vs. Console Atari:

From: KIM::FXL 30-JAN-1984 02:01
To: @SYS$MAIL:JUNK
Subj: The first annual Jeff Boscole Memorial letter


This letter is dedicated to Jeff Boscole, someone who wasn't afraid
of sounding obscure, to speak his mind, to be strange, to be brilliant,
to play games, and to use MAIL to its fullest. I don't remember when
he left, but it was quite a few months ago.

To anyone who cares, but especially to game designers with more clout than
FXL, and to any and all people in power at Atari (not just coin-op):

Recently I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to instigate
improvements in royalties, designer credits, and game testing procedures. I
have had little success. I hereby apologize for all of the negative feelings
and anger that I am emanating because of this. After all, things are pretty
good here, and certainly better than at many companies. I do not however
apologize or regret my negative feelings about the recent release of the
Crystal Castles 2600 Cartridge. (In case you don't know, the cartridge was
released without the approval of the coin-op design team, or anybody else
in coin-op as far as I know).

This is pure theft!

And I do not even know who to blame for this!! It isn't the programmer, who is
about as mad (or worse) as I am about this situation. He was given a unmakable
release deadline (4 days instead of 3 weeks from when he was told). The game is
much worse because of this (according to the programmer Peter Niday). He had
no choice in the matter. Yet another unfinished, hurried, poorly tested game
from Atari. Won't we ever learn?

Games under license from other companies get reviewed by representatives of
that company (Williams and Namco specifically). But games developed in-house
are treated like they are in the public domain, while the original design team
of in-house games is treated like dirt.

This is not an isolated incident either. Atarisoft, as a matter of policy,
takes Atari Coin-op games, lets outside companies "convert" them for home
computers (like Commodore 64, Vic-20, Apple 2, TI-99 and IBM-PC), and then
produces them, all without the creative input or advice of the original design
teams (just talk to Ed Logg about Centipede, or ? about Battlezone). Atarisoft
does not ask anyone over here at coin-op for approval for the final version,
but they do show the final version of the game to someone in the legal
department. On the more positive side, there is a chance that Atarisoft will
contribute to the Engineering Product Bonus Plan in a manner similar to 2600,
5200 and 800 products. Wouldn't it be nice to have that guaranteed and in
writing? And shouldn't there be designer credits on Atarisoft products?

It's ironic that my name is on the packaging of the 2600 Crystal Castles
cart, a product which I only saw an early version of. Yet when I told people
that the message ("programmed by Franz Lanzinger") appeared in level 10 in the
coin-op version I was told to take it out, or I loose an amount of bonus to be
determined. Boy did that make me mad !!! I complained vocally, but only to be
promised that a designer credit policy would be worked on. This policy is still
"being worked on" eight months later. Now really. It's not that hard to do,
just look at movies, books, not to mention Stern, Mylstar, Simutrek, Sente,
even 2600 carts. If there were a policy right now, credits could be in in time
for the Crystal Castles kits. As it is, I am still mad about the whole thing.
Imagine Speven Spielberg directing a film, but not getting credit. How would
he feel? Are we cogs in a machine? I am not a number !!! This isn't 1984!!
(well OK, maybe it is).

While I'm at it I would like to get one more thing off my chest (right
on!!). You may know that the current "coin-op engineering product bonus plan"
(shouldn't it really be called a royalty plan ?) is out of date. The most
recent legally binding document (if it is legally binding) is dated March 26,
1982, and it expired at the end of 1983. It is my understanding by reading
that memo that the bonus plan is still in effect, but it can now be " extended,
enhanced, discontinued or otherwise modified to meet management objectives ".
In other words, Atari has the legal right to screw us any time they want.
Personally, I would feel much more secure, happy, and motivated to work hard,
if there were an updated royalty plan without a gaping loophole like that.
After all, there are plenty of precedents for people getting screwed here.

I am tired of fighting a brick wall. So I will resign myself to the facts
of life at Atari. These facts seem to be that change is virtually impossible
when suggested by a single empoyee, but mindbogglingly fast if management wants
it. And I will continue to feel bitter now and then (like right now for
instance).

