Quantcast
Channel: The Golden Age Arcade Historian
Viewing all 159 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Video Game Genealogies - Ralph Baer

January 30, 2015, 5:04 pm
$
0
0

For this post, I thought I’d take a break from my Atari depositions series and try something a little different. One of my hobbies is genealogy, so I have access to a good deal of genealogical info. So I was thinking about doing a series of posts on the genealogy of some of the key figures in the video game industry. I have no idea if there is any interest in this kind of thing, as it gets into some information that really isn’t directly relevant to video games and that general hasn’t been covered in video game history.

Since Ralph Baer recently passed away and since I don’t have a tremendous amount of information on his ancestors, I thought it would be easier to start with him.

Maternal Ancestors - The Kirschbaums

On his mother's side, I basically have just names and dates, so I'll start there.

Ralph's mother was Charlotte Lauren Kirschbaum, born 15 December 1899 in Guben, Germany. I'll talk more about her later, but for now, here's what I have on her ancestry.

Her father was James Kirschbaum, born 24 November 1869 in Bremerhaven, Germany and died 26 May 1931 in Guben. He married Adele Davidson on 1 June 1868.

James's father was Adolph Kirschbaum, born 24 July 1834 in Bremerhaven and died in Guben on 29 October 1920. He married Laura Cohen.
In 1902 (probably after Laura died) he came to the U.S. to stay with his son Alfons in New York. On the 1910 census, they were living on 113th street in New York City. Alfons was a butcher and the family had a personal servant, so they appear to have been doing well. Adolph was listed as a widower. They also had a cousin living with them who was a treasurer in a theatre. At some point, Adolph must have returned to Germany.

Adolph and Laura (photo taken from Ancesty.com page of one of Ralph's sons.
Guben is a city in Brandenburg located (today) on the Polish border. The population was 23,704 in 1875 and grew to 40,602 by 1925. In the 19th century, Guben was known for its textile industry. In 1822, it supplied 65% of the hats in Germany. In the last half of the century, Guben became well-known for its leather gloves. After World War II, the city was divided between Germany and Poland.

Paternal Ancestors - The Baers

I have a bit more info about Ralph's father's side, but not much. Here, I only went back to his grandfather, Joseph Baer. Joseph was born 1 February 1848 in Germany and died 10 May 1922 in Germany. He married Henrietta.

Ralph's parents, Charlotte ("Lotte") and Leo


Ralph's father was Leo Baer, born 1 March 1894 in Rodalben, a city in southwest Germany near the French border in the Alsace-Lorraine region. Rodalben was known for its shoe and at one time there were over 60 shoe factories in town. Leo also served in World War I. It appears that he served in the Bavarian Ersatz Division (a division originally made up entirely of Bavarians) in the 18th infantry regiment. The Division fought in the Battle of Verdun and the 2nd Battle of Aisne. In 1917 it was transferred to the Romanian front and then to the Ukraine before returning to the western front in April, 1918. It looks like he also served in the 2nd Landstrum Infantry Battalion. Two of Leo's brothers, Hugo and Otto, were both killed in action during the war (it appears they were his only two brothers).

Personnel Roster entry for Leo Baer
2nd Landstraum Infantry Battalion (I don't think Leo is in the picture)

After the war, he returned home. At some point (before or after the war), he moved to Pirmasens, a town about 5 km from Rodalben. Leo ran a tannery that supplied leather to the town's many shoemakers (like Rodalben, Pirmasens was known for its shoes). Ralph Henry Baer was born Rudolf Heinrich Baer on 8 March 1922 in Pirmasens. By then, however, there likely wasn't much shoemaking going on. The town had been devastated by World War I, food was scarce, French Moroccan troops occupied the area, and inflation was rampant, causing many (including Baer's father) to go bankrupt. When Baer was one-and-a-half, his family moved to Cologne, where things became even worse following the Nazi's rise to power. At 14, the Nazi's kicked all Jewish students out of school, including Baer, who was forced to go to work typing, taking shorthand, and collecting money from local bars. By 1938, things had become unbearable and in August, Baer's family fled the country, just three months before the Kristallnacht of “Night or Broken Glass” when Jewish businesses throughout the country were destroyed. The Baer's had relatives in New York. They went to Stuttgart and met with the American consul, who got them on the short list of people allowed to leave the country (there was a tight quota). The Baer's (Leo, Charlotte, Ralph, and Isle) sailed from Rotterdam on the SS Nieuw Amsterdam and arrived in New York on 12 August 1938. The SS Nieuw Amsterdam was the pride of the Holland America Line. It had its maiden voyage earlier in 1938 and dubbed by some the “ship of tomorrow” with features like a first-class restaurant with a Moroccan leather ceiling and ivory walls. While Leo managed to escape Germany, his siblings weren't so lucky. Three of his sisters died in concentration camps: Louise, Augusta (who die in Kaiserwald), and Eugenie (who died in Jungfernhof).

Passenger list for the Nieuw Amsteram, showing the Baer family (note that Ralph is listed as Rudolf Heinrich)


The SS Nieuw Amsterdam

After arriving, the Baers settled in the Bronx, where Ralph worked in a factory attaching buttons to cosmetics cases for $12 a week. On the 1940 census, the family was living on Marmion Avenue in the Bronx where Leo was listed as a manufacturer in the leather goods industry while Ralph was working as a shipping clerk in the leather novelties industry. Leo died in January, 1967 in Flushing and it looks Charlotte died 4 March 1899 in Manchester, New Hampshire (if true, she would have been 99).
The Baers on the 1940 Census
Leo's Certificate of Naturalization
 
 
Ralph's Pre-Video Game Career

The event that led Ralph to a career in electronics occurred one day when he was riding the subway and noticed someone across the aisle reading a magazine with an ad on the back reading “Make Big Money in Radio and Television Servicing” .The ad was for a mail-order course in radio repair by the National Radio Institute in Washington DC.  Intrigued, Baer paid about $1.25 a week out of his meager salary to take the course and followed up by taking the advanced course. He then quit his factory job and went to work servicing radios at a store on Lexington Avenue in Manhattan. In 1943, Baer was drafted into the Army and sent to Fort Dix to train as a combat engineer. After two months, he was reassigned to Camp Ritchie, Maryland, where he learned how to interrogate prisoners of war. Before long, Baer was shipped overseas where he served in England and France, training American troops in subjects like weapons handling and recognizing enemy uniforms. In his spare time, Baer taught himself algebra and also collected foreign weapons and turned them into a makeshift museum (Baer's collection later served as the basis for the official military small arms exhibit in Fort Riley, Kansas). He even wrote a book on the history of machine guns.

            Baer left the Army in March, 1946 and took a job with Emerson Radio in Queens, but quickly grew bored and quit after about three months. Realizing he needed more training, he moved to Chicago (the New York schools were full of veterans) and attended the American Television Institute of Technology[1] on the G.I. Bill, where, in 1949, he received what he claims was the first ever degree in Television engineering[2].  He then returned to New York where he landed a job as chief (and only – the company had just four employees) engineer for Wappler, Inc. – a manufacturer of electro-medical equipment. After about a year and a half, he moved on to Loral Electronics, where he worked on an early attempt at a projection screen TV, a ground position indicator for a radar system, and tone paging equipment used by IBM to synchronize the clocks in its factories. He then spent about four years at Transitron Electronics, a high tech firm in New York City that built test equipment for the Army and Navy. In 1958, Baer took a job at Sanders Associates, (another defense contractor) in Nashua, New Hampshire, starting out as a staff engineer working on electronic counter measure equipment like the AN/ALQ-51 “Shoehorn” radar jammer used in the F-4 Phantom. It was the start of a 30 year career at Sanders, where Baer worked until 1988. In 1980, he received the New York Patent Law Association’s Inventor of the Year award and during his life was awarded over 150 patents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] Baer refers to it as the "American Television Lab of Technology" but I found no record of it under that name.  I did find several ads referring to it as the "American Television Institute", a division of "American Television Laboratories, Inc." or as the "American Institute of Technology."
[2] Baer does not mean that he was the first person to receive a television engineering degree, but rather that the Institute was the first to offer such a degree.
↧
Search

More on the American Video Athletic Association

February 8, 2015, 9:51 am
$
0
0

A few months back, I posted about the American Video Athletic Association. Since, I have exchanged e-mails with its founder so I thought I’d do a follow-up post with more details.


In January 1982, Time magazine ran a cover story on the video game phenomenon that was then sweeping the country. The article featured a sidebar on a teenager Steve Juraszek, who had played a single game of Defender for over 16 hours. Walter Day considers the issue’s cover date (January 18, 1982) to be the birthdate of the golden age of video arcades. It was also a key date in the history of eSports, if for no other reason than that it indirectly lead Day to establish his Twin Galaxies Video Scoreboard, one of the earliest serious attempts to make video gaming a sport.

While Day’s efforts are well known, however, and many consider him the father of eSports, he was not the only person to think of the concept. At least two others were making similar efforts in 1982. One of them was an entrepreneur in Madison, Wisconsin named Dennis de Nure.


According to his autobiography, Dennis was born John Michael DeNure in 1956 in Platteville, WI (“home of the world’s largest M symbol”) and changed his name to Dennis Amadeus de Nure after seeing the film “Amadeus[1].” In 1982, around the time Walter Day was starting his famous scoreboard, DeNure was playing Pac-Man at bars in the Madison area and thought, “how neat it would be to turn video game playing into a sport that I trademarked.” While Walter Day wanted to bring glory to the players, however, DeNure had another motive. He wanted to get rich, and he thought that the way to do so was to secure the intellectual property rights to the concept of video gaming as a sport.


Toward that end, on April 5, 1982, DeNure incorporated a company called Video Athlete Corporation, which was located at 120 W. Mifflin Street in Madison. He persuaded his landlord, Otto Zerwick, to invest $15,000 in the company, which at that point consisted of little more than a name and a trademark on the term “Video Athlete” (though the trademark was not  filed until July 6[2]). With cash in hand, DeNure hit upon an odd publicity stunt to promote his new idea. Over drinks, he got to know the elephant keeper at the Dane County Zoo and persuaded the keeper to let him sneak into the elephant enclosure with a Defender cabinet and take pictures of the zoo’s star pachyderm, Winkie, “playing” the game. It was dangerous business. In 1966, Winkie’s predecessor, also named Winkie, had stomped a three-year old to death and the second Winkie would later send a handler to the hospital and, after being moved to an elephant sanctuary in 2000, kill another handler. Nonetheless, DeNure entered the temperamental elephant’s cage and, by placing a peanut on top of the game, got her to pick it up with her trunk, making it appear that she was moving the joystick. Another photo showed three gamers playing games in front of the Madison skyline with the logo “We Are Athletes of a Different Kind.” While the photos did not really lead to anything, they did put DeNure in touch with a local arcade owner, who had supplied the games for the photo shoots.
 
 


Now that he had a source of games, DeNure began to think of ways to promote his idea. His initial plan was to have a semi-trailer full of video games that would travel the country. First, however, he decided to stage a tournament in Madison, initially to be called the Video Athlete Festival, sponsored by the “American Video Athletic Association” (aka AVAA or ah-vah), another group DeNure had created. DeNure had an audio technician create a 60-second radio commercial for the event and booked a spot at the Dane County Forum. In addition to individual and team tournaments, the festival would have door prizes, representatives from various video game factories, a “video guru” comedy act, and over 100 video games. DeNure even paid Steve Juraszek to come to Madison to attempt to break his famous record and persuaded an AP reporter and photographer to cover the attempt. It was an impressive plan, especially for 1982. But it never came off.
 
 
 
 
 

On May 21, the day before the festival, DeNure ran an ad in the Madison Wisconsin State Journal. The tournament, sponsored by “Video Athletes Across America” (yet another DeNure creation) would feature six different games: Centipede, Defender, Tempest, Donkey Kong, Pac-Man, and Omega Race. Juraszek would be on hand, where he would be challenged by Robert Crocker, an 11-year-old local video game “expert.” At the last minute, however, the arcade owner pulled out and rather than trying to salvage the situation, the now-bitter DeNure cancelled the event. In the end, it may not have mattered, since by his own admission, DeNure did not really know what he was doing at the time.
 

He did not give up on video athletes, however and instead began thinking of new ways to promote the concept. He created an ad for the American Video Athletic Association that ran in the July and August issues of Electronic Games featuring the likeness of Steve Juraszek and offering a one-year membership in the AVAA for $12.95. Gamers could also submit their high scores without joining the association. If they did join, they got a t-shirt, membership card, quarterly newsletter, and “handy pocket guide to Video Athletics” that included gameplay hints, comparison charts, and a rating system with five ranks: Scrambler, Defender, Commander, Invader, and Avenger.

 
Meanwhile, DeNure started writing letters seeking supporters his idea to just about anyone he could think of, getting nothing in return but rejections. George Lucas’s secretary told him the George’s daughter loved the shirt, but passed. Arthur C. Clarke suggested that DeNure read his essay “The Playing Fields of Space.” Isaac Asimov was too busy and Ted Turner said “no” multiple times. His letters to coin-op manufacturers, distributors, and operators did not fare much better, though he did get a meeting in a McDonald’s with Atari’s Joe Robbins, who suggested that he do a survey.


DeNure also was toying with a number of other names, phrases, and concepts that he hoped to trademark, like “Video Athlete League (VAL),” “Machine Sports,” and “make sport not war.” His most ambitious idea involved something he called the Video Athletic Machine Sport, or VAMS, unit. The VAMS unit, which would be built into newly created video games, would include a “video-tac” (video tachometer) dialog board that would provide a “Universal Scoring System” to convert scores to a 100-point scale, a “Universal Time Factor System” that allowed the player to select short, medium, or long games, and a “Universal Tri-Field Setting System.” A group called the “AVAA-Control Committee” would determine how to convert the scores for different games and difficulty levels. VAMS was part of a more elaborate plan to turn video gaming into a competition along the lines of baseball or basketball. Competitions, which be played in arenas called an “Electronic Ball Parks,” would consist of a ten-inning “game” between two teams of nine players. Each team would have three forwards, three guards, two centers, and a “signal captain.” Games were divided into one of three types and could be played for one of three durations. During each inning, team members would play specific games for specific lengths of time at specific difficulty levels based on the inning and their position. Based on their score, players would be awarded a single, double, triple, home run, or grand slam, earning one to five points, which would then be converted into “conversion points” (the details here are a bit hazy).To add an element of chance, a “VAL Baseline Spinner” was created, though even DeNure no longer what it was supposed to be used for. It was an elaborate system – probably too elaborate – but DeNure hoped that once industry movers and shakers were onboard, they would simplify and improve it.
 






 
DeNure’s master plan involved more than just tournaments, however. A professional team called the Star Scorers would be formed. Gyms called “valcades” would be established where players could play against other video athletes for $5. A language called “AVAA-Talk” would be created. Playoffs, like the Crown of AVAA, would be held. Tournaments would be promoted on a TV show called Planet Play. DeNure even wrote a 108-page screenplay for a movie called “Star Scorers of the AVAA” intended to educated consumers about video athletics[3]as well as a book called “The Age of the Video Athlete.” Other ideas included a national organization for operators (which would promote tournaments), a quarterly newsletter listing everyone who achieved a high score on one of 15 selected games per month in member arcades, a syndicated comic strip, video game triathlons, and an arcade t-shirt with a special pocket for tokens.

 
 
 
 
 

Unfortunately, ideas are all DeNure had and he was never able to interest anyone in turning them into reality. Very few people joined the AVAA (the pocket guide and newsletters eventually became a booklet called “The New Peace Sign”). DeNure does seem to have published The Age of the Video Athlete, which was listed in the bibliography of a book called Reading Programs For Young Adults. It was also mentioned in the June 1, 1983 issue of Play Meter, which described it as a 98-page manual on promoting video games as a sport, with details on running sanctioned “Video Game Festivals”, including sample radio ads, and other info. By 1987, DeNure seems to have dropped the video athletics idea and moved on to other things.
 
 




In 1985, he was running a shoeshine stand in Madison. In October 1986, the Madison Capital Times reported that he was pushing to have the state motto changed to “Eat Cheese or Die.” In April 1987 the Wisconsin State Journal reported that he was running a shop called DeNure’s T-Shirt Factory and 60s Museum at 555 State Street, selling tie-dyed T-shirts and 60s memorabilia. Two months later, the Journal reported that DeNure’s “travelling cow cart” had been robbed of its entire inventory of cow-themed t-shirts, bearing slogans like “Cows are udderly cool.” The cart was mounted on a snow mobile trailer that DeNure pulled around the state with his van to various farm events.

Late in 1987 (if not earlier), DeNure launched his political career with a run for Dane County Executive. In early 1988, he pleaded no contest and was fined for hurling apples at a Richard Haas mural being painted at Olin Terrace. Later that year, he entered the race for mayor. Starting around 1993, he ran a store in Madison called Game Haven that sold Magic the Gathering and Pokémon cards, as well as board games and Beanie Babies. In 2002, he served a two-year sentence in Iowa for drunk driving. As of this writing, he is apparently still designing t-shirts and pushing for one of his other big ideas – the Museum Mile.

 




[1] DeNure was using the name “Dennis,” however, long before the film was released.
[2] The trademark application gives a “first use in commerce” and “first use anywhere” of April 15, 1982. DeNure remembers that he had the trademark before he began planning his tournament. He also remembers that he had some ads in national magazines, but that appears to have come later.
[3] Some of these ideas may have come after 1986.


↧
↧

Annotated Atari Depositions - Part 4

February 15, 2015, 11:36 am
$
0
0

Today, we continue with Nolan Bushnell’s January 1976 deposition in the Magnavox v Bally et al case. This time, I don’t have as many comments/notes or pictures. It’s mostly just straightforward text.

 ==============================================================

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Mr. Bushnell, as I understand it, Documents 40-2, 40-3, 40-6, 40-7, 40-10, 40-11, 40-15 and 40-17 all relate to circuitry which you intended to use with the monitor in association with your system for playing games

A. Correct.

Q. But that there is, as I understand it, circuitry which you had also intended to use for that monitor which is not shown in any of these documents?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you personally draw the diagrams of 40-2, 40-3, 40-6, 40-7, 40-10, 40-11, 40-14?

A. Yes, I did.

MR. HERBERT: Before I start questioning on that, prior to the recess I had indicated that we would, after finding the pre-production drawings for Pong and another game, Space Race, zero in on the earlier drawings on this to match up with what else goes here. During recess Mr. Bushnell told me that very probably all of the drawings that are missing from this package were left at Nutting. So we don't really expect to find them.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Do you believe that the drawings missing from Exhibit 40 relating to your monitor are at Nutting?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Why were they left at Nutting?

A. Well, they were all essentially source documents which were later used to build the Computer Space machine which I sold to Nutting and since I had licensed them to build that machine exclusively they are obviously entitled to all the documents that have to do with that particular machine.

Q. Do you know when you drew these documents which I just enumerated?

A. I'd say it was probably around July or August 1970. It might have been as early as February for some of them, but I think the ones that I drew in February were rougher. These are more detailed as to interconnections.

Q. Since only a portion of the circuit of the monitor is shown on these drawings, it might help us if you could draw a block diagram of the operation of that monitor if you are able to do so?
A. Okay.

Q. And I might say that we will probably mark it as an exhibit. You will be forewarned.
MR. WELSH: Now, this is of the monitor system?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Yes.
A. Incidentally, this is generalized terminology for data bus architecture. I am indicating there are several lines. The exact number of lines depends on the resolution that you wish. This is approximately with some simplifications.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would like the Reporter to mark the block diagram that Mr. Bushnell has just draw as Atari Exhibit 41.
(Drawing made by the witness was marked Atari Exhibit No. 41 for Identification.)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Mr. Bushnell, will you just give us a description of the operation of this system shown in Atari Exhibit 41?
A. The oscillator runs a sync chain which essentially counts down the oscillator frequency into a horizontal and vertical component. There’s a number associated with each picture element in both the horizontal and a number coincident with each line in the vertical direction. These numbers are fed into a compare circuit which is compared to a number which is the shift register. If you can visualize a television screen, zero zero being in the upper left-hand corner and 256 by 256, the number 256 by 256 is the number of the lower right-hand corner. Then you can see that there is a series of ordered pairs which describe every point on the TV screen. Everyone follow that?

Q. I follow it.
A. The sync chain willcount every one of those numbers in one frame. So that first the vertical counter is at zero and the horizontal counter then counts up to 256 at which time it gives the TV screen a sync pulse and the scan is reset and now the vertical scan counts to 1 and again to 256, and then the vertical goes to 2, 3 until it's scanned the whole time.

Now, supposing that we wish to display an object at point 20/20. That would be one inch to the right and one inch down from the upper left-hand corner. We would then put the number 20/20 into the shift register. Upon 20 being compared--

Q. Excuse me. You mean load 20 into the shift register under the block marked “Sync H”?

A. Yes, and 20 into the shift register under the block "sync V." This comparator, all it does is look for a comparison. It says when is one number equal to another . As soon as it does, it goes, ''Hi," turns on the scanning matrix. The scanningmatrix then says, "Okay, I'm ready to scan," and it counts—I should say it is hocked into the oscillator or to the sync H and V.

We'll just for ease put the oscillator here (indicating).

It says, "Okay, I'll display a rocket ship at that point," and it counts through and displays a rocket ship at Point 20/20.

Now, what the comparator does is it feeds that number 20 into the shift register. Now, next frame it says, "Okay, I want the rocket ship to move downward and to the right.” So the next frame it will load into it number 21/21. The same thing happens.

This time, though, the rocket ship is moved slightly. It's no longer displayed at 20/20, it's at 21/21. And successively each frame. So in that way the rocket ship appears to be

traveling in a downward and to the right velocity because the eye integrates the motion. It's just like a series of cartoons and you display it at slightly different places each time and the picture appears to move.

Now, the computer, of course, is keeping track of one, if the control is being pushed, say, in the forward direction and it’s thrusting, it’s saying, “Okay, if I want the rocket ship to go faster I’m going to say instead of moving it from 20 to 21 I might move it from 20 to 22. That gives the appearance of a faster motion. Or if it wants to move slower maybe it says, “I’ll keep it at 20 for a couple of frames and then I’ll move it to 21 for another couple of framed and then to 22 for another couple of frames.” So it’s going half as fast.

If you wanted it to go straight up and down all you are doing is you leave the horizontal counter fixed at 20 and you just increment or decrement the vertical count and the computer keeps track of all these numbers and feeds a new number out each frame which places the rocket ship anywhere.

Now, obviously, if you wanted to, you could make the object jump anywhere you want to once each frame. But generally by making a piecewise continuous function you can have the appearance of smooth motion, but it’s not constrained to that.

Q. The computer which you refer to is not shown in Exhibit 41, as I understand i.

A. No. It’s a data bus here. It’s out here (indicating). It comes in on the bus. I should have put that down, “data bus.”

Q. There are two boxes in the lower left-hand corner. What does the label on the upper one of those boxes say?

A. “Interface.” It’s essentially the part of the circuit that’s described in 40-7.

Q. And the lower box in the lower left-hand corner is labeled “IO.” Is that correct?

A. Yes. That’s essentially the problem that we were talking about before. Whether you do that on an interrupt basis, or whether you do it just putting data into memory. Now, you can do it either way. That IO is either a direct memory access channel or it’s an interrupt channel.

Q. So the player’s controls are located within the box marked “control”?

A. No. Those are control switches and coin slot.

Q. Over on the lower right-hand corner?

A. Right.

Q. And that information goes through the box marked “control” to the box marked “IO”?

A. Yes. Input-output.

Q. So the box marked “IO” was actually only an output channel, is that right, the way you have drawn it?

A. in a computer there is never really an output without an input because there’s parity checks. It talks. You send signals in two directions and for a multitude of reasons, but it essentially can be looked at, it says, “Hey, I’ve got some information.”

The computer says, “Okay, I’m ready for the information. Go ahead and send it. “ So it sends it down. The computer says, “Okay, I’ve got it.”
And the guy says, “Is it right?”

And the computer says, “Yes, it was.” And they do these handshaking things all the time. It’s just the way the architecture is.
Q. But the basic purpose of the IO block is to get information from the monitor to the computer, as I understand it.

A. Yes.
Q. You described the way in which one rocket ship is show during one scan of the cathode-ray tube.

A. Right.
Q. In the system you were building in playing Spacewar I assume that you wanted to show at least two rocket ships.

A. Yes. That adds a whole new level of complexity. That’s kind of that this is. Because these are shift registers. I have two sets of shift registers, one labeled A and one labeled B. I am referring to Document 40-2. It’s necessary that you have two data boards, one the location of the rocket ship A and one the location of rocket ship B, and under the control you can switch from one to the other.
Q. What does the circuitry shown in Exhibit 41 provide? What is necessary to display two rocket ships?

A. Well, it depends on how much intelligence you ascribe to the control module. Like it’s possible that the control module or the computer is smart enough to serially order the information in shift registers, in these two shift registers, so that it always hits the first shift register of the first object in the scanning sequence, and then the minute it sees that then it dumps that information out, grabs another piece of data from the computer and says, “Okay, this is rocket ship No. 2.” That could do it. But I think that 40-2 is a better approach, It’s a little bit cleaner.
Well, this is again the problem that I ran into. If you do it this way the computer has to be very smart and it has to be fast because it has to have that information ready for the second rocket ship very, very quickly because the minute the one rocket ship is done, if the other rocket ship is very close to it it has to have that information in a big hurry or you’re going to lose it, the rocket ship will disappear if it gets close. So what you can do is you can say, “Okay, I’m going to make the monitor smarter and I’ll just dump the information out at one time,” say during frame scan or frame reset in which there’s a lot of time, and that way the computer doesn’t have to be as smart. This design was an afterthought of this kind of architecture.

Q. You are saying that the document of 40-2 is an afterthought to the architecture shown in 41?
A. Yes. I want to keep this simple so that you can understand it. You see, the more and more smarter I made the monitor, the less power I had to have in the computer itself until finally I said, “The hell with it, “ you know, “let’s just build the hardware unit.”

Q. And the computer system which you intended to use with the apparatus you have shown in the block diagram form in Exhibit 41 was the Nova 1200 series computer; is that correct?
A. That is ultimately. I think this was a general-purpose design. I’m not sure which one this was, how late it was. But I originally designed the general purposely so that it could adapt to essentially any 16-bit machine.

Q. Did you have any requirements on the memory capacity of a 16-bit machine with which this could be used?
A. Yes. As small as possible.

Q. What memory capacity was required for a game system using, for example, four monitors?
A. I felt that in my original thinking I could get by with four K.

Q. For four monitors?
A. Yes. And memory was never the problem in the design. It was always update speeds.

Q. Can you identify Exhibit 40-15?
A. Yes. It says, “System Input, one coin box to initialize particular CRT and program.” I think at that time we were talking about having it to be a situation where you could not only choose whether you wanted to place Spacewar, but whether you wanted to play any other game that we had in the program. That was kind of a question of memory. We thought that it would be interesting to have the switch selectable so that you could play a multitude of games. So that was No. 1 as far as system input.

“No. 2, counterclockwise rotater input on fixed-time increment and rotate counterclockwise one unit. Unit equals question mark degrees.” I don’t know.
No. 3 says, “Clockwise rotator SPP2.”

No. 4 is. “Accelerator input on fixed time increment and add velocity increment to VX and VY.”
No. 5 is, “Fire control causes missile to shoot at fixed speed relative to rocket in direction rocket is pointing. Output to CRT done by sorting position, line and data. Words into output area. An interrupt will be generated at end of each field to indicate.”

That’s it.

Q. Did you write the document of 40-15?
A. No, I didn’t.

Q. Do you know who did?
A. No, I don’t. I have been asking myself that. It could have been a guy named Larry Bryan who was going to do the software at that time.

Q. Do you know what the list of five items under the heading “system input” is?
A. Well, yes, I think it’s essentially all the things that we wanted to put into the system, you know, to make sure that we had enough input ports to play the game.

Q. Did Mr. Bryan generate this document 40-15 as a result of a special review?
A. If he, in fact, was the one that generated it, and I think he was, yes.

Q. Do you know when it was?
A. It was probably during the summer.

Q. Of 1970?
A. Yes.

Q. Was anybody other than Larry Bryan assisting you in the construction of your apparatus?
A. Ted Dabney.

Q. What part did Ted Dabney play in the construction, in the development, of that apparatus?
A. He was a good circuits guy. He ultimately designed most of the sound circuitry and the video amplifier.

Larry Bryan was the software man.
I was the hardware man and Ted was the analog man.

[NOTE – This is a major point of contention between Ted and Nolan. While all acknowledge that Ted did the sound and video circuitry, Ted maintains that he (Ted) did the motion circuitry described above while Nolan claims that it was his (Nolan’s) work. The motion circuitry is what Nolan’s patent covered – though as we shall see if I ever get to it, he claims that his patent was not based on work done for Computer Space.]
Q. Can you identify Exhibit 40-16?

A. A timing diagram to a Nova 1200 computer.
Q. Can you identify Document 40-8?

A. I think it was a pin designation of input and output for the interface unit to the computer. Yes, it’s a pin assignment.
Q. Did you write the document?

A. Yes, I did. Any of the documents that you can’t read are probably done in my handwriting.

Q. Can you identify Document 40-18?

A. It’s a timing diagram.

Q. Is that also of the Nova 1200?
A. I think so. I don’t really know what the difference between the two documents is. One might have been for the Nova 850 which was a faster machine. When we started getting into problems I thought it might have to go to a faster machine.

Q. Would you please identify Document 40-9?
A. It’s a Xerox of a Signetics integrated circuit, and why I’ve got it there I have no idea.

Oh, I know. That’s an interface chip. It’s the interface unit. I wanted to make sure that what I was feeding to the computer wasn’t going to blow it up. Yes, that’s what it was.
Q. Can you identify Document 40-5?

A. It looks like it’s part of the technical manual for the input-output bus structure for the Data General computer.
Q. Was that for the Nova 1200?

A. I believe it was.

Q. Can you identify Document 40-4?

A. Yes. That’s the pin-outs of the bus connections for the Nova 1200. These are all Xeroxes because before I had a chance to start talking to the Nova people I was scrounging around for a manual on it and there was only one in the plant that I could get ahold of.
Q. One in which plant?

A. Ampex.
Q. What do you mean by the term “pin-outs”?

A. Well, the bus is essentially the input ports and it tells what part of the computer is connected to what pin. You know, like is It an input port, an address port of interrupt port.

As an example, all I could use were the ones that were vacant, you know, upon the direct memory access. These are General Data bus structures.
See, you put input and output in terms of a word. You see these data A8, All, each one of these represents a bit in the data word.

Q. Can you identify Document 40-13?
A. Yes. It’s a page describing how the data channel transfers work with this particular computer. It’s necessary in designing the thing to really have that stuff well scoped out.

Q. Would this particular computer be the Nova 1200?
A. Yes.

Q. Can you identify Document 40-12?
A. This is an OEM discount schedule which tells you what your price would be depending on how many units you buy. I was trying to find some way to get them to believe me that I was going to take 200 units the first year so I could get a 40 percent discount, but I didn’t quite have that much guts. But I was projecting that if the item did very well there would be considerable savings in the computer.

Q. I believe you testimony is that sometime between January 26, 1971 and February 16, 1971 you decided not to use the central computer system?
A. Correct.

Q. What did you do after you decided not to use the central computer system?
A. I put my time into designing a very inexpensive and complex exerciser, if you would, that would essentially do the calculations and hardware. At that time I had had a very complex exerciser already going, but it took me quite a bit to get it up to the point where it controlled two objects. It was only good for one object at that point.

Q. “That point,” being the time you decided not to use the central computer system?
A. Correct.

Q. Did you eventually build that exerciser?
A. Well, I guess you can say that—What’s to say when something is complete? It was complete when it went into production at Nutting Associates. I mean, that was the first commercial result of that. But I could move objects around the screen before that time.

Q. What time did it go into commercial production?
A. We sold our first units in December of January of the following year. I guess that would be December ’71 of January ’72.

[NOTE – Numerous sources give a release date of November 1971 for Computer Space, but almost none of them give a source for the date. One that does is Michael Current’s excellent Atari timeline website, which lists the source as “Cash Box 11/27/71 ad p54; 12/4/71 p45”. I do not have either of these issues, but it looks like the November reference was an ad for the game. Ads/flyers typically first appeared in trade magazines about a month before a game was released. It is unclear if the December reference was an ad or an actual release announcement for the game. ]
Q. Did it go into production approximately the same time it was first sold?

A. Oh, yes.
Q. How long before it was first commercially sold would it have gone into production?

A. Well, I think we were trying to get some units out as soon as possible. We showed it at the show I think it was October-November, and as soon as we—we were hoping to have production units ready by then, but the just weren’t and the production units weren’t really ready to ship until that December.
Q. At what show did you show it?

A. Music Operators of America.
Q. Where was the show held?

A. It was a hotel in Chicago. The Palmer House, I believe.
Q. When you say you showed it at the show, was there an operative game there at the show?

A. yes, there was. But it was a lash-up. I carried the computers in my suitcase to the show and we had shipped the cabinets ahead and brought the computers in and installed them and babied them through.
Q. When did you commence your employment with Nutting Associates?

A. I think it was March or April of ’71.
[NOTE – According to Goldberg and Vendel, Nolan started working at Nutting in March of 1970, not 1971. To me, the 1971 date seems more plausible given the information in this deposition (i.e the fact that they were still writing letters to Data General in January and February of 1971) and assuming its accurate. It also seems a bit implausible to me that the worked on the game for Nutting for almost two years before releasing it, but it was sort of a side project and Nutting was inexperienced, so maybe. The claims in the deposition seem to fit better with Nolan visiting his dentist in February 1971 rather than February 1970 as reported in Business Is Fun. OTOH, Marty and Curt generally have solid documentation to support their dates, and it may be that they have such information in this case and maybe Nolan is a year off in his dates.]

Q. I think you testified that you took the computers in a suitcase. What computers are you referring to that you had in your suitcase?
A. That ones that were built for Computer Space.

Q. When was the first time that you had a completed apparatus on which you could play the Computer Space game?
A. You say the Computer Space game. There was a lot of variations and modifications to it.

Q. When was the first time at which you had an apparatus completed on which you could play any version of Computer Space?
A. Oh, it was probably April or May of ’71.

Q. In connection with Exhibit 40-15, I think you said that you wanted to make the system so you could play Spacewar or other games. What other games did you have in mind at that time?
A. Well, I had in mind, you know, various sports games, various arcade games that I had seen in school, you know, when I was at the amusement park. I was thinking particularly of baseball. I was also thinking of hockey.

Q. Do you have any documents which would show the games that you contemplated using with your system at that time?
A. Yes, I do. Now, these are some of the files, some of which are missing, and I don’t know why I’d have these and why I don’t have the others or why I have any at all. I think most of the others are at Nutting. I also have my book in which I have just essentially some of my cost estimates on the Nova and the PDP-8. This is the company that I rented some time on a 16K Nova.

Q. Before you go any further, these files, I gather you were pointing to four files, the first one marked “File No. 9
Q. Was that the same agreement as the agreement relating to Computer Space?

A. No. It was an employment agreement that Nutting had.
Q. Was there a separate agreement from the employment agreement which dealt with your retaining rights to video technology?

A. No. That kept my rights to video technology.
Q. That is, the employment agreement?

A. Right. The agreement that specified the rights that I was conveying to Nutting was in a separate agreement which spelled out the payment terms and things for Computer Space. I was listing each game individually.
Q. Were there any agreements on any other game than Computer Space?

A. Yes. We had an agreement on a game called Two Player Computer Space.
Q. Were there any other agreements relating to games with Nutting?

A. No, there weren’t.
Q. Can you describe for us the game Two Player Computer Space?

A. It was essentially two rocket ships fighting one another in a star field. It’s much close to Spacewar than Computer Space was because it didn’t have the computer-operated flying saucer. Or it did have it. It was one or two-player. You could play against the computer or you could play against the other rocket ship. Computer Space was just a single-player game and could only be played by one person.
Q. Did Nutting ever commercially manufacture the Two Player Computer Space game?

A. Yes, they did.
Q. Do you know when the commenced this manufacture?

A. I think it was shortly after I left. Not shortly after I left, I think it was the following fall.
Q. For how long did they manufacture that game?

A. I have no idea. It was my impression that the game was a mistake. I didn’t think it was a good idea. It was one of the items preceding the disagreement on which I left. I think history bears me out that I was right on it.
Q. Did they manufacture it for a period or months of a period of years or—

A. I have no idea.
Q. Do you know how much they sold that game for?

A. I think it was $1500 or something like that. Very expensive.
Q. Nutting, I assume, did commercially manufacture the Computer Space game?

A. Yes, they did.
Q. Do you know how much they sold that for?

A. Yes. They started out at $1,295. Or was it $1,195? Something like that. It was either $1200 or $1295. I think they later dropped the price to $950.
[NOTE – This is one of the few semi-contemporary references I’ve seen to Computer Space’s sales price. I’ve seen some accounts that indicate a price of around $3,000 or more, which seemed way too high to me. Benj Edwards (normally very accurate and one of the best writers on early video game history out there) at one point seems to use a price in this range when trying to estimate Nolan and Ted’s Computer Space royalties.

Nolan’s figure of around $1200-1300 seems more plausible to me Bear in mind, that he was likely referring to the distributor price, not the operator price. Distributors generally marked a game up by 30% or so when selling to operators. At some other point in the depositions, it was mentioned that Nutting had a brochure at the MOA promising a price of under $2000.]
Q. I think you testified earlier that they started their commercial production in either December of ’71 or January of ’72?

A. Correct.
Q. Do you know how long that game was in commercial production at nutting?

A. I think they produced that through the following fall. I think they produced Computer Space up until they got Two Player Computer Space into production.
Q. Do you know you many units of Computer Space they sold?

A. I think it was about 13 to 15 (hundred) units. Since I got a royalty on it I probably have the figure around somewhere for sure.
[NOTE – the actual transcript says “13 to 15 units.” There is a handwritten word about the “13 to 15.” It is illegible, but looks like it says “hundred.”

The number of units Computer Space sold has been variously reported as 500-2200. A number of sources, including Goldberg and Vendel, report a figure of 1500, which I consider to be the most reliable figure. Some sources report a production run of 1500, but indicate that Nutting actually sold less. The 1973 student documentary Games Computers Play also cites a 1500 figure (probably the first instance of that figure, or any figure, being cited), but I don’t remember if it was the number produced or the number sold.]
Q. Do you know how many units of Two Player Computer Space they sold?

A. I have no idea.
(22 lines missing?)

Q. After you left Nutting, what was the first video game that you think you worked on?
A. A game called Asteroid.

Q. Was it known as Asteroid at the time you started working on it?
A. That’s what we called it around the company.

Q. Was that similar to the game that was finally sold under the designation Space Race?
[NOTE – This is quite interesting to me. As most of you probably know, Midway’s Asteroid was basically the same game as Space Race.

As revealed in depositions from Bally/Midway executives (John Britz and Hank Ross), which I hope to post in the future, Asteroid/Space Race is actually the game that Nolan/Syzygy delivered to Bally in fulfillment of its video game contract. Contrary to what some have claimed, when Bally officially turned down Pong (though Midway later licensed it), it did not void Nolan’s contract. Instead, he ended up fulfilling it with Asteroid/Space Race. Midway used the original name when releasing it. When Atari later came out with Space Race, Midway indicated that this might have constituted a breach of contract on the part of Nolan and they ended up dropping the 3% royalty specified in the contract as a compromise.]

A. That’s correct. You will find in our papers that we often have an in-house code name that doesn’t always come to market under that name.
Q. Is that name also known as VP-2?

[NOTE that Pong was VP-1]
A. Yes, it is.

Q. What was the next game you started working on after Asteroid?
A. It would have to be the game which is now called Pong. Maybe for classification here there were three of us that were technical.

Q. “Three of us” in what that were technical?
A. Well, three of the employees of the then Syzygy Company were technical and we each had our projects. Mr. Dabney had the pinball projects which was part of the contract engineering for Bally Corporation.

