Atari Is Down For the Count.....

[Gorf]

So..why not let the Atari name be MARKETED properly, and by that I mean this....ATARI is RETRO. That's where your market is!

 

 

If only the Tramiels followed up on this promise(another broken of course) of clasic game rebirth

for the Jaguar, I just know things would have been different. I've been saying this for a long time.

Atari will be a repspected name once an owner realizes this....If only I have the money.

[Atariboy2600]

I think its high time for Nolan to buy back Atari and bring it back home in CA and re-hired some of the old Atari programers plus some new Atari fan programers! Why cant he do that? Is it the money? Does Nolan really hate his old company?

[Retro Rogue]

Exactly, so that's why they should just release a new CV console and make it fully compatible with the old CV carts. Most of those carts still work quite well, even after all these years, and you can easely collect a lot of the common ones on eBay and other online places. As for new games, they can just support the homebrew community, which is relatively easy to do with the CV.

 

 

That's just not very realistic business wise. Again, a) They'd have to lease the console name and properties as stated, and b) Without the well known games leased as well you'd have very little recognition, c) You can't do a built in cart, it'd be a tech support nightmare (why do you think it was left off the FB2?) let alone release a modern product to support 25 year old technology (CV carts) that the average person does not have, d) "Just supporting" a homebrew CV community (which consists of Opcode and a few others) is not much of a business model and once again you have to lease those games as well for inclusion on the console.

Edited September 2, 2007 by wgungfu

[Retro Rogue]

I think its high time for Nolan to buy back Atari and bring it back home in CA and re-hired some of the old Atari programers plus some new Atari fan programers! Why cant he do that? Is it the money? Does Nolan really hate his old company?

 

 

*sigh* not this again. This was already covered ad nauseum here. Nolan is the last person you want to have run Atari, he was running it in to the ground the first time he sold it and has run every other company in to the ground. The "glory years" everyone thinks about with regards to Atari were actually after he left. And Nolan is stretched way to thin on his latest "uWink" business attempt, not that he'd have anywhere near the cash required to buy the name and properties. Likewise, most of the "old" atari programmers are long since retired or on their own business ventures.

 

What the properties need is someone to buy them that actually cares for them for more than self promotion (ala Nolan), more than "strip mining" - i.e. just a bunch of roms here and there as casual gaming sideshows (like EA, Activision, and Microsoft), and will do something to actually start turning a profit and start bringing credibility back to the name.

Edited September 2, 2007 by wgungfu

[Retro Rogue]

Considering that the current Atari also swallowed Accolade, Ocean, Spectrum Holobyte, Microprose, Firebird, Rainbird and Gremlin amongst others, I don't even think their main strength is in the bits they own from Atari. Reviving Accolades "Test Drive" series probably was their best move in a while.

 

 

While Atari Inc. does own all of those, Atari Inc. doesn't own Atari. That's a separate holding company called Atari Interactive.

[Cybergoth]

Considering that the current Atari also swallowed Accolade, Ocean, Spectrum Holobyte, Microprose, Firebird, Rainbird and Gremlin amongst others, I don't even think their main strength is in the bits they own from Atari. Reviving Accolades "Test Drive" series probably was their best move in a while.

 

 

While Atari Inc. does own all of those, Atari Inc. doesn't own Atari. That's a separate holding company called Atari Interactive.

 

Atari Inc. or Infogrames as it was called then, bought Hasbro Interactive in 2000 completely, including what remained of Atari Interactive. They own everything Atari except what the former "Atari Games" Coin Op division created after the original mid-80s split.

[MrAtari2600]

if Atari Went in with the MMo field im sure as heck they'd succeed

THOUSANDS pay for monthly membership to these MMO's

 

what you guys think>?

I believe Atari tried this a year ago with some AD&D MMO and it flopped big time.

 

 

I did relize that later on, I think they just made big mistakes, wasn't good enough, i bet they could improve new expansion advertise at EB ( or gamestop or w/e you call it)and get some better sales?

[Retro Rogue]

While Atari Inc. does own all of those, Atari Inc. doesn't own Atari. That's a separate holding company called Atari Interactive.