How do you feel about all this? How do you feel about 40% 30% 30% (the
"golden handcuffs")? How do you feel about 1% under 10M, 2% over 10M? How do
you feel about designer credits? How do you feel about the delays in actual
payment of royalties? (I still don't have a cent for Crystal Castles, and it
has been seven months since it started to earn millions for Atari).

What can you, anyone who cares, do to make me, Joe Piscopo (oops, make that
Franz Lanzinger) feel less bitter? Well, misery loves company. Please tell me,
better yet, tell your favorite manager, supervisor, or even CEO, how you feel
about these issues. It may not change a thing, but maybe your powers of
persuasion will succeed where mine failed.

Until next year, (when I will write the second annual Jeff Boscole memorial
letter)
FXL
(the X stands for "eX trouble maker")

P.S. please send your answers to @SYS$MAIL:JUNK, or to someone in a position
to take action, best would be both.

P.P.S. If there are any inaccuracies, please let me know. The facts are to
the best of my recollection, some of it is hearsay.

From: KIM::THOMPSON 31-JAN-1984 10:07
To: @SYS$MAIL:JUNK
Subj: Another flame

Another Jeff Boscole Memorial letter, in response to FXL's letter on
Jan 30, 1984.

I was unaware of any policies regarding 2600, Home computer, or any other
computer system, nor was I told of any. All I was told about was a bonus
plan if the game I worked on was turned into a cartridge. This DOES tend to
say that the creating team will have no say in the cartridge. I, for one,
would like to have some say in the final version of the game, since I feel
very strongly about my game.

Since I haven't been impressed by the results of VCS's releases, I DON'T
want them to butcher, maim or mutilate my game for whatever reason. I
can fully sympathize with Franz, since he put a lot of time and effort into
his game. By the time my game goes into production (knock on wood), I will
have put at least a year of my life into that game. I don't want someone
to come along, and rip me off. I don't really care about royalties from the
other games, I just don't want to have to apologize to anyone about a
game that has my name in it, on it, or associated with it.

Also, since I haven't heard anything from management about the bonus plan
lately, I can only assume that Franz's research is correct. Since I happen
to have a Team Leader that I feel I can trust, I'm not too worried about
getting screwed on the bonus. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be
something in writing. Something my mother taught me -

"If you really mean what you what you are saying,
then you won't mind putting it in writing."


While I'm still flaming, I feel that it WOULD be nice to have my name
appear in my game somewhere. It would really be nice to be allowed to
do this, since Star Wars had the names of the people appear on every odd
wave going into the death star. It seems a little inconsistant to me that
the Star Wars project could have their names, and Crystal Castles couldn't.
For some reason, that appears to be favoritism, not policy.


Return flames gladly accepted.

Peter Thompson.


P.S. If anyone can show me a good game for the 2600 that we produced, I
will fully apologize, and then go out and buy it.

From: KIM::LOGG 1-FEB-1984 09:54
To: @SYS$MAIL:JUNK
Subj: More on FXL letter (or the second biweekly Jeff Boscole letter)


Since everyone else seems to be on the subject I might as well add my two
bits worth.

First, regarding testing and review of 2600, 5200, 800,... software. In
the past I was given carts to review, and in some cases they ignored my
comments. In particular, for the 800 Centipede I saw a bootleg copy and
send my comments back only get see the shit hit the fan because I managed
to see the cart which should not have been possible. Months later I was
officially given a newer version to test. I noted some problems and asked
that the game play match the Coin-Op version in several aspects. I was
told that it was too late because they couldn't make the changes in time
for the release. More recently I attended a meeting to decide which
Millipede cart for the 2600 should be released. The release date was less
than a week away and I was told that the programmer had just gotten one
version working within the last couple of weeks (and only possible thru
7 day work weeks and considerable lack of sleep). I should also point
out that I sent the complete documentation of Millipede to the team leader
responsible for the VCS cart months prior to this meeting. I also called
and left my name and number with the comment that I was available for
any assistance. I received no response until a week or two prior to the
above mentioned meeting. This leds me to believe that the game was not
ready for help until the time of the meeting (thus verifying the hearsay
that the game had just been developed in the last two weeks).