I had the Two Player Computer Space design for Nutting as well as the Asteroid design. The Asteroid design, incidentally, had been actually started before Computer Space because of the star field and all the other stuff. We thought that the first game should be Computer Space, but it was an easier game to do and we probably should have done that as our first entrance but we didn’t. So it was just really picking up on that design and rejuvenating it.
Mr. Alcorn, when he came aboard, his first project was to build a simulated tennis game. I only did about two days’ work on Space Race because I got bogged down in administrative details and running the company other than design and was able to finish up the Two Player Computer Space for Nutting, but Mr. Alcorn ultimately finished the Space Race design.

[NOTE – Bushnell here claims that Space Race was not only started before Computer Space, but also that it was the first game he worked on after leaving Nutting, though he only did so for a few days. Maybe it’s just me, but I find that interesting – especially since I’ve never seen it mentioned anywhere else before.]
Q. When did Mr. Alcorn come on board?

A. I don’t know. I can check the records. It’s in the spring. It was shortly after leaving Nutting.
MR. ETLINGER: What year would that be, ’72?

THE WITNESS: ’72.
MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Shortly after you both left Nutting?

A. Yes.
(half a page missing?)

When you are a little company you think that model numbers are kind of window dressing.

Q. So the numbers were assigned sometime after the work on the machines actually began?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you give Mr. Alcorn the assignment of designing a simulated tennis game?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. How did you give him the assignment, was it orally or inwriting?

A. It was oral.

Q. Do you know when you gave him that assignment?

A. The day he came to work.

Q. Can you state what the assignment was?

A. Well, I told him to make a tennis game. I wanted the ball to go back and forth horizontally. I wanted two men, two little men with rackets to move around the play field controlled by a joy stick with a button on top and when the button was pushed the little racket in the man’s hand goes like that (indicating).

[NOTE that Bushnell says he initially wanted little men on the screen, not just paddles, and that he originally wanted to use joysticks.]

Q. Indicating a striking motion?

A. Right. And that after a point is scored the ball would appear on the screen and you would have to move your man behind it to serve and bat the ball to the other side; that each time a point was scored you would hear a sound of a crowd of thousands cheering, which is an electronic circuit that you can make that does sound like "Hurray," you know, applause, and I wanted a distant "pop" when the ball hit and I wanted the ball to make a different sounding "pop" when it hit the floor or the sides.

Q. Was Mr. Alcorn successful in developing a game as you have just described?

A. It's hard to say. We worked very closely at the time and the game came together. Designing a game is kind of like drawing a picture and you initially make the big outlines and then the game is refined and refined and refined sort of like coloring in the sections.

I would say the first thing that's done is the sync generator is built and the ball-motion circuitry is put together. After that the paddle control is put in. Well, in an XY joy stick it's just a linked potentiometer so in a lab environment you generally don't go right to a joy stick. You go to two pots. Before you go to two pots you go to one pot.

We looked at the first thing that we had up on a screen which was essentially a rectangular blob which would later be cut by a diode matrix into the little man and the ball. But you could also--you know, it's very easy to make it so that when the ball and the paddle intersect instead of waiting for the computer to detect the hitting motion, that it just automatically bounce off.

That's the way we did the initial one. It didn't play badly, you know. We played it a little bit and found that the game was kind of fun. The problem we had was that the ball speed was very high at the time and we had trouble returning the serve. So we said, "Hey, let's play this a little bit more. Let's slow-the ball down."

Mr. Alcorn slowed the ball down and we played it some more and now we could get the serve back, hut the game was kind of dumb. I mean, it wasn't that much fun, you know.

Oh. I'm leaving out one thing. In this kind of a hitting motion we wanted the racket to do—

Q. The striking motion?

A. The striking motion. If you struck the ball when your paddle was in this direction--
(indicating.)

Q. That is angled upward?

A. Angled upward, we wanted the ball to go up. If you hit it with the paddle perpendicular we wanted the ball to go straight over and if you hit it · while it was in this thing obviously the ball would go down (indicating).

Q. That is with the paddle angled downward?

A. Right. So we had various angles that the ball could have would be selectable. So we just selected which angle it bounced based on where the paddle was. That was in the game, but later it was going to be refined to detect coincidences of when the paddle moved, you know, where it was so that it was not just a, you know, get-in-front-of-the-ball kind of game, but a ball hitting the paddle, you know, where it was. So that was in the game. It played pretty fun, you know, it was pretty good. But, again, the ball now was too slow, and we said, "Well, if it's too slow, you know, if it needs to be slow to return the serve, but it needs to be faster after you get good to be fun." I said, "Well, why don't we just count the volleys and speed the ball up as a function of volley increase." So that's how that came into being. That was not part of the original design specification that I gave to Mr. Alcorn. So we put that in and it was fun. It was a good game.

Then we got into a big hassle. Mr. Alcorn didn't want to put the crowd of thousands in. He thought that it was a waste of time. He says, "Why not just a nice raspberry sound, sort of like (demonstrating) you know," and he said he could do that a lot cheaper.

I said. “Okay, put in the raspberry sound when it misses.” It was my idea that I wanted to cheer on the winner rather than badmouth the loser. But he prevailed on me. So the honk sound was put into the game on a miss. Digital scoring was put in. The game played pretty well. So we said, thinking in the back of our mind, "Hey, we’ve got this. We did it in a hurry. Let's give this to Bally satisfying their contract, their contract engineering. Then we can get off and get doing some of our own stuff.”

[NOTE – Pong was strictly a two-player game, so when one player scored a point, the other player missed. I think the fact that Nolan wanted to accentuate the positive while Ted wanted to highlight the negative says something about their personalities, but maybe that’s just psycho-babble.]

So this was a full six months ahead of schedule from when we were supposed to do it. So I thought, "Gee, this is great. The money is still rolling in and we will have satisfied our contract and happiness and bliss will reign in California." So I hopped on an airplane with the prototype, took it to Bally, showed it to Mr. Britts [sic – it’s actually “Britz”] and Mr. Lally who is, I guess, the vice-president of engineering at Bally.

Neither one of them liked it. The contract was so written that they could refuse--you know, that I had to provide to them an acceptable game, something that they accepted. So they said, "Aw, you have to have two people to play it. Who's going to pay a quarter to play ping pong on a TV screen," so on and so forth, "Go back to the drawing boards, Nolan."

So I did. I climbed back on the airplane very dejected because I thought it was a great chance to get off. I said, "Well, hell, we've got this game, it's designed. Let's put it in a cabinet and see how much it earns."

[NOTE that this is another bone of contention. Ted claims that it was his (Ted’s) idea to become a manufacturer, or at least that he was the main one pushing for it, while Nolan and Al were reluctant. Nolan and Al both say that it was Nolan that pushed for it while Al and Ted were reluctant.]

We did that. It earned very well. We all jointly made the decision that we were going to hock everything we had and gointo production. So we figured out exactly how many units we could buy the parts for and hopefully have them sold by the time we had to pay for the parts. We had developed a little bit of credit in the valley at that time and so we made our first order for 75 units which at that time represented about five times as much money as we had or had hoped to even get. We made sure that the parts came in all on the same day so that we could essentially get them all built in a very big hurry and out and sold.

[NOTE that other sources, including Nolan himself in future interviews, claim that after the prototype, Syzygy initially produced around a dozen units. After they were sold (or at least 10 of them), they scraped together everything they had and produced 50 more.

Also, I got the impression reading Business is Fun that the units all coming in at once was by happenstance, not design.]
We did it and we were successful in being able to sell the machines, and with that money we made a re-lease for I think 300 at that time which was out of sight because we were in, you know, 1500 square feet of building. We ended up doing an awful

lot of assembly out in the parking lot. But that's essentially what happened.

MR. WILLLIAMS: Let's take a short recess.

(Short recess)

 

--

That’s it for this time. Next time, we’ll hear about Nolan’s famous visit to the Odyssey demo in 1972.

In the meantime, here are a couple of goodies.

First up are these two photos of Nolan from the 1963 Utah State yearbook (“The Buzzer”).




 

Next is a letter that Nolan sent to Bally’s John Britz on July 10, 1972.








Two things that jump out:

1) Note Nolan’s claim that he will be delivering a hockey game in fulfillment of the video game portion of the contract. From the description, this is not just his term for what became Pong, but is a far more sophisticated game that involved actual goaltenders, the incorporation of ice effects etc.
The interesting part is that this goes seems to contradict the standard story that Nolan originally intended to deliver a driving game and only assigned the tennis game to Alcorn as a training exercise and warm up for the driving game. OTOH, the standard story is very well attested by all three principals (Nolan, Ted, and Al). Nolan himself doesn’t recall writing this letter so we’ll probably never know exactly what was going on with the hockey game.

 

2) Note that Nolan uses the term “video game” twice in this letter. This is the very first instance I’ve found of the use of that term, which is normally dated to 1973. Of course, etymology’s usually rely on public uses of a term, not uses in private letters, but it still mildly interesting.


↧

Atari Depositions - Part 8

August 4, 2015, 1:19 pm
$
0
0
I have been on vacation and haven't had time to post in a while.

Today is another of Nolan Bushnell's depositions for the Magnavox case. This one was taken on June 28, 1978 at Atari's 1165 Borregas Avenue building.
I think it will be a bit more interesting than the last one, since it discusses some details of the deals to buyout Ted Dabney. I may post some annotations about it later.

--------

NOLAN BUSHNELL, having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was thereupon examined and testified as follows:

MR. McGRANE: We are going to be referring to the patent application and a patent which has got the number 379383, which is the subject of this litigation.

Counsel, I'd like to stipulate at the beginning of the deposition that any reference that I make to the patent unless otherwise noted is to that patent.

MR. MUNRO: That's fine.

EXAMINATION BY MR. McGRANE

MR. McGRANE: Q. Mr. Bushnell, do you recall when Atari, Inc. was incorporated?

THE WITNESS: A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

A. June 22nd, 1972.

Q. Okay. Now, did you contribute personally anything to the capital account of Atari, Inc. when it was incorporated?

A. Only insomuch as there were certain assets of a company called Syzygy that was rolled into that corporation.

Q.You say a company called Syzygy. Was Syzygy corporation or a partnership?

A That was a partnership.

Q. It wasn't a corporation?

A. No

Q. Who, if anyone, was or were your partners in Syzygy Company at the time certain assets were attributed to the capital account of Atari, Inc.?

A. Myself and Fred Dabney.

Q. Do you recall what percentage of the partnership each of you had?

A. It was either 50/50 or 60/40. I don't remember which.

Q. Was there a written partnership agreement in existence at the time that the assets or certain assets of the Syzyqy partnership were attributed to the capital account of Atari, Inc.?

A. I think so. I don't remember for sure.

Q. You don't remember one way or the other riqht now?

A. No.

Q. Was there ever at any time, to your recollection, a written partnership agreement as opposed to an oral partnership agreement between yourself and Mr. Dabney?

A. I don't remember.

MR. MCGRANE: Off the record.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.)

MR. McGRANE: Q. Now, was there any written record made of the assets which were contributed to Atari, Inc.?

THE WITNESS: A. Yes. I believe in order for the transfer to be tax-free, I think the assets were assigned certain values. As I remember, the initial capitalization was like $5,000 of the corporation.

Q. Go ahead.

A. That represented some growth from the time we had started Syzygy Company.

O. Okay. Let me show you a document, which is a court document, that was filed in another lawsuit by your company, Atari, Inc., in response to an interrogatory from the plaintiff named Fun Games, Inc., which asks among other things: "What was the initial capitalization of Atari, Inc.'s predecessor corporation?" The answer to which is: "The initial capitalization was the assets of Syzygy Company from which $5,000 was designated as a contribution to capital." If you are saying the same thing in answer to my questions that is essentially contained in that answer to

interrogatory --

MR. MUNRO: I am going to object to the form of that question. You can ask him what his recollection is.

MR. McGRANE: Okay.

MR. MUNRO: Are these interrogatories directed to him or are they directed to Atari?

MR. McGRANE: Atari, Inc. and Nolan K. Bushnell. They are both defendants in the antitrust case.

Off the record.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.)

MR. McGRANE: Q. Mr. Bushnell, to the best of your present recollection, isn't the answer given to that question in that interrogatory true and correct?

THE WITNESS: A. Yes.

Q. Now -- MR. MUNRO: This probably will help you, Bill. I have come across something.

MR. McGRANE: Off the record.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.)

MR. McGRANE: Would you :mark this?

(Whereupon, the two-page document entitled "Assignment and Bill

of Sale" is marked by theReporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 for identification.)

MR. McGRANE: Q. All right. Mr. Bushnell, you've

just handed me a document which I have had marked as

Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. Do you recollect that the copy I have is unsigned? Do you recollect that you and Mr. Dabney, in fact, signed the document?

THE WITNESS: A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know?

MR. MUNRO: He wouldn't know. I don't know either.

MR. MCGRANE: All right.

MR. MUNROz That's a copy.

MR. McGRANE: Q. Do you recollect that the balance sheet of June 30, 1972, which is shown as an attachment to the assignment and the bill of sale, which is marked as Plaintiff 's 1, was, in fact, the correct asset inventory?

THE WITNESS: A. That's so long ago. It almost seems to me there should be a statutory bar on stuff that long ago.

MR. MUNRO: Nolan, he is asking for your actual recollection.

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

MR. MUNRO: I don't know how he could possibly recollect.

MR. McGRANE: Q. Mr. Bushnell, look at this balance sheet and tell me -- see if you can answer this question for me: Do you recollect whether or not the patent application, which later resulted in the issuance of a patent to you, was included anywhere in that balance sheet of an asset of Syzygy Company, a partnership?

THE WITNESS: A. It's definitely not a line item.

Q. Let me show you another document in effort to assist your recollection.

MR. McGRAHE: Mark this as 2 to this deposition.

(Whereupon, the six-page document entitled "Agreement to Sell" is

marked by the Reporter as Plaintiff 's Exhibit 2 for

identification.)

MR. MCGRANE: Q. Mr. Bushnell, did you look at what's been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2?

THE WITNESS: A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Can I have it back?

A. Sure.

Q. The question I asked you was -- you were looking at Plaintiff's 1, which is the Assignment and Bill of Sale which had attached to it the balance sheet. The question I asked you was whether looking at the balance sheet you could remember whether or not the asset -- whether you had valued the patent application and treated it as an asset of Syzygy Company on the balance sheet and consequently as a result of the bill of sale transferred the same to Atari as an asset of Atari in June of 1972. •

MR. MUHRO: Is that a question?

MR. MCGRANE: No. It's background.

Q. This document states in paragraph 3: "On July 1st, 1972, Atari, Inc.,Buyer, was formed and certain assets were transferred to Buyer with the exception of said invention, which was retained by the Seller and Bushnell, individually. "The question is: With all that background have you looked at the documents and looked at that document, do you remember whether or not the patent application was treated as an asset of Syzygy Company and transferred to Atari, Inc. as a part of the assignment of certain assets of Syzygy Company in June, 1972?

MR. MUNRO: I am going to ask for a clarification that question. When you say "was treated"-

MR. MCGRANE: Was it --

MR. MUNRO: What do you mean? Treated by whom? How did he consider it or Atari or somebody else?

MR. MCGRANE: I'll do it over again.

THE WITNESS: I'll make it very simple. I don't remember.

MR. McGRANE:· Q. Well, do you remember whether or not the statement that's made in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's 2is a true statement or a false statement?

THE WITNESS: A. I just don't remember what was going on back in those days. It's a situation which in the application -- I just don't remember.

Q. All right. MR. McGRANE: Would you mark this next in order, please?

(Whereupon, the three-page document entitled "Agreement to Redeem Stock" is marked by the Reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 for identification.)

MR. McGRANE: Let's also mark this document as 4.

(Whereupon, the three-page document entitled "Assignment" is marked by the Reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 for identification.)

MR. McGRANE: Q. Mr. Bushnell, looking at Plaintiff 'a 2, which is the Dabney agreement, do you recollect that in 1973, Atari entered into an agreement with Mr. Dabney to pay him a quarter of a million dollars in exchange for his interest in a patent application, which at that time had the number 309268?

MR. MUNRO; I am going to object to the form of that question. The document speaks for itself as to what the agreement is. You are asking what his recollection of the agreement is. I will object to the form of that question. What the agreement is is specified in the agreement.

MR. McGRANE: That's not what I asked him, I don't think. If you interpret it that way, I apologize for the lack of clarity in the question and will rephrase the question. Q. Do you remember that in 1973 Atari, Inc., of

which you were then president, agreed to pay D bney a

quarter of a million dollars in exchange for his interest

in a patent application, which at that time had the number

309268?

THE WITNESS: A. No.

Q. You don't remember that?

A. Well, I remember that that -- I don't think we did that.

Q. I see. Do you remember that you agre d to pay him a quarter of a million dollars for something?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you remember agreeing to pay him any money in addition to a quarter of a million dollars for anything else?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Mr. Bushnell, I'd like you to take a look at what's now marked as Plaintiff's 3.

A. Okay.

Q. Does Plaintiff's 3 refresh your recollection that on or about March 1st, 1973, Atari, Inc. agreed to redeem Fred Dabney's stock in Atari at book value and to pay him $86,000 for it?

A. Yes, I guess that's part of --

MR. MUNRO: Well, I really ask you not to guess. He's asking for your actual recollection, if you have one and not to guess based on what the document is. Again, I want you to rely only on your actual recollection in responding to this question. If something refreshes an actual recollection, that's fine.

THE WITNESS: I don't remember the exact form of the deal.

MR. McGRANE = Q. Do you remember that you agreed to pay him -- do you remember you agreed to pay him $86,000 for stock?

MR. MUNRO: Counsel, I am going to object to the form of that question.

THE WITNESS t No.

MR. MUNRO: I am going to object to the form of the question anyway because the agreement speaks for itself.

MR. McGRANE: I am not asking about the agreement. I am asking if he remembers paying $86,000 for stock.

MR. MUNRO: You just asked him if he remembers if he agreed to do something. The agreement --

MR. McGRANF.: How do I know this was the only agreement, Counsel? I don't know that. I have a right to ask a question that's based entirely on recollection.

MR. MUNRO: That's true.

MR. McGRANE: Then let me do it.

MR. MUNRO: You didn't ask him that.

MR. McGRANE: I did ask him that.

MR. MUNRO: Go ahead

MR. McGRANE: Q. Do you remember that you agreed pay Dabney, by you I mean Atari, Inc., $86,000 for his stock interest in Atari?

THE WITNESS: A. I don't remember that.

Q. Do you remember that you agreed to pay him -- all right. Let's start over from the beginning. Do you remember in 1973 that you made the personal decision to have Atari buy Dabney out of the company?

A. It was more than a personal decision. But, yes.

Q. Were there any other shareholders of Atari besides yourself and Fred Dabney ·in February, 1973?

A. I don't remember for sure. Al Corn may have been, A-l C-o-r-n.

Q. Do you remember how many shares of Atari stock you held in 1973?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Do you remember how many shares of stock of Atari that you got when you incorporated Atari?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Okay. A. Just a second. It might have been three thousand.

MR. MUNRO: Again, Nolan, when you start guessing on what it might have been, you are asking for trouble.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. McGRANE: Q.Now, do you recall, Mr. Bushnell, that no shares of stock were issued in Atari for a period of time after you incorporated?

THE WITNESS: A. I don't remember.

Q. Take a look at paragraph 1, which is the recital. It's Plaintiff's 3.

A. What is it that you want me to look at?

Q. The recital section which recites in part that the stock in the company was initially

issued as of July 1st, 1972 in February 1973.

MR. MUNRO; That's a statement. What's the question to the witness?

MR. McGRANE: I want him to read it first, and then I will ask him the question.

MR. MUNRO: He's read it.

MR. McGRANE: Q. Have you read it?

THE WITNESS: A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember that that's a true statement today, that, in fact, the stock was not issued until February, 1973? A. No, I don't remember.

Q. Okay. You don't have any recollection one way or the other as to whether the effect of the buy-out of Dabney or the redemption by Atari of Dabney's stock was to leave you the sole shareholder of Atari in 1973?

A. No. I know I wasn't the only one.

Q. Was there ever a time, at any time that you can remember, where you were the sole shareholder of Atari? order?

A. No.

Q. You're sure of that?

A. No, I am not sure. I don't think there was.

MR. MCGRANE: Off the record.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.)

MR. McGRANE: Could I have this marked as the next in

(Whereupon, the two-page document entitled "The Board of Directors," is marked by the Reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 for identification.)

MR. McGRANE: Q. Mr. Bushnell, do you have any recollection at all today of this document, which is Plaintiff's 2, which has as its subject matter the sale to Atari of Dabney's recited interest in a patent application?

THE WITNESS: A. Yes.

Q. Would you tell me what that recollection and the circumstances surrounding that agreement by Atari were?

A. That was the document that was put together in satisfaction of Dabney's request that his attorney be able to structure this deal for maximum tax benefit.

Q. Did Mr. Dabney say that to you?

A. Well, in the negotiations.

Q. Were you represented by counsel during these negotiations? Physically present listening to what was said between yourself and Mr. Dabney at any time.

A. No. I think after work one night we sat down and said: Hey. Things aren't going the way they should. We've got to make a change.

Q. Were you the one who suggested to Mr. Dabney that things weren't going the way they should?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you make a proposal to Mr. Dabney?

A. No. I think I asked how much he wanted.

Q Did you understand in your own mind at that time that Mr. Dabney had an independent interest in a patent application as opposed to interest in his shares of stock in Atari?

A. No.

Q. You didn't understand that?

A. (The witness shakes his head in the negative.)

Q. You've got to say something.

A. No.

MR. MUNRO: He said no.

MR. McGRANE: There was a nod as well in there in response to a second question. I asked the witness to try and speak up.

Q. Who did you think owned the patent application that was pending in the U.S. Patent Office at the time that you had your discussions about buying Mr. Dabney out of Atari?

THE WITNESS: A. I did.

Q. By yourself?

A. I mean it was my invention.

Q. Did you have any understanding at that time that it's possible for an inventor to be the inventor but for some other person for some other reason to have a fee title or title to an invention invented by another even in terms of the patent application?

A. I don't know what I knew then.

Q. Fine. Did you have any thought at all that the patent application, which was then pending before the U.S. Patent Office, belonged to Mr. Dabney in any way on any basis?

MR. McGRANE: Let the record reflect the conference between Counsel and Mr. Bushnell at this point.

THE WITNESS: Well, I had always considered that it was sort of part of the assets of Syzygy. It was one of those things -- there was the company. We broke our heads together.

MR. McGRANE: Q. "We" being you and Mr. Dabney?

THE WITNESS: A. (The witness nods his head in the affirmative.)

Q. Say something.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember whether after Atari was formed Syzygy, in your own mind, continued to exist as an independent entity?

A. We kept the name and called our game route Syzygy, but it didn't really exist separately but more as an· appendage of the Atari Corporation.

Q. Did you think of it as just a name you were doing business under, or did you think of it as a different entity with assets and liabilities other than those of the corporation?

A. I thought of it as part of the corporation, a dba.

Q. Fine. Now, when you incorporated Atari, I take virtually all, if not all, of the physical assets of Syzygy Company -- did you consider the patent application to have become the property of Atari, Inc. at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. You did. Did you think that Mr. Dabney had any interest in the patent application which was separate and apart from his interest in the company as a result of his shares of stock in the company?

MR. MUNRO: I don't think your question is clear there.

MR. McGRANE: Could you read it back? Let's listen to it.

MR. MUNRO: I think I know the question you were trying to ask. I don't think you asked it.

MR. MCGRANE: You ask it, Bruce.

MR. MUNRO: The question is: Did you understand that Dabney had any interest in the patent other than through his ownership in Atari?

THE WITNESS: I don't think I even thought about it.

MR. McGRANE: Q. That's fine. Now, I believe you testified that you and Dabney had approximately either a 50/50 or a 60/40 partnership. I am going to show you some other documents. These are a series of financial statements, one for the year ending June 30, 1971.

MR. McGRANE: Mark this next in order.

(Whereupon, the six-page document entitled "Syzygy Company Financial Statements, Year Ended 1971" is marked by the Reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 for identification.)

MR. McGRANE: Q. The next is for the year ending December 31st, 1973. This is for the six months ending June 30, 1972. There are financial statements which Atari and yourself produced in connection with other litigation.

(Whereupon, the seven-page document entitled "Syzygy Company Financial Statements Six Months ended June 30, 1972" is marked by the Reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 for identification.)

MR. McGRANE: Q. The two documents that. I have shown you reflect in the footnotes an initial 50/50 partnership which was later changed to another arrangement, which I believe --

MR. MUNRO: 60/40.

MR. MCGRANE: Q. I don't think it was a 60/40 partnership basis. It was 60/40 on profits. Would you just read that?

THE WITNESS: A. Sixty percent of revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities: Forty percent of revenue expenses, assets and liabilities.

Q. Do you remember when you incorporated Atari that your relative position with Mr. Dabney in terms of ownership of the corporation remained about the same as it was before you incorporated?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember now, Mr. Bushnell --

MR. MUNRO: Have we got that one copied?

MR. McGRANE: Let' do it at the end.

Q. Do you.. remember that when you got your stock in this company that you had three shares to every two shares Mr. Dabney had approximately?

THE WITNESS: A. That seems all right, yes.

MR. MCGRANE: Off the record.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.)

MR. McGRANE: Q. After Atari made the agreement with Mr. Dabney to pay him what is recited in the agreement

MR. MUNRO: Let's just say after they made the agreement, Bill, whatever the agreement is, all right, so we don't have to get into argument about what the agreement is. As soon as you ask a question in which you say the agreement to do this or that, you get into trouble.

MR. McGRANE: Do you disagree with the proposition that this agreement says that it's going to pay Dabney a quarter of a million dollars for a patent application?

MR. MUNRO: That document says what it says.

MR. McGRANE: That's what it says.

MR. MUNRO: It says a lot of things.

MR. McGRANE: It says that they are going to pay him a quarter of a million dollars for his interest in the Pong invention.

MR. MUNRO: I agree that that's what it says.

MR. MCGRANE: I want to ask him question about that. Let's not get off in Never-Never Land, Bruce. The document says that. I want to ask him a question about it.

MR. MUNRO: Go ahead. Ask him the question.

THE WITNESS: Go ahead.

MR. McGRANE: Q. Do you remember after Atari made the agreement, which is Exhibit 2, to pay Dabney this two hundred forty-six thousand

MR. MUNRO: We know what it says, Bill. In your question you don't have to tell us what it says. That's what I am trying to say. We can read as well as you can. Go ahead.

MR. McGRANE: Q. Mr. Bushnell, after Atari made the agreement to pay Mr. Dabney approximately a quarter of a million dollars in exchange for his interest in the patent application, do you recall at what value Atari carried the patent application on its books of accounting?

THE WITNESS: I don't have the foggiest.

Q. Have you ever known at what value Atari has carried the patent application or the patent after issuance on its books?

A. No.

Q. Now, in 1976 you sold your company -- you personally sold your stock in Atari Company to Warner Connnunications; that's true, isn't it?

A. Correct.

Q. Do you know whether Atari, Inc., a California corporation, was merged into another company which was Atari, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the shares of which were initially owned by Warner Communications, Inc.?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you know whether any of the assets of Atari, Inc., whether it's the patent application or the patent or the machinery or anything else, received a stepped up basis following conclusion of the merger of Atari, Inc., a California corporation, into Atari, Inc., a Delaware corporation?

A. Yes. I think some of the assets were.

MR. MUNRO: I am going to make the objection just so that we don't get too far. I am not going to let you qet into the details of the sale to Warner Communications, Bill. As I have told you, that is irrelevant and off limits, off the record.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.)

MR. MCGRANE: Counsel, the next question I am going to ask is going to ask Mr. Bushnell whether this patent application -- whether the patent received a stepped-up basis and was given a higher valuation on the books of the Warner subsidiary of Atari, Inc., a Delaware corporation. If your position is that that's irrelevant, I'd be entitled to take you before the Judge on that issue.

Q. Mr. Bushnell, do you know at what value the patent number 373498 which is the subject of this litigation, is presently carried on the books of account of Atari, Inc., a Delaware corporation, of which you are an executive?

THE WITNESS:

A. No.

Q. You don't know?

THE WITNESS: A. (The witness shakes his head in the negative. )

Q. Do you know generally whether that patent received an increase in basis as a result of the merger of Atari, Inc., a California corporation, into Atari, Inc., a Delaware corporation?

MR. MUNRO: For that question I am going to require you to define what you mean by an increase in basis.

MR. McGRANE: Q. Was the stated value of the patent increased over what it was carried at the books of account on Atari, Inc., a California corporation over what it was at Atari, Inc., a Delaware corporation?

THE WITNESS: A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know. Are there any documents which you would look at in order to refresh your recollection as to what the present basis of Atari, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is in the patent No. 3793483? What would you look at?

A. I don't know. I've asked one of my people.

Q. Who would you ask?

A. The treasurer.

Q. Who is that?

A. The vice-president of finance.

Q. Who is that?

A. Dick Groth.

Q. Is he a former partner at the RPM Company?

A. Yes.

Q. Who is your present outside auditor?

A. Arthur Hue.

Q. Mr. Groth is an employee?

A. Correct.

Q. He's no longer associated for a vice-president of the company?

A. Correct.

Q. can you give me an explanation for why Atari, Inc. agreed to pay Dabney approximately $50,000 for his interest in the patent application and roughly a year later you gave Atari your interest in the patent application, pursuant to Plaintiff's Exhibit 4, for $1?

MR. MUNRO: I am going to object to the form of that question. Mr. Bushnell has not testified that Atari, Inc. agreed to pay $245,000 for Mr. Dabney's interest in the patent application. In fact, you have already heard Mr. Bushnell tell you as far as he is concerned Mr. Dabney didn't have any interest in the patent application as such, other than as a partner in the Syzygy Company. So, I will continue to object to the form of that question if you ask it in that manner. We know what the piece of paper says. You are asking him his subjective understanding of the agreement, which is obviously not the same as what the piece o! paper says. That's why you are running into trouble with that question.

MR. McGRANE: Q. Do you recall how many shares of stock you had in Atari from a percentage basis, not numbers of shares, which you made the formal assignment of your ownership of the patent itself -- I guess it was still a patent application in June, 1974.

MR. MUNRO: That's Plaintiff's Exhibit 4?

MR. MCGRANE: Yes, sir.

THE WITNESS: No, I don't

MR. McGRANE: Q. Did you own most of the stock of the company at that time, sir?

THE WITNESS: A. I don't think so. Well, I had over half. I don't remember who else. I think I granted some of the shares.

Q. Did you ever tell anybody who was either -- did you ever tell anybody, who was thinking of buying shares in Atari or was an employee who was getting shares in Atari in exchange for services or for any other reason

MR. MUNRO: That assumes there was such a person, Bill. He hasn't said that. I don't know that that's the case. Why don't you just ask him if that's the case.

MR. McGRANE: I have a list of shareholders. We got some from the corporation commissioners. It's got a list of shareholders about ten miles long. I suppose that you'd know that.

MR. MUNRO: You are making assumptions that you can't necessarily make.

MR. McGRANE: I disagree with the fact I can't make them because they are correct. I think everybody knows it.

MR. MUNRO: You don't know that this witness is making the same assumption you are making.

MR. MCGRANE: I understand.

MR. MUNRO: You have to ask this witness the direct question.

MR. MCGRANE: to speed things up. I understand the rules. I am just trying If you want me to do it the hard way, we'll do it the hard way.

MR. MUNRO: I don't want you to do it the hard way.

MR. McGRANE: You leave me very little choice.

THE WITNESS: What is it you want to know?

MR. MUNRO: Yes. What do you want to know?

MR. .MCGRANE: You didn't let me finish the question because you made an objection. You don't know what I was going to ask because you didn't give me a chance to finish the question.

MR. MUNRO: Go ahead. Ask your question.

MR. McGRANE: Thank you. Q. Mr. Bushnell, did you ever tell anybody, who was either a buyer or an employee who was receiving shares for one reason or another, that the patent application and/or the patent -- let's leave it at a patent application, because you made an assignment after January, 1974. The patent application prior to January, 1974, that the patent application belonged to Atari, Inc. and not to you?

THE WITNESS: A. I don't remember.

Q. You don't remember one way or the other?

A. No. I really think at that time I had forgotten about the patent.

Q. Okay. We have a request for production of documents, which asks for your financial statements which counsel has objected to. I don't have that information and really can't question you too closely about what your balance sheet looks like at the period of time. The Agreement to Redeem Stock, which is Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, recites that the book value of the shares held by Dabney, which I think we've agreed, were approximately 40 percent of the corporation, amounted to $86,500. Do you remember how much money Atari made between July 1st, 1973, and February 28th, 1973?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any new money or investors come into the company during that period of time, other than yourself and Mr. Dabney as the founders?

A. I think there were some employees. There aren't any investments per se.

Q. Did any of the employees contribute money as opposed to services to the company?

A.. I think they had options. I don't remember.

Q. Okay. Did you have an opinion as to what fair market value of Mr. Dabney's shares of stock in Atari was in February, 1973, March, 1973?

A. No.

Q. None?

MR. MUNRO: He answered the question.

MR. MCGRANE: Q. Was there any particular reason why it was agreed pursuant to Exhibit 3 to buy Dabney out at book value pursuant to the March 1st, 1973, agreement?

THE WITNESS: A. It's between Dabney and his attorney. I don't know why that was decided.

Q. I see. Did you think there was any tax advantage to Atari, Inc. in structuring the repurchase of Mr. Dabney's interest in Atari as an partial purchase of technology and partial purchase of stock?

A. I wasn't even concerned about it. I just wanted Dabney out.

Q. Did you have any thought that if the agreement were structured in such a way as to reflect an essentially untrue state of affairs for Dabney's tax benefit that that would result in a loss of revenue to the Treasury of the United States?

MR. MUNRO: Counsel, that's irrelevant.

MR. McGRANE: Q. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: I felt that Dabney's attorney would be very careful. Dabney really wanted to have the whole thing done his way.

Q. But didn't you understand that doing it his way amounted to making statements and written documents which would not reflect the true state of affairs and mislead somebody auditing Dabney's tax returns?

MR. MUNRO: I am going to object to that question as irrelevant and compound.

MCGRANE : Q. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: I am not going to answer it just on principles.

Q. Your lawyer hasn't instructed you not to answer, Mr. Bushnell.

MR. MUNRO: Would you read the question back to me?

(Whereupon, the preceding question was read by· the Reporter.)

THE WITNESS: Yes, I didn't think anything about it. I was willing to do it Dabney's way. MR. McGRANE: Q. Even though you understood that what was being recited in these documents was completely untrue?

MR. MUNRO: Counsel, that's argumentative. I am going to advise the witness not to answer that question. That is clearly an argumentative question and has been asked and answered.

Q. Take a look at Plaintiff's Exhibit 2.

MR. MUNRO: Counsel, we know what Exhibit 2 says. We know what he's testified. .What you are trying to do is argue with him.

MR. MCGRANE: That's not true.

MR. MUNRO: Yes, you are.

MR. McGRANE: That's not true.

MR. MUNRO: You are saying: "Look, Bushnell, this is what the understanding was, and this is what the agreement says." And you look at it and say that it's inconsistent, and we understand that. Now, you are arguing with him because it's inconsistent.

MR. McGRANE: It's not inconsistent. What I am trying to get the witness to say on the record is that he knew that Dabney was lying to the tax authorities; that he cooperated in that and he is accusing Dabney of tax fraud.

MR. MUNRO: He is not accusing Mr. Dabney of anything. You are asking questions and he is trying to give you answers. The problem is you keep asking the same question over and over again. He is not accusing Mr. Dabney as to anything with regard to his tax return. He is telling you what he recollects the facts to be, and then you are arguing with him.

MR. McGRANE: Fine. I am supposed to ask questions, and he is supposed to answer them. I don't think we ought to argue with each other. I am going to continue to ask questions along this line. I think I should ask the questions, and you make objections as called for.

Q. Mr. Bushnell, paragraph 2 of the agreement to sell, which is marked as Plaintiff's 2 in this deposition, reads in part: "Whereas Seller and Nolan Bushnell, hereinafter called Bushnell, hereinafter called Bushnell, through their joint physical, mental and financial effort, developed an invention commonly known as the game called "Pong." Is that a true statement or a false statement?

A. It's true.

Q. It's true. "Whereas on July 1st, 1972, Atari, Inc., Buyer, was formed and certain assets were transferred to Buyer with the exception of said invention, which was retained by the Seller and Bushnell, individually." Is that true?

A. I don't remember.

Q. You don't remember one way or the other?

MR. MUNRO: He's answered the question.

MR. McGRANE: "Whereas on November 24, 1972, a patent application was filed for the invention of Pong and said application was given application No. 309,268." Is that true?

THE WITNESS: A. I guess.

MR. MUNRO: Well, he is guessing.

MR. MCGRANE: You can't object. If he gives an answer, I don't know what to do.

THE WITNESS: I don't remember what the patent number is and the exact date.

MR. McGRANE: Q. The next statement in the agreement reads as follows: "Seller agrees to sell all interest, individual, partnership, or otherwise, in the invention Ponq to buyer for $246,418." Was that true?

MR. MUNRO: Who is Seller?

MR. MCGRANE: Seller is Dabney.

THE WITNESS: I guess.

MR. McGRANE: Q. In other words, Dabney agreed to sell his interest in the invention for that money to Atari?

THE WITNESS: A. I think that's a safe thing to do. He was --

MR. MUNRO: You are asking this witness what Dabney was doing.

MR. McGRANE: This witness signed this document as pre !dent of Atari, acknowledging the fact that this is what was going on. The document recites a transaction. If the transaction didn't occur, it would be a false statement. You know that.

MR. MUNRO: Mr. McGrane, the problem is, as I said, the document speaks for itself.

MR. McGRANE: I am asking this witness his independent recollection of the truthfulness of the recitations made in the document which is a perfectly roper form of examination as you know.

MR. MUNRO: You are asking him as to a recitation a to what Mr. Dabney was doing?

MR. MCGRANE: Right. This witness signed a document which contained a recitation that Dabney was doing something. I am asking him whether, of his own knowledge, he knew that Dabney was doing that.

MR. MUNRO: Okay. That's a different question.

MR. McGRANE: I don't agree.

MR. MUNRO: You are asking what the document says?

MR. McGRANE: I said the document says this is true, Mr. Bushnell? That's off the wall. Sorry. t's do it again.

Q. Mr. Bushnell, the document says, "Seller agrees to sell all interest, individual, partnership, or otherwise, in the invention Pong to Buyer for $246,418." Is that really what happened?

MR. MUNRO: And I object to that question as being argumentative. The document speaks for itself.

MR. MCGRANE: Q. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know whether that's really what happened?

MR. MUNRO: That's what he answered. The question has been asked and answered. He did not know.

MR. McGRANE: I get a different answer every time I ask this question.

MR. MUNRO: Then stop asking it over and over again.

MR. McGRANE: That's ridiculous. I am entitled to one consistent answer.

THE WITNESS: Isn't that what you want?

MR. MUNRO: You're doing fine. You are harassing the witness. You ask him a question.

MR. MoGRANE: Off the record.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.)

MR. McGRANE: Q. Mr. Bushnell, did Atari agree with Mr. Dabney that Atari would buy Mr. Dabney's interest in a patent for a quarter of a million dollars in 1973?

A. I don't believe that's what it said.

MR. MUNRO: He is asking now for your recollection. If that's your recollection that you bought out Dabney's interest in the patent.

THE WITNESS: I don't remember, no.

MR. McGRANE: Q. Is it your recollection that you did not do that?

THE WITNESS: A. I am recollecting that we did this agreement that had the nature of being tax-effective for Mr. Dabney. If we threw in technology for some reason that was going to be good. Since Dabney did help develop Pong that sounded reasonable. There was a cabinet design patent that I think we had filed on the thing, which was a design patent. There was a lot of other things. To say that Dabney didn't help develop Pong is not true, because he did. There is another serious question about his real contribution to the patent.