 

Atari Inc. or Infogrames as it was called then, bought Hasbro Interactive in 2000 completely, including what remained of Atari Interactive. They own everything Atari except what the former "Atari Games" Coin Op division created after the original mid-80s split.

 

 

I'm sorry, but you're either mistaken or ill informed. Regardless, that's incorrect. Infogrames Entertainment bought Hasbro Interactive. They then separated Atari Interactive from Hasbro Interactive as a separate corporate entity (called a holding company), eventually shutting down the offices of the latter. Likewise they spun off their American branch, Infogrames USA (formerly GT Interactive combined with Accolade, Microprose, and the other properties bought) as a separate (but still majority stock owned) corporation and renamed it Atari Inc. There are currently three separate corporate entities - Infogrames Ent. (which still exists and did not rename itself to Atari as you suggest), Atari Interactive (which is the holding corporation for the Atari name and properties and actual owner), and Atari Inc. (which is the re branded Infogrames USA, I.E. GT Interactive, etc. etc.). Atari Inc. *does not* own the Atari name or properties as you've incorrectly tried to suggest. Those are owned by Atari Interactive, which is in turn majority owned (stock) by Infogrames Ent. (just as Atari Inc. is).

 

Likewise, Atari Interactive does not own "everything except what the former 'Atari Games' Coin Op division created after the mid-80s split". Midway own the rights to all pre-split coin-op hardware and roms. What Atari Interactive owns is the rights to the trademarked names and characters for the coin-ops, and the appearance of all said properties in console or computer format. Hence they can release Atari arcade games for consoles and pc's, but had to get the roms from Midway originally. Just as when the Missile Command/Centipede/Millipede coin-op appeared several years ago, Team Play had to get the roms from Midway (which when they received them had actually had all references to the Atari name removed and substituted with Midway) and leased the trademarked names and Atari logo from Atari Interactive.

Edited September 3, 2007 by wgungfu

[Cybergoth]

Let me know when you're done with all the hairsplitting...

[Retro Rogue]

Let me know when you're done with all the hairsplitting...

 

How is that hairsplitting? You said Atari Inc. owns the Atari properties. They don't. Two separate companies, two separate CEO's (David Pierce for Atari Inc. and Frederic Chesnais for Atari Interactive), etc.. If someone buys Atari Inc. they're not getting the Atari name or properties, only the GT Interactive, Accolade, etc. properties. They have to buy Atari Interactive as well if they want them. You also said Infogrames renamed itself to Atari Inc. when it did not, it renamed one of its operations to Atari Inc. and spun it off as a separate corporation. Infogrames Ent. is still there, with its own CEO, Patrick Leleu, and its own stock listing (which is doing bad as well if you read the article). We deal with this weird triangular relationship on all of our projects with them. When you want to be serious and accurate, and stop spreading confusion (or at the very least understand what it is you're boycotting in your banner), let me know as well...

Edited September 3, 2007 by wgungfu

[Cybergoth]

Isn't it true, that Infogrames currently owns both "Atari Inc." and "Atari Interactive"?

Isn't it true that Infogrames entirely stopped operating as Infogrames, but renamed everything under their belt "Atari this" and "Atari that"?

Isn't it true, that the FB2 was released under the same "Atari" label as "Test Drive Unlimited"?

 

So whatever their internal structure of the day may look like, and however they shift money and franchises from one entity to another to avoid taxes or whatever other behind the scenes stuff their managers manage at the moment, doesn't really matter that much to me - to the ouside it looks like one entity operating as Atari.

 

I also don't think I was spreading any confusion when saying "Infogrames renamed itself to Atari Inc.", that's just simplifying that Infogrames, Inc. became Atari, Inc., Infogrames Interactive, Inc. became Atari Interactive, Inc., and the European operations were renamed Atari Europe.

 

Besides, my original point had nothing to do with all of this. I was just saying that their strongest brands aren't in the Atari folder, but rather to be found elsewhere in their portfolio.

 

(And understanding my avatar in a nutshell: Avoid any product with that red Atari logo...)