Now for the good news! ATARI did select the VCS version of Millipede over
the version done by GCC. I was told that GCC was instructed NOT to do this
cart but they went ahead and did it anyway. I guess they felt that if they
got it done first ATARI marketing would use theirs. Judging from the
meeting I attended, I would guess that they were right. In any case I have
worked with the VCS programmer since and hopefully the cart has improved.
I do NOT mean to say that I necessarily helped but that the cart just needed
time. I should point out that the cart was not released due to a bug! Now
why didn't we think of this before? That sounds like a good strategy to
follow. The only reason I was given why the cart was to be released within
a week of the meeting was to have ONE week worth of sales for the first
quarter. WHAT A SHITTY, GOD DAMNED, FUCKING CSDKFHAS FHLAVFHJ EXCUSE!!!!
What ever happened to quality which the name ATARI is supposed to represent?
Where was VCS management?? I would hope that someone would stand up and
say "THE GAME IS NOT READY. WE WILL RELEASE IT WHEN IT IS DONE!!" Who
are they trying to make look good? Why impress Warner with 1 weeks worth
of production, when you can impress the consumer 2 weeks later? It seems
short-sighted to make themselves look good at the expense of ATARI's
reputation.

Well enough of that, I want to get back on the subject of good news. Months
ago I also reviewed a Millipede for the 800 (or 5200 I don't remember). I
sent my comments back and just last week received a letter back for Richard
Frick thanking me and giving me a list of changes they have implemented.
When I talked to him he recalled when the comments came back and how the
programmer grumbled about doing any more changes. However after the
changes were made the programmer has become very excited about the new
program. Now ISN'T that a heart warming story. It sure made my week.
I hope we see more cooperation like that in the future.

Second, as Franz hinted I never received a copy of Centipede to review from
ATARISOFT nor was I even told about any Centipede carts. Ignoring the
fact that is rather insulting, it is not in the best interests of ATARI.
We should demand quality from any product ATARI puts its name on.
Considering there is expertise here in Coin-Op to test and evaluate this
product, they should be very interested in hearing from us. Since there
were no designer credits, I guess it was hard for them to dtermine who
to come to but they could have found out.

Since there seems to be new policies regarding credits for our games and
since there seems to be a lack of trust between certain individuals and
management, couldn't we have some WRITTEN information of these policies.
In particular, can someone reassure us that the current bonus program is
still in effect and will remain so until xxxxx. Can the current policy on
credits be written down and include if possible the current policy on credits
with respect to 2600, 5200, 800, and ATARISOFT conversions. For everyones
information I was not told that my name would appear on the 2600 Millipede
documentation. I had to ask Steve Calfee. In fact it seems logical that
the names of all members of the Coin-Op team responsible for developing
the game should appear. Can someone write down whether the ASTARISOFT
software will bring royalties to Coin-OP?

Now for my pet pieve, can we get a little better accounting on
the bonus program? I was given verbal assurance by John Farrand that this
was possible but maybe he doesn't understand how hard or time consumming
this is. In the past ATARI didn't want to do this because this would
release information that the competition is not supposed to know. In fact
if you want to know the VCS sales of a cart, just call your friends at
Activision or Imagic or Starpath for the info. I was also told that the
other divisions just paid monies to Coin-Op but did not supply the number
of units sold or other info. With the new organization I would hope that
this information would be available. The kind of information I would like
to see with our bonus checks is 1) Coin-Op units sold (at full price) 2) those
sold at a loss (thus no royalties for them) 3) Coin-Op kits sold (as
above) 4) same for 2600, 800, 5200 and ATARISOFT.


Ed Logg

P.S. They (Marketing) released the 2600 Millipede on Monday before they
could test the cart for the required 40 hrs. There was a screen
roll failure after 35 hrs. So by the book they should not have
passed the cart for release.

Now reading these emails, I see a pattern which is starting to happen again:

1 - Publishers rushing developers to get software out for release before it was even close to being ready. Are we headed down this same path now with endless sequels that are rushed out for profits?

2 - IP wars are becoming an major issue again. Back then it was Console vs Coin-op, but it still hasn't changed. Call of Duty in its war with IW, Activision suing publishers for IP rights, etc. Now Activision is having the most trouble with this right now, but others have disputed before.