Q. Are you saying that the way the deal was structured in your opinion was a reasonable reflection of the true facts?

MR. MUNRO: He didn't say that.

MR. McGRANE: I am asking it as a question. I am not sure whether he said it or not.

MR. MUNRO: That calls for a conclusion. The document again speaks for itself.

MR. McGRANE: I am not asking about the document, sir. I am asking about the transaction, whether it is his present recollection that the way the transaction was structured, i.e., paying eighty-six thousand for the shares and a quarter of a million for his interest in the tent application as it's recited in the contemporaneous documents, whether you remember today that that was a reasonable way to do it in light of the true facts.

THE WITNESS: I think that was fair, yes.

MR. McGRANE: Q. Fine. Do you remember, Mr. Bushnell, whether you had any concern in 1973 at the time, on behalf of Atari, you executed Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 that any patent issued pursuant to the patent application that you had made, based on the computer space game, might be invalid on account of the on sale bar?

A. Would you repeat the question?

MR. MCGRANE: Read it back.

(Whereupon, the preceding question was read by the Reporter.)

THE WITNESS: At that time?

MR. MUNRO: First of all, I am going to object to the form of the question. It assumes that the witness· made a patent application on the basis of the ,computer apace game. He hasn't said that.

MR. McGRANE: Q. Mr. Bushnell, isn't it true that the patent application that you made in November 24, 1972, was in part at least based on research and development work done during the course of development work on the computer pace game?

THE WITNESS: A. No.

Q. That's not true?

A. You say at least on part?

Q. Isn't it true that the first commercial application of the Modulus Counting System was employed in the computer space game?

A. Yes.

Q. Isn't it true that at least part of the development of that counting system occurred during the course of your work at Nutting Associates on the development of the computer space game?

A. I don't remember.

Q. You don't remember?

A. No.

Q. Okay. This is beyond the scope of the deposition, Bruce.

MR. MUNRO: I understand that. Go ahead.

MR. McGRANE: If you want me to pursue that line, I'll be happy to.

MR. MUNRO: If you just ask him the patent instead of going through a lot of other rigmarole, you won't get in trouble. Off the record.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.)

MR. McGRANE: Q. Mr. Bushnell, do you remember whether in 1973, you were concerned that if a patent were issued on the patent application that you had made that you would have some potential difficulty with the on sale bar?

THE WITNESS: A. No.

Q. Do you remember that you didn't have that concern

A. Not at that present time. I wasn't thinking about anything but trying to build as many Pong games as I could. The nature of successful business is to --

MR. MUNRO: Don' t. I am sorry. Go ahead. Ask a question.

MR. MCGRANE: Thank you.

Q. Did you have any opinion yourself as to what the potential value of a patent, of a kind for which you had applied, was in March of 1973?

A. No.

Q. If somebody had offered to sell you the patent, what would you have paid them for it?

A. I didn't believe in licensing at that time.

MR. MUNRO: I am going to object to that question, Bill, as being hypothetical.

MR. McGRANE: I will withdraw it then. That's fine.

Q. Mr. Bushnell, in your last deposition we went over briefly the licensing agreement that Atari, Inc. entered into with Midway Manufacturing, relative to VP-I, which was a game similar to Pong. I want to ask you a question which relates to what the method was that was used to calculate the royalties that were paid you by Midway on account of their license of the Pong game from Atari. Do you remember how the figures, the monies that were paid you, were calculated?

A. It was a percentage of gross sales.

Q. Gross sales?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. That was for all games employing the technology which you made available to Midway to manufacture the Pong game?

MR. MUNRO: I am going to object to that. It was for whatever the agreement says it was for. Asking this witness to recollect what is in that agreement is unfair. You have that information readily available to you. Off the record.

(Whereupon, a discussion wa held off the record.)

MR. MCGRANE: Q. Look at page 2.

THE WITNESS: A. Paragraph 2 or page 2?

Q. There is something about $31. Page 2.

MR. MUNRO: Are we looking at the Midway agreement?

THE WITNESS: I don't remember.

MR. MUNRO: The agreement says $31. What is the question? MR. McGMNE: Q. Do you recall that that $31 was calculated on the basis of figuring in percentage of what you expected the gross sales price of each unit to be?

THE WITNESS: A. I think we talked about it. I don't remember this $31.

Q. How much were Pong games selling for initially when you first started making them?

A. Nine hundred and twenty-five dollars, I think.

Q. Do you recall that you approached Gremlin Industries, Gremlin Corporation, about licensing a game called Blockade?

A. I don't think I did, no.

Q. Do you recall somebody in your com any did that?

A. May have.

Q. Do you know anything at all about the percentages that were talked about in terms of licensing royalties?

A. No.

Q. Do you recall what percentages you discussed with Midway?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Do you recall whether it was ten percent or less than ten percent?

A. It would be under five.

Q. Under five?

A. Yes.

Q. Would it be three percent, sir?

MR. MUNRO: He has told you he doesn't recall.

MR. MCGRANE: I am trying to refresh his recollection.

MR. MUNRO: You can't refresh his recollection by throwing out numbers.

MR. McGRANE: Q. Do you recall if it was three percent?

THE WITNESS: A. No, I don't.

Q. But any royalty would have been under five percent; that's true?

A. I don't know of anything that has been higher than that.

Q. Do you know of any that have been lower than five percent?

A. Yes.

Q. Who? Where?

A. I don't remember.

Q. You sent a series of letters out to competing manufacturers who were making video games, and you suggested that they license the Modulus Counting System, Atari?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall what you had in mind to charge those people on a percentage basis if they chose to license from you? get.

A. As much as I possibly could

Q. Do you recall that you had set some target figure, sir?

MR. MUNRO: You have asked these questions in the previous deposition.

MR. McGRANE: I've been through the testimony last night, and I don't believe that I have.

THE WITNESS: No. We didn't have any real target.

MR. McGRANE: Q. Did you intend to charge more than five percent?

THE WITNESS: A. If I could possibly get away with it.

Q. Did you have any expectation you could get away with more than five percent?

MR. MUNRO: I am going to object. You are asking him for speculation.

MR. McGRANE: That's not speculation.

MR. MUNRO: He told you what he was going to charge, which was as much as he could get, as much as somebody else would agree to pay.

MR. McGRANE: Generally, Mr. Munro, when you make an offer to somebody, you don't counteroffer on those terms. What I am asking this witness is what he had in mind as an asking price.

MR. MUNRO: He didn't make any offers.

MR. McGRANE: Well, my question is: Does he remember - what it was he had in mind back then?

THE WITNESS: No, I don't.

MR. McGRANE: Q. Is there anybody who was involved - with you? Did you talk to your patent lawyers about how much - you should charge, what was a reasonable rate? -

THE WITNESS: A. I just think that's a negotiated - item. I always felt I was as good at negotiating as anybody.

Q. Did you intend to charge each manufacturer a - different rate?

A. I don't remember everything about it.

Q. I see. Do you remember that you were sued by - the Magnavox Company for patent infringement for infringing - their patents?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall what license rates they sought to extract from you for using their patented devices?

A. Not specifically. I can remember it was a - sliding scale that went down with manufacturing.

Q. Again, it was calculated on a gross sales basis?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. I am going to show you an article that - appeared in TIME magazine. I have taken the liberty of - underlining a part of it.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Were you interviewed by TIME magazine?

A. I don't remember. I've been interviewed by a lot of people.

MR. MCGRANE: Off the record.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.)

(Whereupon, the one-page article from TIME magazine dated April 1, 1974, is marked by the Reporter as Plaintiff'sExhibit 8 for identification.)

MR. McGRANE: Q. Now, the statements that's made in the TIME article says: "Atari, whose Pong machines were the first to show up in penny arcades, has secured a

patent on the electronic circuitry that makes the games possible. Its management contends that other manufacturers should therefore be paying Atari a royalty on each gamethey produce."

MR. MUNRO: That's what the TIME article says. I want to make that clear for the record.

MR. MCGRANE: I said it and you said it.

MR. MUNRO: Okay.

MR. McGRANE: I think it's pretty clear.

MR. MUNRO: What is the question?

MR. MCGRANE: A. The question is: Is it true that Atari management has ever contended that other manufacturers should be paying Atari a royalty on each game they produce?

THE WITNESS: A. That is what the TIME article says.

Q. Is it true?

A. What is true?

Q. Is it true that the Atari management is taking a position contending that other manufacturers of video games, Pong and other games, should be paying royalties to Atari - each time they made a game?

A. If they infringed any patents that we have, yes.

Q. Did you ever make an investigation to determine - whether the electronic circuitry employed by other manufacturers - infringed the patent which you were granted after you - were granted it?

MR. MUNRO: At this point, I am going to counsel the - witness that in terms of any investigation, vis-a-vis infringement rights involved, consultations were involved, and the attorney-client privilege.

MR. McGRANE: I am not asking what his lawyer told him.

MR. MUNRO: I am not asking what he told his lawyer - either.

MR. McGRANE: I am asking what the company concluded - in terms of what other people were doing, whether their games --

MR. MUNRO: To the extent that that conclusion is based - upon advice of patent counsel, I am going to advise him that he is not obliged to answer. If you want to ask him if Atari went out and looked inside other people's games to - see how they were being made, that's one thing. Your question is not clear in that regard. If you are asking him what legal conclusion they drew as to whether somebody else was or was not infringing on their patent, that is privileged.

MR. McGRANE: I am not asking him to tell me anything - he told his lawyers or his lawyers told him.

Q. Can you tell me whether you concluded, independent of reciting to me what your lawyers told you or what you told your lawyers, that there were companies out there making games which infringed your patents?

THE WITNESS: A. We looked at schematics and tried to ascertain whether or not there were some equivalent. -

MR. McGRANE: Would you mark these next two documents - in order?

(Whereupon, the eight-page document entitled "Patent - Infringers (United States)" - is marked by the Reporter - as Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 - for identification.)

*Whereupon, the two-page document entitled "Foreign Patent Infringers" is marked - by the Reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 for identification.)

MR. McGRANE: Q. Mr. Bushnell, would you look at - Exhibits 9 and 10? I will represent to you that those - were produced by your company in other unrelated litigation.

MR. MUNRO: Other unrelated litigation?

MR. MCGRANE: Yes.

MR. MUNRO: What other litigation?

MR. MCGRANE: Fun Games.

MR. MUNRO: I wouldn't necessarily say that's - unrelated.

MR. MCGRANE: A different court with a different judge and different issues.

MR. MUNRO: Fine. Go ahead. What is the question?

MR. McGRANE: Q. Have you ever seen any of these documents before, sir?

THE WITNESS: A. I don't think so.

MR. MUNRO: You don't think so?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. McGRANE: Q. But you do recollect that the company made an investigation of schematics that were being used by other companies?

THE WITNESS: A. Correct.

Q. Do you know whether anybody was instructed to prepare a list of infringers?

A. Obviously someone was. I don't remember.

Q. Okay. Do you remember whether it was concluded - by the company that there was widespread infringement of - the patent?

MR. MUNRO: I am going to object to the form of the - question that it was concluded by the company. I don't - know what that means. The company is made up of a bunch of - individuals.

MR. McGRANE: I understand that.

MR. MUNRO: You are asking him what his conclusion - was, what Mr. Keenan's conclusion was or somebody else?

THE WITNESS: I felt there were a lot of infringers. - K-e-e-n-a-n.

MR. McGRANE: Q. Is it also true that you thought that - the patent had widespread application throughout the - industry?

THE WITNESS: A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, you were making video games during - the years 1971, '72, '73, '74, '75, '76 and up to the present?

A. And '71.

Q. Well, for somebody else?

A. No. For Syzygy. You have forgotten all about that thing, haven't you?

Q. You were making video games during the years - strike that.

MR. MUNRO: You personally, you Atari? Who is "you"?

MR. McGRANE: The Syzygy Company and Atari as a - successor and Atari, Inc., a Delaware corporation, a - successor, an .interest of Atari, Inc., a California - corporation, have all made video games over the last five years?

THE WITNESS: A. Correct.

Q. And have any of those games not employed the Modulus Counting System?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me which games, or if it's shorter - just list which games haven't.

A. No, I can't. I think most of the microprocessor - games do not.

Q. How recently has Atari, Inc., whether a Delaware - or a California corporation, been making microprocessor - games?

A. A couple of years. Two years.

Q. Can you name the first microprocessor game that was made?

A. No.

MR. MUNRO: Don't guess.

THE WITNESS: No, I can't.

MR. MoGRANE: Q. Does the present Atari home qame employ a microprocessor? This is the cartridge deal.

THE WITNESS: A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Does it employ the Modulus Counting - System?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Did the Pong and Super Pong units, which were the predecessor products to the present Atari cartridge home game, employ the Modulus counting System?

A. I think they did.

Q. Have all of Atari games in the last two years - been microprocessor rather than Modulus Counting System - games?

A. No. I think there have - been a couple of exceptions.

Q. And have the exceptions uniformly used the - Modulus Counting System to your knowledge?

A. I believe so.

Q. Either it's a microprocessor a or a Modulus Counting System?

A. Given that it's a video game?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any idea what the gross sales of devices by Atari using the Modulus Counting System have - been from incorporation to the present?

A. No.

Q. Is it in excess of $10 million, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it in excess of $100 million?

A. I don't know.

Q. Is it in excess of fifty million?

A. I don't know.

Q. Is it in excess of twenty-five million?

A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know at all?

A. I think it's over ten million.

Q. Do you recall that in the year 1976, you had - gross sales of $39 million?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know of those gross sales what percentage - were of devices employing the Modulus Counting System?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Isn't it true that all of the games that were made during that year employed the Modulus Counting System?

A. May have

MR. MUNRO: What year?

MR. McGRANE: Fiscal 1976 prior to the sale to Warner. -

THE WITNESS: No. I will take that back. I don't know.

MR. McGRANE: Q. You don't think what?

THE WITNESS: A. I don't think that they all employed the Modulus Counting System. MR. MCGRANE: I'd like to mark this. Mr. Bushnell, I am going to show you one other - document. I'd like to have it marked as a continuation of Plaintiff's 9, if I may, Bruce, sine it's document 177.

Q. Do you recollect that Control Sales, Inc. of Des Plaines, Illinois, was making a home video game in 1975?

THE WITNESS: A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall concluding that they had employed your Modulus Counting System to accomplish that purpose?

A. - I don't remember that.

Q. You don't remember one way or the other?

A. No.

MR. MUNRO: Off the record.

MR. McGRANE: I'd like to have this marked as 11

(Whereupon, the one-page article - from Business Week magazine - dated November 10, 1973, is - marked by the Reporter as - Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 for - identification.)

MR. McGRANE: Q. This article in part reads -- Mr. Bushnell, the article that has been marked as Plaintiff's - Exhibit 11 reads in part: "But Atari has just been granted a patent on some of the basic techniques for generating moving symbols on a display screen, and Bushnell intends to use it. 'People won't be able to copy our circuit boards again, he insists." Do you recall being interviewed by Business Week in 1973?

THE WITNESS: A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember making that statement that's attributed to you in this article?

A. No.

Q. Do you recall that you did not make such a statement and were misquoted?

A. - No. I don't remember either.

Q. Is it a true statement that the patent, which is the subject of this litigation, is "a patent on some of the basic techniques for generating moving symbols on a display screen"? A. Yes. - That's true? (The witness nods his head in the affirmative.)

Q. You have to say something.

A. Yes. - MR. MUNRO: Off the record.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.)

MR. McGRANE: Q. Do you have any opinion, Mr. Bushnell, as to whether or not the use of the patented device and the advertisement of the patented device by putting the number on the games that you made had any - effect in preventing the copying by others of any Atari games?

THE WITNESS: A. You handed me a page a few minutes ago of five hundred copiers. You have the gall to ask me that question.

MR. MUNRO: He's just asking you if you have an opinion. Okay. All right. I see.

THE WITNESS: I would hate to have seen what would have happened had those had any effect.

MR. McGRANE: I didn't understand. What do you mean you would hate to have seen?

THE WITNESS: A. I just believe that -- I don't believe that it had any significant effect on stopping anyone.

Q. Were there some Atari games that were not, in fact, copied by anyone?

A. Well, the bad ones. Ones that were not marketable.

Q. Did anyone copy the Trak 10?

A. Yes. I think there were some guys who did it in Italy.

Q. Did anybody do it in this country?

A. No?

Q. Were there any other games that were not copied, like Trak 10, that you can think of?

A. There were some games that represented some - difficult-to-copy technology. Once we incorporated hybrid circuits that are basically a six-month kind of lead time thing. That slowed them down.

Q. Can you give me an illustration of the games which were not copied which employed the Modulus Counting device?

A. I can't think of any. I think most of them were. At least overseas.

Q. Let's just limit the question then to the ones that were not copied on the domestic market.

A. I don't think Gran Trak was copied. G-r-a-n - T-r-a-k. I don't believe that Gotcha was copied. I'd say that's about it.

Q. Was Tank copied by anybody employing a Modulus Counting device?

A. I don't know.

Q. You know of no instance where it was copied employing a Modulus Counting device?

A. It's a very, very complex game.

Q. The question is: Do you know of any instance where Tank was copied by a copier using the Modulus Counting device?

A. Domestically?

Q. Domestically.

A. It seems like there was one. I don't remember where it was.

MR. MUNRO: Where is your list?

MR. MoGRANE: The list is before that. This list is 1975. I will show it to you.

Q. What's the answer to the question?

THE WITNESS: A. I can't think of any.

Q. Are there any other games that you can think of - that were not copied that also employed the Modulus Counting - System that were not copied domestically?

A. No.

Q. Is there some advantage to a manufacturer having a game not be copied?

A. Sure.

Q. What's the advantage?

A. - Don't have to bump against the marketplace.

Q. Does it tend to increase profits?

A. If you play it right you can. The antitrust laws were actually written so that

Q. Go ahead.

MR. MUNRO: It's on the record.

MR. McGRANE: Mark this next in order, please.

(Whereupon, the letter dated - March 31, 1976, is marked by - the Reporter as Plaintiff's - Exhibit 12 for identification.)

MR. MoGRANE: Q. I am referring to the last part of the letter. Are the statements that's made in the last paragraph about the utility of the patented device true?

THE WITNESS: A. The patented device is worthwhile.

Q. Following the buy-out of Mr. Dabney pursuant to the two exhibits, which have been marked as Exhibits in this deposition, do you recall that on October 26, 1975 there was another agreement entered into between Atari, Inc. and Dabney?

A. Yes.

MR. McGRANE: Let the Reporter mark that.

(Whereupon, the six-page document entitled "Purchase Agreement" is marked by the Reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit 13 for - identification.)

MR. McGRANE: Q. I show you a document which has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 13 and ask you to look at it and tell me if that's the agreement to which you had reference in your answer.

THE WITNESS: A. I don't know. I think so.

Q. You think so?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall that after October, 1973, that you personally entered into another agreement with Mr. Dabney to buy some equipment and operating rights from him?

A. Did you say subsequently to?

Q. Subsequent to October 26, 1973.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And that as a part of that deal you got Atari to release Dabney from certain obligations which he had to Atari as a part of the October 26, 1973, deal?

A. Yes.

Q. I am going to show you two documents, one of which is a letter of intent, I guess, and the other one is an actual agreement. I ask you if those are the documents that reflect the transaction.

A. I believe they are.

MR. MCGRANE: Mark these next in order, please.

(Whereupon, the one-page letter of intent is marked by the Reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 for identification.)

(Whereupon, the three-page document - entitled "Agreement of Purchase" dated May 15, 1974, is marked by the Reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit 15 for identification.)

MR. MCGRANE: Q. You have reviewed the documents. Are those the documents?

THE WITNESS: A. Yes.

MR. MCGRANE: Off the record .

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.)

MR. McGRANE: Q. This next document which I have shown you, does that have anything to do with the transaction with Dabney, which is the subject of the last two documents?

THE WITNESS: A. Yes.

Q. Can you explain what it is?

A. Atari defaulted on a note payment to Dabney. Dabney sued us. Those three documents -- part of the thing is that he had taken some Syzygy assets and was running that company into the ground and wanted to get out from under it. That was one of the conditions that he of an out-of-court settlement with us.

A. What was it that he required? I have read the documents.

Q. I think he accelerated the payments. He wanted the acceleration of the notes due and for us to take over the game company, buy the game company back from him.

MR. McGRANE: Mark this document next in order, please.

(Whereupon, the one-page document - entitled "Bill of Sale and HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT" is marked by the Reporter as Plaintiff 'a Exhibit 16 for identification.)

MR. MUNRO: When Mr. Bushnell was referring to the - game company, he meant the street operations of Syzygy.

MR. McGRANE : Okay. Q. Mr. Bushnell, what is reflected on the document - which has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 16 is a bill of sale from Nolan Bushnell transferring certain assets of Syzygy Company to -who was the recipient of the bill of sale? Who is this bill of sale to?

THE WITNESS: A. It must have been to Ted Olson, who was the ultimate buyer of Syzygy Game Company.

Q. Okay. It recites that the bill of sale is to Syzygy Game Company, a California corporation. Who were the partners of Syzygy Game Company, a California - partnership?

A. I think it was Ted Olson.

Q. And who else?

A. I think he had a couple of guys.

Q. Were you a partner?

A. I think I started out to be, and then I wasn't.

Q. Okay.

A. I basically wanted to get out of it, but I just wanted to be a conduit in getting this thing cleaned up between Atari and Dabney.

Q. So, Atari promised to pay Dabney a quarter of a million dollars and give him a note and then defaulted - in its payments?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it a fair statement that a quarter of a million dollars was a lot of money to Atari in 1973?

A. It was a huge amount.

MR. MUNRO: I am going to object to the relevance of - that question.

MR. MCGRANE: I think it has relevance when you are trying to assess the underlying value of the patent, Counsel. .

Q. Did Atari have a net worth of a quarter of a million dollars in 1973?

THE WITNESS: A. Yes.

Q. Did it have a net worth much in excess of a quarter of a million dollars in 1973?

A. Yes.

Q. In March of 1973?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. But from a cash flow standpoint, if nothing else, it was a very significant sum of money to oblige the company to pay at this time?

A. When you say oblige the company, debts? Cash is always dear.

Q. The terms of the note provided for ten payments of twenty-four some odd thousand dollars?

A. Yes.

Q. Was $24,000 on the payment schedule, which was set forth in the note, a significant amount of money from a cash standpoint to Atari at that time?

A. Twenty-four thousand is twenty-four thousand.

MR. MUNRO: I am going to object to the question. That's ambiguous. A given amount of money is significant. It's an ambiguous question, and it's irrelevant.

MR. MCGRANE: Okay.

MR. MUNRO: Mr. McGrane, do you have any more questions for Mr. Bushnell?

MR. MCGRANE: Not at this time.

MR. MUNRO: Let me say that this is the second time Mr. Bushnell has been deposed in this action. I have discussed that we have produced Mr. Bushnell voluntarily on short notice.

MR. MCGRANE: That's true.

MR. MUNRO: Without any notice being filed. I told you that if we did that, we would object to any further depositions of Mr. Bushnell in this case. You said you understood that.

MR. MCGRANE: That's true. I said that.

MR. MUNRO: So, I want to go on the record now, that as far as I am concerned, this is Mr. Bushnell's final deposition in this case. We will object to any further requests from you for any further deposition from Mr. Bushnell.

MR. McGRANE: The only thing I would say in response to that is that the only thing I can see that would require Mr. Bushnell's testimony before trial at this time relates to the contents of the financial statements of Atari which may be the subject of a motion to compel. Until I review those, I really can't respond, although I appreciate counsel's courtesy in making Mr. Bushnell available. I sincerely hope there won't be any occasion to bother him any more.

MR. MUNRO: Good.
↧

The 1982 Tron Tournament - eSports' First Super Tournament?

August 9, 2015, 12:41 pm
$
0
0


Back in November 2012, I posted about the disastrous Atari $50,000 Centipede tournament fiasco in October 1981. That tournament was a disaster, drawing less than 200 contestants – a far cry from the thousands some expected to show up. Just seven months later, however, Atari’s archrival Bally held another nationwide tournament that was far more successful. In May 1982, in conjunction with the opening of the movie and the release of the video game, Aladdin’s Castle and Bally staged a nationwide Tron tournament. Some 10,000 Tron machines were delivered to almost 400 Aladdin’s Castle locations throughout the country and Bally launched a million-dollar radio promotion campaign for the game. Unlike Atari’s October 1981 Centipede tournament, this one was a success. The exact number of players is unclear, but it appears that at least 120,000, and perhaps as many as 400,000, entered the tournament – though claims of over a million entrants were likely inaccurate[1]). 




Thanks to the person who sent me the following pictures:




The action took place over seven weeks. During the first round the games were set to start on level one while in the district competitions, players would start at level five. During the early rounds, scores were so high and games so long that Midway produced a new chip that was installed in the games prior to the fifth round (Ross 1983). The final three rounds were conducted on levels seven, eight, and nine respectively. The top 16 players were given an all-expenses paid trip to New York, including a dinner and awards banquet at Tavern on the Green, and a special advance screening of the movie. The finals were held at New York’s Grand Hyatt Hotel and Madison Square Garden’s on July 6 and 7. Bally also flew in a number of east coast distributors for the event (a separate event and screening for west coast distributors was held at Disney Studio in Burbank [2]). Also in attendance were Bally Vice President William O’Donnell, Jr., Aladdin’s Castle marketing director Bernie Powers, and Bally marketing guru Tom Nieman (who handled the logistics). 














Two of the film’s stars - Cindy Morgan (Lora/Yori) and David Warner (Dillinger/Sark) – attended the event, as did producer Don Kushner and associate producer Harrison Ellenshaw. A separate celebrity tournament was also held, and celebrity guests included Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Barbara Eden (I Dream of Jeanie), Robin Leech, Doug McKeon (On Golden Pond), and soap opera actress Melinda Fee. Despite rumors, Robert Duvall, Bianca Jagger, and Diana Ross never showed up. 






 The first two rounds of the finals took place at the Grand Hyatt on the July 6. An early favorite was Sterling Ouchi of Torrance CA. The 18-year-old had scored a million points in the regionals and had record scores on Centipede and Star Castle in Electronic Games magazines first “National Vanity Board” in August 1982. Despite this, Ouchi scored just 50,000 points in the first round of the finals. In terms of overall career success, the standout player was Tim Collum of Boyd Texas. Collum had won the Texas Video Game Championship in June and would go on to win the That’s Incredible Ms. Pac-Man Tournament in October, the 1983 North American Video Game Challenge  and be named 1983 co-player of the year at Twin Galaxies’ 1984 Coronation Day event. Collum, however, does not appear to have been among the early leaders in the Trontournament.
Meanwhile, Scott MacDonald, a 17-year-old from Houston, scored 294,358 points in the first half of round one. That was nothing. At two hours into the second half of round one, all of the players had finished their games. All but one – Richard Ross, a flea market worker from Jacksonville, Florida, who, at 29, was far older than most of the other contestants. As the other contestants munched on seafood salad, fresh kiwi, and chocolate mousse, Ross continued to play on. His game passed three hours, then four. When it finally ended after four hours and 22 minutes, Ross had racked up an astonishing 1,830,044 points, putting him comfortably in the lead. In round two, Ouchi rebounded with 331,669 points while MacDonald scored just under 60,000, blaming his poor performance on a “fuzzy screen and sticky joystick.” Scott Katkin of East Greenwich Rhode Island, meanwhile, scored an impressive 1,052,592 points. Once again, however, Ross dominated with another four hour, 1.5-million-point performance - despite losing 40,000 points when a photographer tripped over the game’s power cord. (Zanke 1982) 

 For the final round on July 7, the action switched to Madison Square Garden’s Felt Forum where Ross easily emerged as the winner with a combined three-game score of 3,958,901 points. His final score was over 1.2 million points ahead of runner-up Scott Katkin and 1.8 million ahead of Sterling Ouchi, who died just seven months later. None of the other finalists managed to break a million [3]. For his dominating victory, Ross won a year’s supply of game tokens valued at $260, a Commodore computer, and a full-sized Tron game. So why was the Tron tournament such a success where the Centipede tournament (a much more popular game) was such a failure? Probably because the tournament was so much better run. Rather than forcing contestants to fly to the tournament on their own dime, Bally held preliminary rounds in local arcades across the country. Atari and TGI could have done the same - though it was a bit easier for Bally given that they owned Aladdin’s Castle (on a side note, the fact that the Bally initially delivered Tron games exclusively to Aladdin’s Castle locations before releasing it nationwide caused some resentment among other arcade operators). In addition, the finals seem to have been much better organized, both in terms of the logistics of the tournament itself and in the media attention it drew (likely due to the work of Tom Nieman). Sadly, however, this tournament – like most of the early players and tournaments – seems to have been all but forgotten by those currently involved in the eSports movement. Perhaps one day, someone will do a proper history of eSports and give these early tournaments their due – but I doubt it. 







Final Results (from Joystik 11/82)

1.Richard Ross        3,958,90129Jacksonville, FL
2.Scott Katkin2,731,77019East Greenwich, RI
3.Sterling Ouchi        1,158,08518Torrance, CA
4.James E. Hatley835,196        17Taylors, SC
5.Tim Collum604,187        19Boyd, TX
6.Scott MacDonald535,197        17Houston, TX
7.Walt Marchard        400,174        33Leeds, AL
8.Matthew John Collins343,604        15Bowling Green, KY
9.Rick Storer333,433        20East Grand Rapids, MI
10.Steve Baker237,905        23Abingdon, IL
11.Matt Gordon231,506        13Missoula, MT
12.Robert Withers Morgan212,705        21Alexandria, VA
13.Allen Waits190,364        15Moore, OK
14.Scott W. Starkey190,183        23Fort Wayne, IN
15.Mike Simmons        173,517        17Siouix Falls, SD
16.Al Cooper   145,065        27Butler, PA


[1] RePlay8/82 reported that the tournament drew “some 400,000 overall” and 120,000 in the first week. Vending Times 7/82 reported that “over one million people originally entered the tournament.” Ross 1983 reports that the tourney attracted “over 1,200,000 entrants.” Electronic Games noted that the tournament consisted of “one million rounds of play.”  Why the discrepancy? A look at the tournament press kit produced by Bally may help clear things up. The kit contains a June 6, 1982 Bally press release reporting that "During the first five days, over 120,000 people entered the tournament. Even more mind-boggling than that is that on the practice machines in each of the nearly 400 TRON Tournament locations throughout the country, over 250,000 plays were recorded. Over 698 entrants were recorded at the Bally's Aladdin's Castle in Bell Air Mall, Mobile, Alabama." The kit also includes a July 1, 1982 press release noting that "The 16 Regional Finalists have been reduced from a field of 1600, which was whittled down to 400, and eventually trimmed to 48. During the first four weeks of In-Store Competition, 1,260,025 plays were recorded in both practice and real competition." These press releases seem to have been the source used by Vending Times, RePlay, and Ross. Vending Times, for instance, repeats the figure of 698 players at a single location. Vending Times and Ross seem to have confused the number of plays with the number of players. I am not sure of the source for RePlay's 400,000 figure but since they repeat the 120,000 figure, the 400,000 figure may have come from another press release and may reflect the total number that entered the tournament over the first four weeks. Ross 1983 reports that the district playoffs started in week five and they had to pare the field down to sixteen by the end of week seven. Given this schedule, one possible scenario is that around 400,000 entered the tournament during first four weeks, which were whittled down to 1600 players for the district playoffs in week five, to 400 for week six, to 48 for week seven, and to 16 for the finals

[2] Disney also promoted the game at Disneyland, installing ten games at the Starcade arcade in Tomorrowland and incorporating a special Tron attraction into the People Mover ride 

[3] While it appears that all finalists played three games, this is uncertain 

Note – Sources for this article include: 

Bally TRON Tournament Press Kit, 1982


Bickman, Jim, 2000. Tron – Coin Op Classic! Box Office Bomb! GameRoom. September.

Joystik – November 1982 

RePlay – August 1982 

Ross, Richard, 1983. Tron. Joystik. January. 

Vending Times – July 1982 

Zanke, Gary. 1982. On-Stage: The Tron Video-Game Contest. Joystik. November.
↧
↧

Classic Apple II Games - an Analyis of Softalk's Bestseller Lists

August 20, 2015, 9:29 pm
$
0
0
As much as I enjoyed playing arcade games back in the day, I probably enjoyed playing games on my Apple II even more. In part this was because computer games were much more involved and told more of a story and in part it’s because I played them in my home, making for a more intimate gaming experience. A few months back, scans of all 48 issues of SoftTalk were posted on Internet Archive. Published from September 1980 to August 1984, Softalk was perhaps my favorite Apple II magazine. More importantly for our purposes, it also printed several bestseller lists starting with the second issue. Now that I have the data, I thought I’d do a little analysis of the various lists, especially in regards to games.

The lists started with the October 1980 issue and included a list of the 30 bestselling software titles overall and several top five and top ten lists of the bestselling games in various categories (home, hobby, business, adventure games etc.) According to that issue, 15% of Apple-franchised retail stores volunteered to participate in the poll. They were contacted by phone in the first week of September to get data on their bestselling games for the month of August. The rankings were based strictly on number of sales made and nothing else (not quality, not profitability etc.) The top 30 list include an "Index"– "an arbitrary measure of relative market strength." While they do not say how they calculated the index, it is quite helpful since the index often dropped off precipitously after the top 2 or 3 titles (and sometimes it dropped after #1). Anyway, on to the numbers.


The first thing I looked at was how popular games were in relation to other types of software. While some have claimed that microcomputers of the late 1970s and 1980s were primarily used for business or home use rather than gaming, I have often wondered if that was the case and suspected that more people bought computers for gaming in these years that is generally realized (or admitted to). The data give some support to this idea, but only in the early months. From October 1980 to August 1981, 70.6% of the thirty bestselling programs (21.2 titles out of 30) were games. From September 1981 to April 1983, 49.6% were games, and from May 1983 to August 1984, just 35.4% were games. If we just look at the top ten, the difference is slightly greater: 75% of the top ten programs from October 1980 to August 1981, 49% from September 1981 to April 1983, and 29% from May 1983 to August 1984. Of course, there are other ways to look at the data. Business programs, for instance, were generally much more expensive than games so if we looked at dollar volume, a different picture would emerge. We could also look at home much time people spent using various software or how important it was to them. Many games were ephemeral. Once  you finished them, it was on to the next. Business and home software, on the other hand, probably had a much longer shelf life and may have gotten used more often and for more crucial purposes. .Once you found a good word processor or spreadsheet, for instance, it may have served its purpose for years.

In terms of peak index, top ten titles over all 47 poos were:
Choplifter (Broderbund) 214.57
VisiCalc (Personal Software/VisiCorp) 213.62
Apple Writer II/IIe (Apple Computer) 199.87
AppleWorks (Apple Computer) 145.99
Screen Writer II (Sierra On-Line) 99.73
Wizardry II: Knight of Diamonds (Sir-Tech) 99.7
Space Eggs (Sirius) 99.56
Personal Filing System/PFS: File (Software Publishing Corp) 99.38
Wizardry (Sir-Tech) 99.32
Home Accountant (Continental Software) 99.17
If we look at the top 42 individual monthly indexes, the top four titles above account for all of them.
Here are the top ten games, in terms of peak index:
Choplifter – 214.57
Wizardry II: Knight of Diamonds – 99.7
Space Eggs – 99.56
Wizardry – 99.32
Miner 2049er (Micro Fun) 99.11
Apple Galaxian (Broderbund) 99.06
Flight Simulator II (SubLogic) 99.88
Olympic Decathlon (Microsoft) 98.48
Lode Runner (Broderbund ) 97.73
Raster Blaster (BudgeCo) 97.53
The #1 titles were
VisiCalc – 17 times
Apple Writer IIe – 12 times
Choplifter – 5 times
Raster Blaster, Apple Galaxian – 3 times each
Apple Writer II, AppleWorks, Space Eggs – 2 times each
Flight Simulator II - once
Here are the top five titles in terms of total # of appearances on the charts
VisiCalc – 44
PFS: File – 37
Wizardry – 33
Typing Tutor (Microsoft) 33
Home Accountant - 28
For games, here are the top titles
Wizardry – 33
Choplifter – 24
Castle Wolfenstein (Muse) 24
Zork I (Infocom) 24
Flight Simulator - 22
Which publishers had the most titles appearing on the charts?
Sierra On-Line - 24
Broderbund - 23
Apple Computer - 18
Sirius – 16
Beagle Bros - 10
Personal Software/VisiCorp – 8
Muse – 8
Infocom – 8
If we just look at games, here are the publishers with five or more:
Sierra On-Line - 23
Broderbund - 20
Sirius – 16
Infocom – 8
Epyx/Automated Simulations – 7
California Pacific – 6
SSI – 5
Note that Muse falls off the list because its eight titles included four versions of Super Text.
Finally, I created a formula to rank the games based on overall chart performance.
The formula adds together:
1) Peak Index (max 214) – This is the only component that can exceed 100, but since that makes sense since it is the only one that is directly tied to sales (as I mentioned, the difference
2) Peak Position Points (max 100) -a game that peaked at #1 gets 30 points, #2 gets 29 points etc. then the total is multiplied by 3.33 to convert it to a 100-point scale)
3) Longevity (max 100) - # of appearances x 2.13 (the maximum # of appearances if 47, so I multiplied by 2.13 to convert to a 100-point scale)
4) Bonus Points - # of times at #1 x 2.13. The "max" here is 100, but to get it you’d have to have finished first in every list, which no game came close to doing.
Using this formula, the top titles were:
VisiCalc – 444
Choplifter – 376
Apple Writer IIe – 350
Apple Writer II – 330
PFS: File – 275
Wizardry – 266
Home Accountant – 260
AppleWorks – 257
MasterType – Lightning Software – 255
Typing Tutor - 233
Note that VisiCalc moves ahead of Choplifter, which is appropriate. This supports VisiCalc’s reputation as the program that made the Apple II. That may not seem to need confirmation, since the fact is so well known, but when dealing with Apple history, everything need to be confirmed since a number of the "facts" that everyone knows are little more than PR and corporate hero worship. PFS: File was database that was part of a Microsoft-Office-like suite of business applications for the Apple II (the others were PFS: Write, PFS: Graph, and PFS: Report).
And for games:
Choplifter – 376
Wizardry – 266
Flight Simulator - 231
Wizardry II: Knight of Diamonds – 230
Raster Blaster – 229
Miner 2049er – 222
Snack Attack – Datamost – 220.4
Lode Runner – 219.5
Space Eggs – 218.7
Flight Simulator II – 216
Zaxxon – 215
Olympic Decathlon – 214
Wizardry III: Legacy of Llylgamyn – 212.2
Apple Galaxian – 211.8
Gorgon – Sirius - 209
That’s it for the overall bestseller list. Now let’s look at the individual games lists.
Over the years, Softalk had four different lists:
Top 5 Adventure Games
Top 5 Fantasy Games
Top 5 Strategy Games
Top 10 Arcade Games
The first three ran from October 1981 to August 1984. The arcade games list didn’t start until January 1983 and ran to August 1984.
First, let’s look at adventure games.
#1 games
Zork I (Infocom) - 15 times
Cranston Manor (Sierra On-Line) - 5 times
Deadline (Infocom), Ulysses and the Golden Fleece (Sierra On-Line), Mask of the Sun (Ultrasoft/Broderbund), Escape From Rungistan (Sirius) – twice each
Zork II (Infocom), Time Zone (Sierra On-Line), The Quest (Penguin), Suspended (Infocom), Starcross (Infocom) – once each
The surprise for many here is probably Mask of the Sun – an excellent game that is little remembered today (there was also a sequel called The Serpent’s Star). Escape From Rungistan and The Quest are also rarely discussed today. Time Zone was considered something of an ambitious flop.
Most appearances
Zork I – 28
Zork II – 26
Deadline – 19
Zork III – 12
Wizard and the Princess (Sierra On-Line) – 9
I also created my own index for this list, which is similar to the one I used for top 30. It consists of
Peak ranking; (6-peak)*20 (i.e. peak rating of #1 = 100 pts, #2 = 80 pts, #3 = 60 pts etc.)
Longevity = # of appearances x 2.86 (max 100) – there were 35 total charts, 100/35 = 2.86
Bonus – times at #1 x 2.85
Here are the leaders
Zork I – 223
Zork II = 177
Deadline – 160
Cranston Manor – 137
Mask of the Sun – 129
Ulysses and the Golden Fleece – 123
The Quest, Time Zone, Escape From Rungistan, Kabul Spy (Sirius) – 117
Top adventure game publishers (by # of games charted)
Infocom – 10
Sierra On-Line – 5
Phoenix Software - 3
No surprise at #1. Infocom easily dominates, despite the fact that their games had no graphics. I played tons of their games and enjoyed them far more than those of the competition, graphics or not (I think the lack of graphics actually helped). #3 probably is a surprise to many, most of whom probably don't remember Phoenix Software and their adventures (for the record, the three here were Adventure in Time, Masequearde, and Sherwood Forest).