[Retro Rogue]

Isn't it true that Infogrames entirely stopped operating as Infogrames, but renamed everything under their belt "Atari this" and "Atari that"?

 

Nope, Infogrames Entertainment is still operating, with a separate stock, CEO, deals, distributions, etc. etc., again repeating things here. Once again, you're confusing what it did with some of its studio operations and their name with the company no longer existing. Likewise, they did not separate those operations in to separate corporations, they're all still directly part of Infogrames Ent. There's only one Atari Inc. and that's here in the US.

 

Isn't it true, that the FB2 was released under the same "Atari" label as "Test Drive Unlimited"?

 

And we also had to work with Atari Interactive on that on licensing, etc.

 

So whatever their internal structure of the day may look like,

 

 

LOL, that's been the structure since 2003.

 

and however they shift money and franchises from one entity to another to avoid taxes or whatever other behind the scenes stuff their managers manage at the moment, doesn't really matter that much to me - to the ouside it looks like one entity operating as Atari.

 

Actually, no it just seems to your self it comes off that way. The game media, financial markets, and everyone else that matters seems to get it. Your attitude of "I don't care how things actually are, this is how I see them so that's how they are" is exactly the sort of confusion generator I was talking about.

 

I also don't think I was spreading any confusion when saying "Infogrames renamed itself to Atari Inc.", that's just simplifying that Infogrames, Inc. became Atari, Inc., Infogrames Interactive, Inc. became Atari Interactive, Inc., and the European operations were renamed Atari Europe.

 

That's dumbing it down to create more confusion no matter how you look at it. Makes it seem like Infogrames no longer exists when it does. Once again, Infogrames Ent. is a separate corporation with its own CEO, own stock market value, own board, etc. etc. etc. If Nasdaq delists Atari Inc., or Atari Inc. closes down, that is not delisting Infogrames Ent. and is not shutting down Infogrames Ent. I.e. it is its own company, with its own name, with its own stock, board etc.

 

Besides, my original point had nothing to do with all of this. I was just saying that their strongest brands aren't in the Atari folder, but rather to be found elsewhere in their portfolio.

 

Yes, your original post was misleading, which is why I responded. As you yourself professed, you just want to refer to Infogrames as Atari Inc., when Atari Inc. is an actual company here in the US. It confuses people reading, because it makes someone who doesn't understanding your "simplification" think Atari Inc. owns the Atari name and properties, when it does not. Atari Interactive owns it. If someone were to come in and buy Atari Inc. right now (which is what the majority of this thread has been about), by your "simplification" they'd be getting the Atari name and properties (which they would not), or even more confusing people might think buying Atari Inc. means buying Infogrames Ent. Both would be severely incorrect.

 

(And understanding my avatar in a nutshell: Avoid any product with that red Atari logo...)

 

Your avatar makes it quite clear what the agenda of your continued arguing of your personal viewpoint is. Just as your attitude on the subject is not unknown.

Edited September 3, 2007 by wgungfu

[Cybergoth]

You sure won't get me wasting any more time on this totally sidetracked arguing than I already did.

[Retro Rogue]

You sure won't get me wasting any more time on this totally sidetracked arguing than I already did.

 

 

For once we agree.

 

 

So to bring it back on target everyone - hopefully we should know tomorrow what the results of the meeting between Nasdaq and David Pierce/Atari Inc. will be. Strange nothing was mentioned on Thursday, but regardless they have 30 days to make the decision.

 

Also, this past week Atari Inc. was named at the top of the Market's 10 Worst Stocks of the Past Decade. Woohoo!

[Pixelboy]

Exactly, so that's why they should just release a new CV console and make it fully compatible with the old CV carts. Most of those carts still work quite well, even after all these years, and you can easely collect a lot of the common ones on eBay and other online places. As for new games, they can just support the homebrew community, which is relatively easy to do with the CV.

That's just not very realistic business wise. Again, a) They'd have to lease the console name and properties as stated, and b) Without the well known games leased as well you'd have very little recognition,

Um, just so I'm sure what you're talking about, can you please define the word "lease" for me? No sarcasm, It's an honest question.