With major profit issues happening to publishers, developers closing shop, and very talented programmers/engineers left out in the cold, did we really learn anything since 1984? Are we headed for the same fate yet again?

There is a ton more left in these logs, I can't list them all, but it paints a weird similar fate to me if we don't start doing something.

 

[IrrelevantNotch]

Sorry, I haven't read the whole OP, but wasn't Atari's biggest problem that they didn't have any control over what was getting published on their console? I'm pretty sure that's where the whole Nintendo Seal of Approval came into play.

 

[Nuclear Muffin]

The industry is showing similar symptoms, but for very different reasons. It's nowhere near as bad as it was during the era of the great crash.

Indeed, you could say that they stand at opposite ends of the spectrum. Today's problems stem from ridiculously high development costs and long dev cycles, while yesterday's problems stemmed from very low dev costs and stupidly short dev cycles (games on a factory belt)

Auteurship has forever been an issue as publishers have sought to control IP. You could say that the situation has gotten worse this gen as dev costs have sky rocketed, leading to more aggressive tactics by the likes of Activision (Oh the irony!). But then again, you never really had anything like EA Partners last gen.

 

[theultimo]

Sorry, I haven't read the whole OP, but wasn't Atari's biggest problem that they didn't have any control over what was getting published on their console? I'm pretty sure that's where the whole Nintendo Seal of Approval came into play.

That is part of the overall problem with the 2600, but the main issue was Atari mismanagement. There was a ton of in-fighting, and Products were getting released either half-done or with severe issues. Franz Lanzinger, who was on EP 91 of Retronauts talked about a few things on that podcast, and there is some email from him stating how mismanaged Atari was at the time, like this for instance, on the subject of Bonuses:

From: KIM::FXL 3-FEB-1984 00:58
To: @SYS$MAIL:JUNK
Subj: ?


Hello again.

I am overwhelmed. What a can of worms!! Jeff Boscole would be proud.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to everything that has been
broadcast in MAIL recently. Nor should I, after all, I am supposed to be an
ex-trouble maker. Still, I am glad that so many of you took the trouble to
write down what is on your mind, and then broadcasting it. Scary, but
worthwhile.

This message is going to the JUNK mailing list, as did the Jeff Boscole
memorial letter. I was unaware that JUNK included via DECNET a number of other
VAXes. If I had known, I would have sent the JBML to JUNK anyway. I feel no
need for secrecy. Better to be in the open than to create inaccurate rumors.
If you JUNK readers out there are not interested, just type del<RETURN> after
the first page of a message and the message disappears.

Someone pointed out to me that it is my responsibility to inform the
JUNK subscribers of the prompt responses by John Ray, Chris Downend, and Lyle
Rains to the concerns voiced by the earlier MAIL. These responses were mailed
to ENGINEERING.UAF, a mailing list which includes only Kim Newvax users. A
printout of some of these responses is posted in the home-computer section of
1501.

Please don't blame me if you feel left out of the discussion. Fight for
royalties if you feel that you deserve them. Fight for getting credit for
your work. I am all for personalizing all of industry, everyone should put
their name to their work, good or bad. Above all fight for quality. Quality
sells, or are we in it just to make a quick buck? If you feel envious that we
in engineering receive royalties, consider that we (in coin-op) don't make
millions, only thousands, if we are lucky. We earn these royalties by working
day and night, sometimes it seems putting our whole lives into it. Even for a
successfull game designer, half the time the things don't even see production.
Usually that means a year or two down the drain. If you are unsuccessful you
get no royalties, only the nagging question: why didn't it work? If the game
sells, you don't know why either. Either way, you don't feel secure about the
whole thing. And nobody knows where the industry will be three years from now.
Can you blame us then for fighting for our second in the spotlight while the
power is still on? Without game designers Atari would not exist, just like
without a screenplay you'd have a pretty dull movie.

"A video game is not a toaster"

Sincerely,
Franz X Lanzinger

 

[Drkirby]

1 - Publishers rushing developers to get software out for release before it was even close to being ready. Are we headed down this same path now with endless sequels that are rushed out for profits?