Now let’s look at fantasy games
#1 fantasy games:
Wizardry – 27 times
Utlima, Wizardry III – 3 times each
Wizardry II – twice
Most appearances
Wizardry (Sir-Tech) – 34
Wizardry II: Knight of Diamonds (Sir-Tech) – 26
Ultima (California Pacific) – 22
Ultima II (Sierra On-Line) – 18
Exodus: Ultima III (Origin Systems) – 11
Apventure to Atlantis (Synergistic) – 11
Wizardry III: Legacy of Llylgamyn (Sir-Tech) – 10
Top Index (same formula as above)
Wizardry – 274
Wizardry II – 180
Ultima – 172
Wizardry III - 137
Ultima II – 131
Exodus: Ultima III – 111
Apventure to Atlantis – 111
Caves of Kharkan (Level-10, Daiken-5) – 89
Snooper Troops I (Spinnaker) – 83
Crush, Crumble, and Chomp (Epyx/Automated Simulations) – 80
As expected, the fantasy competition comes down to Wizardry vs Ultima and Wizardry emerges as the clear winner. This might seem surprising to some, since Ultima is much better known today (though its reputation is fading). In the early years, however, at least judging by Softalk’s lists, Wizardry was more popular. This actually accords with my own memories. I played both series extensively and while I loved them both, I preferred Wizardry (Wizardry I was the main reason I bought an Apple II). Despite the fact that they’re both fantasy role-playing games, it’s kind of an apples-and-oranges comparison. At first glance, the most obvious differences were in the graphics and perspective (first-person vs. overhead) but IMO, these differences were relatively trivial. The real difference was in the gameplay. Ultima was all about finishing the quest and solving problems while Wizardry was about character development and fighting monsters. Ultima had a richer story and more quests, while Wizardry had more items, abilities, and monsters. Given that, you’d think I’d prefer Ultima but for some reason I like Wizardry better (though I did love Ultima II). So what is Ultima better remembered today? I think one of the main reasons is that the Ultima series went on to much better things. Ultima IV and Ultima VI were two of the best RPGs of the time and Ultima Online was, for a time, popular (though it faded fast). The rest of the Wizardry games didn’t fare nearly as well . Richard Garriott’s media-friendly image and Lord British persona may also have been a factor (you didn’t see Andrew Greenberg and Robert Woodhead on television).

Top fantasy publishers in terms of # of games was Epyx/Automated Simulations with five games. Edu-Ware, Level-10, and Sir-Tech had three each.

Again, Epyx is probably surprising to most. The games were Crush, Crumble, and Chomp; Curse of Ra, Dragons Eye, Temple of Apshai, and Upper Reaches of Apshai. And that doesn't even count Morloc's Tower, Datestones of Ryn, Rescue at Rigel, and Hellfire Warrior, all of which made the top 30 list but didn't make the fantasy top five. Most of these were part of the Dunjon series, one of the first RPG series for the Apple II. The first was Temple of Apshai in August 1979 (though it was originally developed for the TRS-80) and a total of ten games were released for the series.

How about Strategy games?

#1 games
Castle Wolfenstein (Muse) – 23 times
Flight Simulator II (SubLogic) – 7 times
Flight Simulator (SubLogic), Robot War (Muse), Sargon III (Hayden) – once each
# of appearances
Castle Wolfenstein– 34
Flight Simulator – 28
Sargon II –(Hayden) 25
Robot War – 10
Sargon III - 8
Castle Wolfenstein is another game that I think is kind of unjustly ignored today. It is known, of course, due to Wolfenstein 3D but it seems to me that most people think it was some obscure game that served as inspiration for its successful follow-up. In truth, however, the original was a major hit in its own right. Until I made this list, even I didn’t realize how popular it had been.

Index
Castle Wolfenstein - 263
Flight Simulator - 183
Sargon II - 152
Flight Simulator II - 140
Robot War - 131
Sargon III - 126
Rendezvous - 100
Spitfire Simulator - 91
Beyond Castle Wolfenstein (Muse) – 86
Broadsides (SSI) – 86
Beyond Castle Wolfenstein debuted the month before Softalk ceased publication or it would have ranked higher.

Top strategy publishers (# of games)
SSI (Strategic Simulations Inc) – 16
Muse, SubLogic – 3 each
No other category witnesses such dominance by a single publisher. Again, however, for those who were around in the early 80s, this is no surprise. SSI was the sine qua non of computer strategy games - the Avalon Hill of the genre. Avalon Hill, despite the fact that it made several computer games, was not the Avalon Hill of the genre and some of their computer games were pretty terrible (B-1 Nuclear Bomber, anyone?) Avalon Hill was actually the dominant (or at least most prolific) war game publisher for the Apple II in the earliest years, until SSI pushed them out of the limelight.
SSI plumbed the same basic genres Avalon Hill did in its tabletop board games - war games and sports games. They also produced a number of role-playing games, some of which were pretty good (even if the graphics trailed far behind the competition). I still remember the ending to Questron 2 almost three decades after playing it.

Finally, arcade games
#1 games:
Lode Runner (Broderbund) – 8 times
Choplifter (Broderbund) – 5
Julius Erving and Larry Bird Go One-on-One (Electronic Arts) – 3
Zaxxon (Datasoft), Miner 2049er (Micro Fun) – twice each
# of Appeaances
Choplifter – 20
Miner 2049er – 18
Pinball Construction Set (BudgeCo/Electronic Arts) – 17
Frogger (Sierra On-Line) – 16
Zaxxon – 14
Lode Runner, Hard Hat Mack (Electronic Arts) – 13
Index
Peak ranking; (11-peak)*10 (i.e. peak rating of #1 = 100 pts, #2 = 90 pts, #3 = 80 pts etc.)
Longevity = # of appearances x 5 (max 100) – there were 20 total charts
Bonus – times at #1 x 5
Choplifter – 225
Lode Runner – 205
Miner 2049er – 200
Zaxxon – 180
Frogger – 170
Pinball Construction Set – 165
Julius Erving and Larry Bird Go One-on-One – 150
Hard Hat Mack – 135
Aztec (Datamost) – 115
Beagle Bag (Beagle Bros) - 110
Top arcade publishers (# of games)
Broderbund 8
AtariSoft – 6
Electronic Arts – 5
Datamost, Penguin, Sierra On-Line – 3 each
Finally, let’s look at the top game designers, by the number of different games that appeared on any of the above lists:
8 - Nasir Gebelli (Sirius/Gebelli Software), Ken Williams (Sierra On-Line)
7 - Jon Freeman (Epyx)
6 - Bill Budge (California Pacific/Sirius/BudgeCo/Stoneware/Electronic Arts)
5 - Roberta Williams (Sierra On-Line), Olaf Lubeck (Sierra On-Line), Mark Blank (Infocom)
4 - Tony Suzuki (Broderbund), Silas Warner (Muse), Richard Garriott (California Pacific/Sierra On-Line/Origin), Jim Nitchals (Cavalier), Doug Carlston (Broderbund), Dan and Kathe Spracklen (Hayden)
3 – Andrew Greenberg & Robert Woodhead (Sir-Tech), Robert Clardy (Synergistic), Bruce Artwick (SubLogic), Chris Jocumson (Broderbund), David Mullich (Edu-Ware), Eric Hammond (Electronic Arts), Jun Wada (Broderbund),Dave Lebling (Infocom), Michael Berlyn (Sentient Software/Infocom), Paul Murray (SSI), Rod Nelson (Level-10), Scott Adams (Adventure International), Warren Schwader (Sierra On-Line)
Sadly, many of these names are not as well-known as they should be and some are all but forgotten. Nasir Gebelli was a major force in the Apple II arcade gaming world until around 1982/83. His games here were Autobahn, Cyber Strike, Gorgon, Horizon V, Phantoms 5, PulsarII, Space Eggs, and Star Cruiser.

Jon Freeman is even less well-known (though I’m not sure what role he had in the games he worked on). Olaf Lubeck and Tony Suzuki are two others who are little-known.
Ken and Roberta Williams are quite well-known, though again I don’t know how significant Ken’s role was in some of the games he’s credited for. Richard Garriott (Lord British) is also quite well-known. Bill Budge was very well known back in the day. His six titles do not include his Graphics Package/System, which also made the lists.

　
　
↧

Nasir Gebelli and the early days of Sirius Software

August 28, 2015, 5:48 pm
$
0
0




In my last post, I made mention of Apple II game programmer Nasir Gebelli. Today, I will take a closer look at Nasir, his work at Sirius Software and Gebelli Software, and the founding of Sirius. Unfortunately, information on Nasir is pretty sparse and he appears to be a bit of a recluse (though he seemed quite willing to talk when John Romero tracked him down in 1998). I do not have much to add to the little that is already out there, but thought I'd report on what I did find. Nasir has become something of a minor legend among Apple II gaming fans, primarily because he wrote a number of early action games for the Apple II featuring animation that was a cut above the competition. Part of his legend may also be due to the fact that id Software co-founder John Romero was a huge fan of his - a fact he has mentioned on multiple occasions. In the book Honoring the Code: Conversations with Great Game Designers, for instance, Romero gushed, "Nasir Gebelli is my favorite. He's my number one programming god, my idol. He's awesome." So what was Nasir’s story and how did he get his start?






Nasir was born Seyed Nasir Gebelli in Iran. While a number of sources claim that he was born in 1957, public records indicate that he was born in February 1954. At some point, he moved to the US to study computer science at Cal State (Kohler 2005). According to a profile that appeared in April 1981 issue of Softalk, Nasir began programming on an Apple II "out of desperation" when he found that other computers didn't allow him to do what he wanted to - to input code in machine language and see the results immediately. Nasir bought his first Apple about a year before the profile appeared and it seems that he quickly became proficient with it and began programming games. Around spring of 1980, perhaps because he was doing poorly in classes (Levy 1984), Nasir took a slide show program he'd written to a Computerland store in Sacramento and demoed it to the owner(s) (Levy 1984). It was the start to an auspicious and prolific, if short-lived, career.

The Founding of Sirius Software

The Computerland store had been opened in late 1979 by a retired Air Force colonel named Terry Bradley. Bradley, who had a master's degree in management from Golden Gate University, had honed his management skills while working as an airlift director for the Air Force. Unsure if he could hold onto a civilian job and unwilling to risk losing his retirement benefits, Bradley spent 21 years in the Air Force until he retired in 1979. After leaving the Air Force, he began looking for a new career. He briefly considered becoming a real estate broker and even got a license, but quickly decided that it was not the job for him. What he really wanted to do was to own his own business. Toward that end, he visited the library and began researching franchise opportunities. He decided to open a small print shop, reasoning that the risk and required investment would be low. He changed his plans again, however, after he saw an ad for Computerland - a chain of personal computer retail stores that had been founded in 1976. Intrigued, Bradley visited a local Byte Shop to see what running a computer store was all about. Liking what he saw, he approached Computerland with a proposal to open a new store in Sacramento. Computerland agreed and in late 1979, Bradley opened his store. (Softalk July 1982)

In the spring of 1980, Bradley hired a Vietnam veteran and insurance executive named Jerry Jewell as sales manager. Like Bradley, Jewell had served in the military and worked as an executive, but according to Bradley, the similarities ended there.

[Terry Bradley] "Jerry and I come from completely different backgrounds and are ten years apart in age. There’s only three things we have in common. We’ve both been in military service, we both like our meat raw, and we have sympathetic views on the way to run Sirius." (Softalk July 1982)

Before coming to Computerland, Bradley had worked as a special agent and an account executive in the insurance industry. In 1979, hoping to switch to a more lucrative career, Jewell bought an Apple II and decided to learn some rudimentary programming skills. About two weeks after buying his computer, Jewell enrolled in a class in assembly language programming at the Lawrence Hall of Science - a public science center/museum established by the University of California at Berkeley. The class was taught by Apple's Andy Hertzfeld, who would later design the Macintosh system software. Assisting Hertzfeld was hacking legend John Draper, a.k.a. "Captain Crunch." With no disk drive, Jewell was unable to run the sample programs that Hertzfeld distributed to the class and for eight weeks, he was lost, not understanding a thing Hertzfeld was saying. Eventually, however, he got a disk drive and was able to catch up by listening to tapes he had made of the classroom lectures. In the spring of 1980, Jewell went to work for Bradley in his Computerland store. While the store sold some home and business software (like Easy Writer, an early word processor written by John Draper), most of the people who came in were writing tools or games of their own, which they were only too eager to demonstrate. (Levy 1984)

One of them was a struggling college student named Nasir Gebelli, who demonstrated his slide show program not long after Jewell began working at the store. Initially, Terry Bradley thought that the program was merely "OK." A few days later, however, Nasir returned with an improved version and asked, "What do you think of it now" (Softalk July 1982). Impressed, Bradley, Jewell, and Nair decided to go into business together and in May 1980 they formed a company called Sirius Software with Bradley as president, Jewell as secretary-treasurer, and Gebelli as the sole fulltime programmer. 


Nasir, Jerry Jewell (seated), and Eric Knopp

For their initial offering, Jewell and Nasir worked together to develop Gebelli's slide show demo into a graphics program called E-Z Draw (billed as "the poor man’s graphics tablet"), which Jewell began to peddle to computer stores in Los Angeles and the Bay Area (it is unclear if this happened before or after Sirius was formed). Before long, however, they turned to games. Nasir may have been Sirius’ only programmer, but he was a prodigious one. While he may not have produced 12 games for Sirius in his first year, as Steven Levy reported, he did create at least eight (Levy may have been referring to the number of games he made with Sirius and Gebelli Software, or Sirius may not have released all his games - or Levy may have been mistaken). Levy reports that Both Barrels was Nasir's first effort (though some list it as a 1981 game). If so, it was an inauspicious debut. Things improved with Nasir's other 1980 creations: Star Cruiser, Cyber Strike, and Phantoms Five. All three were similar to games Nasir played in the Sacramento arcades he haunted. While produced by Sirius, it seems that at least one of the games (Star Cruiser) was initially distributed by Synergistic Software. If so, this may have been because Jewel and Bradley (who thought the money was in hardware rather than software) were still working at Computerland during the day while running Sirius in their spare time.

That would soon change, however. In November 1980, Sirius Software was incorporated in Sacramento and in December, the company made its first appearance on Softalk's bestseller list when Star Cruiser debuted at #3, behind VisiCalc and On-Line System's Wizard and the Princess graphics adventure. The next month, Star Cruiser (which was still at #3) was joined by Cyber Strike (at #6) and in March, they were joined by Phantoms Five. By then, to Jewell and Bradley's surprise, Sirius was doing well enough to be a fulltime business and in May 1981, the two sold their Compterland store. That same month, Sirius had its biggest hit yet when Space Eggs supplanted VisiCalc at the #1 position on Softalk's bestseller list. A takeoff on Moon Cresta, Space Eggs had started as a cosmic shell game until Jewell suggested that Nasir replace the shells with eggs.

[Nasir Gebelli] "It had gone from weird, to weirder, to weirdest. Yet it is the only game I’ve written that I continue to play because it’s so unpredictable. That is probably one reason why people are so compulsive with it. I was both pleased and a bit scared when I witnessed the sight of my old 
roommate shooting at those shells – I mean eggs – for six hours straight." (Softalk April 1981)

In August 1981, Sirius placed an astonishing six titles among Softalk's 30 bestsellers: Gorgon at #3 (which sold at least 23,000 copies in a year), Space Eggs (#7), Pulsar II (#14), Autobahn (#14), Orbitron (#18), and Gamma Goblins (#26). All but the last two were written by Nasir Gebelli. So what was the secret to Gebelli's success? One was his talent for creating faster, smoother animations than anyone else was capable of on the Apple II (which was probably not really a great platform for arcade/action games). Nasir achieved this via a technique called "page flipping" in which two pages of animation were switched back and forth several times per second to reduce the flicker that plagued other games. It does not appear, however, that he started using the technique until his later games. In his April 1981 Softalk profile, Nasir mentions the technique as something he planned to use in the future. Nasir was also famous for not taking notes while programming or writing out his code.

[Nasir Gebelli] ""Ninety percent of the work involved in realizing the game on the screen is in my head. Virtually all my ideas are worked out before I commit the work to disk." (Softalk April 1981)

John Romero was also impressed by Nasir's prodigious memory.

[John Romero] "Early on, seeing Nasir’s games, I really liked the speed of his games – great speed…He was chain smoking, drinking coffee, and turning out games. He never had a program that would save his code; he typed them directly into memory on the Apple II. There was no source code or comments. He’d type in one line, it’d be converted to machine code, then he’d type in the next line. There were no symbols, nothing. No source code for anything. He had to keep the whole game in his head." (Barton 2013)

Nasir spent as much time drawing pictures as he did writing code - though he made a number of changes after seeing his work on screen.

[Nasir Gebelli] "Only when I see the images on screen can I be sure that my ideas are workable. I might have been sure that this creature of that ship was exactly as I desired – but they were on paper, not on screen. That’s the real testing ground. And as I fiddle with them, they might change into something that I wouldn’t have thought of in the rough draft stages." (Softalk April 1981)

Despite his talents and the success of his games, however, all was not well between Sirius and its programming wunderkind. By the time the August issue of Softalk hit the stands, Gebelli had already left to form his own company, Gebelli Software, which he incorporated on August 7, 1981. Speaking of Gebelli’s departure in July 1982, Jerry Jewell remarked, "Nasir is an excellent programming talent. He just wasn’t a team player" (Softalk July 1982). According to Wikipcpedia, the issue was money. While Nasir had reportedly earned $250,000 his first year, he apparently didn’t think it was enough. Thanks in part to a $1.5 million order from Apple, Sirius had made $3.5 million during the same period and Nasir was allegedly unhappy with his piece of the pie. I suspect, however, that there is something more to the story. Perhsaps someone will track down the principals and flesh things out, but I’m pessimistic.

The subsequent history of Sirius is beyond the scope of this post (hopefully, the Digital Antiquarian will tackle the subject soon), but suffice it to say that Sirius, at least initially, survived the departure of Gebelli none the worse for the wear. By the time he left, they had already begun contracting with other programmers, many of them teens. Orbitron, for instance, had been written by Eric Knopp while Gamma Goblins was created by brothers Tony and Benny Ngo. Other programmers included Larry Miller, Dan Thompson, and Mark Turmell. Sirius had also hired a number of other employees, such as ex-sheriff Jim Ackerman, who joined the company as production assistant in spring 1981, and product manager Eric Bock (author of Pascal Graphics Editor), who often worked with programmers to clean up their games. Overall between 1980 and 1983, Sirius produced at least 40 games for the Apple II and other systems, including such classics as Snake Byte, Lemmings, Beer Run, Bandits, T.W.E.R.P.S, Wavy Navy, Repton, Kabul Spy, Sneakers, Escape from Rungistan, Critical Mass, and Gruds in Space.

Nasir Gebelli, meanwhile, continued to produce games at his Gebelli Software. The first, Horizon V, 
did not fare so well, however. Softline called it "a good followup to Gorgon but not a great one," complaining that the player’s ship "handles at best like a garbage truck on an icy road" and dismissing the aliens as "listless and dimwitted." On the other hand, it noted that the game’s first-person graphics were "one of the best three dimensional effects for an Apple game seen in recent times." (Softline March 1982) Despite this, Softline named Horizon V its "dog of the year" in March 1983. Nasir followed up with Zenith, Firebird, and Neptune. But Nasir wasn’t Gebelli Software’s only programmer. Alan Merrell and Eric Knopp, both of whom had previously worked at Sirius, produced High Orbit (Merrell), Lasersilk, Candy Factory (both Knopp), and Russki Duck (Merrell and Knopp). This may have been an instance of poaching by Gebelli, or the three may have been friends. It should be noted, however, that Phil Knopp – Eric’s father – was GM of Gebelli Software so again, there may be a story here waiting to be told.

Neither Gebelli Software nor Sirius would survive the video game crash of 1983. In the case of Sirius, the end was hastened by a seeming lucrative deal with 20th Century Fox to develop VCS games that proved disastrous when Fox was unable (or unwilling) to pay. After his company folded, Nasir Gebelli reportedly traveled the world and disappeared from the public eye. He resurfaced in 1986 when he met with Doug Carlston of Broderbund, who told him about the NES. Carlston took Gebelli to Japan, where he met with Shigeru Miyamoto and others at Nintendo, who were not interested in working with Gebelli. Luckily, Square’s Hironobu Sakaguchi was a fan and the two went on to work on the Final Fantasy games. Gebelli also worked on a number of other NES titles, including Rad Racer, 3-D WorldRunner, and Secret of Mana only to disappear to travel the world once again. Other than an appearance at John Romeo’s 1998 Apple II reunion, he has remained largely out of the public eye. 

Now that we have taken a look at Nasir’s career, let’s take a brief look at his Apple II output.


Both Barrels (1980??) 







As I mentioned above, the date on this one is a bit unclear. Given that it is not one of Nasir’s better efforts, however, I suspect that it may be his earliest game. Both Barrels combines two shooting games: High Noon and Duck Hunt and neither are very exciting. 


Star Cruiser (1980) 









The influence of arcade games is obvious in Gebelli’s Apple II oeuvre. Star Cruiser is a fairly straightforward take on Galaxian. As with most, if not all, of Nasir’s games, the shapes were created with E-Z Draw. 

Phantoms Five (1980) 










Phantoms Five is a vertically-scrolling overhead shooter in which the player drops bombs on ground targets. Some targets, like hospitals and prison camps, have to be avoided. When the player is aiming, the ship is replaced by targeting crosshairs. Periodically, the player encountered enemy fighters, whereupon the action switched to a first-person sequence. 
For many, the first game to spring to mind will probably be Xevious but that game did appear until much later. The most likely influence here, if there is one, may be Atari’s Sky Raider. 

Cyber Strike (1980)








From the game’s description: “The date is 320.45. You have been briefed by Major General Nasir about a clone attack on bases Keppler, Galileo, Copernicus, and Newton. The attack was masterminded by the notorious leader, Gar, and executed by his fleet of robot fighter drones. Your job is to command the Gamma Glider IV drone into the trouble areas and eradicate the enemies. You send the drone through hyperspace and remotely control the drone's actions. You have antimatter torpedoes and meteor shields for offense and defense. Destroy up to 4 enemies at each base then resupply before continuing on.” 
Cyber Strike was another first-person outer space shooter. While it was still an action game, it was a bit more sophisticated than Nasir’s other 1980 efforts, with separate screens to display local and galactic sensors. While there were similarities to some arcade games, it could probably best be described as a more action-oriented version of the mainframe classic Star Trek. As such, the most likely influence was probably Star Raiders for the Atari 800. The most well-known arcade version of the mainframe original was Sega’s Star Trek and the most well-known Apple II version may have been Cygnus’ Star Fleet I: The War Begins. 

In the Sirius version, the player piloted their “Gamma Gllider IV,” using the IJKM keys to steer and the 1-3 keys to change speeds. H engaged the “hyperdrive control” while F fired the “antimatter torpedo” and S toggled the “meteor sheild” on and off. The B key allowed the player to dock with a nearby base. 

Autobahn (1981)




This time, the arcade influence is all too clear. This one is a fairly straightforward version of Sega/Gremlin’s Monaco GP.  The game was an overhead, vertically-scrolling driving game in which the player drove a “Formula 7” racer, sponsored by Sirius Software. The player could switch among three gears that increased his maximum speed from 120 to 160 to 200 kph. 

Pulsar II (1981)







Pulsar II combined two different games, each with eight levels: Pulsar (a takeoff on Cinematronics’ Star Castle) and Wormwall (a maze game).
Gorgon (1981)







One of Nasir’s biggest hits, this was a straight up clone of Defender, with a few additions, like a fuel supply, Sirius, in fact, ended up paying licensing money to Williams for the game (though I don’t think they did so until after they shipped the game and Williams contacted them).

Space Eggs (1981)










This was probably Nasir’s biggest hit overall and one of the finest vertical shooters for the Apple II. Some have noted the game’s similarities to Phoenix. As mentioned, above, however, I think the real influence was Moon Cresta. Aside from the three stage ship in the opening (I don’t know if you could get it during the game), the first level of the two games is nearly identical. The player faced four different screens of enemies: spiders, lips, wolves, and bouncing killer fuzz balls. 

Horizon V (1981)




We discussed this one already, but here’s the official description:

“While on a routine patrol of one of the five planetoid outposts of the Galactic Federation, you are set upon by angry G-bellians who believe you have kidnapped one of their most prized performers, Paulette the G-belly dancer. Before you are able to explain your innocence, the G-bellians attack and you are forced to defend your planetoid. Using radar and plasma weapons you destroy first the ships and then the G-bellians themselves before you run out of fuel. As you make a run for fuel, some of the G-bellians follow you into the time warp. But before you can get to your fuel you have to destroy the oncoming G-bellians. Finally you reach the fuel dump and lock into the center of the fuel target. . . then onto the next planetoid...”

Firebird (1981)






While this one looks something like Crazy Climber, the gameplay is entirely different. The player plays a firefighter named Piggo, who tries to extinguish fires caused by fireballs (or maybe it’s flaming poo) dropped by a giant bird.  

Zenith (1982)



This one was another first-person shooter in the mold of Horizon V with the addition of allowing the player to turn their ship. It seems to have fared better than its predecessor (The Arcade Express newsletter, for instance, gave it a 9 out of 10). As described in the game’s manual: 

“You are a Skyfighter patrolling the airspace above the city Zenith as it's being built. Aliens are invading and your job is to shoot every single object above the city to prevent it from harm.”

Neptune (1982)




If  Gorgon was Nasir’s version of Defender, this was his tribute to Scramble. A somewhat underrated game.

Sources

Steven Levy. Hackers. 1984
Softalk. April 1981. Nasir Gebelli>>>
“Exec Sirius”. Softalk. July 1982.
Matt Barton. Honoring the Code: Conversations WDuck Huntith Great Game Designers  2013.
http://wikipcpedia.com/wiki/content-software-for-games-consoles/you-can-be-sirius-%E2%80%93-sirius-software/
↧

The 1982 Wizard vs. Wizards Tournament - eSport's forgotten competition

September 6, 2015, 5:37 pm
$
0
0
Today’s post completes my recent trio of computer game posts (don’t worry. I’ll get back to coin-op games soon enough) with a look at one of the most interesting and little-known “video game” competitions of the 1980s – the 1982 “Wizard vs. Wizards” computer game tournament. I’ve actually briefly covered this one before but thought it merited a full post. Despite the fact that the competition was covered in Steven Levy’s 1984 classic Hackers, however (it even provided the title for chapter 20), there is almost no information on the web about the contest, its organizer, or its participant. Luckily, however, it was covered in some detail by both Softline and Softalk.


So what was Wizard vs. Wizards? It was a competition between twelve different computer game programmers that was held at the Comdex show in Las Vegas in December 1982. And get this – it was supposed to be televised as the first event in what the organizer would sure would become the spectator sport of the 1980s. While it was filmed, however, I don’t know if it was actually televised. If it was, it likely would have appeared several months before Starcade broadcast its first episode (though well after the first Starcade pilot was filmed). It was also yet another episode in the sadly-neglected early history of eSports.



Wizard vs. Wizards was the brainchild of Tom Tatum. According to Levy, Tatum was a former “lawyer, lobbyist, and Carter campaign aide, [who was] now a leading purveyor of video “docusports” programming.” His earlier efforts in this new arena (according to Levy), included the 1981 Maui Windsurfing Grand Prix and the Telluride Aerobatics Invitational. Unfortunately, a brief web search turned up little information on either event. Levy also indicates that Tatum may have been involved in BMX competitions, which makes me wonder if he is the same Tom Tatum who wrote and produced the 1987 BMX film Winners Take All. In any event, back in 1982 Tatum got the idea that video games had the makings of the next great spectator sport (as we have seen in other posts, he wasn’t alone). Noting the popularity of video game tournaments, Tatum wondered how many people would want to see the real “pros” compete. By “pros,” Tatum meant the actual game programmers (that Tatum thought the game programmers were the real gaming “pros” was only the first of many problems with his concept). Tatum’s idea was to get top computer game programmers together for a televised computer game tournament. The tournament, called the “Wizard vs. Wizards” personal computer game world championships, was held on December 3, 1982 at the Comdex computer industry trade show in the Las Vegas Sands. Ever the optimist (or at least promoter), Tatum referred to the event as “the event where Hollywood meets the computer age” and “the ultra-contest of the eighties.” He referred to the programmers as the “new stars” and opined that “the sizzle in this show is the double-whammy” of the programmers competing against one another on their own games.




Unfortunately, the tournament does not appear to have gone well. It was originally supposed to be sponsored by Atari, but the company pulled its sponsorship just two days before the event, forcing the organizers to buy twelve Atari 800 computers from a local store on their own dime. Fortunately, Apple stepped in and agreed to take over as sponsor, providing a dozen Apple II’s The night before the event started, the team from Datamost had to break the copy protection on their game so that they could provide the requisite copies (“Nobody told me I was going to need 11 disks” wailed VP Sandy Wivott). Jim Nitchals wanted to enter his latest game, but it was rejected as unfinished, forcing him to enter a different game instead. The tournament was hosted by Catherine Mary Stewart. Yes, the same Catherine Mary Stewart that would go on to co-star in The Last Starfighter (at the time, she was mostly known for her role on Days of Our Lives). Stewart started off the tournament proper by flubbing her opening line and required fifteen takes and some hastily-prepared cue cards to get it right. After that, the tournament got underway.



The twelve programmers (with their best known games) who entered the tournament were (note that I include games created after the tournament):

Jim Nitchals: Microwave, Bug Attack, Asteroid Field, Star Thief, Teleport, Ring Raiders (Cavalier)
Dan Thompson: Repton, Twerps (Sirius)
Mark Turmell: Turmoil, Sneakers, Beer Run, Free Fall. Fast Freddie (Sirius/Fox)
Bob Flanagan: Spectre, Thief, Speedway etc. (Datamost)
Jay Zipnick: Pig Pen (Datamost)
Peter Filberti: Night Raiders (Datamost)
Steve Bjork: Canyon Climber (Datamost)
Gerry Humphrey: Clowns and Balloons (Datasoft)
Russ Wetmore: Preppie, Preppie II, Sea Dragon, Savage Island Pt 2  (Adventure International)
Chuck “Chuckles” Bueche: Jawbreaker II, Pacific Coast Freeway,  Lunar Leeper, Laff Pak, Caverns of Calisto, Autoduel, 24000 AD (California Pacific, Sierra On-Line, Origin)
Ken Williams: Various (Sierra On-Line)
Joe Hellesen: Wizard of Wor (Roklan)

Broderbund was too busy working on the Atari ports of Choplifter and Serpentine to send any representatives.  The twelve programmers would square off on twelve different games, one from each programmer, with the first six played on Atari computers and the last six on Apples. The twelves games were the first games listed after each programmer above (Ken Williams’ game was Threshold). After playing each game for five minutes, points were awarded based on their ranking in each game. The top four then moved on to three semifinal games on an Apple with the top two switching back to Atari games (chosen at random by a DEC Rainbow computer) for the finals.


Sirius – who had sent a team of five programmers and executives, clad in personalized red sweat suits - dominated the preliminaries, with Dan Thompson and Mark Turmell holding down first and second place most of the way. In a (very) minor controversy, the Atari joysticks were replace with Wico Command Controllers partway through the prelims.



Thompson and Turmell were joined by Russ Wetmore and Jim Nitchals for the semi-finals. Once again, Sirius appeared dominant at first with Thompson and Turmell getting out to an early lead. Nitchals, however, finished second in all three games and edged out Turmell for the second spot in the finals. The finals pitted Nitchals against Thompson. In an effort to maintain the suspense for the planned April airing of the program, the organizers tried to obscure the scores with duct tape but it didn’t work. The actual finals were a bit of an anti-climax. Nitchals knew he was cooked when the computer picked three games at which he had fared poorly in earlier rounds (Clowns & Balloons, Canyon Climber, Wizard of Wor) and Thompson’s victory was cinched when Nitchals lost his game before time expired in the second round while Thompson played for the full five minutes. In the end, Thompson prevailed. For his efforts, Thompson received a DEC Rainbow and an Atari 800 while both he and Nitchals received an Amdek monitor, three joysticks, and $500 in cash.



As I mentioned earlier, I’m not sure that the event was ever televised – though the fact that Levy quoted from interviews with Thompson makes me think it was. Unsurprisingly, it did not launch the revolution that Tatum thought it would. The problem, which you think would have been obvious, was that watching computer programmers playing computer games just wasn’t all that exciting. Shocking I know, but the real wonder to me is that anyone ever thought it would have been. I can see (sort of) how someone would  have thought coin-op arcade games would make for interesting viewing (though even Starcade had to do more than just have people playing games) but computer games in 1982? I played plenty of computer games in the 1980s, but even I have to admit that they didn’t make for scintillating TV. Even loopier, to me, was the idea of having programmers playing the games. To the extent that Starcade worked, I think it did so because they mostly had kids playing the games. If they’d had designers and programmers playing, I don’t think it would have gotten past the pilot (though Eugene Jarvis would probably have been entertaining). If you’re going to have programmers playing, at least make it a pro-am in which they’re teamed with gamers. Personally, of course, I would have loved Wizard vs. Wizards but I’m not exactly representative of the general public. In any event, however, if this event was televised, I would sorely LOVE to see the video so if anyone knows where I can find it, please let us know.


↧
Search

1982 Tron Tournament Press Kit and Other Tourney Photos

September 15, 2015, 9:18 pm
$
0
0


After my recent post on the 1982 TRON Tournament, someone  (who goes by the name Joe Zydeco) was kind enough to send me a scan of the press kit that Bally created for the tournament. I thought I'd share it with you in case anyone else had use for it. Thanks to the original sender.

But before we get to that, I wanted to post a few interesting photos I've come across recently.
I recently had a chance to look at about 30 issues of a fairly obscure (or at least hard-to-come-by) arcade operators newsletter called Games People Pay (later renamed Games People).
Some of the issues had photos from two of the early major video game tournaments I posed about earlier: the $10,000 California State Championships of late 1981.

There were two of them, held within three months of one another. Both were billed as state championships and both had a $10,000 prize fund.

The first was run by Silco-West and held in 350 of their locations (including 300 7-11s) over several weeks with the finals held on August 29. It was won by John Conley. Here are two photos from the tournament and a picture of the entry poster that was posted in each participating location:







The second tournament was run by Recreation Station (an Anaheim distribution and service company) and sponsored by Stop N Go with the finals .on December 18 and 19, 1981. Here are some photos of the winner: Jeff Davis (by the way, if you didn't know, Matthew Labyourteaux was a dedicated gamer and was ubiquitous at California video game tourneys back in the day). 




Back to the Tron tourney. The press kit had info sheets on each of the 16 finalists. I'm not going to post scans of the whole sheet, since it contained birthdates, but here are the photos:

Richard Ross:

Sterling Ouchi:


Scott Katkin:

Al Cooper:


Allan Watts: 

James E. Hatley:


Matthew John Collins:

Matt Gordon:

Mike Simmons:

Rick Storer:


Robert Withers-Morgan:

Scott McDonald:


Scott W. Starkey:



Steve Baker:


Tim Collum:


Walt Marchand:


And here is the cover of the press kit and some of the included press releases:











Finally, here are a few other interesting photos I've come across:

Here's one of Dave Nutting in 1973 (he's the one in the middle):


Here's one of director Steven Spielberg with a PSE Maneater game:


And here's one of Wilt Chamberlain looking at a Westlake Systems Grand Slam cocktail Pong game, which he was considering buying for his home.







↧
↧

The Ultimate (So-Far) History of Gremlin Industries Part 1

September 20, 2015, 4:13 pm
$
0
0
After a few digressions, I thought it was high time I got back to my main topic - the history of the coin-op video game industry. Since I covered the early history of Sega in some recent posts, this time I will talk about Sega's US "partner" Gremlin Industries. In this post, I'll look at the company's pre-video-game years and will follow-up next time with their early video games up to the Sega buyout.

Gremlin Industries



Not all of the California video game companies were located in Silicon Valley. Gremlin Games was located far to the south in sunny San Diego. And unlike the many other companies that sprang up like weeds in the California sun of the 1970s only to quickly wither and die, Gremlin would outlast the Pong era to become a major force in the video game world and, after being absorbed by Sega, would last into the golden age of the 1980s. One reason for the company’s success may have been that, unlike the majority of the California coin-op companies, Gremlin was not initially founded to produce video games and did not start producing them until after the ball-and-paddle craze had run its course. Gremlin’s origins, in fact, can be traced to an earlier company called Aeromarine Industries.

Frank Fogleman and Aeromarine Industries

H. Frank Fogleman got into the video game business in a roundabout fashion. In the late 1940s, he studied engineering at East Tennessee State in Johnson City, a rural town nestled in the heart of the Appalachian Mountains (today the school offers degrees in bluegrass music and storytelling). In 1950, two-thirds of the way to his degree, Fogelman dropped out of college to serve with the navy in Korea. After the war, he finished his studies and moved to California where he worked for various electronics companies in San Diego and L.A. In October 1959, he started his own company in San Diego called Aeromarine Electronics[1]. For a year and a half, he toiled alone in a one-car garage in Pacific Beach, where he designed temperature control devices for spacecraft, rockets, and missiles. By May 1961, he was doing well enough to hire two assemblers and move into a 1,000 square-foot building (Macomber 1964). Throughout the 1960s Aeromarine continued to expand and began making other products like electronic switching devices and marine navigation aids. In the late ‘60s, the company began losing money but the incident that eventually pushed Fogleman into the video game business came when he landed a contract to develop a portable phone that could be carried in a suitcase. The project caused Fogleman nothing but grief. It started when a pair of armed bandits broke into the plant one night and stole two prototypes. Luckily for Fogleman, their intelligence did not match their daring. Authorities nabbed them in Las Vegas after they tried to use the phones. Fogleman's troubles were just beginning. The Los Angeles company that manufactured the phones decided to make them on its own and terminated its agreement with Fogleman and his engineers. Fogleman's firm sought an injunction but could not afford the fees and had to find another firm in Palo Alto to make the phones. Just when production got underway, Fogleman hit upon a brilliant idea. He approached Hertz and suggested that they include portable phones in their rental cars. Hertz was interested but wanted to know the company’s production capacity before sealing the deal. When Hertz executives paid a visit to the Palo Alto factory, the production lines were nowhere in sight and the company claimed they had never heard of Fogleman or his phone. They then made a phone of their own and sold it, leaving Fogleman (whose contract with the firm was not solid enough to enforce) in the lurch. (Rhoades 1980)

The Founding of Gremlin Industries

Gremlin founders Gerald Hansen, Gene Candelore, and Frank Fogleman (3rd, 4th, and 5th from the left)


Fogleman had had enough. Determined to establish a business where he owned and controlled the entire production process, he rented a building in Kearny Mesa and started a new electronics contracting company in March 1970. Joining him in the venture was Carl Grindle[2], another astronautics veteran who had previously worked at Cohu Electronics, a large San Diego electronics company founded by Lamotte T. Cohu, former president of TWA and former chairman of Northrup Aircraft. Fogleman and Grindle’s new firm was incorporated as “Gremlin Industries” a name that came as the result of a humorous accident.