 

 

c) You can't do a built in cart, it'd be a tech support nightmare (why do you think it was left off the FB2?) let alone release a modern product to support 25 year old technology (CV carts) that the average person does not have,

And the average person would want a modernized CV because...? This would be a niche market for CV fans, not the general Wii/X360/PS crowd that have never heard of the ColecoVision.

 

 

d) "Just supporting" a homebrew CV community (which consists of Opcode and a few others) is not much of a business model and once again you have to lease those games as well for inclusion on the console.

Again, I don't understand what you mean by "inclusion"...

[Retro Rogue]

That's just not very realistic business wise. Again, a) They'd have to lease the console name and properties as stated, and b) Without the well known games leased as well you'd have very little recognition,

Um, just so I'm sure what you're talking about, can you please define the word "lease" for me? No sarcasm, It's an honest question.

 

Sure, lease is when you make a contract that gives you the rights to use a property for a certain amount of time or for inclusion in a specific product. For example, we had to lease the two Activision games included in the FB2, which meant paying Activision a specific amount for every unit manufactured with their game property on it. In the case of Riverwest, they own neither the Colecovision name or the Colecovision itself. They'll have to lease both from Telegames (or manage to buy the properties outright) if they want to.

 

 

And the average person would want a modernized CV because...? This would be a niche market for CV fans, not the general Wii/X360/PS crowd that have never heard of the ColecoVision.

 

Then it would be something that no corporation would touch, and would have to be done by a hobbyist. Corporations (such as Riverwest, etc.) buy these properties because they want to make money, and an extremely small niche market is not how that's done. If a hobbyist can get something going for a limited run of hand held Colecovision compatible systems, more power to them and I'd certainly be happy to see that. That's why I had signed on with Eduardo to give my time as a technical writer for the SEM. Love to see that released to the community.

 

 

Again, I don't understand what you mean by "inclusion"...

 

See earlier.

[Gorf]

I think its high time for Nolan to buy back Atari and bring it back home in CA and re-hired some of the old Atari programers plus some new Atari fan programers! Why cant he do that? Is it the money? Does Nolan really hate his old company?

 

 

I sent him an email when i saw this post, beggin him to buy it back....Im not kidding.

Sorry to say it's been a week and no replies...not that I was holding my breath.

 

I let him know in no uncertain terms that he has an army of coders like myself waiting for

him to do so.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Gorf

[potatohead]

Just read through this interesting thread.

 

I love the idea of Atari products. They could make a branding effort, and just sell lots of Atari branded stuff. The Atari toaster, kids clothing line, geek wear, etc...

 

Work some kind of deal with IKEA, or similar.

 

70's and 80's retro is appealing to many spenders right now, why not get the brand running.

 

If that works out, then introduce electronics from a position where things are healthy otherwise.

 

Nearly everyone I grew up with would identify with this right away. Atari is associated with great memories in a lot of people. Today, when Atari comes up in conversation, everybody talks about their gaming, but right after that comes other memories. That's an element of the brand worth something, IMHO.

 

A good branding analogy is the "Hello Kitty" brand. You can get Hello Kitty anything! Why not Atari anything?

 

(Yes I'm actually somewhat serious. Slap me later!)

[FastRobPlus]

I really hope nobody is optimistic about what happens if Atari were to liquidate. There was a lot of optimism following each of the successive purchase of Amiga Inc., and each iteration was farther and farther removed from the original company's core business. With Atari, we at least have a company still in the same general discipline as the original company. If it were to change hands, there is a very real possibility we'd wind up with a directionless company trying to sell pocketPC games of something (like Amiga today) only driving the Atari brand into greater obscurity. Selling it a few times might get us a company like the current Commodore - a boutique custom Wintel clone assembly/paint shop.

[mos6507]

Their Atari line of titles were failures, both critically and financially.

 

That's a falsehood. Hasbro Interactive did very well for a while. Frogger and Centipede in particular sold really well. I remember reading about Frogger still being on the top of the charts months after most titles fall off. They just couldn't sustain themselves. They started releasing crappy stuff like Galaxian that were expensive licenses that didn't even have a direct link back to Atari's IP.

