|
||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
 |
INTERVIEW Ed Averett
MT>
You generally stay off the radar and rarely grant interviews. How did we get so lucky?
Second it would not have served Odyssey's best interest if everyone knew there was only one person working on games for Odyssey² vs all the game designers at Atari. I've always been a fan of listening to others unless I really have something worthwhile to say. So I've done a lot of listening and watching over the last 30+ years. MT>
Lets start at the beginning. But neither Atari or Magnavox/Philips appreciated that with great profits comes the need to reinvest those profits in new, more advanced hardware to keep giving their customers exciting experiences. There is only so much that can be done with 7 colors and 8x8 graphic figures. The fighting chance Magnavox always had was manufacturing, distribution and the 8244 chip from Intel. MT> Why did you believe in the system when it seemed that no one else did? But remember the Magnavox legal mindset was that if I could reproduce the original Pac-Man exactly, that would have been fine as long as I did not copy the code itself. Based on their experience with Atari and Pong, that was not an unreasonable mindset. So in that context they did give me a lot of room to be creative. MT> You were employed at Intel when they sold the 8244 chip, the first programmable sprite based game chip, to Magnavox. As it turned out, the chip design was flawed and delayed the release of the Odyssey² . Do you think the positioning of the Odyssey² against Atari in the marketplace would have been much different if the Odyssey² had reached store shelves a year earlier as originally anticipated? If the 8244 had arrived on schedule, I doubt if history would have changed that much. When the Odyssey² was launched, it was still the most advanced graphics system available and Magnavox had excellent manufacturing and distribution systems. The delay did however significantly impact Magnavox's confidence that they understood the speed of the market and complexity of video games business. Also, the culture of Atari could not have been more different than that of Magnavox. If the Atari culture was needed to succeed in video games, they knew that was a business that was not suited to their DNA. MT>
You worked your magic in your Tennessee home. Describe your work environment there?
A huge advantage was only a 2 hour drive to Magnavox in Knoxville as opposed to taking all day to get to Magnavox from Silicon Valley. Remember, there was no Skype in those days. MT>
Whatever happened to the cocktail napkin that birthed the Master Strategy game series? MT> Your wife Linda also helped you develop some of the Odyssey² titles. Certainly it must have been that experience that set her up for success as a Vice President at Microsoft… MT> You were asked to program a Pac-Man like game. As a result, K.C. Munchkin resulted in a landmark legal ruling (see Bill Kunkel's “My Three Trials: Experiences as an Expert Witness in the Electronic Games Industry: Atari v Magnavox”) which would intimidate most individuals. What legal considerations were contemplated by Magnavox, and what was your reaction? EA> First, in my opinion, both the Federal Court's and the Appeals Court's rulings were correct. They were actually ruling on a totally different argument on copyright infringement... The Federal Court was addressing copyright infringement from the point of view that both Magnavox and Atari presented at the time; that is, were their codes, algorithms or circuitry copied? There was no evidence or discussion on the issue of “look and feel” copyright infringement in the Federal Court. Therefore, Magnavox was confident in victory. That was reinforced by the judge's ruling, strongly in Magnavox's favor. Having lost on that approach, Atari cleverly changed tactics to argue an infringement based on “look and feel” in the Appeals Court. Its ruling was based on the evidence presented in the lower court, as the Appeals Court does not accept new evidence, and only rules on the evidence presented in the lower court's ruling. Since none of the significant differences in “look and feel” could be considered in the Appeals Court ruling, there was no attempt by Magnavox to address the “look and feel” differences there. So, the Appeals Court ruling was logical given the evidence it had to consider. It would have been helpful if the Appeals Court had addressed Atari's change in position and referred it back to the lower court, but that's not what happened. There was a lot of frustration at the time; not because we lost, but by the way we lost. Now a little background - At that time, the understanding for what was legal in video games was set by Odyssey's original ball and paddle game and Atari's Pong - another ball and paddle game. It concluded that if what was on the screen was not a result of copied code or circuits then there was no infringement. This was determined by an out of court settlement between Magnavox and Atari and thus had no legal precedence, but certainly influenced the thinking at Magnavox and Atari. However, there could not have been more similar “look and feel” games than the original Odyssey's Tennis game and Pong. In my case, I doubt anyone confused KC Munchkin with Pac-Man because of looks or personality. In addition, my thinking was to develop a different, better “Western”…more later on that. With a character more likable and a game that improved on the concept of Pac-Man, you actually had a different, happier feeling. The character and the challenges were different. The player was not controlling a robotic “chomper” but a character that interacted and made you smile. Remember the graphic limitations of home video games of that day, an 8x8 mono matrix. Since the “look and feel” issue was not addressed by either Magnavox or Atari in the Federal Court, I did not get a chance to elaborate on how KC Munchkin had achieved this. I remember clearly reasoning for myself how TV westerns of the day had similar infringement issues. In all the TV westerns, the setting was the same. The characters moved around on horses, saved damsels in distress, and got the ‘bad guys'. But you knew if you were watching The Lone Ranger or watching a Roy Rogers western. There were observable differences. Similarly, it's my strong feeling that there were significant differences between KC Munchkin and Pac-Man such that no one would buy KC Munchkin and think they were getting Pac-Man. If I logically compared KC Munchkin's and Pac-Man's “look and feel” to TV westerns, KC Munchkin was not close to having infringement issues. But the Appeals Court could not consider these points since they were not presented in the lower court. So, the frustration was that the “argument” of infringement changed from the Federal Court where Magnavox won strongly, to the Appeals Court where we lost. The evidence had to stay the same; that is, no code copying. And none of the “look and feel” differences could be introduced to the Appeals Court. It was for Atari a big short term victory taken from the jaws of defeat. But as we all know, the long term fate of Atari and Magnavox video games were the same for similar reasons. MT> Okay, here is a question that I've been asking myself for years. Why are there two versions of K.C. Munchkin? In some iterations, one of the ghosts is blue in color. In another, that same ghost is yellow? I remember quite clearly pushing back from my DECwriter when I finished Attack of the Timelords, taking a deep breath and knowing it was the end of a era. All that I could do had been done. MT> Why were you not involved with the failed Probe 2000 project, which aimed to release new games for competing consoles such as the Colecovision? 1. Linda was able to convince me that attention needed to be focused on our family and not making any more $s. 2. Intel was not interested in pursuing the video game or graphic business after I left. They were the best of the best when it came 3. Magnavox and by then, Philips, were most interested in driving down the cost of a game system secondarily to driving the graphic It would have been a much harder decision to exit completely if Magnavox/Philips had pursued evolving the Odyssey² into a personal computer. There was a complete design to that end done by Roberto to compete with Apple II and Dell's PC machines. That would have been a very interesting path for all. MT> Do you miss assembly programming and working in binary? So do I miss programming in assembly? Yes but am I really happy to have the power of C++? Absolutely. Of course, some games require quick reaction times and some require deep thought but they all are still about presenting a problem graphically. Almost all of the problem solving in video games today are “make believe” problems. The future that excites me most is where video games present real life problems to be solved. KC Returns! attempts to show that technology has progressed to the point that we can now start “thinking” about solving problems related to DNA among other things. I'm quite sure when my grandchildren are my age and they get sick they will be able to see the issues in a video game format and be able to solve their cold, their flu, or their cancer themselves. Now how cool will that be! We are going down that path now at warp speed. Someday, folks will look back at our current games and think of them in the same light as the very first video games. MT> Even the biggest KC fans may not be aware that a series of KC children's books are available on Amazon. What is the story behind these… stories? The books specifically give a richer example of where we are going. The books are directed at young children because it will most likely be them that make the possibility that I see for video games, a reality - that is, solving real life problems that will all have. MT> You still own the intellectual property to the K.C. Munchkin name and character, and recently unveiled your upcoming KC Returns project. Please tell us about this exciting new project! KC Returns! Attempts to show a glimpse of that future, a future where anyone can explore in rich graphic detail DNA on a $200 computer. The game part (everyone wants to have fun) of KC's Returns! embraces some of the best of KC's past with enhancements possible today. There is a learning option about DNA that allows for even more enhanced game play. KC Returns! Is basically a Suite of 3 interconnected parts. 1. Exploring 2. Learning 3. Playing (game) My hope is that by playing or seeing KC Returns!, DNA will be a bit more demystified and understandable. And that some will see a future where working with DNA will be as easy and common as working with a word processor today, except a whole lot more fun. Why DNA? It affects all that we are and all our health issues - from colds to cancer. If that was not enough, DNA will play a significant role in the future of computing and memory storage. It's really important to understand. KC Returns! is free to all. It's my gift to my grandchildren that I'm sharing with everyone. It's currently available in the Microsoft App Store and based on feedback from my friends, a new, significantly enhanced version will be available in the coming months. THANK YOU!
|