[Gene Candelore] We were in the lab working on a game and two of the majority owners at that time were Frank Fogleman and Carl Grindle. I don’t remember if it was Carl or Frank that made a call to the state to register the name. He had it as Grindleman [Industries], a combination of Grindle and Fogelman. Somebody misinterpreted it on the other end and came out with the name Gremlin and that’s what was registered. At that time we weren’t in the game business, we were actually into screening integrated circuits…When we got into the wall games and video games we thought the name Gremlin fit pretty well[3]. (Candelore 1998-2002)

Entering the Coin-Op Gaming Biz




Gremlin initially manufactured a variety of products, including oceanographic instruments, fast food equipment (they made the French fry timers used by Jack-In-the-Box), integrated circuit testers, and measuring devices for the Naval Underseas Center. Then, in 1972, they got a job that would set the company on a new course when a customer brought in a coin-operated dart game that needed to be repaired. The task fell to engineering VP Jerry Hansen. Like Fogleman and Grindle, Hansen was a veteran of the aerospace industry, having worked on the Convair F 102 “Delta Dagger” and F 106 “Delta Dart” fighter jets before serving a stint in the US Army as instructor on the Nike Hercules surface-to-air missile (Hansen 2014). After leaving the army, Hansen served as a radio station engineer then went to work at Cohu Electronics making closed-circuit television equipment before joining coworker and friend Carl Grindle at Gremlin (Grindle would later sell his share of the company to Hansen and Candelore). The crude coin-op dart game Hansen saw at Gremlin was like nothing he had encountered during his days working on aviation electronics. While he was able to get the game working, he was shocked at its poorly designed hardware and uninspired gameplay. The player held down a button to start their onscreen arm moving back, then threw the dart by releasing the button. By holding down the button and counting to four, the player could get a bull's-eye every time. Hansen told the customer that someone should improve the game and its design and was surprised when the customer brushed off his suggestion, bragging that the game's coin box was overflowing every time he checked it. If a game that dull and shoddily made could do so well, thought Hansen, just think what a well-made machine could do.

Employees carrying wall games at Gremlin's factory, ca 1976
The dart game was an example of something called a “wall game.” All but forgotten today, wall games were a short-lived phenomenon whose brief heyday occurred roughly in the period 1970-1978 before video games made them all but obsolete. Found almost exclusively in bars, wall games (as the name implies) were wall-mounted games consisting of a large plastic or styrene panel about 3’ x 5’ and 5-8 inches in depth. Multi-colored graphics were silkscreened on the front of the panel and a series of light bulbs were located behind it. Turning the light bulbs on and off created the illusion of motion. Players controlled the action via a pair of remote control boxes that usually consisted of a single button they had to press at just the right time. Themes included golf, duck hunting, dog racing, and especially darts (the games were sometimes generically referred to as “dart games”).
Sure that they could design something much better than the dart game they had repaired, Gremlin decided to enter the wall game business itself and set to work on a baseball-themed game called Play Ball. While Gremlin had plenty of electronics experience, a wall game presented some unique challenges.

[Jerry Hansen] The first ten or twenty (I forget) units were hand wired and the lamp sockets were riveted to the baseboard that served to hold the lamps and printed circuit boards. The wiring harness was something of a mess, so we decided to see if we could get a large circuit board instead. The problem was that no one in the US had ever made a PC board that big. We approached all of the PC houses in a 300 mile radius and made queries as far away as Chicago, but no one could do it. We finally approached a very small local shop that was just getting started and the owner reckoned that he could make some large flat tubs, put them in his parking lot, fill them with ferric chloride, put in the board (copper side up) and swish the ferric chloride around with a push broom until they were properly etched. We were amazed that his technique actually worked very well. About 18 months later, a company that manufactured PC etching equipment visited the "facility" and shortly thereafter came out with a machine large enough to etch the board. They told us that this machine became popular because other companies could put several PC circuits on the board and cut them apart later, saving considerable money. (Hansen wallgames.com)

Gremlin introduced Play Ball, at the 1973 NAMA convention (a somewhat unusual move, given that the convention’s main focus was vending machines). It was a bit of a risk. At the time, the wall game market was already collapsing and the games had something of a stigma attached to them (the Gremlin engineers apparently were not the only ones who had noticed the poor quality and lackluster gameplay) (RePlay 12/76).

Playball, however, was a cut above the competition, starting with the exciting gameplay. 
One player pushed a button to pitch the ball and released it to swing the bat then the other player did the same. Singles were worth a point and home runs four. Players could select from two skill levels – Major League or Minor League. By varying the speed of the pitch, the engineers created a game that was much more challenging than those offered by the other manufacturers. In addition the game featured better graphics than its rivals and much improved sound (including the resonant crack of the bat and a cheering crowd). Gremlin knew its game was a winner, but convincing reluctant distributors to take a chance on another wall game was not easy (some refused to take the game unless Gremlin guaranteed their income). The hard work paid off when Playball proved to be a hit. Enough of a hit, in fact, that Gremlin abandoned its other product lines to concentrate on wall games. Flushed with success, Gremlin created a follow-up called Trapshoot (a skeet-shooting game) and found themselves with another winner.
But there were issues. In reality, while the wall games did well, their design was overly complicated. One common problem in electronic systems like those used in Play Ball was what was called a "race condition"– a situation in which the output depended on the timing of the inputs or other events. When problems occurred, designers often resorted to adding more circuitry in an attempt to slow down the input signals or control their timing, which could lead to unreliable, overly complex designs, as engineer Lane Hauck explains.

[Lane Hauck] Jerry Hansen (VP Engineering and the greatest guy I’ve ever worked with) slapped about 50 TTL chips and 100 capacitors (his universal solution to race conditions) together to make their first wall games, Play Ball and Trapshoot. (Hauck 2012)

Part of the problem was that the technology they were using was becoming increasingly outdated. What they needed was something that would simplify their design. Something like a microprocessor.

[Lane Hauck] Their third game was to be a soccer game, but Jerry realized he was over his head and some intelligence (a micro controller unit) was needed. We met one evening at a Signetics presentation for their 2650 microprocessor. After meeting Jerry, I went home and typed up a 20-page spec for FoosWall and joined them soon after. (Hauck 2012)



Hauck had studied physics and engineering at UCLA and Cal State, Los Angeles before going to work for Lockheed and Spectral Dynamics. While working at Lockheed in the early 1970s, Hauck became convinced that minicomputers were the wave of the future. When he tried to talk the company into purchasing one, however, they were uninterested. Undaunted, Hauck spent $5,500 of his own money on a DEC PDP-8 and taught himself assembly language programming. In the process, he played the various games that came with the system. (DeWyze 1982) He also created a code-breaking game called MOO, which eventually evolved into the handheld game Comp IV, which he licensed to Milton Bradley (Hauck 2012). When he moved to San Diego to work for Spectral Dynamics, the PDP-8 went into his back bedroom where he continued to work with it in his spare time. After joining Gremlin, Hauck designed FoosWall (a soccer/foosball-themed wall game) around the 8008 microprocessor. Programming was by Agoston “Ago” Kiss, who had worked with Hauck at Spectral Dynamics. Kiss had come to the US after fleeing Hungary in 1956, crossing the border with a suitcase in one hand and his son George in the other (Craig 1978). Fooswall provided Gremlin with its third hit in three tries, establishing them as a leading wall game manufacturer. While some two dozen companies, including Midway, PMC, Meadows, Amutronics, Sunbird, and even Atari, made wall games in the 1970s, Gremlin was the genre’s undisputed king. In 1975, the company had $2 million in sales, a 105% increase over 1974 (Annual Reports). By the end of the year, with 50 employees, Gremlin had outgrown its three-building complex at 7030 Convoy Court and in January, 1976  the company broke ground on a new $1.5 million, 56,000-square-foot plant in Research Park on Aero Drive in Kearny Mesa (Play Meter 3/76). By the end of the year, Gremlin’s wall games had generated $5 million in sales and they controlled 95% of the market.

Wall games, however, had a limited future, especially as video games became more and more popular. To truly succeed in the coin-op world, Gremlin would have to expand. Despite the early success of Pong and its clones, Fogleman chose to stay out of what he called the “yo-yo market of early video” (RePlay 12/76), but by late 1976, that market had become too big to ignore and Gremlin finally decided to test the waters. According to engineering VP Jerry Hansen, the real issue was not so much reluctance as the fact that the company simply did not have the expertise needed to design video games. But that would soon change. 

Notes

[1] This may not have been the company’s original name. In August 1960, Fogleman filed for a patent on a “Temperature reference apparatus” for a company called Genistron, Inc. In April of 1962 he filed for another patent for Aeromarine, indicating that perhaps Genistron was the company’s original name.
[2] The timing and details of Grindle’s involvement with Gremlin and the company’s naming are not entirely clear. Rhoades 1980 indicated that Grindle became partners with Fogleman in 1974. Others, including Hansen, recall that Grindle was involved from the beginning and the company became known as Gremlin early on.
[3] Rhoades 1980 tells a slightly different version of the story. In his version, the company incorporated in Delaware without specifying a name. An employee from the Delaware office called and asked for the name and Candelore blurted out “Just call it Grindleman Industries,” which was misheard as “Gremlin.” Jerry Hansen reports that the company filed for incorporation several times in California, only to find that the names they tried were all taken. They finally tried Grindleman, and when the papers came back, they said Gremlin.

Sources

Interviews with Gene Candelore, Gerald Hansen, and Lane Hauck.
An interview with Gerald Hansen that appeared on wallgames.com.
Various articles by Frank Rhoades that appeared in the San Diego Union.
Various issues of RePlay, Play Meter, and Vending Times.
"Game Designer: The Thoughts on His Mind" by Jeanette DeWyze, Games People, 10/2/82

↧

The Ultimate (So-Far) History of Gremlin Industries Part 2

September 25, 2015, 11:31 am
$
0
0
Continuing with our history of Gremlin, we take a look at their first video games and an almost forgotten personal computer.

Blockade



One person at Gremlin who was interested in video games was Lane Hauck. Since his arrival, he had been badgering management to get into the field, only to be told "not yet" every time. Nonetheless, Hauck continued to tinker with the idea, creating a computer blackjack game (DeWyze 1982). The idea that led to Gremlins first video game came when Hauck created an original-concept game that put the player in control of an on-screen “snake” that grew longer and longer as it slithered around the screen. The goal was to surround your opponent in such a way that they had nowhere to turn and were forced to run headlong into a wall, their opponent, or themselves.

[Lane Hauck] While we were designing wall games, I was tinkering in the back room with a video circuit that became our Blockade game board. I kept showing my work to Frank Fogleman and Jerry, pestering them with the “can we get into video now?” question. I made a 32x24 cell frame buffer with graphical characters. I was intrigued by the random walk in Physics…which said a drunk taking steps in random directions around a lamppost would gravitate to the lamppost. I decided to program an arrow to be the drunk, and watched it flit around the screen for about a minute before getting bored. Then I thought, what if the drunk can’t visit the same square twice? I made that adjustment, and watched the arrow move a bit and then get trapped. The step from there to Blockade was a small one. (Hauck 2012)

Frank Fogleman liked what he saw (he was the one who suggested the name Blockade) and agreed to test the game in public. After obtaining a cabinet from a company that had just gone bankrupt, the engineers slapped together a prototype.

[Lane Hauck] I think we bought an old Motorola TV set and we go some nail-on letters from the hardware store up the street. We put the game in a miniature golf center. We watched very carefully and we saw a lot of people put money in it and have fun with it. It was exciting. (DeWyze 1982)

Encouraged, Hauck began to turn his prototype into an actual game, enlisting the aid of his coworkers.

[Lane Hauck] I understood the importance of sound, so I asked our analog designer, Bob Pecoraro, to make a good explosion sound. In those days we did it all analog—a reverse-biased diode makes a decent white noise generator, which you can shape and apply an envelope to make a boom. I designed the tone circuit that sounded different pitches depending on player and direction with a couple of counters. (Hauck 2012)



By the time of the 1976 MOA expo in November, Hauck had not only completed the game but had also created a four-player version called CoMotion. Blockade was an instant success at the MOA. RePlay named it best of show and it provided Gremlin with the hit it needed to establish itself as a video game manufacturer. The video game newcomers returned from the show with 3,000 orders at $995 each (DeWyze 1982). Sounds from the game were later used in the introduction to a radio news program in Puerto Rico (Play Meter 6/77). The game’s quick success gave Gremlin an initial burst of confidence.

[Lane Hauck]  We were giddy, saying 'Wow, this video stuff is easy, you know!' I mean, you do a good game and you steal the show and people give you all these orders. Fantastic!" (DeWyze 1982)

 When they returned to San Diego however, reality sunk in as the company realized that it didn't know the first thing cabinets, TV monitors, or many other components of video games. As they scrambled to catch up, a bigger problem became apparent. While the game’s concept was original for the time, it was also very easy to copy, and knock-off versions began to appear within months. The fact that Gremlin had no experience making video games certainly did not help matters.

[Lane Hauck] We introduced Blockade at the AMOA show in Chicago. I watched every video game company president drag one of his engineers into our booth, point at Blockade, and say, “that one.” By the time we figured out how to manufacture a video game we were last to market with our own game. (Hauck 2012)

Ramtek’s Barricade, Meadows’ Bigfoot Bonkers, Midway’s Checkmate, and Atari’s Dominos were all on the market by February 1977 and others quickly followed. While Gremlin took measures to put a stop to the copycats, they were only marginally effective at best. In January 1977, they filed suit against Ramtek for trademark infringement over Barricade. While Ramtek claimed the suit had no merit, they voluntarily agreed to stop making the game and vowed that if they resumed production, they would call their version Brickyard (Play Meter 4/22/77). Gremlin found Atari’s Dominos particularly objectionable, given Nolan Bushnell’s public fulminations against copycats. Atari, on the other hand, claimed they had the technology for a blocking game before Gremlin released Blockade but offered Gremlin $100,000 in "conscience money," which Gremlin refused[1]. Not every video game company was so blatant, however. One of the few that actually bothered to license the game was Japan’s Namco, a somewhat unusual move for a Japanese company at the time. In any event, the incident taught fledgling video game maker Gremlin a valuable lesson.

[Gene Candelore] It was very, very successful but we were very naïve…When we got into the video games and took Blockade to the MOA show in Chicago, we were inundated with orders. Two weeks later, it was the National Amusement Game Show in New Orleans and again we were inundated with orders. We were doing $5 million a year in wall games and in those two weeks alone we took in something like $8 million worth of orders…Well the game was such a success that I think every video game manufacturer out there copied it…We did have a patent for a video game that as the cursor moved, it left a trail. So we did bring lawsuits against people and we won and they had to cease making the games. However, by the time everything was settled, so many games had flooded the market that our orders just disappeared. The distributor would call up and say, “I’m sorry, you can’t deliver next week so I’m buying something from somebody else.” So we learned in a hurry. (Candelore 1998-2002)

The copycats, however, may not have been the game's only problem. In January 1978, Malcolm Baines (Gremlin’s president of sales), told RePlay

[Malcolm Baines] We returned from the MOA back-ordered 3,100 units. People who never ordered more than five or ten pieces were ordering a truck a week…But we all learned something because actually everybody was wrong. It wasn't a good game from the standpoint of making money...The industry loved Blockade but the public yawned.

The public may have yawned, but they did not grow tired of the concept and the influence of Blockade lasted long past the video game “Bronze Age.” Perhaps the best-known use of the idea in a coin-op game came in 1982 with the light bikes sequence in Midway’s Tron. Later games, such as the PC games Worm and Snake Byte, Rock-Ola's Nibbler coin-op, and the Nokia cell-phone game Snake added the idea of a snake that only grew when it ate something.

Hustle



One result of the Blockade fiasco was that Gremlin was left with a huge inventory of boards, cabinets, and monitors and no demand for their games. To use them up they dashed off a handful of new games using the same hardware.

[Lane Hauck] [My main inspiration came from] walking through the stockroom and seeing which piles (of unsold material) were the highest.  That's creativity in a very applied context. (DeWyze 1982)


Above: Gremlin Girl Sabrina Osment

1977’s Hustle was another variant on the same theme that added targets that the player could surround to score a varying number of points. To make sure they could meet the demand, and determined not to get beaten to market again, Gremlin produced 1,000 units of Hustle before they started selling it. They introduced  Hustle in April 1977 via an innovative (for the time) marketing promotion. Gremlin conducted a 19-city tour (12 U.S. cities and 7 European) in which players competed against the “Gremlin Girls” – a pair of attractive young ladies (Sabrina Osment and Lynn Reid) scantily clad in T-shirts and short-shorts. Players skilled enough to win two out of three games from the girls took home a 100-dollar bill. The girls reportedly sent 1,233 challengers home in defeat against just seven winners (Play Meter 7/77; RePlay 6/77). Malcolm Baines claimed that Gremlin racked up $1.5 million in orders during the tour.

Depthcharge



While Hustle had helped to clear out inventory, it had done little to address the problem of the company’s inexperience. Despite the Gremlin Girls promotion, they still had no marketing to speak of and often ordered more parts than they needed. And while Hustle had done moderately well, to have lasting success in the video game world Gremlin was going to have to do something besides trot out more variations on the Blockade theme. They needed something new and different. With their next release, they got the latter, if not the former. With the Blockade board inventory used up, Hauck and Ago Kiss began to work on a new game board based on the 8080 microprocessor. The first game using the new hardware was Depthcharge (ca September, 1977) in which the player moved a destroyer left and right while dropping depth charges on enemy subs lurking below. Depthcharge was certainly different from Blockade, but it was not exactly new. It was basically Midway’s Sea Wolf in reverse (maybe Gremlin decided if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em). It did, however, feature a number of improvements over the original. One of the biggest was the excellent sound effects (again courtesy of Bob Pecoraro), which included an echoing sonar ping and the booming explosion of depth charges. To create the former, Gremlin had contacted the Navy and asked to borrow tapes of an actual sonar. The Navy refused but agreed to listen to what Gremlin created and tell them if they got it right (RePlay 9/77). Depthcharge had actually been ready a year prior to its release but after it fared poorly during field testing. The main reason was the controls, which included a lever that the player used to adjust the depth at which the charges exploded. Players hated it.

[Lane Hauck] The charges would go right by the subs. Players would pound the console! Every single player had this problem. They wanted the game to play the way they thought a depth charge would blow up - on contact. (DeWyze 1982)





Gremlin brought the back in for tweaking, completely redesigning the confusing controls (Reid 1977). After the success of its Hustle promotion, Gremlin decided to try the same thing with Depthcharge. A new “Gremlin Girl” (Michele Anderson) was hired to join Sabrina Osment on a multi-city tour. Perhaps mindful of the shellacking Osment had delivered to competitors during the Hustle challenge, Gremlin planned to select one name from all the nationwide challengers and award them an all-expenses-paid trip to Las Vegas, complete with $1,000 in chips (Reid 1977). While it may not have matched the success of Blockade (at least in terms of sales), Depthcharge provided Gremlin with another solid money maker. The game was licensed to Taito, who released it as Sub Hunter and in 1979 Gremlin created a sequel or sorts in Deep Scan, which added color and a miniature radar screen. On the other hand, the copycat issue still had not been completely solved. At the same time Gremlin released Depthcharge, Atari came out with Destroyer, a game with a nearly identical theme (at one point, Atari had even called its game Depth Charge) but improved graphics.

Safari and Blasto





Gremlin’s next release, Safari (ca November 1977), cast the player in the role of great white hunter gunning down charging boars and lions, as well as, somewhat paradoxically, snakes and vultures. Most of the game’s background graphics were painted on the screen rather than computer generated – including trees for the prey to hide behind and a small hut where the player could seek refuge. While the game concept was somewhat fresh, Play Meter referred to it as a one-player version of Gunfight (it used the same combination of joystick and pistol-grip control and may have actually been a licensed version of the Taito’s Safari, which had the same gameplay but different animals). Around April 1978 came a final game released on the Blockade hardware. Programmed by Bill Blewett, Blasto had the player maneuvering a space ship about a screen filled with mines, trying to destroy them all with their “gremmaray” before time ran out. Shooting a mine that was adjacent to another would initiate a satisfying chain reaction of explosions. Catching your opponent in the chain reaction, garnered you a plum 1,000 points. If you managed to blow yourself up, however, the points went to your rival. While Lane Hauck remembers that the game sold 3-4,000 units, it was not the major hit that Gremlin needed.

Noval 760 and Telemath




Coin-op games were not the only products Gremlin made. Realizing that the new 8080 game board they'd created was at least as powerful as the personal computers that were just beginning to appear on the market, Gremlin decided to create a home computer of its own and formed a division called Noval Inc. Lane Hauck, Ago Kiss, and programmer Terry Sorensen (who created the operating system) went to work and created a Z-80 based personal computer called the Noval 760. While little known today, the system was quite ambitious for the time. The units were mounted in an expensive cherry-wood desk with a rear portion that sprang open at the touch of a button (Gremlin used springs from automobile hoods) and a slide-out keyboard caddy. Each unit included a built-in 12” monitor, a 32-column printer, 16k of memory, eight IO ports, and a mag tape system for data storage (later models had 8-inch floppy drives). Noval's version of BASIC was available separately but for assembly language programmers, the 760 offered a novel feature called Instant-Edit. As each line was typed, the 760 checked the syntax and displayed an error if there was something wrong, providing a kind of interactive debugging. Unlike some other early PC manufacturers, Gremlin embraced the idea that people could play games on its system. While designed for the business market, the 760 also played computer versions of Gremlin coin-op hits like Blockade and Depthcharge (not surprising, since it also served as the development system for the coin-op designers for a time). Gremlin exhibited the Noval 760 at the first West Coast Computer Faire in the spring of 1977 (the now legendary event that witnessed the debut of the Apple II and, some say, if inaccurately, the birth of the personal computer industry). Gremlin introduced the Noval to the general public with a four-page ad in the June 1977 issue of Byte. While the personal computer industry was still in its infancy, it was nonetheless a crowded field. The same issue had ads for over a dozen other computers by companies like Cromemco, Ohio Scientific, and Polymorphic Systems. Despite its innovative features, the Noval 760 fared poorly, The Telemath, an educational computer system sold to the San Diego School District as part of a math education program, did better. The computers were installed in a number of San Diego elementary schools, where a select group of students were allowed to use them. In Gremlin-designed software titles such as Fraction Football, the students were presented with a math problem that they had to solve. The teacher could select what kind of problem they received. When the students’ progress was compared to similar groups that did not use computers, the students had much higher rates of retention. While most of the Telemath units were sold to the San Diego School District, a few (less than a dozen) were sold to the general public. In the end, however, neither the Noval 760 nor the Telemath had much lasting impact on the personal computer world and they remain almost-forgotten relics of a bygone era. Whatever chance Gremlin had to compete in the nascent home computer industry came to an end when Sega acquired the company and shut down the computer division entirely. (Hauck and Nash 1977; Craig 1978; Hauck 2012)







[1] As per the letter column in the March 1977 Play Meter, which attributes the information to "a high placed Atari official."


Sources
In addition to the sources cited in Part 1, additional sources include:

John Craig. "Around the Industry: The Noval 760: Here it Comes". Kilobaud May 1978.
Lane T. Hauck and James D. Nash. "System Description: The Noval 760". Byte. September 1977.
Lynne Reid. "The Emergence of Gremlin". Play Meter. November 1977.
↧

The Ultimate (So-Far) History of Gremlin Industries Part 3

October 10, 2015, 5:35 pm
$
0
0
Before I jump into today's post, I wanted to mention a book I recently read that had some additional info on Nasir Gebelli, including why he left Sirius and why Gebelli Software failed. It is 1985's Software People by Broderbund co-founder Doug Carlston. If you have any interest in computer games of the 1970s and early 1980s, I highly recommend it.  have updated my earlier post on Nasir Gebelli with this new info.

Speaking of computer games, another source you need to check out if you haven't already is Jimmy Maher's outstanding blog "The Digital Antiquarian" (www.filfre.net). It is one of my two favorite blog's on video game history. It mostly concentrates on interactive fiction and other games with a story/interactive element, but it also dives into the general history of various publishers. It is generally well researched and very well written.

And while we're on the subject, my other favorite video game history blog is Alexander Smith's "They Create Worlds" (videogamehistorian.wordpress.com). This one takes a much broader approach, covering all three major segments of the video game industry (coin-op, home, and computer) as well as background information on the various threads that led to the industry's creation (i.e. the history of computers in general). Alex has recently started a podcast that is also well worth listening to.

On to today's post:

In the last two posts, I have reviewed the early history of Gremlin Games. When we left off, they were on the verge of being purchased by Sega. Before we look at the purchase, let’s backtrack a bit and look at some Sega history. In a series of earlier posts, I recounted the history of Sega’s predecessors (Service Games and Rosen Enterprises). After Sega was formed, the company had a long history in Japan but delving into that would take us too far off course. Instead, I will concentrate on Sega’s early attempts to enter the US market.

Cracking the US Market

In the late 1960s, Sega dominated the Japanese coin-op industry with relative ease, success in America came much more slowly. The biggest reason was probably the prevalence of piracy. Sega exported a number of games to America between 1966 and 1970 and most were initially successful. The success, however, never lasted. Time and again Sega would conduct months of research before introducing a game only to see their competitors build similarly-themed knock-offs (Midway’s S.A.M.I. for example, was basically the same game as Missile). In addition, the U.S. companies often undersold Sega (Rosen 1975). This was especially easy to do since domestic manufacturers could avoid the costs Sega incurred shipping their games from Japan to the U.S. (not to mention that they did not have to pay for R&D and that some of the copycat games were of less-than-stellar quality and thus cheaper to manufacture). After a disastrous experience of this kind with Jet Rocket, Sega pulled out of the U.S. market entirely. According to David Rosen, however, the "Jet Rocket fiasco" (as he called it) was not the primary reason. In Japan, the company’s arcade and amusement casino business was thriving and they did not have time to devote to the America market, which was an insignificant part of Sega’s total volume anyway (Rosen 1975). In any event, the company’s exit from the U.S. market was not to last long.





Going Public – Gulf + Western Buys Sega





After the success of Periscope, Rosen and his partners began to think about taking their company public, an unprecedented move for an American in Japan. It would have been the first time a coin-op company went public in Japan as well as the first time an American company of any kind did so after World War II. Rosen wanted to go public by acquiring another company and merging into his own. Sega's investment banker, Kidder-Peabody, suggested the opposite – find a company that might be interested in acquiring Sega. In 1969 and early 1970, Rosen and his partners sold 80% of the company to Gulf + Western Industries, though Rosen remained as CEO. Started in 1934 as Michigan Bumper Company, Gulf + Western went on to become the very definition of the word conglomerate (in Mel Brooks Silent Movie it was referred to as Engulf and Devour). Among the companies and brands it owned in the 1970s were Paramount Pictures, Simon & Schuster Publishing, Dutch Master Cigars, Paper Maid, Bohm Metals, Eagle Signals, and No-Nonsense pantyhose. Products made by these companies included food and agricultural products, tractors, air-conditioning equipment, books, movies, metal products, business machines, cables and connectors, musical instruments, public safety systems, wax museums, shoes, belts and the list goes on (and on, and on...). In its 1974 annual report, the list of subsidiaries takes up 9½ pages and includes almost 300 companies. Gulf + Western’s purchase of Sega would add yet another product line to its ever-growing list. One product that Gulf + Western did not make, however, (or want to) was gambling equipment. After acquiring Sega, they discontinued its slot machine line and, according to legend, Sega threw its slot machine molds into the Bay of Tokyo and began concentrating on arcade games.

Sega Enterprises, Inc.

Meanwhile, in 1974, a new corporate entity called Sega Enterprises, Inc. appeared on the scene, though it happened in a roundabout manner that only an accountant could understand. At the time, Gulf + Western, in partnership with David Rosen, was trying to establish a conglomerate in the Far East similar to Gulf + Western, with Sega as a subsidiary. When that effort failed, they decided to spin off Sega into a separate US company headed by Rosen (Kent 2001). One of Gulf + Western’s many holdings was a cosmetics company called the Polly Bergen Company, which they owned a 53.5% interest in via another subsidiary (naturally) called Consolidated Brands. By 1973, Polly Bergen was losing money and in March 1973 Gulf + Western sold its cosmetics business to Faberge, leaving Polly Bergen with no product line whatsoever. In March 1974, Gulf + Western transferred its Sega Enterprises, Ltd. subsidiary to the Polly Bergen Company. Then, on March 25, it effected a one-for-ten reverse stock split and acquired Polly Bergen for 1.7 million shares of stock, increasing its ownership of the company to 95%. The same day, they changed its name from The Polly Bergen Company to Sega Enterprises, Inc. with Sega Enterprises, Ltd. (Sega’s Japanese operations) as a subsidiary. (Annual Reports) While I am certainly no business expert, my guess (and that’s all it is – a guess) is that the reverse stock split was a way for Sega to increase its ownership of Polly Bergen by diluting that of any Polly Bergen Co itself or any other entities.

(Re)Entering the US Market: Sega of America 1975-77

In 1975, Sega decided to give the U.S. market another go. This time, hoping to avoid the problems that had led them to abandon the market earlier, they decided to build the games in America rather than shipping them from Japan. It seems that they initially tried to accomplish this through acquisition. Early in the year, Sega agreed in principle to acquire Seeburg’s Williams Electronics division but the deal was cancelled in the summer and in July, Sega opened its first U.S. manufacturing facility – a 50,000-square-foot plant in Los Angeles. At the 1975 MOA show, Sega debuted Bullet Mark, its first game manufactured in the US. A joint R&D effort between the US and Japan, Bullet Mark was a two-piece video gun game where one or two players used tommy guns to blast away at an oddly disparate assortment of targets (balloons, tanks, pirates, and jet fighters) (Rosen 1975). The guns featured a recoil effect for added realism and Sega later updated the game with new features like disappearing targets, machine gun sounds, and an IC containing new targets. The game arrived too late in the year, however, to have much of an impact on Sega’s bottom line (even if it had arrived earlier, it might not have had much of an effect as the game suffered from quality issues and its large size made it impractical for many locations).





In 1976 came more new video games. Tracer was a smaller, one-piece version of Bullet Mark, with different (and more sensible) targets(helicopters, submarines, bull’s-eyes, and jets). Road Race and Moto-Cross were driving games (automobile and motorcycle respectively) featuring a semi-first-person, behind-the-back perspective (itself somewhat unusual for the time). The latter featured motorcycle handlebar controls that vibrated after a collision as well as recorded sound effects on an 8-track tape. In the summer, Sega took advantage of Gulf + Western’s Paramount subsidiary and rebranded the game as Fonz, with cabinet graphics featuring the likeness of Henry Winkler of Happy Days (a Paramount property)fame. It was perhaps the first example of a celebrity-licensed video game. Sega even sponsored a "Ride with the Fonz" promo, cooked up by sales director Pat Karns (formerly of Atari). Participating arcades were given advertising posters and banners as well as Fonz T-shirts and free signed photos of Winkler to give as prizes and (hopefully) lure new players into the arcade (RePlay 12/76; 1/77). Tic Tac Quiz bore more than a passing resemblance to another TV property – Hollywood Squares (though the game show was produced by Filmways Television, not Paramount). Players agreed or disagreed with facts that appeared on the screen. If they were right, they got to choose where to put their X or O. The game shipped with 2,500 "questions" stored on a replaceable tape (Sega later offered a 1,500-question sports trivia tape).

Sega-Vision (and the Madman)




Sega also continued to branch out into other areas. In June, they acquired Muntz Manufacturing Inc. – a manufacturer of widescreen projection TVs. The company had had been founded by Earl "Madman" Muntz, a high school dropout who made a fortune selling cars, TVs, and stereos via his hyper-kinetic "Madman" persona. Muntz opened his first used car lot at age 20 and went on to become perhaps the most famous used car salesman in the country through a combination of publicity stunts (he once promised to smash a car to pieces on camera with a sledge hammer if he didn’t sell it by the end of the day) and a series of over-the-top TV and radio commercials. Bob Hope and Jack Benny incorporated him into their comedy routines and at one time his used car lots were the seventh most popular tourist attraction in Southern California. Underneath Muntz’s manic personality, however, was a shrewd businessman and a talented engineer. In a practice that came to be called "Muntzing," he would strip down complicated electronic devices to their bare essentials then sell them at a reduced price (he was the first to offer televisions that sold for under $100). Muntz also developed a 4-track car stereo called the Stereo-Pak that made him another fortune and led directly to the 8-track tape. After a fire damaged his offices, Muntz closed his Stereo-Pak business and turned his focus back to television. Taking a 15-inch Sony receiver, he added a mirror and a lens and projected the image onto a 50-inch screen, then housed the whole thing in a wooden console creating one of the earliest widescreen projection TVs. (New York Times 6/21/87; Erskine 2006; Rasmussen 2007)

One company that took notice was Sega, who was certain that the widescreen TV market was ready to explode. In addition to their use in homes, the sets could be installed in restaurants and hotels. Sega was also convinced that there was an untapped market for the devices in schools and corporations, where they could be used as a training aid. They later promoted their use in arcades for use in gaming tournaments. In June 1976, Sega purchased Muntz Manufacturing and began to develop its own widescreen TV, called Sega-Vision. In March 1977 they opened a Sega-Vision retail outlet in Los Angeles. Unfortunately, the world did not share Sega’s vision and did not buy its Sega-Vision. The anticipated market explosion did not happen (at least not in the late 1970s) and in mid-1978 Sega suspended production of the Sega-Vision. (Annual Reports; Play Meter 9/76)


Sega Centers


 Sega’s U.S. arcade operations were much more successful. Not surprisingly, given its extensive experience operating arcades in Japan, expanding into arcade ownership was a major priority in Sega’s plan for competing in the U.S. market. The key was the family-oriented mall location. With the mall increasingly becoming the hang-out spot of choice for young people across America, mall owners were offering more activities outside of shopping (including movies, restaurants, arcades etc.) to take advantage of the new opportunity (what Sega called, in typically bloodless corporate-ese, "short-time-span entertainment").
Sega started in July 1975 by purchasing 50% of the Kingdom Of Oz Company, which operated about 70 arcades in shopping malls throughout California. They transformed six of them into Sega Centers– a chain of company-run arcades that Sega hoped would match its success in Japan. Rather than just opening a location and hoping kids would wander in, however, Sega aggressively promoted Sega Centers with tournaments, advertising, and other marketing tools. They also conducted extensive research into the playing habits and demographics of their clientele. In the summer of 1978, for instance, they ran a promotion offering free prizes to those who filled out a survey but the real purpose was to gather information on players’ likes and dislikes. Sega’s arcades were the only segment of their U.S. operations that turned a profit in 1978 and revenues for arcade operations rose 50% over the previous year. (Annual Reports)

Meanwhile, Back at Gremlin

And what about Gremlin? By the end of 1977, Gremlin had grown to almost 200 employees, but things were not all well. The wall game market was collapsing (again) and the computer division was doing poorly (it would be shut down in 1978). Gremlin’s video games were selling well, but none had matched the success of its initial effort, Blockade. Ultimately, however, sales may not have been the real problem.

[Gene Candelore] We were growing so rapidly we couldn’t sustain the cash flow… [We were growing at] something like 300% a year. Then there was a very bad winter. The transformers in our monitors were coming out of Chicago and Canada. With the bad winter that they had our supplies coming in were being held up and the games that we did produce…were caught in snow storms and they were sitting in Denver, and Kansas City, and St. Louis and not getting to our distributors. So on one hand we didn’t have any supply to build any more games and on the other hand we weren’t getting any income because our games weren’t getting into the hands of distributors. So that one winter really took us right down. We survived…but the next winter was the same thing. The second winter almost put us under, we almost went bankrupt. So we tightened up our belts and started working again so when Sega came to us and they were looking to acquire someone it was just a perfect fit at the time. (Candelore 1998-2002)

In September 1978, Gremlin got a new lease on life and a new corporate owner when they were purchased by the Japanese giant Sega, a company that was experiencing problems of its own.

[Gene Candelore] Sega had started a factory up north and over a period of two years they lost about $5 million. So, rather than trying to start a factory up and get into microprocessors, they decided, "Let’s buy the technology." (Candelore 1998-2002)


Sega Acquires Gremlin

So far, Sega’s plan for U.S. domination had not gone very well. In fiscal year 1977, Sega actually lost almost $800,000 overall and its American arm was responsible for almost all of it. Sega-Vision TVs were not selling and many operators were reluctant to take a chance on a new game in the midst of an industry downturn. As a result, Sega released just two new games in the American market in fiscal year 1978. If Sega was going to compete in the U.S. market they needed to do something – and fast. On September 29, 1978 they did just that when they acquired Gremlin Industries and began producing video games under the Gremlin/Sega name. (San Diego Union 8/9/78; Annual Reports; RePlay 10/78; Play Meter 9/1/78; 11/15/78).




The effects of the merger were not immediately reflected in Gremlin’s product line, however. At the 1978 AMOA show in November, they debuted three games and two of them were anything but revolutionary: Frogs, Fortress, and Gee Bee. Frogs cast the player in the role of the titular amphibian trying to spear insects (including an elusive dragonfly) with its tongue while avoiding falling off its lily pad. In Fortress, the player defended a castle against cannonballs fired from ships. While almost completely forgotten today, Fortress did have some innovative features - at least for Gremlin. Like most early video games, and all of Gremlin's previous games, Fortress was a timed game, but if the player got to the end of the time limit with part of his fortress remaining, they could earn extended playtime in which the enemy pirates were more aggressive. The feature, which had already been introduced in games like Midway's Sea Wolf, gave players at least the illusion that they could play forever. The game also incorporated a lesson Hauck had learned from Blockade. When playtesting the game, Hauck noted a mother and daughter who adopted an unusual play style.

[Lane Hauck] [They] would immediately head for each other on just the shortest path, and then they'd hit, hear the explosion sound, and laugh their heads off. Then they'd put in a quarter in do it again. (DeWyze 1982)

Hauck was about to approach the pair and tell them that they must not have read the instructions when he realized "Who am I to tell them not to put money in?" (DeWyze 1982). He decided that, in the future, he would try to play for unconventional play. He put this idea to use in Fortress. The game featured three cannons and Hauck figured that somebody would decide to get two additional players and put on each cannon.

[Lane Hauck] We want the player to feel that he'd figured something out and is really pulling something on us. Anything to get those next quarters. Discovering's an important thing in a game. For the macho arcade player you want to have some things that aren't laid right out. (DeWyze 1982)

On the other hand, despite the innovations, both Fortress and Frogs featured the same blocky, black-and-white graphics of earlier games. The one game that did look promising, Gee Bee (a video pinball game) was licensed from Namco. On the other hand, the ink was still barely dry on the Gremlin merger and its effects would not really be felt until 1979. When they did, things would change at Sega and in a big way. Meanwhile, in San Diego, Gremlin’s crosstown rival was introducing a major change of its own.
　Sources:
Aside from the sources mentioned above and in parts 1 and 2, additional sources include:

* Sega Inc Annual and 10-K reports
* Steven Kent's Ultimate History of Video Games
* An interview with David Rosen that appeared in the October 1975 issue of RePlay
* Chris Erskine. 2006. And the Pitch is…Wild. Los Angeles Times. June 21.
* Cecilia Rasmussen. 2007. An L.A. Legend You’ve Never Seen or Heard. Los Angeles Times. December 16.



　
↧

Preliminary Report - Was The Devil's Dungeon the First Commercial CPRG and What Was the First Commercial Microcomputer Game?

October 21, 2015, 10:45 pm
$
0
0
While arcade games are the focus of my research, I occasionally delve into computer game history. While I certainly played my share of arcade games and spent a good deal of time with my Atari 2600 (though my first console was an Atari/Sears Super Pong IV), my favorite gaming platform by far was my Apple II and probably my favorite genre of games was the role playing game. I have also always had an intense interest in the origin of things (my favorite comic book issues, for instance, were inevitably those with origin stories). Unsurprisingly, then, one topic in which I am keenly interested in is that of the first commercial microcomputer/personal computer role playing game as well as the first commercial microcomputer game in general.

