"Umm the loss of sales almost bankrupting Atari"
There is no such thing as 'loss of sales'.
You don't have a predetermined amount that you are somehow entitled to sell, that you could then refer to as a loss, if it doesn't quite happen. Therefore, there isn't any "loss of sales" - just a bad product that people refuse to buy, that's all.
Now, you can of course use that business lingo and perspective and say that they PROJECTED "this much" sales, and if their sales numbers had reached "this much", then their venture would have been PROFITABLE.
If I expect to sell 10 bananas, but I only sell one, I am not experiencing "loss of sales" (you can only lose things you have, not things you project you should have - you are not entitled to have anything), I am simply experiencing someone buying that one banana, and perhaps the projected profit (and those bananas, as they would soon go bad, unless I eat them, but that's a bit beyond the point).
Another point is that it was much more complicated than that. No 'loss of sales' from one single game could have bankrupted Atari, especially if they hadn't risked more than usual to make more copies of it than usual.
It was that people were actually RETURNING the games and defending REFUNDS that told how bad the game was. THAT had never happened on that scale to Atari (if at all - had anyone ever returned a game based on not liking it, or it being bad?).
There were also numerous other factors that contributed to the whole fiasco, like the market already being over-saturated, the games not having evolved, and all that. E.T. was the first game, where the players realized that they are basically paying for the name, while the game itself is pretty crappy, and doesn't live AT ALL to the expectations of a great E.T. game that people had.
I mean, basically, E.T. as a game is just 'falling in pits', unless you really read the manual and start learning how to do things properly, etc. I think there's way too much of 'falling in pits', and THAT was the problem. That shouldn't have been such a big part of the game.
It's not just that it's cryptic and confusing, it's also that it's not instantly playable, and you just fall in pits way too much and too easily, and too often, even when you sort of start knowing what you are supposed to do. Indiana Jones may be similar in many ways, but not as frustrating with the 'pit falling' (ironically, Pitfall! is actually a great game), although you do easily fall from a certain room if you are not careful.
The other thing to consider was that the price was _WAY_ up there. Atari really wanted to profit, and the license was probably expensive - they chose the worst possible timing to become greedy.
MAD Magazine even had a one-page joke about its price.
So it was way more complex than you are saying, and also what you are saying is illogical and inaccurate, although could be considered partially technically correct from a greedy, inhuman corporate perspective.
reply
share