Official Atari Death Watch Thread

[stirrell]

Well, they did just hire a really big name as President, Phil Harrison, of Sony. If you want to see Atari, under Infogrames succeed, that, I would think, would be good news. It looks like a serious attempt to turn things around to me.

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=33736

 

I am not saying that Atari will be turned around and made into a successful company but drawing someone like Harrison over to lead the effort looks to me like they're going to make a real effort of it.

[Retro Rogue]

Well, they did just hire a really big name as President, Phil Harrison, of Sony. If you want to see Atari, under Infogrames succeed, that, I would think, would be good news. It looks like a serious attempt to turn things around to me.

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=33736

 

I am not saying that Atari will be turned around and made into a successful company but drawing someone like Harrison over to lead the effort looks to me like they're going to make a real effort of it.

 

 

Umm, noooo, Infogrames hired Harrison, not Atari Inc. That was the point of all the press releases, Infogrames is building itself up to return as a publisher and re-establish the Atari Brand. (Up until now, the US Based Atari Inc. had been handinlg the website, the game development, and the major PR associated with the brand. With the entire thing in the crapper because of that, Infogrames is "retaking" the stewardship of the brand, which it owns). These announcements have nothing to do with the US based Atari Inc. or its fate. Separate company, with its own management, and they only lease the Atari name and properties from Atari Interactive.

 

Back in December they had forced Atari Inc. (via its majority ownership, not direct ownership) to retool as a publisher only. Now with the latest announcement of Infogrames directly handling anything to do with the Atari brand in the US, it looks like they have zero need for Atari Inc.

Edited March 4, 2008 by wgungfu

[stirrell]

Well, they did just hire a really big name as President, Phil Harrison, of Sony. If you want to see Atari, under Infogrames succeed, that, I would think, would be good news. It looks like a serious attempt to turn things around to me.

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=33736

 

I am not saying that Atari will be turned around and made into a successful company but drawing someone like Harrison over to lead the effort looks to me like they're going to make a real effort of it.

 

 

Umm, noooo, Infogrames hired Harrison, not Atari Inc. That was the point of all the press releases, Infogrames is building itself up to return as a publisher and re-establish the Atari Brand. (Up until now, the US Based Atari Inc. had been handinlg the website, the game development, and the major PR associated with the brand. With the entire thing in the crapper because of that, Infogrames is "retaking" the stewardship of the brand, which it owns). These announcements have nothing to do with the US based Atari Inc. or its fate. Separate company, with its own management, and they only lease the Atari name and properties from Atari Interactive.

 

Back in December they had forced Atari Inc. (via its majority ownership, not direct ownership) to retool as a publisher only. Now with the latest announcement of Infogrames directly handling anything to do with the Atari brand in the US, it looks like they have zero need for Atari Inc.

 

Ah, I obviously didn't have a very good understanding of the current Atari. Thanks for the clarification. That is really interesting (and confusing, I must confess!) So, if Infogrames has no use for Atari, Inc and, in theory, Atari, Inc. survives in some form, is it possible that Infogrames would no longer lease the name to Atari, Inc.? I am going to have to do some research and reading on this to try to understand it better.

 

D'oh. You even explained this clearly with Curt in a Modern Gaming thread. I feel pretty dumb now. Thanks for taking the time to correct me, Marty.

Edited March 4, 2008 by stirrell

[Retro Rogue]

Ah, I obviously didn't have a very good understanding of the current Atari. Thanks for the clarification. That is really interesting (and confusing, I must confess!) So, if Infogrames has no use for Atari, Inc and, in theory, Atari, Inc. survives in some form, is it possible that Infogrames would no longer lease the name to Atari, Inc.? I am going to have to do some research and reading on this to try to understand it better.

 

D'oh. You even explained this clearly with Curt in a Modern Gaming thread. I feel pretty dumb now. Thanks for taking the time to correct me, Marty.

 

 

No problem, and you're not the only one confused about it. They've been playing off that confusion for a while. Check out my article on the front page of gamesindustry.biz (upper right hand side) for a brief history of the brand and the current situation.

[Curt Vendel]

That is my theory...

 

Infogrames has no need any further for Atari, Inc and now it looks like Atari, Inc is actually in the way of Infogrames fully deploying out this new initiative as David Gardner has planned.

 

Its in Infogrames best interest to disolve Atari, Inc and take the brand back fully.

 

 

 

 

Curt

 

 

Ah, I obviously didn't have a very good understanding of the current Atari. Thanks for the clarification. That is really interesting (and confusing, I must confess!) So, if Infogrames has no use for Atari, Inc and, in theory, Atari, Inc. survives in some form, is it possible that Infogrames would no longer lease the name to Atari, Inc.? I am going to have to do some research and reading on this to try to understand it better.