The "commercial" qualifier is a necessity since the finding the first microcomputer game period is probably a fool's errand. With computer games users could program their own games and many of them did. In the early years of personal computing, in fact, this may have been the only way to obtain software since there was as of yet no real commercial microcomputer software industry - at least not for games. But more on that later. Developing arcade and console games generally required expensive hardware and development systems that only a tiny, tiny handful of consumers were likely to have. Microcomputers were different. Almost all of them eventually had at least a BASIC compiler available and many of them shipped with one out of the box. In addition, there were numerous books and magazines offering "type-in" games in BASIC so even users completely lacking in programming skills could have a go at it. Since such games could be created by anyone and everyone who owned a computer, trying to document the first such game would probably be an exercise in futility.

Trying to find the first commercially sold personal computer game is a bit more manageable. But it still offers its own set of challenges. One is defining what counts as a personal computer. Contrary to what some thing, personal computers did not start with the Apple II, Commodore PET, and TRS-80 in 1977. There were at least two dozen personal computers, and possibly many more, produced in 1975, 1976, and the first half of 1977 (i.e. before the West Coast Computer Faire in June when the members of the "trinity" were either announced or introduced). And they didn't start with the Altair 8800 either. A handful of models appeared in the years before the Altair was introduced in the famous January 1975 Popular Electronics cover story, including the Kenbak-1, the Datapoint 2200, the National Radio Institute 832, a kit computer that could be built from 52 integrated circuits, the French MICRAL-N (1973, considered the first microprocessor-based nonkit microcomputer to be sold commercially), and the Scelbi 8H (1974, the first US microcomputer with a microprocessor). In the 1960s there were machines that some consider to be personal computers, MIT/DEC's LINC (1962), and Olivetti's Programma 101, introduced at the 1964 New York World's Fair. Some trace the beginnings of personal computing to 1966 when Stephen Gray formed the Amateur Computer Society as a way for hobbyists building their own computers to share information. Of course, in order for a society to be formed, there had to be an existing personal computer movement. Nonetheless, it was in the mid-1970s that the personal computer industry really began to take off. At the time, these machines were generally called "microcomputers" rather than "personal computers," which might be a better term to use.

All of that is a long way of saying that even the question of the first commercial microcomputer game is not an easy one to answer. This is especially true given how poorly this era is documented and how little attention it has been given by computer game historians. One thing I have discovered in researching early arcade games is that sources like Wikipedia and MobyGames are, more often than not, worthless. They are somewhat useful for finding information on arcade games published from the late '70s on but for earlier games, if you want to find reliable information, you have to dig it up yourself. The situation for early computer games is even worse. In my opinion, no one has really researched the pre-1978, or even the pre-1980 era in sufficient detail.

I would love to tell you that I am going to be the person who does but that is not the case. At one point, I was planning to write separate books covering the history of arcade, computer, and console games but just covering arcade games, and even then just up to 1985, and even covering primarily games made in America has taken up far too much of my time. On occasion, however, I do tackle more bite-sized questions about computer games.

Two that I hope to address one day are: 1) what was the first commercial CPRG (computer role-playing game), and 2) what was the first commercial microcomputer game. I will not be attempting to answer either of those questions here, since I haven't really researched them. I have, however, uncovered a few interesting items in my preliminary research and thought I'd share them.

The first question is the easier of the two because we are dealing with some constraints. The first edition of Dungeons and Dragons came out in 1974 making it very unlikely that there was a computer RPG before then. Perhaps the first computer RPGs of any kind were those created for the PLATO system. PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automated Teaching Operations) was a CAI (Computer Assisted Instruction) system created in 1960 at the University of Illinois, originally on the ILIAC I computer. Initially a single-user system, it soon evolved into a timeshare system that allowed multiple users to connect to a single mainframe. By the late 1970s the system included several thousand terminals around the world connected to almost a dozen mainframes. PLATO was a fascinating system which merits far more attention than it has been given so far and far more than I am going to give it here.

An entire blog could be dedicated just to PLATO (a book is forthcoming that looks very promising). It was among the first systems to offer such features as e-mail, chat rooms, and instant messaging. It was also home to a number of games, including some of the first CRPGs. The first may have been m199H, which was allegedly written in 1974. Unfortunately, nothing is known of the game save its name. A number of other RPGs appeared on the system in 1975, including dnd/The Game of Dungeons (which may have been started in 1974), pedit5/The Dungeon, and Moria. From the screenshots and videos, I've seen, these games appear to be more sophisticated than the microcomputer games we will discuss shortly. They arguably included features such as high score boards and bosses (one developer claims that one of these games included the first boss, but I find that claim questionable). I do not have time to go into these games here, but you can check out Charles Bolingbroke's (a pseudonym) excellent CPRG Addict blog for more info.


What about the first commercial microcomputer RPG? Here, three excellent sources come to mind: the CPRG Addict blog, the Museum of Computer Adventure Game History (www.mocagh.org), and Matt Barton's book Dungeons and Desktops. The leading contenders are Beneath Apple Manor (Don Worth, The Software Factory/Quality Software), Space (Steven Pederson and Sherwin Steffen, Edu-Ware), Dungeon Campaign (Robert Clardy, Synergistic), Dunjonquest: Temple of Apshai (Automated Simulations), Telengard (Avalon Hill), Wizard's Castle (Joseph R. Power), Eamon (Donald Brown), and Akalabeth (Richard Garriott).

Of these, Beneath Apple Manor, released in 1978, is the consensus pick for first CPRG. Wikipedia and CPRG Addict both list it as such, as does David Craddock's book Dungeon Hacks (a history of Roguelike RPGs) Craddock, however, takes the claim from CPRG Addict. Seeking "definitive proof" of the claim, Craddock contacted Chester Bolingbroke, who replied:

"In all my investigations, I've been unable to track down a commercial RPG released earlier than 1978. MobyGames, one of the most comprehensive sources on the Internet, gives 1978 as the first year of any commercial RPG, as does Wikipedia. In almost five years of blogging, no one has come forward with an earlier title."

That certainly doesn't sound like definitive proof to me and , as we will discuss, I am a bit skeptical of the claim.

Let's quickly review the major candidates.

* Akalabeth and Temple of Apshai were not published until 1979 (for a discussion of Akalabeth's chronology, see (www.filfre.net/2011/12/a-word-on-akalabeth-and-chronology/).

* Eamon was a text adventure system with some rudimentary role playing elements thrown in. The system eventually included over 200 games. While one person claims to have played it in 1978, a 1979 or 1980 initial release date seems more likely. Once again, Jimmy Maher has done some excellent legwork on this one (www.filfre.net/2012/04/my-eamon-problem)

* Telengard's release date is usually listed as 1982, but its history goes back much farther. The author, Daniel Lawrence, had written a BASIC game called DND (a different game than the PLATO dnd) in 1976 or 1977 and ported it to a Commodore PET in 1978. As Lawrence explained in an interview for the Armchair Arcade website (www.armchairarcade.com/neo/node/1366):
"DND was written in 1976. Telengard was written and played locally by myself and the local crowd in 1978 when the first Commodore PETs came out. I had ported it to the Atari 800, the Apple ][+ and the TRS-80 before it was noticed by Avalon Hill and licensed for marketing."
This seems to indicate that the game was merely played by Lawrence and his friends in 1978, not commercially released.

* In a comment on CPRG Addict Robert Clardy claimed that Dungeon Campaign was published in December 1978. However, the copyright record lists a date of creation of 1979 and a copyright date of March 20, 1979.

* Space was a text-based sci-fi game based on the Traveler tabletop rpg. While some list it as a 1978 game, Barton claims it was likely released in 1979.

* Wizard's Castle was another game mentioned by Barton. It was a BASIC game published in a
magazine for the Exidy Sorcerer. Barton does not say which magazine, but I suspect it was the Sorcerer fanzine whose name escapes me. Baron also fails to mention when the game was published. The Sorcerer debuted in April 1978 and I find it unlikely that the game was published prior to 1979 but need to do more digging.

Finally, there seems to be little question that Beneath Apple Manor was published in 1978, but when? Worth claims that he showed the game off in computer stores in the fall of 1978, but this is a bit problematic. Even if his memory is accurate, it is unclear if he sold the game in the fall, or just demonstrated it in computer stores.

As I said, I have not really investigated this issue myself so Beneath Apple Manor may well be the first CPRG. As I also said, however, I'm a bit skeptical. First off, I don't set much store by what MobyGames or Wikipedia has to say on the issue since pre-1978 microcomputer games are extraordinarily poorly documented (the ones in 1978 and 1979 are better but not much).
However, in the little research I have done, I've turned up one intriguing possibility. Back in the day, I had a collection of probably 1,500-2,000 Apple II games as well as a handful of magazines and catalogs listing games I didn't have, all of which I entered into an Excel spreadsheet several years back. Looking back over my spreadsheet, I found a handful of RPGs that may have been released in 1979 or sooner. One of them was a BASIC game called The Devil's Dungeon written by Dr. Charles William Engel.

A quick web search turned up this article: www.hardcoregaming101.net/history/history7.htm which gives a bit more info on the game. The copyright office lists a copyright date of January 10, 1978 and, intriguingly, a date of creation of 1977.




An ad for the game (from Engel's Tampa, Florida company, Engel Enterprises) appeared in the February 1978 issue of Byte and it was reviewed in the March 1978 issue of Interface Age, the April 1978 issue of Byte, and a 1978 issue of Personal Computing.



However, it appears that at this point it was only sold as a 15-page book containing a program listing in BASIC.  As the ad above indicates, Engel also published a book called Stimulating Simulations (copyright 1977), which was later republished in various editions for most of the early microcomputers. PDFs of both the original 1977 edition and the 1979 Atari edition are available on-line. The former does not include The Devil's Dungeon (which was being sold separately) but the latter does, along with a listing for the game and some sample runs.









Unfortunately, it gives little other info on the game's history. As for Engel, he was a professor of mathematics education at the University of South Florida with a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. from Wayne State University. Around 1981, he helped establish the Florida Instruction Computing Resource Center, an organization dedicated to promoting the use of computers in education.

So could The Devil's Dungeon have been the first commercial CPRG? To answer that question, we must first decide if it was an RPG at all. The game was very, very simple (and that's putting it mildly), especially compared with games like Beneath Apple Manor. It was all text with no graphics of any kind. From this description, it may seem little different than games like Hunt the Wumpus and Colossal Cave, but unlike those games, it did include several role-playing-game elements, such as experience points, attributes (speed and strength), monsters, and treasure. (other features included poison gas and tremors). On the other hand, it seems to lack character development completely, which would disqualify it in some people's eyes. Personally, I lean toward saying that it qualifies as an RPG, but just barely though I may change my mind. Others, however, will likely disagree, especially given the lack of character development.

Even if it was an RPG, however, does a game that was only published in book form count as commercial? If so, what about all the other BASIC games that were published prior to 1978 in books like David Ahl's BASIC Computer Games the People's Computer Company's What to do After You Hit Return or in magazines like Byte and Creative Computing? I suppose it's a matter of opinion whether it counts as a commercial computer game, but in any event, it does seem to have been published prior to Beneath Apple Manor. As for other BASIC games, I am unaware of any previously published games that could be considered RPGs, but I need to review my library. Another question is whether or not it should be considered a personal computer/microcomputer game, since many of the BASIC games books were written before microcomputers appeared on the scene. My initial thought is that it should be. Yes, it was just one of many BASIC games and could have been implemented on a number of systems, but Engel appears to have aimed his book at microcomputer rather than mainframe users.

Also, it does appear that the game was later published on computer media of some sort. For instance, it was listed in Skarbek's Software Directory - a catalog of Apple software published in 1980 - as being sold by Rainbow Computing (a computer retailer in Northridge, CA that also published software). It was also included in A.P.P.L.E.'s Nightmare Game Pak, a collection of BASIC games for the Apple II. A.P.P.L.E. was the Apple Puget Sound Program Library Exchange, an early Apple user's group established in February 1978 that sold collections of games on tape and disk (in addition to other activities). I am not sure when Nightmare Game Pak was published, but this version is available as a disk image if you want to give The Devil's Dungeon a go on an emulator. Here are some screenshots from AppleWin:





As to when the game was published in book form, it appears to have been available by at least February 1978, and possibly (given the copyright information) in 1977. I was unable to find contact info for Charles Engel and am not sure he's still alive. He was born in 1935, so he would be 79 or 80 today. In any event, I think that at the least the game merits more research. And there's always the very real (in my mind) possibility that someone offered a CPRG for sale prior to 1978.

How about the second question: what was the first commercial microcomputer game? Here, information is much harder to come by and there does not really seem to be a consensus favorite. I've done even less research on this one than I have on the first, but once gain, I've unearthed some interesting candiates in the little resarch I have done.

On his personal website (www.benlo.com/microchess/), Peter Jennings (co-founder of Personal Software) claims that his program MicroChess was "the first game program sold for personal computers." Jennings originally wrote the game for the MOS Technology KIM-1 computer. It was first advertised in the November 1976 issue of KIM-1 User Notes and the first copy shipped on December 18.

Not to take anything away from Jennings and his achievement, but I am skeptical of his claim. A quick search turned up two earlier examples of computer games that were offered for sale.
In April 1976, and possibly earlier, Cromemco began running ads for its TV Dazzler, a color graphics card for the Altair 8800 and other s-100 bus microcomputers. The ad also offered three programs for the Dazzler for $15 each. One of them was John Conway's Game of Life.



Any guesses as to what format the games were sold on? If you guessed cassette tape, you are ------ wrong! Nope, these were sold on paper tape. Yes, despite what you may have heard, cassette tapes were not the first medium on which microcomputer games were sold.
OK, now some of you may question whether Life actually counts as a game. Personally, I am skeptical that it does. Stan Veit reports that Steve Wozniak also created a version of Life for the Apple I (that's I not II), though I don't know if it was offered for sale. In any event, by October 1976 (again, possibly earlier) Cromemco was selling Spacewar on paper tape for $15 for machines based on the 8080 microprocessor and that definitely counts as a game and was sold before MicroChess. Here is a the cover and first page of the game manual:






And here's the table of contents for TV Dazzler Games, a collection of games for the TV Dazzler published in 1977 on diskette. for $95.


So were these the first microcomputer games offered for sale? I seriously doubt it. I imagine there were a number of games available for personal computers prior to 1977 and surely a few of them must have been offered for sale (yes, I know that most software was swapped at users groups or typed in from magazines etc. but I can't believe no one was selling software). A few years back when the demoed an Apple I, they ran a Star Trek game on it and someone might well have made one for sale.

Another early game was Steve Dompier's Target. Most sources claim that Dompier created in 1977 for the Processor Techology Sol-20 (watch the video here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_E5UnCVll8) but Stan Veit claims that Dompier originally wrote it for Processor Tech's VDM-1, which was advertised in the first issue of Byte in September 1975. The ad, however, does not mention Target and Veit claims that the VDM-1 wasn't available until fall 1976 (despite the ad's claim that it would be available in three weeks, which only illustrates one of the pitfalls of relying on ads for game release dates).  There was also the Altair 8800 game "Kill the Bit" but I don't know if it was offered for sale (and it didn't use a monitor).

So what was the first commercial microcomputer game? Beats me. To answer that question would require, at a minimum, scouring all the back issues of computer magazines published prior to 1977 as well as ads in various users group magazines, fanzines etc.  So far, I don't know of anyone that had done that - and if they did, it still wouldn't give a definitive answer. One of these days, I may do it myself, but who knows when and if I'll have the time.

Finally, since I mentioned the TV Dazzler and Stan Veit, I thought I'd leave you with this story from his book Stan Veit's History of the Personal Computer - perhaps my all-time favorite book on personal computer history. Stan ran the Computer Mart in New York City, one of the very first computer retailers. One night he installed a TV Dazzler card, connected it to a color TV set, and ran the Kaleidoscope program that was sold for it (the program just displayed kaleidoscope patterns on the screen. At the time, the store was located inside another store called Polk's). I'll let Stan pick it up from there:

"One evening we put the TV set in the window. It was connected by a long piece of coaxial cable to the IMSAI computer in the back of the store, which had Kaleidoscope loaded into the TV Dazzler. We left the computer running when the store closed, and went home. Imagine that you are a motorist driving down 5th Avenue in New York City at night. All of the stores are closed. It's pitch black, except for the street lamps. As you approach 32nd St., you see dazzling kaleidoscope patterns in bright colors, playing across the face of a TV tube in a store window. Even a jaded New Yorker was sure to stop and see what was making this display. Naturally, when you stopped to see what was going on here, so did everyone else. It did not take long to attract a large crowd of rubberneckers, and this stopped traffic completely, creating a big traffic jam on one of New York's busiest avenues. Soon, the police came to unscramble the traffic jam and they quickly saw what was causing the  problem. Thinking that the pictures had to be coming from a TV broadcast (there were no VCR's in those days,) they called up all the local TV stations to find out who was broadcasting the images. The TV stations knew nothing about it. The police soon realized that the display had to be generated by something inside the store. First they called the owner, and then the manager, of the store. The manager had to come downtown all the way from the Bronx. We had to open the store, turn off the alarm, and then he disconnected the computer by pulling the power cord out of the wall. The next morning, when I came to work, he had a few choice words to say to me about the window display. If I ever pulled anything like that again, I was finished with Polk's store!"

What I love about that story is what it reveals about the early days of computers. It seems incredible now that a simple kaleidoscope program could stop traffic in one of the world's largest cities, but that's how unfamiliar people were with seeming computer-generated images on a television. Most people had never seen anything like it. That's why a game like Computer Space could leave people gaping in wonder.


↧
↧

Atari Depositions - Part 9

November 7, 2015, 10:40 am
$
0
0
Today I thought I’d post another deposition from the Magnavox v Bally et al case.

This one, from June 25, 1974, is from Bally VP John Britz, who was involved in the negotiations between Bally and Nolan Bushnell.

Most of it is pretty dry, but there is some interesting information about Space Race and the Pong negotiations. Britz also offers a very different reason as to why Bally and Midway initially rejected Pong – not the "Jedi mind trick" version that is given by many other sources.

-----------------------------

The deposition of JOHN ANTHONY BRITZ…taken before Michael J. Shapiro, a notary public within and for the County of Lake and State of Illinois, at the offices of Neuman, Williams, Anderson and Olson, 77 West Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois, on Tuesday, June 25, 1974, at 11:40 o'clock am.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

By Mr. Anderson:

Q Please state your full name.

A John Anthony Britz .

Q Where do you reside?

A 189 Oxbury Lane, Palatine, Illinois.

Q By whom are you employed?

A Bally Manufacturing Corporation.

Q What is your position with Bally?

A Executive Vice President.

MR. ANDERSON: I will have the reporter mark as Britz Deposition Exhibit 1 a Notice of Taking Deposition.

By Mr. Anderson:

(The document above referred to was marked Britz Deposition Exhibit 1 for identification.)

Q I hand you Britz Deposition Exhibit 1, Mr. Britz, and ask if you have seen that before, or a copy of it.

A Yes, I have.

Q And that deposition notice calls upon Bally Manufacturing under the provisions of rule 30(b)6 to produce a designated officer to testify on certain listed subjects. Are you that designated officer?

A Yes.

Q Have you prepared yourself to testify in that capacity today?

A Yes.

Q How have you prepared yourself?

A I went over the past events.

Q Did you search for any documents?

A I went through some documents.

Q As a part of the notice you have been asked to produce today certain documents, and I would like to have those produced at this time, Mr. Britz, or Mr. Welsh, either one.

MR. WELSH: You have one document which I produced as I indicated on behalf of Bally, which was marked as Exhibit 3 in Mr. Ross's deposition. And I have here two other documents which respond to the request, and I would indicate that I consider these to be subject to the confidential agreement.

MR. ANDERSON: I will ask the reporter to mark as Britz Deposition Exhibit 2 a copy ofa letter dated July 10, 1972, addressed to Mr. Britz, and apparently signed by Mr. Bushnell.

(The document above referred to was marked Britz Deposition Exhibit 2 for identification.)

MR. ANDERSON: And as Britz Deposition Exhibit 3, an affidavit apparently signed by Nolan Bushnell,

(The document above referred to was marked Britz Deposition Exhibit 3 for identification)

By Mr. Anderson:

Q Mr. Britz, I hand you the letter of July 10, 1972, Britz Deposition Exhibit 2, and ask you if that is a copy of a letter which you received from Mr. Bushnell?

A It is.

Q There is a reference in the beginning portion of the letter to an agreement, do

you see that?

A Yes.

Q And do you know what agreement that is referring to?

A Royalty agreement.

Q I place before you Ross Deposition Exhibit 3 and ask you if that is the royalty agreement referred to.

A Yes.

Q There is also reference in the letter to a check.

A Yes .

Q Have you produced the check today?

A No.

Q Do you know the amount of the check?

A It should be $4,000.

Q Do you have any personal recollection of that?

A No.

Q You are just going on the basis of reading the letter at this time?

A Right.

Q Or the agreement?

A The agreement.

Q The agreement in paragraph 1 atthe bottom the page calls for the sum of $4,000 per month for six months beginning with July,1972. Were those sums paid, do you know?

A Yes.

Q Have you produced any evidence of those payments today?

A No.

Q Was there any correspondence at all with Mr. Bushnell or Syzygy or Atari by Bally subsequent to the letter of July 10, 1972?

A No.

Q Were there letters of transmittal with the checks?

A No.

Q How were the checks forwarded to Mr. Bushnell?

A He would invoice us and we would pay.

Q Do you have copies of the invoices?

A Not here.

Q But they do exist. in the files of Bally?

A Yes.

Q Did Bally ever make any other payments to Mr. Bushnell or anyone related to him other than the $4,000 monthly payments recited in paragraph 1 and the initial payments of $4,000?

A No.

Q Did you personally negotiate the royalty agreement on behalf of Bally Manufacturing Corporation?

A I was in on it.

Q Who else was in on it on behalf of Bally?

A Mr. Tomlinson, our house counsel.

Q And who else?

A I cannot recall if our chief engineer was in on it or not.

Q What is his name?

A Joseph Lally.

Q L-a-l-l-y?

A Right. Can we get back to the invoicing?

Q All right.

A I am not positive, but generally we do not pay unless there is an invoice, so I

am just assuming there are invoices there.

Q I gather no search was made for the payment or evidence of payment?

A It didn't pertain to any patents.

Q But it pertains to a relationship between Bally and Atari.

MR. WELSH: It is really Bally and Bushnell. don't think it has been established that it

is between Bally and Atari. The only reason that these things are produced is the referral to the royalty agreement in the agreement between Atari and Midway. I am sure it has not been established that Mr. Bushnell was with Atari at the time the royalty agreement was entered into.

By Mr. Anderson:

Q Mr. Britz, do you know when Atari, Inc. was formed?

A No, I don't.

Q Do you know whether Atari, Inc. existed at the time that you were talking to Mr.

Bushnell in the summer of '72?

A To my knowledge, they did not.

Q Do you know that Mr. Bushnell is an officer of Atari?

A At present?

Q Or at any time.


A I presume he was at one time •

Q What is the basis of that assumption?

A Because he came up with a name, which to us sounded rather odd.

Q What name was that?

A Atari.

Q And when did you first hear of Atari?

A I cannot really tell. I wouldn't know.

Q Can you relate it to July of 1972?

A It was after that.

Q Was it before February of 1973?

A I would just be guessing. My guess would be yes, but it is just a guess.

Q What was the first contact that you know of between Mr. Bushnell and Bally?

A To my recollection, it was around June, 1972.

Q And what was the contact?

A He came in, and we signed that agreement.

Q Had you any forewarning that he was coming, or did he just pop in the door?

A No, we knew that he was coming. Through what source, I don't remember.

Q What is the earliest contact that you remember prior to the day you signed the agreement?

A The earliest one I recollect is that date.

Q Had there been any contact between Bushnell and anyone at Bally that you know of prior to that date?

A There must have been, otherwise he wouldn't have come in. Who they were, I do not recall.

Q Did you make any effort to discover that in preparation to testify?

A No, I did not.

Q Knowing the organization of Bally, who would be the most likely persons to have had contact with them prior to that date?

A I wouldn't know. I don't remember. It is possible he was recommended to us by a distributor.

Q Who set up the meeting at which he came in on, I presume, the 26th of June, 1972, the date of the agreement, Ross Deposition Exhibit 3?

A I don't remember.

Q Was it on June 26, 1972, that Mr. Bushnell came to Bally?

A That's right,

Q And you say you met with him?

A That's right.

Q And Mr. Tomlinson met with him?


A That's right.

Q And perhaps Joe Lally, the chief engineer?

A That's right.

Q Anyone else at all?


A Not that I can recollect.

Q Did anyone else attend the meetings other than the people that you have mentioned?

A No one .

Q Just Mr. Bushnell alone?

A Right.

Q Did he bring anything with him?

A No.

Q Did you hand him the first check for $4,000 at the end of that meeting at the time of the execution of the agreement, Exhibit 3, Ross Deposition Exhibit 3?


A I don't recall.

Q Who made the decision on behalf of Bally to enter into the royalty agreement, Ross Deposition Exhibit 3?

A Mr. Lally and myself entered into the agreement. The royalty agreernent, yes.

Q Then you are certain that Mr. Lally was involved?

A Yes, but I don't know whether he was present at that time.

Q At what time?

A When this was signed. He was cognizant of the details.

Q Was Mr. Bushnell at Bally for a period of days or did this all occur on one day, on June 26, 1972?

A I don't remember.

Q What factual or data input did you have that formed the basis of your deciding to agree to pay $4,000 a month for six months under the royalty agreement of June 26, 1972?

A Can you rephrase that? I don't follow you there. You mean the reason?

Q Well, that is a good question. What were the reasons?

A Just past performance.

Q What past performance was that?

A On a quiz game, or rather on a TV game.

Q What TV game was that?

A One he made for Nutting ..

Q Was that a TV game that was then on the market in 1972?.

A Right, yes.

Q What was the nature of that TV game that was on the market in June of 1972?

A I don't recall the name of it.

Q What was the nature of it?

A Oh, it was a space ship theme.

Q How had you become familiar with it?

A Saw it at a MOA show.

Q What MOA show?

A I believe it was the one in the fall of 1971.

Q Where was that held? In Chicago?

A Yes.

Q. At the Conrad Hilton?

A I don't know if it was the Conrad Hilton hotel it was at.

Q Was that TV space game then available in the marketplace?

A Oh, yes.

Q Did Bally have one in its possession as of June?

A No.

Q What was the basis of your evaluation of it, then?

A Its success in the field.

Q And how did Bally learn of that, or how did you personally learn of that?

A Through reports from our distributors, hearsay.

Q Are any of those recorded?

A No.

Q Were you personally familiar with that ·game?

A To a slight extent.

Q Did you attend the MOA?


A Yes.

Q Did you see the game at the MOA?

A Yes.

Q Did you meet Mr. Bushnell at the MOA?

A No.

Q Was he there, do you know?

A I don't know

Q What happened next, after June, 1972, June 26, 1972, the date the agreement was signed between anyone related to Bally and anyone related to Bushnell?

A He went to work for us on a Flipper-type game.

Q Is that the game referred to in the July 10th letter, Britz Exhibit 2?

A Right.

Q Called Fireball, is it?

A Right.

Q When you say he went to work for you, exactly what did that entail?

A Design, developed it.

Q Did he do that at Bally or elsewhere?

A No, on the West Coast at Sygyzy [sic], as far.:' as I know.

Q Was it Sygyzy [sic] that showed the video game at the 1971 MOA?

A It was Nutting.

Q Is there any relationship that you know of between Sygyzy [sic] and Nutting?

A None that I know of.

Q Was Mr. Bushnell employed by Nutting when you talked to him, do you know?

A I don't recall.

Q Was he employed by Sygyzy [sic]?

A Eventually, that is his company.

Q Sygyzy [sic] is Mr. Bushnell's company?

A Yes.

Q Was Sygyzy [sic] then manufacturing or only a development company?

A At what time?

Q As of July 10, 1972.

A I really don't know what they were manufacturing

at that time.

Q Do you know if they were manufacturing anything?

A They were attempting to get into the manufacturing business.

Q What were they attempting to manufacture?

A That I don't know.

Q Had Mr. Bushnell been employed by Nutting prior to July 10 of 1972, do you know?

A I don't know whether he left them. The affidavit tells you.

Q You are referring to Britz Deposition Exhibit 3?

A Right.

Q Do you know if Mr. Bushnell was employed by Nutting Associates?

A I couldn't verify it.

Q Is the affidavit Britz Deposition Exhibit 3 something that you requested of Mr. Bushnell?

A Mr. Tomlinson did.

Q Why did he request it, do you know?

A I don't know.

Q Were you present when he requested it?

A No.

Q Did Mr. Tomlinson ever discuss with you the reason that he thought an affidavit should be obtained from Mr. Bushnell?

A No, not that I can recall.

Q Did Mr. Bushnell develop a Flipper game for Bally?

A Yes.

Q And was the game called Fireball?

A Yes.

Q Was it ultimately marketed by Bally?

A He called it Fireball. We never marketed it. We did come out with another game called Fireball, but it had nothing to do with his game.

Q Was the game ever marketed by Bally?

A No.

Q In the course of that work, did Mr. Bushnell come back to Chicago or the Chicago area?

A Yes.

Q On what occasion? What was the next occasion for his return to Chicago after July 10 of 1972?

A He brought in the video game Asteroid.

Q That was on the next visit that you recall-·

A That's right.

Q When was that?

A To the best of my knowledge, it was in-March of '73.

Q Did you personally meet with him on that occasion?

A Yes.

Q Had you had any communications with Mr. Bushnell between July 10 of 1972 and March of 1973?

A Telephone conversations, yes.

Q Were these recorded in any way?


A No.

Q In those conversations did he discuss with you the machine called Pong?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q When did you first hear of a game called Pong?

A I don't know for sure, but I think it was around the MOA show for '72.

No. Yes '72.

Q Was Pong at the MOA show for- '72?

A No.

Q How did you hear of it at that time?

A He brought in a mock-up.

Q Bushnell brought in a mock-up?

A He had a mock-up, that's right.

Q He brought it into Chicago, did he?

A Right.

Q And did he bring it to a Midway or Bally plant?

A Right.

Q So this would have been in the fall of '72?

A Right.

Q So then your prior testimony that the next contact with him was in Ma:rch of '73 --

A You are right.

Q -- was not accurate?

A You are right. You are right. You are right. I saw him three times. You are right.

Q Was Bushnell associated with Atari, Inc. as of the fall of '72 when he brought the Pong mock-up in, do you know?

A I don't know.

Q Did you see the Pong mock-up in the fall of '72?

A Yes.

Q Was it operative?

A Yes.

Q Where did you see it?

A In Mr. Lally's office.

Q Who else was present?

A Mr. Lally.

Q Anyone else? Mr. Bushnell?

Mr., Bushnell, obviously.

Q Mr. Lally's office is at the Bally plant?

A Right.

Q Is that the one on Belmont Avenue?

A Right.

Q And were you with Mr. Bushnell anywhere else but in Mr. Lally's office on that occasion?

A I believe it was at that time that they did take a run out to Midway.

Q And who was "they"?

A Lally and Bushnell.

Q Did you accompany them?

A I met them there later on.

Q Was that at Midway in Schiller Park?

A Right.

Q Where at Midway did you meet them?

A In one of the offices.

Q In whose office, do you know?

A I don't recollect.

Q Does Mr. Tomlinson have an office at

the Belmont Avenue plant?

A Yes.

Q Does he have an office in Schiller Paik?

A No.

Q Was he in Schiller Park?

A No.

Q Does he do work for Midway or does Mid<way have separate counsel?

A He might on occasion do a slight amount of work for Midway, yes.

Q On those occasions does he bill Midway for his time, do you know?

A No.

Q Is there any sort of an accounting for his time by Midway?

A No.

Q Is that just a donated service by Bally?

A True. True.

Q Are there any other employees of Bally thatdo that sort of work for Midway? .

A At one time we had a team of engineers out there for a while and we did not charge them for the time. That goes back aways

Q How far back?

A That must go back about three years ago

Q Does Bally have an accounting department?

A Oh, yes.

Q Is that computerized?

A Not completely. It is going to be.

Q Does the accounting department perform services for Midway?

A No.

Q Does Midway have a completely separate accounting department?

A Right. They use our computer, though, for payroll.

Q Do you sell them that computer time?

A I believe it is charged, but I am not sure, though.

Q When you went out to Midway in the fall of '72 to meet Mr. Lally and Mr. Bushnell, you

say you met in an office out there?

A Yes.

Q Was the Pong game with them at that time?

A Right.

Q In the office?

Q Was anyone else present?

A Mr. Wolverton.

Q Anyone else?

A That is all I know of.

Q Was Mr. Ross present?

A Not that I know of.

Q Was there any discussion during that meeting at Midway that you attended?

A No.

Q No discussion at all?

A No.

Q No one spoke to anyone?

A Well, all we did was play the game, and that was it, you know.

Q In the letter of July 10, Britz Deposition Exhibit 2, on the second page, there is reference to a video game. Was that video game ever submitted by Bushnell to Bally?

A Yes. Not this particular one. It was Asteroid.

Q Was Pong submitted to Bally by Mr. Bushnell?

A Well, as I said, he showed it to us, but it wasn't part of the contract.

Q And how do you distinguish the two video games in that regard?

A Well, at the time Mr. Lally and I did not see the merits of so-called Pong, and not only that, at that time Midway either had or was contemplating a tennis-type game.

Q You say either had --

A I don't recall whether they had it at the time or whether they were engineering it at the, time, but they had a tennis-type game.

Q A video game?

A No, just a tennis-type game, electronic wall type.

Q As best you recall, relate whatever discussion occurred at the meeting in Midway's office where Pong was demonstrated by Mr. Bushnell.

A Well, everybody concerned thought it was a rather interesting game, but nobody actually got all excited over it, and that was the extent of it.

Q Was Mr. Bushnell trying to interest Bally in making the Pong-type game?

A He would have liked it to have been part of that contract.

Q Did he take the position that it was not part of the contract?

A No, he did not take that position.

Q When you say "the contract" are you

referring to --

A The royalty agreement.

Q to the royalty agreement, Ross Deposition Exhibit 3?

A Right, royalty agreement, the royalty agreement.

Q Now, in part that royalty agreement says, "Bushnell will staff his operation adequately to provide within the above six-month period the following prototypes to Bally: 1, a video amusement game. Was the Pong a video amusement game?

A Yes.

Q And did Mr. Bushnell take the position, then, that the Pong did satisfy that requirement of his royalty agreement?

A No, he did not take that position.

Q And do you recall now what reasons he gave for excluding Pong from that category?

A We ourselves, because we ourselves couldn't see the merit of the game. That is the

reason.

Q And when you say "we ourselves" do you mean-

A Mr. Lally and myself.

Q And did anyone at Midway look at it at that time? .··~

AYes, Mr. Wolverton did, also, and he just passed it by at that time. He passed it by.

Q He shared your opinion that it did not have much promise? Did he?

A I don't recall if his opinion was.exactly that, but the mere fact that he passed it by speaks for itself.

Q What was the next contact that you know of following the fall, 1972, meetings that you

attended with Mr. Bushnell and Mr. Bushnell or Atari relating to video games? •

A The next contact?

Q Yes.

A You are talking about personal or --

Q Any communication or contact of any kind.

A Well, from time to time I would call him to expedite these games.

Q When you say "these games" do you mean the video game?

A The video game and the pin game.

Q What video game were you trying to

expedite at that time?

A Well, at that time he was talking about the Asteroid.

Q When did you first discuss with Mr. Bushnell an Asteroid type of game?

A I don't recall.

Q As of July of '72 Mr. Bushnell was talking about a hockey-type game, am I correct?

A Right.

Q Do you know when the subject of a hockey type game was dropped, if it was?

A I don't remember.

Q Was it dropped?

A Yes, in favor of the Asteroid.

Q Was the Pong game that Mr. Bushnell brought to Midway and Bally in the fall of '72 a

production prototype, do you know?

A No.

Q When did Mr. Bushnell first provide a production prototype of any video game?

A I don't know.

Q DidBally make all of the payments required under the royalty agreement, Ross Deposition Exhibit 3?

A Yes.

Q And by its terms I gather that agreement ran out at least as far as the royalty advances six months from July or in January of 1973 is that correct?

And what happened between Bally and Bushnell after that?

A Nothing, really.

Q I show you Ross Deposition Exhibit 2 and ask you if you have ever seen that before.

A I glanced at this casually, I believe it was in Mr. Tomlinson's file. That is the only time I saw it.

Q When was that?

A Oh, perhaps two weeks ago.

Q What was the occasion?

A When I knew we were going to have this deposition, so he gave me what was in his file, and that was in it and I just glanced over it casually.

Q Does Mr. Tomlinson maintain files on Midway matters?

A No, not necessarily.

Q Does he maintain files on Midway matters?

A Oh, not on Midway matters.

Q Where was this agreement in his files?

A In the Magnavox folder.

Q Does he maintain any files on Midway. Do you know?

A Not that I know of.

Q But you say he does provide Midway with services.

A From time to time.

Q Did he provide Midway with services with respect to Magnavox?

A He became involved.

Q On behalf of Midway?

A I would say both •

Q Both on behalf of Midway and on behalf of Bally?

A As far as I know.

Q Had you ever seen the agreement, Ross Deposition Exhibit 2, before you saw it in Mr. Tomlinson's file?

A No.

Q Were you aware that it existed prior to that date?

A l was aware that something existed, yes. What it was, I didn't know.

Q Do you have any knowledge of any of the events that led up to the agreement, Ross Deposition Exhibit 2?

A Very vague.

Q What knowledge do you have?

A I know that Ross went out and visited him, or Mr. Blahuta did. I think Ross did. That is the extent of it.

Q Were you involved in any discussion at all with respect to the agreement, Ross Deposition Exhibit 2?

A No.

Q When you met with Mr. Bushnell in March of '73, where did that meeting take place?

A My office.

Q Did you then know that he had entered into an agreement with Midway?

A No.

Q Did he not mention that he had entered into· an agreement with Midway?

A I don't know when the agreement with Midway was.

Q Well, the agreement with Midway, Ross Deposition Exhibit 2, is dated February 22; 1973.

A I don't think there was an agreement with Midway before they met, maybe it was February, then, rather than March that he came to my office. I don't recall there being an agreement at that time.

Q When he came to your office in February or March of '72, did you say that he brought--

MR. WELSH: I think he said '73.

MR. ANDERSON: '73, excuse me.

Q February or March of 1973. Did you say that he had a prototype with him on that occasion?

A Right.

Q And it was a prototype of the Asteroid?

A Right .

Q And what was the purpose of his visit in February or March of 1973 to your office?

A To bring in his prototype to fulfill the royalty agreement.

Q And at that time did he mention that there was a new agreement between him and Midway?

A No.

Q Or that one was contemplated?

A No.

Q That was, I gather, already six months beyond the date of the royalty agreement, Ross Deposition Exhibit 3, am I correct?

A Yes.

Q Did the subject· come up of the fact that he was late in coming; in wiith that prototype?

A Yes.

Q And what was that discussion?

A I asked him to come it took him so long, and he said, well, they had quite a bit of engineering to do, so we let it go at that.

Q Did Bally have any interest in the Asteroid game when it was brought to them by Bushnell?

A At the time, it took us a long time to determine whether we wanted it or not, and that is when Midway took it over.

Q Was there any discussion between Midway and Bally when Midway took it over?

A No, just that they were going to make it rather than Bally.

Q And who was that discussion between specifically?

A Mr. Ross and myself, with the approval of Mr. O'Donnell guess it must have been Mr. Wolverton,

Q And who is Mr. O'Donnell?


A. Our president.

Q President of Bally?

A Yes.

Q When dld that meeting or that discussion take place?

A I don't recall.

Q But you do recall that there was such a discussion, that Bally could give it up and Midway would take it over?

