Activision filed for bankruptcy in the early 90s because it had completely failed. Their current success has nothing at all to do with any of this. Kotick saved them more or less.
I recall the time but wasn't aware of a "crash" so to speak. For me, it was the transition from the early 2600 console to the rise of personal computers. There were countless titles released on the C64. And I do recall EA being a brand I leaned towards because of the games they put out at the time.
From what I recall, it was a death from a thousand paper cuts. Being a fledgling industry, many management mistakes were made. Wiki did a pretty decent job of covering them, there.
Arcade popularity had hit its peak and was starting to come down. Kids would play a game for an hour on one quarter; probably barely enough to cover the electricity to run the game. As a result, those awesome kidgasm entertainment palaces as seen in Tron were drying up fast. Massive appeal, poor revenue model.
I dunno how badly Atari treated the Activision folks, but the Activision games were EASILY the best games you could get for the 2600; it's clear which way the talent went. Whatever it was that they wanted from Atari that they weren't getting, Atari clearly made the wrong choice by not giving it up.
Ultimately, complacency was probably Atari's downfall. It dominated a market in which superior hardware certainly existed. Again, home computing being a fairly new industry, they had no idea how quickly the industry would progress and evolve. They had almost no marketing model to go off of.
Nintendo would come along and do the same thing: take over, dominate, eventually start treating software development assets and partners like crap, to then give Sony the wedge it needed with the Playstation. Sony demanded much less per unit on licensing for studios to make games for the console, so a flood of titles hit shortly after launch.
Activision filed for bankruptcy in the early 90s because it had completely failed. Their current success has nothing at all to do with any of this. Kotick saved them more or less.
Activision, Atari... quite a few of the big names you see now have little or nothing to do with the original companies.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Activision filed for bankruptcy in the early 90s because it had completely failed. Their current success has nothing at all to do with any of this. Kotick saved them more or less.
Activision, Atari... quite a few of the big names you see now have little or nothing to do with the original companies.
In related news, Cryptic is changing their name to Interplay.
Comments
Activision filed for bankruptcy in the early 90s because it had completely failed. Their current success has nothing at all to do with any of this. Kotick saved them more or less.
I recall the time but wasn't aware of a "crash" so to speak. For me, it was the transition from the early 2600 console to the rise of personal computers. There were countless titles released on the C64. And I do recall EA being a brand I leaned towards because of the games they put out at the time.
Good article.
From what I recall, it was a death from a thousand paper cuts. Being a fledgling industry, many management mistakes were made. Wiki did a pretty decent job of covering them, there.
Arcade popularity had hit its peak and was starting to come down. Kids would play a game for an hour on one quarter; probably barely enough to cover the electricity to run the game. As a result, those awesome kidgasm entertainment palaces as seen in Tron were drying up fast. Massive appeal, poor revenue model.
I dunno how badly Atari treated the Activision folks, but the Activision games were EASILY the best games you could get for the 2600; it's clear which way the talent went. Whatever it was that they wanted from Atari that they weren't getting, Atari clearly made the wrong choice by not giving it up.
Ultimately, complacency was probably Atari's downfall. It dominated a market in which superior hardware certainly existed. Again, home computing being a fairly new industry, they had no idea how quickly the industry would progress and evolve. They had almost no marketing model to go off of.
Nintendo would come along and do the same thing: take over, dominate, eventually start treating software development assets and partners like crap, to then give Sony the wedge it needed with the Playstation. Sony demanded much less per unit on licensing for studios to make games for the console, so a flood of titles hit shortly after launch.
It was certainly an interesting time to grow up.
I remember that.
Vaguely, but I remember it.
Activision, Atari... quite a few of the big names you see now have little or nothing to do with the original companies.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
In related news, Cryptic is changing their name to Interplay.
I remember the Amiga's screen looking much better at the time.