 

D'oh. You even explained this clearly with Curt in a Modern Gaming thread. I feel pretty dumb now. Thanks for taking the time to correct me, Marty.

[+pboland]

I just thought I would add this update to the whole Atari Inc. thing.

Infogrames making bid for leftover Atari stock

[gooche77]

Shouldn't this thread have started in 1983? It seems like Atari is always in some kind of mess.

[mos6507]

The technicalities of all this are very complicated but it seems like for all intents and purposes Atari as it was before has all but died and been resurrercted again by Infogrames.

[Retro Rogue]

Shouldn't this thread have started in 1983? It seems like Atari is always in some kind of mess.

 

 

Sure, if that Atari was still around. However, we're on the third company to use the Atari name and properties.

[mbd30]

Doesn't matter. "Atari" is a meaningless name now... only used to illicit a positive nostalgic response in consumers. Slapping the "Atari" logo on some first person shooter won't make it a better game.

[Defender II]

 

Just another 'Atari' tragedy. I almost wish they (Atari in any form) had never released a new title after they stopped making machines and let it all go to the public domain.

[Math You]

Infogrames has no need any further for Atari, Inc

True. The games would sell just as well if they were sold under the Infogrames name.

 

There is the possibility that the Atari name has such a strong connection with 1980's gaming that it might actually be having a negative effect on game sales.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the Atari image, but it belongs on retro products.

Edited March 21, 2008 by Math You

[Retro Rogue]

Infogrames has no need any further for Atari, Inc

True. The games would sell just as well if they were sold under the Infogrames name.

 

 

No, he means they have no use for that company - i.e. it has no value. Infogrames already owns the Atari name and properties, and they can continue selling it under the Atari name as they have been with their Atari Europe, Atari Australia, etc.

all along.

[TwiliteZoner]

Infogrames has no need any further for Atari, Inc

True. The games would sell just as well if they were sold under the Infogrames name.

 

 

No, he means they have no use for that company - i.e. it has no value. Infogrames already owns the Atari name and properties, and they can continue selling it under the Atari name as they have been with their Atari Europe, Atari Australia, etc.

all along.

 

It was a mistake to think 18-25 year olds were going to be attracted to the Atari name in the 1st place. The people that name would appeal to were not the target audience for a lot of the games they released under the label.

[Retro Rogue]

It was a mistake to think 18-25 year olds were going to be attracted to the Atari name in the 1st place. The people that name would appeal to were not the target audience for a lot of the games they released under the label.

 

 

They weren't hoping the name would attract 18-25 year olds in the first place, I'm not sure where you got that from. They wanted to build it up as a strong new name for 18-25 year olds with new titles while using the old name brand recognition to bring in the older crowd. Not a bad idea at all, and they certainly had the foundation for it and a series of modern brand titles that they really could have used for that. But the way they executed it backfired. 1) None of the management had any experience with video games, they were all from Sony Music. 2) The new titles they did release were either huge money pits production wise and turned out to be duds (Matrix, Mark Ecko, etc.), or were so full of bugs they made Atari synonymous with low quality in the eyes of new gamers. This lead to having to sell off studios and properties they could have used to build that legacy. 3) None of the people at Inc. had any experience with the old Atari as a brand. Consequently, they became almost schizo on how much or how little association (and reliance on) with the old brand and properties they wanted, or how to deal with them and keep the division line even. Tapping Curt was the right move, but he could only do so much, and it doesn't mean they were always going to listen to his advice.

[Fort Apocalypse]

Is Atari dead yet?

 

[Nall3k]

Atari Inc. will be fine. With Jim Wilson now the new CEO and Alone in the Dark coming up, I believe Atari will do just fine. Besides their stock has risen to $1.65.

[Nall3k]

I know ill be blasted for this, but Ill come out and say it. Infogrames has done more for the Atari brand than the Tramells. What has (the new). Atari Inc. done now? They continue to release the classics on XBL Arcade, and through PC digital downloads, and they are now finally shedding off dead weight studios and focusing on better games (Test Drive Unlimited, Alone in the Dark). with better internal studios (Eden Games). So I dont understand all the hate.

[Atarifever]

I know ill be blasted for this, but Ill come out and say it. Infogrames has done more for the Atari brand than the Tramells. What has (the new). Atari Inc. done now? They continue to release the classics on XBL Arcade, and through PC digital downloads, and they are now finally shedding off dead weight studios and focusing on better games (Test Drive Unlimited, Alone in the Dark). with better internal studios (Eden Games). So I dont understand all the hate.