A Right.

Q Was there any discussion of whether or not Midway should pay anything to Bally for the development work?

A I don't recall.

Q Did you search your records to determine whether any such payment was made?

A No, I did not.

Q Would you do. that?

A Sure.

Q I would like to know.

Mr. Welsh, I would like to have the various documents that obviously exist and have

not been produced, namely, the checks, the invoices, any communications between Bally and Atari or Bushnell, and if we do that voluntarily, fine, if not, we can, I suppose, go about it the hard way.

MR. WELSH: Bally and Bushnell or Atari?

MR. ANDERSON: Right. And any other communications between Midway and Bushnell or Atari, or Syzygy. I didn't draw perhaps --

THE WITNESS: Can I correct you, please Syzygy?

MR. ANDERSON: -- perhaps the necessary refinements in my designations in that regard, and I would like any evidence of compensation by Midway to Bally for the design work for which Bally apparently paid, any communications relating to that.

Q I understand, Mr. Britz, that Midway did produce a game called Winner, which was a pong-type game shortly after February of 1973, am I correct?

A Yes.

Q Do you have any knowledge of the fact or information leading up to the change of point of view by Mr. Wolverton or Midway with respect to the pong game that caused them. to bring it out?

A No.

Q Are there any documents relating to that aI subject that you know about?

ANot that I know of.

Q I think you said you are Exeeutive Vice President?

A Right.

Q How long have you been Executive Vice President?

A Four years, approximately.

Q Were you with Bally prior to that time?

A Yes.

Q What was your position?

A General Manager and Vice President.

Q Do you have any operating superiors in the company?

A The president.

Q Who is that?

A William O'Donnell.

Q O'Donnell? How long were you General Manager and VP?

A Oh, I was general manager from 1963 until about 1968, I think, when I was made a vice president, roughly.

Q From 1968 to 1970, then, approximately, you were vice president?

A Approximately.

Q Is Bally a publicly held company?

A Right.

Q Briefly, what is your education following high school?

A Three years of mechanical engineering.

Q Any other?

A That's it.

Q Do you have any responsibility for the operation of Bally subsidiaries?

A No.

Q Who in Bally has responsibility for the operation of its subsidiaries?

A Mr. Bill O'Donnell.

Q Anyone else?

A The board of directors, I imagine.

Q Do you have engineering under your responsibility?

A Yes.

Q Sales?

A No.

Q Who has sales?

A Our Director of Marketing, Mr. Ross Scheer.

Q How do you spell that?

A S-c-h-e-e-r.

Q Has Bally ever made a video game?

A No.

Q Has Bally ever purchased a video game?

A No.

Q Not a single one that you know of?

A That's right. You are talking about Bally Manufacturing, 2640 West Bellmont. No subsidiaries?

Q Bally Manufacturing.

A Right. Actually, Bally Manufacturing encompasses the whole world.

Q Do you mean that in the broader sense?

A That's right. I am talking about 2640 West Belmont, the parent organization .

Q Does the parent organization do manufacturing?

A Yes.

Q And the manufacturing is in amusement games, is it?

A Yes.

Q Any other field?

A No.

Q Of the consolidated gross income of the Bally Manufacturing and its subsidiaries, what proportion is produced by the actual manufacturing by Bally, if you know, just roughly?

A I don't know. I wouldn't know.

Q Is it a third?

A Offhand, I wouldn't know.

Q Would you know if it is more or less- than a third?

A It is more than a third.

Q Bally Manufacturing's production is more than a third of the total consolidated sales of all of the subsidiaries?

A Yes, it is more than a third.

Q Is it less than a half?

A Now he is pinning me down. I don't know.

Q All right.

Do you know how Bally Manufacturing distributes its products?

A We have distributors.

Q Approximately how many, nationally?

A The last figure I know was over 80. What

it is now, I don't know.

Q Is Empire Devices one of those, Empire Distributing?

A Yes.

Q Does Bally Manufacturing generally use the same distributors that Midway uses?

A Not necessarily. I am not cognizant of that. That is not

my forte.

Q Do you have any knowledge of the operation of Empire Distributing Company?

A No, I don't.

Q Do you have any dealings with Empire Distributing?

A No, I don't.

Q Do you know who the chief executive of Empire Distributing is?

A There are two of them, Mr. Gil Kitt and Mr. Joe Robbins.

Q Gil --

A Kitt.

Q K-i-t?

A K-i-t-t.

Q Kitt, and who?

A Mr. Robbins.

Q Are you familiar with a company known as Carousel Time, Inc.?

A Yes.

Q Is that a subsidiary of Bally?

A Yes.

Q What is the nature of its business?

A They operate amusement devices in malls and so forth, arcades and so forth.

Q Are you familiar with the operation of Carousel Time, Inc. at all?

A Not thoroughly. Vaguely.

Q Who is the chief executive of Carousel Time, Inc?

A Well, that just changed hands, and I believe it is a fellow by the name of Millman.

Q Milan?

A Millman.

• M-i- -- I don't know if it is double "l" or single but I think it is M-i-l-m-a-n, I

believe it is, Jules Milman.

Q Do you know if they own and operate any video games?

A They operate games of all nature throughout the whole United States, so obviously they must have video games.

Q And that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bally, Am I correct?

A Right.

Q Does Mr. Tomlinson also provide legal services to Carousel~ Time, Inc.?

A Yes.

Q And does the Bally accounting department provide accounting services for Carousel Time, Inc.?

A To an extent we do, yes, for quarterly statements and so forth, yes.

Q What other services

A Not day to day, though.

Q Where is Carousel Time, Inc.?

A 2727 West Roscoe

Q 2727-

A West Roscoe

Q Is that on the same facility as the Bally plant?

A We share that facility with them, yes.

Q They just have a door on a different street than Bally, is that true?

A They have a front door.

Q They have a front door?

A Right.

Q What facility does Carousel Time, Inc. operate at the shared facility?

A They have their offices there, and also their repair department.

Q Does Carousel Time, Inc. own the real estate it operates on?

A No.

Q Does it merely use real estate of Bally?

A Bally rents the building. They rent from us.

Q Are you familiar with Bally Distributing Corporation?

A Reno?

Q I believe it is a Nevada operation.

A Vaguely.

Q Do they operate games?

A I don't know.

Q Then you wouldn't know if they operate video games or not.

A I wouldn't know.

Q Are you familiar with Bally Continental, Ltd of Antwerp?

A Yes.

Q Does Bally ship games to Bally Continental, of Antwerp?

A They are our distributor.

Q And are they a distributor for U. S. made products?

A Yes.

Q Do you know whether any Midway products are shipped to Bally Continental Ltd. of Antwerp?

A I saw one on the floor of their showroom. Whatever they ship beyond that, I don't know.

Q Their showroom in Antwerp?

A In Antwerp.

Q Do you know where that one that you saw was made?

A I presume it was made in Chicago.

Q Was it a Winner? Did it bear the trademark Winner?

A It was a two-player.

Q Winner IV, then?

A Two-player.

Q Oh, two-player, just Winner.

A Yes.

Q When did you see that Winner on the floor in Antwerp?

A I don 1 really recall.

Q Does Bally have any other subsidiaries that operate games, other than Carousel Time, Inc. and perhaps Bally Distributing Co.?

A Well, we have a subsidiary in the Far East, but that is strictly slot machines~

Q All right, any others?

A No, not that I know of.

Q Do you know whether Bally has ever approached Magnavox in any way, either directly or indirectly with respect to obtaining a license under the games?


A Bally did not. No, Bally didn't.

Q Did someone else in the Bally organizatiori?

A No one in the Bally organization, no.

Q Or in one of Bally's subsidiaries?

A No. Rephrase that, again. Did you say directly?

Q Directly or indirectly was my question, I think.

A All right. Indirectly, yes.

Q All right. And how was that indirectly--

A Through a Mr. Roy Petherbridge.

Q When did that occur?

A I really don't remember.

Q When did you first gain knowledge of Petherbridge's approach to Magnavox?

A I cannot recollect that, either.

Q On behalf of whom was Mr. Petherbridge functioning?

A Bally.

Q Were you personally involved in that?

A I had a conversation or two with Mr. Petherbridge.

Q Were these personal meetings?

A I met him once personally.

Q In his offices?

A No.

Q At your office?

A Yes.

Q Was this before or after he had contacted.Magnavox?

A Before.

Q And was this to arrange to have Mr. Petherbridge contact Magnavox with respect to a license?

A Yes.

Q When did that ·occur with respect --

MR. WELSH: ·counsel, I think we are getting into an area that is objectionable here on the ground of privilege,as to what was the substance of the communications between

MR. ANDERSON: We haven't gotten to that yet, and even when we do it sounds like this was a business function of Mr. Petherbridge rather than a legal one, but why don't we wait until you have a problem before we get excited.

MR. WELSH: I am saying we are getting very close here.

MR. HERBERT: It doesn't seem to have much to do with either the jurisdiction or venue question either.

MR. ANDERSON: It is a very complicated interrelationship, I think.

MR. WELSH: I might say that I understood that these depositions were to be limited to the subjects that were set forth in the notice. I think you have gone beyond that. Where you are in areas that you might subsequently have been entitled to enter into. I haven't objected particularly. We did stipulate to having these depositions less than 30 days after the complaint was served, and I think it was on that basis that we felt that they were going to be limited to the subjects that are set forth in the notices. As I say, to the extent that you are in areas where you would have been entitled later to examine, I am not objecting to the questions. I did want to make this point on the record.

MR. ANDERSON: Well, we don't want to abuse this particular deposition in any way, but I think we have already refreshed the witness's recollecti6n on one occasion with respect to events, and I think there is perhaps a direct relationship between this

event and the contacts with Mr. Bushnell and Atari, and I don't know, I am exploring it. That is why I wanted to know I don't even remember now. the last question we were on. There was an outstanding question, I think, at the moment.

(The question was read.)

By Mr. Anderson:

Q When did that occur with respect to the meeting that you had with Mr. Bushnell around the MOA in the fall of 1972? Was that before or after?

A I don't recall.

Q Did Mr. Petherbridge report back to you the results of his contact with Magnavox, directly or indirectly?

A Ultimately well, I got a copy of a letter from Magnavox to Mr. Petherbridge.

Q Was that accompanied by a cover letter from Mr. Petherbridge?

A No.

Q Did you receive any other communication from Mr. Petherbridge with regard to the contact with Magnavox?

A No.

Q Did you have any other discussions with Mr.Petherbridge following the contact with Magnavox?

A The only thing I got was a call in which he said that --

MR. WELSH: You don't have to tell what he said. This is a matter of privileged communication between you and Mr. Petherbridge, your attorney.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. ANDERSON: Well, as I said, Mr. Welsh, I seriously question whether Mr. Petherbridge was functioning, in a legal capacity. It sounds to me like he was functioning in a business capacity·

MR. WELSH: Iwill say that he was functioning in a legal capacity, as attorney for Bally.

By Mr. Anderson:

Q Mr. Britz, has Bally used Mr. Petherbridge for other legal services, other than this contact with Magnavox?

A I don't really know whether we used him in any other instances or not.

Q How did Mr. Petherbridge and you happen to contact?

A Through a recommendation.

Q And who recommended him?

A I believe it was one of the fellows from Midway.

Q Who, do you recall?


A I don't know whether it was Mr. Ross or Mr. Wolverton.

Q I think you indicated that you asked Mr. Petherbridge to contact Magnavox about a license, is that correct?

A That is right.

Q Did you ask Mr. Petherbridge to perform any other services for you other than the contact with Magnavox about a license?


A The Magnavox was the only one as far as Bally was concerned.

Q Did you ask Mr. Petherbridge for any opinion with respect to the validity or infringement of the Magnavox patents?

A No, I didn't take it up with him. Our Mr. Lally did.

Q Was that written or oral?

A Oral.

MR. ANDERSON: . I don't really see how that could possibly be privileged, Mr. Welsh.

MU. WELSH: I am going to take that position.

MR. ANDERSON: I understand, and I am taking a position, too. I would like to have produced all communications between Mr. Petherbridge and Bally or Midway with respect to the contact of Magnavox with respect to obtaining a license.

MR. WELSH: You had better make that a formal request.

MR. ANDERSON: All right, in due course we will.

Q Did you or any one at Bally or Midway report the results of the contact of Mr. Petherbridge to anyone else including Atari?

A I don't recall.

Q Did you personally ever report the Petherbridge activities to anyone?

A Just Mr. Lally.

Q Anyone else?

A Not that I recall.

Q I Did Atari ever contact you with respect to the Magnavox patent?

A No.

Q Did you ever have any discussion with Atari or anyone associated with Atari about the Magnavox patents?

A I don't recall.

Q At any time up to the present time?

A I don't recall.

Q Do you believe that you may have had contacts with anyone associated with Atari with regard to the Magnavox patents that you don't now have specific recollection of?

A Someone could have. It could have been our chief engineer, I don't know.

Q Am I correct that Empire Distributing is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bally?

A Right.

Q And Midway is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bally?

A Right.

Q And Carousel Time, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bally?

A Right.

Q And Bally Distributing Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bally?

A Bally Distributing in Reno?

Q Yes.

A No, it is not.

Q Does Bally have any ownership of Bally Distributing Corporation?

A No.

Q Is Bally Distributing Corporation a completely separate and independent entity?

A Yes.

Q Is it publicly held?

A No.

Q Do you know who the principal stockholders

are?

A Mr. Si Redd.

Q Si Reddick?

A Redd, R-e-d-d. And Mr. O'Donnell.

Q Is Mr. Redd associated with Bally Manufacturing Corporation?

A He is a distributor.

Q Is he a distributor in another capacity other than_Bally Distributing Corporation?

A Not that I know of.

Q Has Bally at any time provided a patent indemnity of any kind to anyone with respect to video games?

A Not to my knowledge~

Q Has Bally ever requested a patent indemnity

from anyone with respect to video games?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q Does Bally have any agreements with Midway regarding video games?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q Has Bally or Midway, to the best of your knowledge, ever exported video games to Ireland?

A Bally did not. Midway, I wouldn't know.

MR. ANDERSON: We will take a short break.

(A short recess was taken.)

MR. ANDERSON: Let's go back on the record.

Q Mr. Britz, when did you become aware of the Sanders' patents?

A I don't even know what you are talking about.

Q - Are you familiar with the patents that are involved in the litigation in which you are testifying?

A No, I am not.

Q Did you know that this is a patent suit?

A Yes.

Q And did you know that it involved patents that Magnavox is asserting against Baliy among others?

A I assumed that.

Q And do you know what patents they are?

A No, I do not.

Q When did you first become aware that Magnavox had patent rights that might bear upon your video games?

A Well, for one thing, when I saw this request for a deposition and I heard previous to that – I heard that Magnavox was about to sue, that is all I know.

Q Well, at the time that you had Mr. Petherbridge contac.t Magnavox, you were already

aware of certain patent rights that Magnavox was asserting?

A I didn't know the extent.

Q How did you become aware of it?

A Aware of what?

Q How did you become aware that there were such rights or alleged rights?

A Because of Odyssey.

Q All right. What about Odyssey made you aware that there were patent rights?


A We weren't aware.

Q Why did you have Mr. Petherbridge contact Magnavox?

A Well, first of all to see if there was any sort of a patent~ and to see if we could be licensed.

Q At the time that you had Mr. Petherbridge contact Magnavox~ is it your testimony that you, and to the best of your knowledge Bally, had no knowledge that there were any patents that were involved?

A We weren't sure there were.

Q What information did you have at that time regarding the patents on video games?

A None. We had Mr. Petherbridge look into it.

Q Did you have Mr. Petherbridge make some sort of a search to determine what patents existed?

A I imagine he made a search.

Q Well, do you know?

A I am not sure.

Q Did you ask him to make a search?

A Mr. Lally did.

Q Prior to that time, did you or anyone at Bally to the best of your knowledge have any knowledge that Magnavox had asserted or alleged patent rights on video games?

A Say it over again, please?

MR. ANDERSON: Read the question.

(The question was read.)

THE WITNESS: I was not aware of it.

By Mr. Anderson:

Q I may have inquired in this area before, but I just don't recall. You said you believed you got Mr. Petherbridge's name from someone at Midway?

A Right.

Q Did you personally then initiate the contact with Mr. Petherbridge?

A I don't recall whether it was myself or Mr. Lally.

Q But it was one of the two of you?

A Right.

Q And at that time the purpose, as I understand it, was to have Mr. Petherbridge contact

Magnavox about possible licensing?

A True.

Q At that·-tim,e that you first instructed Mr. Petherbridge, what knowledge did you have or Bally have of Magnavox's patent position on video games?

A None.

Q You were aware that Magnavox had then· marketed the Odyssey game, is that correct?

A I had read about it.

Q And it was solely reading about Magnavox's. Odyssey game that prompted you to contact Magnavox about a patent license?


A True.

Q. Am I to understand that there was no other stimulation, other than reading about Odyssey, that prompted your contact --

A The similarity in reading about it in, I think it was, Time Magazine.

Q Is the Time Magazine article the source of your knowledge about Odyssey?

A True, right.

Q Any other source as of that time?

Q Are you aware that Bally at one point advised Magnavox that Atari was going to take care of any licensing problems with respect to video games?

A No, I am not.

Q Do you know whether that was Bally's position at any time?

A No.

Q Do you know of any facts which would have formed a basis for Bally stating to Magnavox that Atari was going to take care of any licensing problems on video games?

MR. WELSH: What is the question?

(The question was read.)

MR. WELSH: I don't think we have established that Bally stated that to Magnavox.

MR. ANDERSON: No, I am asking if he knows of any basis on which they might have said that

MR. WELSH: Isn't that involving conjecture? Why should he testify with respect to something that has not been established that it occurred? Bally never manufactured any of these things.

By Mr. Anderson:

Q De you know whether Mr. Tomlinson at any time advised Magnavox that Atari was going to take care of any licensing problems on video games?

A I do not.

Q Mr. Tomlinson is an employee of Bally?

A Right.

Q And Mr. Tomlinson, when functioning in his role as attorney, would be speaking for Bally, is that correct?

A True.

Q Do you know of any discussions that ever occurred between anyone related to Atari and anyone related to Midway or Bally with regard to Atari's assumption of responsibility for licensing problems on video games?

A No, I don't.

Q Do you know of any relationship between Bally or any Bally subsidiary and Atari or any Atari subsidiary other than the ones you have already testified about?


A No, I don't.

Q Is there any ownership, partial or otherwise, of any Bally subsidiary by anyone related

to Atari?

A Not that I know of.

Q Or vice versa?

A Not that I know of.

Q Have you ever heard of a company calledKee Games?

A No, I have not.

Q Have you ever had any contact with anyone associated with Allied Leisure Company?

A No.

Q Do you know what Allied Leisure is?

A I have heard of them.

Q And from your knowledge, what is Allied Leisure?

A A manufacturer of video games.

Q Do you know where they are located?


A I believe they are down in Florida.

Q Do you know any individual involved in that company?

A No, I don't.

Q Do you know of any contact that anyone associated with Bally has had with anyone associated with Allied Leisure?

A No, I don't.

Q In the course of reporting to Bally, does Midway provide information with respect to their product line and production?

A We know what they are producing currently. That is the extent of it.

Q And does Midway advise Bally of the types of games that they are making?

A Yes.

Q And does Midway advise Bally of the approximate number of games that they manufacture?

A Yes.

Q Approximately how many video games has Midway manufactured and sold?

MR. WELSH: I will object to that question on the ground that it can only be relevant as to damages in the event that liability is established and I believe this is confidential information of Midway that they would not like to be known publicly.

MR. ANDERSON: Well, it is not confidential. It has been disclosed to Bally.

MR. WELSH: I will object on the other grounds.

MR. ANDERSON: Well, for the moment I won't press the issue. I don’t accept the ground of your objection but we can take that up at a later date,

I think. We will leave that as an unresolved question. No further questions.

MR. WELSH: Same stipulation on signature?

MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we will let Mr. Britz sign before any notary public.

On this confidential portion, if any, I think you should delineate very· specifically and keep it down to a minimum, obviously, because it is messy to have anything under a confidential relationship. I seriously question whether any of it should

ultimately or properly be considered confidential, but I recognize your right under our stipulation to designate it.

MR. HERBERT: I so far don't recall that anything set forth was confidential with respect to Atari. I don't know of any testimony that should not be discussed with my client Atari.

MR. ANDERSON: I object to that. If it can be discussed with his client --

MR. HERBERT: The confidential nature of the agreements are agreements -- one of them is between Atari, I believe. Another one is between the president

of Atari, and Bally, and just because it is confidential does not mean that it has to be attorney-client confidential. It can be business confidential, and the fact that there are two companies involved does not, mean that Magnavox can be privileged to

this.

MR. ANDERSON: Again, I disagree pretty generally that there is anything confidential involved here, but to the extent that there might be, there is testimony about the internal operations of Bally and Midway which I would think Atari is not necessarily privy to with respect to the Atari - Bally -·Midway operations, and therefore I would question whether anything that is freely disclosed to Atari should not be freely available to Magnavox.

MR. HERBERT: I don't believe any of that particular: information was called confidential in the first instance. The only thing called confidential was that

having to do with the Ross Deposition Exhibit 3, to which Nolan Bushnell is a party .

MR. ANDERSON: But Atari did not even exist then, and therefore I just don't see how Atari can claim a right to the information or a confidential relationship to something between Nolan Bushnell and Bally.

MR. HERBERT: Nolan Bushnell is Atari's president

MR. ANDERSON: Well, I don't see that that has much bearing on the relationship between those entities·. Mr. Britz is an executive VP of Bally, but that does not presume that everything he does is confidential to Bally or vice versa.

MR. HERBERT: You are taking a position that any time two companies such as Bally and Atari or Midway and Atari have something which they are willing to · ·

concede among themselves as confidential that we cannot talk about it among ourselves any longer as long as we talk about it with Magnavox and I don't see that as even rational.

MR. ANDERSON: I think you are wrong in your position there, but that doesn't apply here. This was an agreement between Mr. Bushnell as an individual and Bally, to which neither Midway nor Atari were privy, and still it has been disclosed to both Midway

and Atari and I think therefore we are entitled to it just as much as Midway or Atari, and I don't think there is anything·confident1al.

MR. HERBERT: Then you can talk to Mr. Bushnell about it.

MR. ANDERSON: We will be in a position to fight that out one way or another along the road, but I certainly want our position clear, and I respect your right to make your position clear.

THE WITNESS: Is that .it?

MR. ANDERSON: Okay.

MR. WELSH: I don't have any cross examination • •
↧

Mirco's PT-109 - the first microprocessor-based video game??

November 26, 2015, 1:39 pm
$
0
0
The introduction of the first microprocessor games in 1975 revolutionized the coin-op industry. For both video and pinball games it lowered production costs, simplified the design process, and allowed for additional gameplay options and diagnostic functions. For pinball, it had the added benefit of lowering shipping costs by substantially reducing the games’ weight.
(NOTE that with pinball games, the transition to solid-state technology [the use of semi-conductor-based components such as ICs] and the transition to microprocessor technology generally occurred simultaneously, unlike in coin-op video games, which had used solid-state technology before the transition to microprocessors)

As most of you probably know, Midway's Gun Fight is almost universally acknowledged as the first coin-operated video game with a microprocessor. One thing I have learned while researching video game history, however, is to be skeptical of any claim that a video game was the “first” to do X. Such claims are often made on the basis of little or no research and turn out to be incorrect, or at least incomplete, when the evidence is examined. Such is the case with the first microprocessor videogame.

I posted about this subject earlier and suggested a few possibilities, one of which was Mirco's PT-109, which was introduced at the same 1975 MOA show as Gun Fight. At the time, I was not entirely certain that the game used a microprocessor. Since then, I have found that it did use one – the Fairchild F-8 (interestingly enough, the F-8 was also used in two other early microprocessor video games – Jerry Lawson’s Demolition Derby and Innovative Coin Corporation’s Spitfire). I have also unearthed a little more information about the game, including the identity of its designer, Cash Olsen. In this post then, I take a closer look at the game and discuss some other early microprocessor coin-op games (for more information on Mirco, see my earlier post)

PT-109



That Mirco developed one of the first microprocessor video games is not surprising. Not only did it have extensive experience developing microprocessor-based test equipment, but a number of its employees had come from Motorola, where they had worked on its 6800 microprocessor. Chief among them was Mirco’s President Tom Connors. Known as “Tiny” because of his immense size, Connors had headed Motorola’s Semiconductor Products Group. Surprisingly, however, PT-109 did not use a Motorola microprocessor. Instead, designer Cash Olsen, chose to use a Fairchild F-8, due to its development system, sales support and ability to transfer large amounts of data efficiently. (Olsen 2015; EDN 3/5/76). Integrating the F-8 into the game’s hardware was a challenge. Olsen recalls that F-8 consisted of separate chips to support memory, Input/Output, and other functions. In addition, PT-109 was one of the first games to make use of a new component called a Field Programmable Logic Array (FPLA) – an Integrated Circuit whose logic of “ands” and “ors” could be reprogrammed in the field. In total, the game used about 300 chips – 50 for the video and the rest to support the microprocessor (Olsen 2015). If creating the game’s hardware was a challenge, so was programming its software. Though the F-8 shipped with an assembler (a program that translates low-level assembly language into machine-readable binary code), it had no native assembly ability. Instead, code had to be written on a GE time-sharing system then uploaded to a central mainframe, where it was compiled into binary and sent back – a process so time-consuming that the developers were sometimes able to get only two “turnarounds” a day. (Olsen 2015)

After a laborious effort, Mirco was able to get PT-109 ready for the 1975 MOA show, where it drew a good deal of attention owing to its use of a microprocessor. Ultimately, however, despite its innovations, the game sold poorly. Though this may have been due to technical issues, another potential problem was that PT-109 was only available in cocktail table format. By the time it appeared, the cocktail video boom had passed and the same doctors and lawyers who had purchased TV Ping Pong and Challenge were unwilling to buy another video game. As a result, PT-109 is all but unknown today, and even the most ardent video game collector is probably unaware that it had a microprocessor, much less that it was one of the first video games to use one.

The above article on PT-109 appeared in the  March 5, 1976 issue of EDN


So which was first, PT-109 or Gunfight? Both were introduced at the 1975 MOA show (for some other contenders at the same show, see my earlier post) but I am not sure exactly when they began shipping to distributors. The release of both games was announced in the trade magazines in November but I don’t know which came first. Whether or not PT-109 was first on the market, its sales were dwarfed by those of Gun Fight. As far as priority goes, let’s call it a tie for now.

What about other coin-op games?

I am not sure what the first coin-op game to use a microprocessor was. The first one I know of was Bally’s Bally Alley, a wall-mounted bowling game released in 1974 that used an Intel 4004. I have not done nearly enough research, however, to state with any certainty that it was the first.



As for pinball, a number of companies had experimented with microprocessor pinball games in 1973 and 1974, including Atari, Ramtek, Bally, and Allied Leisure. I am not sure which was first, but my guess is that it was Atari, which produced a prototype game based on Bally’s Delta Queen at its Grass Valley skunk works (when Williams and Bally later went to court over Bally’s microprocessor pinball patents, engineers from Grass Valley testified as friends of the court and Bally’s patents were ruled invalid).

As for production pinball games, the first is generally considered to be Mirco’s Spirit of ’76.  Ironically, though Mirco is not
It’s a bit ironic since the one Mirco game that anyone does remember is the pinball game Spirit of ’76, which is generally considered the first production pinball game with a microprocessor, despite that fact that it may not have been.

Spirit of ‘76



The initial idea for Spirit of ’76 had come from Dave Nutting, who had approached Mirco after Bally passed on the Intel-4004-based Flicker prototype he and Jeff Frederiksen had developed in 1974.

[Dave Nutting] When I did the first microprocessor pinball game, Bally at first didn’t want to pay the price I wanted for the patent so then I went to Mirco and had a contract with them and we came out in 1975 with a game called Spirit of ‘76. (2001)

The use of a microprocessor (in this case, the Motorola 6800) offered a number of advantages over electromechanical pinball games. One the biggest was that it allowed machine to track each player’s game state so that they could pick up from where they left off. It also allowed for the creation of more sophisticated sound effects, such as drums, whistles, and cannon fire, along with providing automated diagnostic routines and a host of operator-adjustable settings. Like PT-109, Spirit of ’76 caused a buzz at the MOA show and the games also drew the attention of the press – at least the electronics press – with articles appearing in Electronics, EDN, and Electronic Design. Mirco, however, was ultimately unable to capitalize on the publicity.

[Cash Olsen] Interest was very strong and we were riding on a big bubble after the show. Apparently, large orders were written and unrealistic delivery dates promised. We went back to Phoenix with a great deal of pressure because both games were still in prototype status; nothing was finalized and ready to turn over to manufacturing. The next several weeks were spent readying a couple of more prototypes of each game for delivery to the first customer; I believe it was [C.A.] Robinson in California. The [sales] price that …[Mirco] committed to was well below the cost of manufacturing the games as they currently existed…the silkscreens of the glass and …[playfield] of the pinball machine were of particular concern. Sourcing of the plastic and electro-mechanical parts of the play field was not firm and Bally/Midway seemed to control most of them. As shown at MOA, they used seven screens, …[which] caused the cost to be excessive, (2015)

Spirit of ’76 also suffered from technical problems. After shipping the first units in November, Mirco had to halt production until March as they worked out the issues (Walker 1976).

[Cash Olsen] I think that 2-3 months had gone by and the customer was making threats of cancellation and maybe worse. After days of all-nighters two pinball machines and one video game were readied and loaded onto a Cessna 205 to be flown to California to meet the deadline. When the pinball machines were setup on location we got a panicked call back that the machines had both played for less than two days before they could not be played anymore. The report was that all of the solenoids were hanging by their wires. (2015)

So though Mirco may have led the microprocessor revolution, it did not reap its rewards. Spirit of ’76 reportedly sold an abysmal 140 units and it remained for Bally/Midway to popularize the concept of microprocessor pinball machines and video games. Even if Mirco had been able to meet the initial demand, it may not have mattered. Technical issues aside, Spirit of ’76 was an ugly game. The dull-as-dishwater backglass consisted of little more than a stylized American flag and the playfield art was virtually nonexistent, possibly because no one at Mirco had any experience with pinball games

[Cash Olsen] Mirco knew absolutely zero about dong a pinball machine when they started Spirit of 76…they could have hired the janitor at Bally and he could have bought more corporate knowledge about pinball…than…all of the people involved at Mirco. (2015)

Like Olsen, Spirit of ‘76’s designers had come from Motorola, where they had worked as applications engineers on the 6800 microprocessor family. Neither of them had ever designed a pinball game before. Not surprisingly, Mirco made just one other pinball game – the 1978 cocktail pin Lucky Draw.



So was Spirit of ’76 the first microprocessor-based pinball game? As with Gun Fight it was introduced at the 1975 MOA show and as with Gun Fight, there were other games released at the same show that apparently also used a microprocessor.

One, Allied Leisure’s Dyn-O-Mite - which featured the likeness of Jimmie Walker from Good Times – is fairly well known. The other, Invasion Stratogy from Komputer Dynamics, is not.



Based in Indianapolis with a production plan in nearby Spencer, IN, Komputer Dynamics was organized in 1974 by Richard Payne, Chad Zulich, Ronald Young, and Charles Russell (whose father Louis was at the time the longest surviving heart transplant recipient). Invasion Stratogy (no, that’s not a misprint) was a two-ended pinball game in which two players could play head-to-head (a concept that had been tried in 1971 with Gottlieb’s Challenger). Two balls were in play at the same time and each player had four flippers. The game does not appear to have done any better than Challenger, which sold just 110 units, and Komputer Dynamics quickly disappeared.






So should these three games be considered co-holders of the “first microprocessor pinball game” title. Maybe not. As it turns out, Allied Leisure also produced a four-player version of Dyn-O-Mite called Rock On, which may have been released in September – though this too appears to be uncertain.

↧
Search

The Ultimate (so Far) History of Nutting Associates - Part 1

June 2, 2016, 9:17 pm
$
0
0
I have been too busy to post for several months. I am still on the book, but it’s going slowly. I hoped to have something out by this summer but I don’t know if I will make that date or not.

Anyhow, I recently came into a little more information on the early years of Nutting Associates, including what may be the first published photograph of an arcade video game, so I thought I’d do a post on the company’s history. Nutting Associates has interested me since I first found out about Computer Quiz and Computer Space. I think that both the company and Bill Nutting have gotten a bit of an unfair shake. Perhaps this article will start to correct that. 

Thanks to Alexander Smith of They Create Worlds for providing the photo of Knowledge Computer and some of the other photos in this article.

Nutting Associates



Bill Nutting in 1944



William Gilbert Nutting was born May 3, 1926[1] and grew up in the affluent suburb of River Forest, Illinois. His father Harold and grandfather Charles were executives at Marshall Field & Co, the well-known Chicago-area department store chain. After taking his first airplane ride at age 10, William developed a lifelong love of flying, and was a member of his high school aviation club[2]. After attending Oak Park and River Forest High School, William enlisted in the Army Air Corps reserves at nearby Fort Sheridan on August 24, 1944, apparently skipping his senior year of high school to do so[3]. After World War II, Nutting spent two years at Colgate University before transferring to Colorado University, where his high school classmate Claire Ulman was a student. Bill and Claire were married in Cook County, Illinois, on December 23, 1948, and in 1950, William graduated with a degree in business administration (Petersen 1992). The newlyweds then moved to San Francisco where Bill took a job at Rheem Manufacturing, a maker of heating and cooling products. Eventually, Bill decided to follow in his father's footsteps and took a job in the gloves department of Raphael Weill & Company – a massive luxury department store known as The White House for its gleaming beaux-arts façade (Goldberg and Vendel 2012). 


Edex's Knowledge Computer, from Cash Box, 1964


Nutting entered the coin-op industry in a roundabout fashion. In the mid-1960s, he invested in Edex Teaching Systems, a Mountain View company that made multimedia training equipment for the US military and other clients. Edex - the name stood for “education excellence” - had been founded by Eugene Kleiner, one of the “traitorous eight” that left Shockley Labs in 1957 to form Fairchild Semiconductor. Much later, his venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins would help establish more than 300 companies, including Amazon, Compaq, Genetech, and Sun Microsystems. One of Edex’s products was The Knowledge Computer, a “teaching machine” designed by Thomas R. Nisbet[4] that presented multiple-choice questions on strips of film. When another investor jokingly suggested putting a coin slot on the machine, Nutting took him at his word and produced a coin-op version that was sold in 1964 by Scientific Amusement Company and/or Edex (Cash Box 8/22/64; Billboard 10/24/64; 10/31/64[5]). 


An illustration from Knowledge Computer's patent application, filed January 7, 1964

In 1965, Kleiner sold Edex to defense contractor Raytheon for $5 million (Kaplan 2008). Around this time, Nutting apparently formed his own company called Nutting Corp. and began selling the game in the San Francisco area via distributor Advanced Automatic Sales (Billboard 10/23/65[6]). Save for a single reference, nothing is known of Nutting Corp. which apparently didn’t last long. At some point, Bill called his brother Dave in Milwaukee with an idea to form a company to manufacture and sell a new coin-op version of The Knowledge Computer[7]. After Bill flew to Milwaukee, the two agreed that Dave - who lived close to Chicago, then the epicenter of the coin-op industry - would build the games while Bill marketed them (Nutting 2001). Bill then visited Chicago, Detroit, and New York to talk to more distributors and learn the ins and outs of the coin-op industry. 




Meanwhile, Dave set to work redesigning the game, with the help of an engineer friend named Harold S. Montgomery, with Harold designing the circuitry and Dave handling the cabinetry, projector, and other parts[8]. They eventually completed a prototype and began testing it in Milwaukee-area bowling alleys. Siblings or not, the Nutting partnership did not last long. After they tested the prototype, Bill's wife Claire threatened to divorce him unless he abandoned the arrangement with his brother and made the games himself. Bill called Dave and told him to shut down his Milwaukee operation. Already heavily invested in the venture - as, reportedly, was his father - Dave decided to form his own company and produce his own version of the game called IQ Computer (Goldberg and Vendel 2012). In February 1967[9] Bill Nutting formed a company called Nutting Associates in Mountain View and Dave (at an unknown date) formed Nutting Industries in Milwaukee[10].





Without a design staff, Bill was back to square one. He sought help from a local marketing services company, who assigned an industrial designer named Richard Ball to the task. Ball placed Nutting's original prototype version on test at the College of San Mateo. Five days later, he was shocked to find the coin box filled with dimes. With newfound enthusiasm, he set to work redesigning the machine, building a new projector, converting the machine to quarter play, and making other changes, and Nutting released the game, now called Computer Quiz, around November 1967[11] (Ball n.d.; Cash Box). 

Of the changes Ball made, the conversion to quarter play may have been the most significant. At the time, most coin-op games cost a dime. Pinball games often offered three games for a quarter and jukeboxes likewise offered multiple songs for a quarter, but Computer Quiz was one of the first coin-op amusement machines to feature straight quarter play for a single game. Though Sega's Periscope, which was probably released in the United States around March 1968, introduced the concept of quarter play to arcades, Computer Quiz, which was mainly found in bars, was likely the first to do so overall. 

As significant as the addition of quarter play was, a subsequent change may have been even more important. Like most, if not all, coin-op machines of the time, Computer Quiz relied on electro-mechanical technology. According to Ball, the game's copper relays were a maintenance nightmare, so he approached a company called Applied Technology to design a circuit board that used plug-in relays (Ball n.d.). In the summer of 1968, Ball and Applied Technology, along with a Nutting intern, created a new version of the game that replaced the relays with solid-state, semi-conductor-based circuitry (Ball n.d.). Ed Adlum thinks it may have been the first coin-op amusement machine with an all solid-sate design (Kent 2001). 






With Computer Quiz, bar patrons answered questions in one of four categories (Sports and Games, The Many Arts, etc.) After selecting a topic, the game presented four questions, one at a time on a tiny screen, along with five possible answers. Controls consisted of five buttons marked A through E. The goal was to pick the correct answer as quickly as possible. The faster a player answered, the more points they scored - in multiples of 47, for some unfathomable reason. A score of 700 allowed the player to “try for genius” with four additional questions. If they scored enough points in this round, they were rewarded with a glowing “genius” light.” Each “program” (film) contained 2,500 questions and operators could order new films when the old ones wore out - or when customers had memorized all the answers.

If the gameplay was different from other games on the market, so was the technology, even if the fact was less than apparent. At first glance, the games resembled cigarette machines as much as anything else. A closer inspection, however, showed that they were quite innovative for the time. Though the games, despite their name, made no use of a computer, they did feature an all-electronic design. There was no CRT, however. Questions were stored on a filmstrip and projected onto the screen. Rather than using LEDs, which were too expensive for a commercial product at the time, or pinball-style manual scoring reels, the cumulative score was displayed via nixie tubes. Invented at Burroughs in 1957, the nixie tube consisted of a series of glass tubes filled with neon gas containing 10 wire filaments lined up one behind the other, shaped like the numerals 0 through 9.

In addition to being innovative, Computer Quiz also proved quite successful, at least for a coin-op game in the late 1960s. Nutting Associates produced 4,200 units of Computer Quiz and Nutting Industries built 3,600 IQ Computers (Goldberg and Vendel 2012). Computer Quiz was also one of the earliest coin-op games to appeal to locations that would not consider installing a traditional coin-op game. In 1969, for instance, Nutting was invited to show the game at the annual National Putting Course and Driving Range Convention in Miami Beach (Cash Box 3/15/69). That same year, it showed the game at a menswear show and at the National Association of College Student Unions (Cash Box 6/14/69; 6/21/69). 







Colleges, in fact, appear to have been one of the more popular new locations for the game. The students of Trinity University of San Antonio even used one to prepare for an appearance on the General Electric College Bowl program (Cash Box 3/29/69). Ransom White, a Stanford MBA who joined Nutting in the summer of 1967, installed a number of Computer Quiz units at various locations around campus while still a student, where it proved quite popular. Many of these locations, like The Oasis, a popular watering hole near campus, catered primarily to Stanford students and did not any have pinball or electro-mechanical games (White 2014). For thirsty college students and adult bar patrons, a trivia game was ideal. Perhaps more important, the veneer of education appealed to locations that were leery of coin-op games because of their alleged association with organized crime and gambling.