[mos6507]

I think its high time for Nolan to buy back Atari and bring it back home in CA and re-hired some of the old Atari programers plus some new Atari fan programers! Why cant he do that? Is it the money? Does Nolan really hate his old company?

 

I'm sure he would if he could. He made an effort once before but he's having a hard enough time keeping uWink solvent.

[mos6507]

I really hope nobody is optimistic about what happens if Atari were to liquidate. There was a lot of optimism following each of the successive purchase of Amiga Inc., and each iteration was farther and farther removed from the original company's core business. With Atari, we at least have a company still in the same general discipline as the original company. If it were to change hands, there is a very real possibility we'd wind up with a directionless company trying to sell pocketPC games of something (like Amiga today) only driving the Atari brand into greater obscurity. Selling it a few times might get us a company like the current Commodore - a boutique custom Wintel clone assembly/paint shop.

 

Exactly. When the company you fell in love with has diverged completely from what it used to be, it's time to hitch your wagon elsewhere. To me, homebrews, web games, and indie downloadable games are more of a clear successor to Atari than conventional shrinkwrapped game software. It's just that those things don't really get you excited the way the name 'Atari' does.

[atarilovesyou]

...what's the problem with a cart slot again?...remember, it's there to play the older games but for crying out loud, there's nothing that would implore Atari to honor warranties of games 25 years old.

 

The slot would be mainly for older games, those that still work that is, and ALSO for homebrews and the newer games that could get released in the future...a big part of the success is that slot being there. It's 'gotta' be there. This fear of 25 year old warranty claims is unfounded...and nothing that small print (or even BIG FAT BLACK BOLD PRINT) couldn't fix.

 

Maybe the overall cost of the connectors will bump up the price, but if they're going to do this, they gotta do it right...not that they're gonna do this

[Retro Rogue]

Their Atari line of titles were failures, both critically and financially.

 

That's a falsehood.

 

Absolutely not, and you're quite mistaken or misreading what I stated. I stand by my statement that they were critical failures as these critic's reviews from the time clearly demonstrate: GameSpot Centipede Review, another centipede review, Frogger review.

 

Hasbro Interactive did very well for a while. Frogger and Centipede in particular sold really well. I remember reading about Frogger still being on the top of the charts months after most titles fall off. They just couldn't sustain themselves. They started releasing crappy stuff like Galaxian that were expensive licenses that didn't even have a direct link back to Atari's IP.

 

 

I also clearly stated Atari Interactive, not Hasbro Interactive, which Atari Interactive was a sub division of. I.E. the Atari line does not represent Hasbro Interactive as a whole, it was simply a small part of it. That's also why I mentioned it didn't face the same issues as someone who makes the Atari IP their entire focus did. Likewise Frogger wasn't even an Atari Interactive released title, nor did it have a direct link to the Atari IP either. So I'm not sure why Hasbro Interactive titles and non-Atari ip's are being brought up. And while Centipede was a modest success financially, as stated the Atari line failed. A single title doing decent for a time hardly makes the line a financial success.

Edited September 5, 2007 by wgungfu

[Retro Rogue]

...what's the problem with a cart slot again?...remember, it's there to play the older games but for crying out loud, there's nothing that would implore Atari to honor warranties of games 25 years old.

 

Actually its quite the opposite, there's nothing that would stop a flood of callers to tech support (which costs money to operate) and irate owners returning said consoles to retailers (which costs more money) because said 25 year old games they happened across won't work. If you think putting a disclaimer is going to stop that, I'd say you haven't been around retail much. Once again, there's a reason why it was left off. Retailers and the product supporter didn't want it for the previously mentioned reasons, regardless of how "unfounded" you claim it is. And retailers have as much to do with shaping a product line as the manufacturer does - because its the retailers who decide what will sell and what won't in their store and why. And it makes no sense to retailers to have a product on their shelves that uses another product that hasn't been manufactured in 25 years. Waste of retail space.