You're going to likely get blasted, but I mostly agree with you. I think Tramiel, because he had a lot more to workj with, did more, but this is the best Atari since the support for the Jaguar stopped. People here will blast you by making some lame points about how this Atari isn't Warner Atari, as if somehow someone else is going to do better than compilations, a free online arcade, and new official 2600 hardware. I wish everyone here would realize that unless Curt or Al gets control of Atari (which sadly will not happen), this is as good as it gets. When EA buys the name I think people will realize how good we've had it under Infotari.

[Clint Thompson]

I know ill be blasted for this, but Ill come out and say it. Infogrames has done more for the Atari brand than the Tramells. What has (the new). Atari Inc. done now? They continue to release the classics on XBL Arcade, and through PC digital downloads, and they are now finally shedding off dead weight studios and focusing on better games (Test Drive Unlimited, Alone in the Dark). with better internal studios (Eden Games). So I dont understand all the hate.

 

I liked TDU.... Timeshift got shafted (too bad) and hopefully Alone in the Dark will live up to expectations.

They screwed up the XBLA games (imo), lacked (and still lack) decent/proper support for when issues arise in the PC download world and as far as ridding off dead weight... that's expected but completely stopping any internal development.... I feel is crap.

 

Jim Wilson's the new CEO right? $1 says he doesn't make it past a year. (not to say he's not or will not be a good CEO.... just that regardless the board will continue to demand the same recycled crap that doesn't work)

Edited April 5, 2008 by Clint Thompson

[Retro Rogue]

Atari Inc. will be fine. With Jim Wilson now the new CEO and Alone in the Dark coming up, I believe Atari will do just fine. Besides their stock has risen to $1.65.

 

 

Not sure what you mean when you say "will be fine". Its not being put off as "fine" by anyone, including Atari Inc. itself. $1.65 is nowhere near where they had to be (they were already at that a few weeks ago), and the deadline for delisting was long since passed and violated. They've simply filed for an appeal/extension to finish the buyout proceedings. They're done. Wilson is just another in a long line of ex-Sony media people with no real experience, that was brought in simply to ride the CEO position through the buyout to make it look more legit (Curtis was an interim person that was a BlueBay appointed person). Take a look at the clauses in his contract listed in the SEC filings. All the Infogrames privately held companies have CEO's. Likewise, there's maybe 5 actual people at the offices (if you can still call them that), the rest are a handful of contract people bringing the number to maybe 10.

 

And once again, Alone in the Dark isn't their product. Its Atari Eruope's (Atari UK), completely different company.

[Retro Rogue]

I know ill be blasted for this, but Ill come out and say it. Infogrames has done more for the Atari brand than the Tramells.

 

And you're basing that on what regarding the Tramiels?

 

What has (the new). Atari Inc. done now? They continue to release the classics on XBL Arcade, and through PC digital downloads, and they are now finally shedding off dead weight studios and focusing on better games (Test Drive Unlimited, Alone in the Dark).

 

Not really, they sold off studios and properties to stay afloat and had Alone In The Dark taken over by Infogrames/Atari UK. The so called "classics" on XBL were terrible remakes and attempts at updates, and again, that's Atari Europe that's doing the digital downloads. Not Atari Inc. Atari Inc. has absolutely zero in development right now.

 

with better internal studios (Eden Games). So I dont understand all the hate.

 

Much like I can't understand how people keep getting confused on which Atari is what.

 

Atari Inc. owns nothing and has nothing. It leases the name and properties from Atari Interactive. Any studios or properties it did own were sold off. All it has is a few licenses and some distribution rights, thats it. And as soon as the buyout is over, it'll be just what is was being geared for over the past year - a small office operating as a direct division of Infogrames to help with US distribution of Infogrames titles.

Edited April 5, 2008 by wgungfu

[Retro Rogue]

I wish everyone here would realize that unless Curt or Al gets control of Atari (which sadly will not happen), this is as good as it gets. When EA buys the name I think people will realize how good we've had it under Infotari.

 

Nobody gets anything that gets a hold of Atari Inc. They don't own the name, they don't own the properties, they own nothing regarding the Atari Brand. They lease everything.

[mos6507]

I think Hasbro is the one that gets a bad rap. They had a great run for a while before they started making crappy games like Galaga.

[Nall3k]

I hope I am not the only one on these boards who looks at Atari Inc. as the successer of the original Atari Inc. Because it seems to me that most people here think Atari died when Nolan Bushnell left.