Ransom White


Overall, however, Nutting Associates was only marginally profitable. Ransom White opines that this may have been because it decided to bypass traditional distributors and sell its games directly to “operators,” some of whom were a bit shady. Richard Ball claims that another problem was the company's small, inexperienced engineering staff (Ball n.d.). In any event, Ball, White, and executive Lance Hailstone soon left to form a company of their own called Cointronics. To replace them, in 1969, Nutting hired Rod Geiman as executive vice president and Dave Ralstin as sales manager[12]. In December 1968, Nutting Associates moved from its tiny 4,500-square-foot facility to a new 18,500-square-foot warehouse and began looking to expand into new markets (Weber 1968). 






Above - two photos from Cash Box, 1969


Nutting followed Computer Quiz with a handful of other games like Sports World (July 1969, a sports version of Computer Quiz), Astro Computer (September 1969, a horoscope machine). Neither came close to matching the success of Computer Quiz.













Mondial's Professor Quizmaster, one of Computer Quiz's imitators


Sidebar – Nutting (Almost) Invents the Coin-Op Video Game

According to some sources, Nutting Associates may have considered the idea of a coin-operated video game long before Nolan Bushnell showed up on its doorstep. In 1968, Richard Ball told Bill Nutting that sales projections indicated Computer Quiz would not last much longer. Told to do something about it, Ball claims that he came up with a proposal for a coin-operated video game called Space Command, to be sold to bars[13]. Before the game could be built, however, Bill Nutting reportedly fired Ball after Ball blasted him for buying an airplane with company funds (Goldberg and Vendel 2012). Ball may not have been too upset about leaving as his time with Nutting had convinced him that the entire coin-op industry was controlled by organized crime (Ball n.d.) Ball and Ransom White, along with sales rep Lance Hailstone, formed a company called Cointronics and exhibited the games Zap Ball and Ball/Walk at the 1968 IAAPA expo (Schlachter 1968). In Zap Ball, two players used compressed air to move a glowing ping pong ball through an obstacle course. Ball/Walk was a countertop game that involved maneuvering a steel ball up a pair of metal rods. In 1970, Cointronics released Lunar Lander, a solid-state electro-mechanical game, similar to Bally's 1969 Space Flight in which the player tried to land a toy model of a lunar lander on the moon. Lunar Lander used tapes of "actual sounds and voices of Apollo Flights.” White and Ball had unsuccessfully tried to obtain permission to use Neil Armstrong’s voice but decided to use it anyway since their tax dollars had paid for the space flights. Other Cointronics games included Computer Dice and Interceptor. Cointronics did not last long. By October 1970 It was out of business (Billboard 10/17/70). It never produced a video game[14]. So did Richard Ball propose the idea of a coin-operated video game in 1968? If so, he likely would have been one of the first, if not the first, to do so (at least within the coin-op industry) and it might explain why Bill Nutting was willing to take a flyer on the concept when Nolan Bushnell proposed the same thing a few years later. So far, however, no other evidence has turned up to substantiate Ball's claim.

NOTES

[1] dcourier.com/print.asp?ArticleID=57625&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1, Social Security Death Index.

[2] The 1944 Tabula yearbook for Oak Park and River Forest High School, lists Nutting's activities as "Aviation Club 1; Roosevelt High School, Ypsilanti, Mich. 2" indicating that he might have attended high school in Michigan for his freshman and sophomore years.

[3] World War II Army Enlistment Records indicate that Nutting had "3 years of high school" and worked as a sales clerk. On the other hand, Nutting's photo appeared in his 1944 high school year book, so he may have dropped out midway through his senior year.

[4] Nisbet filed a patent on the game on January 7, 1964 with Edex as the assignee. It appears that Nisbet had formerly worked for Lockheed.

[5] Cash Box called The Knowledge Computer “an amusement machine created by Edex Corporation” and noted that it was “in use on such locations as bowling alleys, student unions, and transportation depots. It is also available as a non-coin-operated teaching device for such purposes as employee education and training.” Billboard, reporting on the “Coinmen of America” convention in Chicago, noted that “Scientific Amusement’s two Knowledge Computors, shown by Howard Starr and Bill Nutting, were given acid play tests during the three-day exhibition.” The October 31 issue included a photo of the machine. Scientific Amusement may have been a subsidiary or trade name used by Edex. The October 17, 1964 issue of Billboard includes a list of MOA Exhibitors. “Scientific Amusement Co. Edex Corp” is listed as occupying booth 64 with William G. Nutting as the representative. 

[6] The brief blurb in Billboard notes that “Lou Wolcher of Advanced Automatic Sales Co., San Francisco has found a new popularity for quiz game. The Knowledge Computer of Nutting Corp., which his company distributes, has jumped quite substantially in sales during the last three months. Some 20 to 25 operators are now handling the equipment, with wide distribution in the San Francisco Bay area.” No other information on the company has been unearthed, nor is it known why (or if) Bill Nutting formed a new company. The 1967 Menlo Park city directory still lists Bill Nutting as a salesman for Edex, though the info may have been out of date.

[7] In a profile in the July 1980 issue of RePlay, Michigan distributor Gene Wagner, who later partnered with Dave Nutting to distribute IQ Computer, claims that he first met Dave at the 1963 MOA show where Dave was exhibiting Knowledge Computer. Given the game’s patent date and the fact that Billboard did not list Edex, Scientific Amusement Company, or Nutting Corp as attending the 1963 MOA show, it seems likely that Wolcher was referring to the 1964 show or a later show.

[8] E-mail from Dave Nutting to Marty Goldberg. Billboard, August 10, 1968 US Patent database. Montgomery received three patents on the device: one filed November 19, 1968, one with Dave Nutting filed June 30, 1969, and one with Nutting and Roger J. Budnik filed October 20, 1969. All three were assigned to Nutting Industries Ltd.

[9] Articles of Incorporation, Nutting Associates.

[10] In 1971, Nutting Industries was renamed Milwaukee Coin Industries (Cash Box 9/25/71). Dave Nutting later formed Dave Nutting Associates, which designed games for Bally/Midway, including Gorf, Gun Fight, and Sea Wolf, among others.

[11] The 11/67 date is from Cash Box magazine’s equipment inventory, which listed “approximate production dates” for games. Cash Box lists IQ Computer as a 10/68 release, but the December 9, 1967 issue of Billboard mentioned that Nutting Industries was distributing the game in Detroit.  

[12] Cash Box (3/15/69) reports that Nutting had appointed Geiman, who formerly worked at the Micropoint Pen Company, as vice president. At the time, it appears that Hailstone had not yet left the company as the same issue mentions that Hailstone had just returned from the National Putting Course and Driving Range Convention. Ralstin’s hiring as sales manager was announced in the September 27, 1969 issue of Cash Box and his appointment as marketing director in the October 18, 1969 issue, which noted that he had been with Nutting for “several weeks.”

[13] The claim appeared in a response by Judith Guertin to an article by Benj Edwards (2011) and was repeated in the Wikipedia article on Nutting Associates - though one may have copied the other. Though neither gives a source for the information, it may have come from Richard Ball. Ball repeated the claim in an interview with researcher Alexander Smith - though it is unclear if he mentioned the game’s name during the interview. Ransom White does not recall proposing a video game to Nutting.

[14] Ransom White recalls that they produced a space game that they showed at an industry show but never released, though it appears that it was not a video game

SOURCES

To be provided after final post in series.
↧

The Ultimate (so Far) History of Nutting Associates - Part 2

June 10, 2016, 4:26 pm
$
0
0
The last time, I discussed the early years of Nutting Associates before they released Computer Space. Today's post will cover Computer Space in terms of Nutting's relation to it. Be sure to read the notes, as they provide a good deal of background info and detail on the evidence supporting various claims. They do not show up as hyperlinks, so you will need to scroll to the bottom to read them.Thanks to Alex Smith of the They Create Worlds podcast/blog for the excellent photos.

----


The above photo of Bill Nutting with a Computer Space unit appeared in the June 1978 issue of Loose Change - though I don't know when it was taken.



Though Nutting’s follow-ups to Computer Quiz had met with little success, help soon arrived in the form an Ampex engineer named Nolan Bushnell, who showed up on Nutting’s doorstep in early 1970. Bushnell and a colleague named Ted Dabney had designed a coin-op game of their own based on Steve Russell’s mainframe classic Spacewar, and were unsuccessfully trying to find a buyer for it. And this game was unlike anything ever see in the coin-op industry. Rather than using filmstrips, its images were computer-generated and displayed on a video monitor – in other words, it was a video game. I will not go into the story of that game’s development, which started long before Bushnell came to Nutting Associates and which merits several posts of its own. Instead, I will pick up the story in early 1971[1], when Bushnell paid a visit to his dentist. 

When Bushnell told his dentist about his new game, the dentist told him about another patient named Dave Ralstin, who had recently started working for a local coin-op company named Dave Nutting Associates. A few days later, Bushnell called Ralstin, who arranged a meeting with Bill Nutting. Nutting, who desperately needed a follow-up to Computer Quiz, expressed interest in Nolan’s idea but the meeting ended without a deal. Bill Nutting, however, had more problems than just finding another hit game. The departure of Ball and White had left him without a chief engineer and he needed a replacement quickly. He called Bushnell back and asked if he would be willing to join Nutting as head engineer and to oversee production. Nolan was interested, but he wanted to keep control of his new game. Over a series of meetings, the two hammered out a deal whereby Bushnell would work at Nutting during the day while working on his version of Spacewar after hours, for no pay. When the game was finished, Nutting would pay for the manufacturing and marketing and Bushnell would receive a 5% royalty on each unit sold[2] (Goldberg and Vendel 2012). Bushnell was happy because he would keep control of the game's underlying technology and Nutting was glad to get someone to work on a game free of charge as well as the chief engineer he desperately needed. Bushnell quit his job at Ampex and went to work for Nutting Associates, where he was eventually joined by Ted Dabney (once again, I will skip the details of Bushnell and Dabney’s subsequent work on the game in order to concentrate on Nutting Associates). 

By late summer, Bushnell and Dabney had completed a prototype version of their game. Now they just needed to find a place to test it. Dave Ralstin operated a coin-op route and Bill Nutting suggested they try the game out in The Dutch Goose, a bar on Ralstin's route located near the Stanford campus. At this point, the game still did not have a name. At one point, it was called Cosmic Combat but that did not last (Bushnell 1976b[3]). Someone – perhaps Nutting or Ralstin[4] - suggested they call it Computer Space. In August, Bushnell and Dabney loaded the test unit into the back of Ted's pickup and headed for The Dutch Goose, where the game proved quite popular (Goldberg and Vendel 2012[5]). When they tried the game at other locations on the route, however, such as a pizza parlor, it did not fare nearly as well. This was not surprising since the average pizza parlor patron was far less technical than the engineering geeks who frequented The Dutch Goose. Another problem may have been the complicated controls, which consisted of four buttons. An attempt at a crude aluminum joystick that could be twisted to control the ship was abandoned after it was tested at a Round Table pizza parlor in Alameda and disintegrated within a few hours (Goldberg and Vendel 2012; Edwards 2011)[6]. Control issues aside, testing went well enough for Nutting to market the game. 


Computer Space on display at the October 1971 MOA show. From Cash Box. I know that you can barely see the corners of the actual game, but could this be the earliest published photo of an arcade video game? I can't really say. It's possible that a photo of Galaxy Game could have appeared in the Stanford student paper or that a photo of Computer Space on test at the Dutch Goose could have appeared in the San Jose Mercury News, but this is the earliest one I've found yet. I don't know who the person is with his back to the camera standing in front of the game, but it could be Nolan.

Computer Space reached a national audience at the Music Operators of America expo, held at the Conrad Hilton Hotel in Chicago on October 15-17, 1971. Nutting had built four units for the show, in four different colors (yellow, red, white, and blue) but when Bushnell and Dabney unpacked them, they found that the monitors had fallen out. They were able to get three working but the fourth was still DOA. Thinking fast, they turned it around backward, telling visitors they did so to "display" its internal workings. During the show, an overenthusiastic Bushnell talked about his game to anyone who cared to listen, and a few who did not.

[Ed Adlum] That show happened a long time ago, but I still remember Nolan and his weird machine to this day. You couldn’t miss the big, yellow machine with the TV tube. And you couldn’t miss Nolan…he was the most excited person I’ve ever seen over the age of six talking about his game. He was so hot about it, I remember backing up, trying to get on my way to see the other booths, and he was still talking! (Webb 1997)




Many of those who did listen told Bushnell he was crazy to try to market such a thing – especially in California, when everyone knew that the center of the coin-op universe was in Chicago. One visitor was sure that customers would steal the televisions out of the games. Bushnell (1976a) later claimed that Nutting took no orders at the show, though other accounts claim they took a handful (Goldberg and Vendel 2012). Orders or not, Bill Nutting was reportedly so pleased that he took Nolan for a spin in the Waco SRE Biplane he had spent the previous two-and-a-half years restoring (Goldberg and Vendel 2012; Cox 1972). Nutting showed the game again at the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA) show on November 9-12 and began selling it in November of December[7], likely producing around 1,500 units - though this figure is a bit uncertain[8].


Bill Nutting with his Waco SRE biplane around the time Computer Space was released - from the May 1972 issue of Sport Aviation . Below is a color shot of the plane from the magazine's cover.



The design of Computer Space stands out even today. The game was housed in a sleek, rounded, fiberglass cabinet, allegedly built by a swimming pool and hot tub manufacturer named John Hebbler (Edwards 2011). Though Hebbler may have built it, the cabinet was designed by Nolan Bushnell[9], who built the prototype out of clay on his kitchen table (Goldberg and Vendel 2012). With its ultramodern style, the cabinet resembled something from the set of 2001: A Space Odyssey. It was available in multiple colors – metallic flake red, green, or blue. The hardware consisted of a Xentek power supply, a GE television set, and a series of circuit boards, dubbed the “brain box” in company flyers. 

If the game’s cabinet is still impressive 40 years later, the gameplay is much less so. Unlike Spacewar, Bushnell’s game was strictly a one-player affair. Instead of a human opponent, the player squared off against a pair of computer-controlled UFOs that flitted randomly about the screen. The controls consisted of four buttons – rotate left and right, thrust, and fire missile. There was no hyperspace. The game was timed, with bonus time for a good performance, and the player's shots could be guided after they were fired. The instructions, printed beneath the monitor, were simple

1.Insert quarter and press start; your rocket ship will appear
2.There is no gravity in space; rocket speed can only be changed by engine, thrust
3.Evade the saucers’ missiles and use yours to score hits
4.Outscore the saucers for extended play in hyperspace

Modern gamers would probably be bored by Computer Space. The graphics were crude, even by the standards of games released just a few years later, with the ships represented by dotted outlines. The background was static, the sound effects primitive, and the “steerable” shots made it difficult to score a hit. Of course, it is unfair to judge the game against what came after. For its time, it was a remarkable achievement unlike anything the coin-op industry, let alone the general public, had ever seen. The game left onlookers, most of whom had never seen anything on a television screen other than a television broadcast, gaping in amazement.

[Ted Dabney] They were blown away by it. That is something that really boggled their brains. All of a sudden, there’s a TV picture that they have control of. It was totally new to them. (Edwards 2011)

Though building the machine had its difficulties, marketing it proved even more challenging. Nutting initially had a hard time getting anyone to purchase the units. Dave Ralstin gave away the first five as a promotional gimmick – one to each of the five largest distributors. Eventually, however, the game began to sell. If production numbers on the game are somewhat uncertain, sales numbers are even more so. According to Goldberg and Vendel, Ralstin was able to sell around 1,000 units but his workmanlike efforts only got him fired when Bill Nutting decided he did not need to pay a commission to someone for doing what he could do himself[10]. Nutting was able to sell about 500 additional units, reporting that he had to sell some of them “by force” (Bloom 1982b, Goldberg and Vendel 2012). Other sources give sales figures ranging from 500 to 2,200[11]. Similarly, the amount of money Bushnell and Dabney made on the game has been variously reported as ranging from $500 to $150,000[12].


 Computer Space on the production line at Nutting - from Cash Box.


Regardless of which sales figures they use; most accounts portray the game as a monumental flop. Compared with the sales figures of video games of the late 1970s and 1980s this is arguably true, but by the standards of the time, the claim seems a bit of an overstatement. A search of the Internet Pinball Database for pinball machines released between 1969 and 1971 shows that of the circa 90 games for which they have production figures, about half sold less than 1,500 units, with just three topping 5,000. An article in the February 12, 1972 issue of Cash Box notes that Nutting was reporting “geared up production to fill sizeable back orders for their new Computer Space unit and quoted Dave Ralstin as saying that “acceptance of the unit by the industry has been tremendous” and that income reports for the game “may well be the all-time high industry producer.” The May 1972 issue of Vending Times repeated the Ralstin quote and mentioned that Nutting had started a second shift to keep up with demand.




The July 22, 1972 issue of Cash Box noted that the game was a “top item” at Portale Automatic Sales. Though Ralstin’s quotes were likely marketing puffery, the claims that Nutting had started a second shift and that the game was selling well for Portale indicate that they were not entirely inaccurate. One 1973 article called Computer Space “a moderately successful game” and noted that “it was particularly popular around college campuses” (Kocher 1973). Benj Edwards (2011) quotes Bushnell as saying, “I thought it was a great success, but it could have been better.” Brad Fregger is best known for his work as a video game producer at Activision in the 1990s. Earlier in his career, however, Fregger worked as a service technician for Nutting Associates. Fregger recalls that Computer Space was actually quite popular but that its success was limited by lack of management support.

[Brad Fregger] I found myself between jobs and a friend of mine, Rod Geiman, president of a small company called Nutting & [sic] Associates asked me if I would help him out…Rod had a number of…products out in bars, arcades, laundromats, even in the San Jose Airport…with no one to service them. Rod wanted me to help him out until he could find somebody to take the job. I said sure. Computer Space was a hit; there were times when I got complaints the machine wouldn’t work, only to discover the coin box was jammed full and the coins were backed up the shoot [sic]…Nutting…closed down a couple of years later. The owner (not Rod) was more interested in evangelism. He built his own plane in his warehouse and flew off to save souls in Africa. It was his focus on evangelism that limited the success of Computer Space, not any lack of acceptance on the part of the playing public. (2012)

Bill Nutting, on the other hand, claimed that the game received a mixed response and that he had to force some distributors to take it, while Steven Kent reports that the game failed to sell its production run (Bloom 1982a; Kent 2001). Flop or not, the game had its fans. In an interview in the August 1976 issue of Play Meter, Vic Leslie, chair of England’s Cherry Group, which distributed and operated Atari games in the UK, discussed having seen the game at the MOA show[13].

[Vic Leslie] I was pretty bowled over by a machine there called Nutting Computer Space. I thought it was the most fabulous game I had ever played; I couldn't tear myself away from it. I felt at the time it was going to revolutionize the industry. However, I didn't feel it prudent at that time to purchase because of the technology involved in the game: it was way beyond anything we could handle in England. Even people here in America who were better judges than I were pessimistic about it.


Bob Portale getting his "super spaceman" award from Bill Nutting - from Cash Box.



One person who saw the game at an LA area airport was so impressed with its design (he searched in vain for the phone wires he was sure were transmitting a film image) that he reportedly offered Bushnell a $60,000-a-year job. Luckily, Ted Dabney was able to talk Bushnell out of accepting the offer or Atari might have died before it even got started (Dabney 2012b). Bob Portale of Portale Automatic Sales, a well-known Los Angeles area distributor, became the game’s champion and largest distributor, earning him a “super spaceman” award from Nutting (Cash Box 11/4/72). The game was also a hit at Sunnyvale's Andy Capp's Tavern and even made its way into popular media. In 1973, it appeared in the cult sci-fi classic Soylent Green, a movie about twenty-first century America’s grisly solution to the twin problems of overcrowding and hunger. In an early scene, a character named Shirl (Leigh Taylor Young) is seen playing a gleaming white version of the game, an expensive present from the wealthy suitor for whom she “works” (and who is soon to be rendered into kibble). On leaving, she proudly proclaims, “I demolished five saucers with one rocket!” to which a companion (Chuck Connors) replies “Not bad for an amateur.” Another piece of celebrity trivia involves the game’s iconic flyer, which featured an attractive blonde in a see-through white nightgown with her arm draped over a yellow Computer Space machine. A long-standing rumor claims that the woman is none other than actress Yvette Mimieux who had appeared in a number of films in the 1960s, including George Pal’s The Time Machine. The claim, however, is in all likelihood false[14]. Computer Space also had the honor of being installed in Orlando’s Contemporary Resort Hotel for the grand opening of the new Walt Disney World, allowing Nolan, at least vicariously, to finally make it to Disney (where he’d always wanted to work). Another sign that the game may have been more than a flop is that is spawned an imitator. In September 1972, a company called For-Play Manufacturing released a clone of the game called Star Trek- though it apparently did not last long.




Even if Computer Space was not the total flop it has often been portrayed to be, it does seem to have been something of a disappointment. The game failed to match the success of Computer Quiz and certainly did not revolutionize the industry, as Bushnell hoped, if not expected, it would. There are a number of possible reasons for this. For one thing, the game may have been too complicated. The average arcade or bar customer was a far cry from the bleary-eyed hackers of MIT or Nolan Bushnell’s engineering buddies. Bar patrons were used to simple, easy-to-understand action games like pinball and pool. Some reported that the game was also slow and was not a lot of fun for the casual player. Another reason may have been that while Spacewar had been a two-player game, Computer Space was only a one-player game, and thus lacked the competitive appeal of the MIT original. 
Nolan Bushnell's career at Nutting did not last long after Computer Space. In spring 1972, he met with Bill Nutting to discuss creating a simpler version of the game that might have broader appeal. During the meeting, Nolan dropped a bombshell, telling Nutting he wanted one-third ownership in the company plus a greater role in management (Bushnell 2003). Nutting countered with an offer of 5%, but Bushnell would have to stay on as engineer (Bushnell 1982b, Bloom 1982a, Goldberg and Vendel 2012). After discussing the matter with Ted Dabney, the two realized they had no future at Nutting and Bushnell began talking to other coin-op companies. In May 1972, Bushnell and Dabney quit Nutting to strike out on their own and the following month, they formed a new company called Atari – and the rest, as they say, is history. Though Bill Nutting’s decision to let Bushnell go may seem foolish in hindsight, he claimed to have had no regrets 

[Bill Nutting] Well, Nolan walked away with $20 million and I didn’t. I just wouldn’t do the kinds of things that had to be done to get successful. In my mind, I’ll always believe I did the smart thing by getting out. (Bloom 1982a)

Bushnell did have more contact with Nutting, working on a two-player version of Computer Space and offering Bill Nutting a licensing deal on Pong that would have paid him a 10% royalty – an offer that Nutting declined. At this point, Nutting Associates and Bill Nutting fade from the pages of most video game histories, which generally treat them as something of a footnote in video game history: the company that passed up a golden opportunity to get in on the ground floor of a revolution, thanks largely to Bill Nutting's mismanagement and myopia. Not only did Nutting let Nolan Bushnell, the father of the arcade video game industry, slip through its fingers, but it rejected his offer to license Pong, the game that launched the industry. Had it taken advantage of either, might Nutting Associates, rather than Atari, have become the fastest growing company in American history and a touchstone of 1980s pop culture?

Almost surely not. Though Bill Nutting may not have deserved his reputation as a clueless bungler, he was no Nolan Bushnell and lacked the drive and single-minded vision to launch a revolution. Contrary to popular belief, however, Nutting did not abandon video games after Bushnell’s departure. Between 1973 and 1977, the company released almost a dozen video and arcade games – though even students of video game history would be hard pressed to name one. The next time, we’ll take a look at Nutting’s post-Computer Space history.

Sidebar – Which Was First?

I have not discussed Galaxy Game in this post, though I have covered it at some length in an earlier post. Galaxy Game is a one-off (actually a two-off) game designed by Bill Pitts and Hugh Tuck and placed at the Stanford student union. Some maintain that it, not Computer Space deserves the title of “world’s first coin-operated video game” I personally find this claim unconvincing. Though it may be true that Galaxy Game was placed on location in September 1971 – at least two months before the first units of Computer Space went on sale, it is a bit inaccurate to claim that Galaxy Game was thus the first coin-op video game. According to Goldberg and Vendel, Computer Space was initially tested at The Dutch Goose in August, a month before Galaxy Game was installed at Stanford[15]. If these dates are accurate, then it seems that Computer Space was the first coin-op video game that the public could actually drop their coins into. Claiming that the August date does not count because it was not a release date is unfair. Galaxy Game was not a commercial product and thus was never really “released” at all, nor was it ever sold - its testing date essentially was its release date. For some, the important date in establishing priority is not the release date or the testing date but the date work actually started and here the data is less clear. Bushnell and Dabney probably started working on Computer Space in the summer of 1970 and according to Bushnell (1976), the first time “they had an apparatus completed in which you could play any version of Computer Space” was “probably in April or May of 1971.” It is unclear exactly when Pitts and Tuck started working on Galaxy Game, but they did not form Computer Recreations until June 1971, well after the formation of Syzygy. If the August testing date is correct, it seems that the title of world’s first coin-op video game should be returned to its original holder – Computer Space.


NOTES

[1] The exact date of Bushnell’s dentist visit is a bit unclear. Goldberg and Vendel place it in February 1970, but this is clearly too early as Bushnell was still negotiating with Data General to purchase several Nova mini-computers to create a mini-computer-based, multi-display version of the game in January and February 1971. The date will likely be corrected in subsequent editions. February 1971 is a more likely date, though even this may be a bit too early. 

[2] Bushnell (2003) claimed that he also got twice the salary he had at Ampex ($1600 a month vs $825) and a car.

[3] During the deposition a document was entered into evidence titled “Position and Line Counter Cosmic Combat” by S.F. Dabney, dated January 26, 1971. Bushnell later said that Computer Space had been called Cosmic Combat at one point. Goldberg and Vendel report that it was referred to merely as “The Rocketship Game” early on.

[4] Edwards (2011) says it was Ralstin who came up with the name. Goldberg and Vendel (2012) say it was Nutting. 

[5] Donovan (2010) places the location test in November, but this is clearly too late as the game was shown at the MOA show in October. He may have been confusing the test date with the release date. 

[6] Bushnell (1976a) speculated that the joystick version was made “I guess in January” of 1972.

[7] The November 1971 release date has been reported in most accounts of the game’s 
origins, but almost none of them give a source for the date. One possible source is Cash Box magazine. In the November 27, 1971 issue, Nutting ran an ad for Computer Space, claiming that it was “available now at your distributor.” The December 4 issue included an article announcing the game’s introduction, which noted that it was “being readied for U.S. distribution.” Nolan Bushnell (1974) said he thought the first unit was sold in late December 1971 or early January 1972 but was not certain. Steven Kent (2001) reports that Keith Feinstein - curator of the Videotopia exhibit - found shipping and sales records that proved the game was in production in 1971.

[8] The majority of sources cite the 1,500 figure, including Bisgeier et al. (1973), Video Games (12/82), Cohen (1984), Sheff (1993), Kent (2001), Burnham (2001), and Goldberg and Vendel (2012). Webb (1997) says that “maybe 1,500” were built. Trachtman (1981) and Kubey (1982) give a figure of 2,000. Nolan Bushnell later said that he thought they may have made as many as 2,200 (Drury 2011b).

[9] Ted Dabney designed the game’s original cabinet, which was not nearly as futuristic. 

[10] Cash Box and Vending Times both report that Ralstin was still with Nutting in May 1972, so it he was fired it likely took place after that date. 

[11] Bloom (1982) quotes Nutting as saying, “We built 1,500 and had to sell some of them by force” – though this does not mean that they sold all 1,500. Bushnell (1982b) said that he thought they sold “about 2,000” and in other accounts he has placed the figure at 2,200. In his 1976 deposition, however, he said he thought they sold 1300-1500 (Bushnell 1976a). Donovan (2010) reported that they sold “more than 1,500.” A number of sources (Bloom 1982a and 1982b, Slater 1987) report that Bushnell earned only $500 in royalties, which at 5% would translate to less than ten units sold – which is clearly too low. Edwards (2011) claims that sales estimates for the game range from 500 to 1,000 units, though it is unclear where these estimates came from.

[12] See previous note for the $500 figure, which probably results from confusion with the initial seed money used to establish Syzygy. The $150,000 figure is from Benj Edwards, but is probably inaccurate. Edwards based his figures on sales of 1,000 units - the most he thinks were sold - reporting that the game grossed about $3,000,000 in unit sales, of which Bushnell and Dabney got 5%. This seems inaccurate for three reasons. First, the 1,000-sold figure is probably too low. Second, the revenue figures are probably too high. Third, Bushnell and Dabney probably would have received 5% of the sales to distributors, not to operators (distributors normally added about 30% to the wholesale price). When the game was introduced at the 1971 MOA show, brochures advertised a price of “less than” $2,000. Bushnell (1976a) said he thought they sold the game for $1295 or $1195 and later dropped the price to $950. If Nutting sold approximately 1,500 copies of the game, at a wholesale price of $1000-1300, and if Bushnell and Dabney got a 5% royalty, their cut would have been $75,000 to $100,000

[13] Leslie claims he saw it at the 1972 show. He may have been referring to the 1971 show, or he may be talking about the two-player version, which was shown at the 1972 show (Drury 2010a).

[14] No source is given for the claim and it is uncertain where it first appeared. One possible source is Bueschel (1995), which notes that the flyer shows Yvette Mimieux “before movie fame.” In fact, Mimieux was near the end of her movie career in 1971. Computerspacefan.com speculates that the woman was “more likely an employee of The Brass Rail” – a Sunnyvale strip club popular with engineers. The source for this claim may have been a talk Nolan Bushnell gave to high school entrepreneurs in Los Angeles on May 17, 2013 as recounted by Walter Isaacson (Isaacson 2014). In Isaacson's account, Atari produced a "sales brochure" for Pong that "featured a beautiful young woman in a slinky sheer nightgown draping her arm over the game machine" whom Bushnell claims they hired "from the topless bar down the street." I have not seen the original interview, but Isaacson clearly seems to be describing the Computer Space flyer. 

[15] Donovan (2010) reports that the first Computer Space unit was “installed” at the Dutch Goose in November, but he may be referring to the first production unit
↧
↧

The Ultimate (so Far) History of Nutting Associates - Part 3

June 21, 2016, 4:46 pm
$
0
0





Part of the reason Bill Nutting had turned down Bushnell’s offer of a 10% royalty to license Pong was that he was sure he could produce a similar game without Nolan’s help. Bushnell’s visit, in fact, may have given him a leg up on the competition. Not surprisingly then, Nutting’s Computer Space Ball was one of the first Pong imitators on the market, perhaps even the first. Though some evidence suggests that the game was in production prior to March, when Allied Leisure released Paddle Battle, the evidence is unclear[1]. If Nutting did get its game to market first, it didn’t do them much good. Aside from its possible status as the first Pong clone and its supremely uninspired name, there is little to distinguish Computer Space Ball from the horde of Pong imitators that appeared in 1973. 
Nutting’s other ball-and-paddle games were a bit more interesting. Wimbledon was a four-player tennis game that used distinctive slider controls in place of the standard rotary controls or joysticks. Paddle Derby featured advancing color bars in place of a score. What made the games interesting, however, was not the controls but the graphics. They were among the earliest games to use computer-generated color rather than the cellophane overlays found in other games. Wimbledon was designed by Miel Domis. Domis was serving in the navy in the Dutch Navy in 1971 when he got an offer to come to the United States and work on the Cartrivision – one of the first American-made consumer VCRs and the first to offer prerecorded movies for rental (Electronics Vol 47, 1974; Domis 2016). After the Cartrivision project failed, Domis went to work for Nutting in 1973 and was tasked with designing a color version of Pong. Wimbledon debuted at the 1973 MOA show in November and its release was announced in the December issues of Vending Times and Cash Box. Though the game was billed as the first arcade video game to use real color, Atari’s Color Gotcha probably preceded it by about a month. Wimbledon, however, was in all likelihood the second true-color video game and it is possible that it beat Color Gotcha to market[2].
















Note that the headline inadvertently refers to Nutting Associates as Nutting Industries, which was a different company




Wimbledon at the 1973 MOA show


Nutting also produced a handful of other video games, including a two-player version of Computer Space in July 1973. Missile Radar was potentially significant in that, according to Atari’s Steve Bristow, it later served as an inspiration for Atari’s Missile Command – though the claim is unsubstantiated. Nutting also continued to produce non-video games such as 1972's Psychic, in which the player used “ESP” to guess which of four symbols the computer would randomly pick. The major news story of 1973 was the ongoing Watergate investigation and Nutting attempted to cash in with Watergate Caper. Introduced at the 1973 MOA show, the game invited players to “discover the secret combination and break into the Watergate yourself.” Though it is often listed as a video game, its flyer makes no mention of a TV monitor and it may have been an electro-mechanical game along the lines of Milwaukee Coin Industries The Safe. Video game or not, it stands as a rare example of an arcade game based on a political scandal[3]. 























Though Nutting had introduced some interesting innovations in 1973 and 1974, they did not translate into profits, in part because the they were not the right innovations. Players weren’t exactly clamoring to have their rotary controllers replaced with sliders or their numeric score with colored bars (significantly, none of Nutting’s rivals followed its lead). And color, while a significant development, was of little use in a ball-and-paddle game. As a result, by the end of 1974, Nutting had gone bankrupt. But it was not finished. In April 1975, the court approved its plan to repay its creditors and in October, just in time for the MOA show, Nutting was once again solvent (Marketplace 7/30/75). To launch its reentry into the video game arena, Nutting planned to introduce a slate of new games, including Computer Space II, Computer Quiz II, Table Tennis II, and a top secret game referred to only as “Project X”. It is not known if any of them was ever released, but the fact that all were sequels is telling.















In 1977, Bill Nutting sold Nutting Associates to Reno slot machine manufacturer William “Si” Redd (a colorful character, known as the father of video poker, whose story will have to wait for another time), who felt that Nutting might serve as a good cover for the gray-area gaming machines he was sending to California, Hawaii, and Guam (Harpster 2010). Engineer Dale Frey suggests that Redd may also have wanted to gain control of a lawsuit Bill Nutting planned to launch against Nolan Bushnell over Pong (Harpster 2010). In July 1977, Nutting Associates of California was merged into Nutting Associates of Nevada. The final game to bear the Nutting Associates name was Ricochet, which debuted at the 1977 AMOA show in October and appears to have been a clone of Exidy’s TV Pinball from 1974. That Nutting chose to release a three-year-old ball-and-paddle game when the industry had long since moved past them is perhaps the best summary of its post-Bushnell history. In any event, it was a sad end for a company that had released the world’s first commercial arcade video game just six years earlier.  





Bill Nutting


In fall 1979, Si Redd merged Nutting Associates with his own A-1 Supply to form a new company called Sircoma and hired Bill Nutting as production manager. By the end of the year, Nutting had left Sircoma and was serving as a pilot for a small Nevada airline. One night, while returning to Reno, the engine on his Cessna quit, forcing Bill to make a belly landing in a city dump. Despite facial lacerations and two broken ankles, he walked two miles to a farm house to find help. Three months later, he was back flying charter, but the accident had led him and his wife Claire to think about their purpose in life. The pair flew to Redlands, California and joined Mission Aviation Fellowship, an air-taxi service for Christian missionaries formed in the late 1940s, where they served as administrators in Nairobi from 1981 to 1985 before returning to the states. Bill Nutting died on July 28, 2008 in Prescott, Arizona, his role in video game history largely forgotten. (Petersen 1992)

[1] In an interview in the August 1976 issue of Play Meter, Vic Leslie, chair of England’s Cherry Group, claimed that Nutting VP Rui Lopes approached him at the 1973 ATE show (held January 31-February 2), asking if he would be interested in marketing Computer Space Ball in England. – though It is uncertain if the game was anything more than a name at that point. The earliest solidly dated reference I have found to the game is a mention in the June 16, 1973 issue of Cash Box, which noted that the game was “still going great guns,” suggesting that it had been introduced sometime earlier.

[2] Another true color video game that some sources claim was produced in 1973 was Kasco’s Playtron – a game in which a whale ate small fish. Only two prototype units were produced, however, and it is unclear exactly when they were made. Nutting's Paddle Derby, Table Tennis, and Table Tennis II also appear to have used true color. KLOV lists Paddle Derby as a 1972 release, but gives no source for the date, which is almost certainly inaccurate given that Pong was released in November 1972. The release of Table Tennis was announced in the June 1, 1974 issue of Cash Box. The Model numbers of Table Tennis II (751) and Paddle Derby (752) imply that they were released after Wimbledon (model 730). An Atari financial document lists Color Gotcha as an October 1973 release, but it is possible that they were just assuming it came out at the same time as Gotcha – though all other release dates in the document seem to be accurate.

[3] No copy of Watergate Caper or Missile Radar has ever turned up and it is unclear if the games were ever produced. Game flyers include only crude drawings along with a bare-bones description. Cash Box confirms that Watergate Caper was on display at the 1973 MOA show, but it is not known if it was ever released.
↧

New Info on Galaxy Game

August 27, 2016, 9:00 pm
$
0
0
I’ve been too busy to post much lately, but I did want to post a quick note about some new information that has recently emerged about Galaxy Game (the two-off game created at Stanford in 1971). 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, a number of people had claimed that Galaxy Game, and not Computer Space, was the world’s first coin-operated video game. This seems to be based on the claim in Tristan Donovan’s book Replay that the game was put on location in September 1971, a month before Computer Space debuted at the 1971 MOA show and about two months before it was “released.” As I also mentioned earlier, I don’t find this line of argument entirely convincing, given that Computer Space was location tested before it made its debut. Goldberg and Vendel claim that it was first tested in August, a month before Galaxy game – though I think this is based on the recollections of Ted Dabney and/or Nolan Bushnell. 

Well, some new information has surfaced that sheds further light on the issue. Donovan’s date was (I believe) based on an interview with Bill Pitts, the game’s programmer and co-creator. While a number of people have interviewed Pitts, including me several years ago, it seems that no one had interviewed Hugh Tuck.

Recently, Alex Smith of the They Create Worlds blog/podcast interviewed Tuck. As luck would have it, Tuck still had the business plan for Mini-Computer Applications, the partnership he and Pitts formed when they were peddling Galaxy Game to investors. There weren’t any major revelations in the document, but it did give some more solid evidence for the game’s dates. According to the document (which was written around February 1972), Pitts designed and built the game interface from July to November 1971. It then notes “In late November, the first game was installed in the Chess Room of the Tresidder Memorial Union at Stanford University. Simultaneously, an ad was run in the Stanford Daily Newspaper stating the name of the game and location.”
So according to contemporary evidence, the game was not put on location until late November 1971, after Computer Space had debuted at the MOA and well after it was first put on location for testing. And it seems that it was very late in November at that. The business plan mentions that when the game was put on location, they put an ad in the Stanford paper. The paper (the Stanford Daily) has an online archive dating back to 1892. I did a search for Galaxy Game and the first ad I found was in the November 29, 1971 issue, which actually contained two:




The November 23 issue also has this personal ad, which was repeated in subsequent issues.  "Atlas" was probably Hugh Tuck, whose family owned a company called Atlas Heating and Ventilating.




Of course, one could still argue that Galaxy Game was "released" before Computer Space,. Computer Space is believe to have started shipping to distributors in November, 1971 - though the date is unclear and it may not have been until December. And it likely would have taken ome time for the game to make its way to distributors to operators to locations. 
As I mentioned in my earlier post, however, I think this argument is a bit dubious because Galaxy Game, which wasn't a commercial product and was not sent to distributors at all, didn't really have a "release" date. 
↧
Viewing all 159 articles
Browse latest View live
Search