As backwards as this sounds, I think part of the problem is that companies keep trying to reinnovate each subsistent game in their milked series, like EA with Madden and NBA Live, and how Activision keeps trying to keep Call of Duty "Fresh", but people like Capcom have shown that the old "Level Pack Sequel" is fairly solid, keeps development costs and time down, and doesn't hurt sales that badly, and in fact often lead to more refined game play rather then a hit and miss like many long running Western Series. The greater pool of people who play games do not like things to constantly change.

The thing that makes this problematic is online being so ingrained as the big selling feature of a game, to the point where you could release new campaigns to the base game and less people would buy them then map packs. I don't know, I think Western Publishers have backed them selfs into a corner once again, they need to find a way to go a different course or else they will hit a breaking point in the next 5 years.

I hope this makes since, I should not be trying to make profound and nonorthodox statements at 5 AM.

 

[trinest]

I still stand by that we need another crash.

 

[TheOddOne]

I still stand by that we need another crash.

Well since the last one things have not changed. Crashing again will not help it and people should look elsewhere to improve the standards.

 

[Big One]

I think expecting another gaming crash is just pure fantasy. The market may show similar ethics in terms of how developers are treated but that isn't signs of a gaming crash. The difference between now and then is that shovelware actually sells really well in the market nowadays. More accurately, I would say, is that there's more opportunities for developers to sell their products. More people game than ever, and that is what will prevent gaming from ever crashing again.

 

[theultimo]

As backwards as this sounds, I think part of the problem is that companies keep trying to reinnovate each subsistent game in their milked series, like EA with Madden and NBA Live, and how Activision keeps trying to keep Call of Duty "Fresh", but people like Capcom have shown that the old "Level Pack Sequel" is fairly solid, keeps development costs and time down, and doesn't hurt sales that badly, and in fact often lead to more refined game play rather then a hit and miss like many long running Western Series. The greater pool of people who play games do not like things to constantly change.

The thing that makes this problematic is online being so ingrained as the big selling feature of a game, to the point where you could release new campaigns to the base game and less people would buy them then map packs. I don't know, I think Western Publishers have backed them selfs into a corner once again, they need to find a way to go a different course or else they will hit a breaking point in the next 5 years.

I hope this makes since, I should not be trying to make profound and nonorthodox statements at 5 AM.

I can see that happening. The western culture has ingrained themselves to want Hot New Game x6 instead of new, innovative titles. It started getting worrisome in the PS2 era, but it has multiplied immensely in the HD generation. Due to dev cycles, huge budgets, and less risky ventures, soon I think publishers will only do AAA games, and the true innovators will be left out in the cold.

EDIT: Oh god, Atari was delusional, but hell, they predicted Nintendo's strategy :lol

From: BEEZ::SEGHERS 23-MAR-1984 17:05
To: @SYS$MAIL:JUNK
Subj: COMMENTARY...


Franusic has some valid points. However, what Atari does not need right
now are quitters. I've seen Atari make many mistakes and I am sure that
I will see many more, but, Atari is a large corporation and it is good
to remember that Large corportations may stumble, but they seldom fall.

There will be plenty of time to decide to quit if Atari really shows signs
of colapsing. It is true that things are not what they used to be. Games
are not as popular as before. The markets are glutted, both Consumer and
Coin-op. That glutting cannot go on forever, however. There is a product
lifetime which, once past, even the best products (for their time) cannot
be sold. When the video game companies (Atari included) can no longer dump
their excess inventories of old games (hopefully this will not take more that

a year,) then new games can begin to go back on the market in a controlled
fassion. When that time comes, we must be prepared with some VERY GOOD,
VERY ORIGINAL products.

Entertainment is not a fad, but repetition does not make for good entertainment.
The game industry must stop cloning the old games. We must come up with
original concepts. It does not necessarily mean creating bold advances in
technology. It means taking bold advances in our imagination. If we can
achieve that, then a games sucess is assured.

John Seghers
Consumer Software

 

[Nuclear Muffin]

I still say that if the Wii had not come along, the industry would've already crashed by now. Publishers would've had nothing to buoy their HD flops.