AtariAge + Atari Q&A

[zylon]

3 hours ago, SIO2 said:

Nintendo has characters.  If you see Mario you instantly know it is Nintendo.  Does Atari have a mascot character?  Nothing comes to mind.  I think the mascot character is an important concept.

I'd nominate the Cx40, probably their most recognized product ever.

[RevEng]

Game mascots and cinematic universe, ready to go...

 

[JPF997]

55 minutes ago, famicommander said:

The main problem with picking an Atari mascot is most of Atari's iconic games don't actually feature a character. Asteroids, Pong, Breakout, Missile Command, Tempest, etc.

 

I would say that the closest thing to a character I associate with Atari is Yar from Yars' Revenge.

What about the main character in major havock, one could easily create a backstory where he his some kind of Master Chief/ Doom guy type of unstoppable badass wrecking any and all aliens threatening humanities survival.

[+x=usr(1536)]

Agent X from Cloak & Dagger.  Everybody knows him, amirite? 

[buescherking]

9 minutes ago, JPF997 said:

What about the main character in major havock, one could easily create a backstory where he his some kind of Master Chief/ Doom guy type of unstoppable badass wrecking any and all aliens threatening humanities survival.

I think Atari should stick with some sort of feline mascot, like Chesty Cougar (not for children I suppose) or Larry and Lenny Lynx, you creative guys could come up with something spiffy I bet. Hmm, Patty and Peter Panther, etc.. come on guys, help me out here!

[+jgkspsx]

Excuse me. You are all completely missing the most obvious candidate.

 

Both a built-in cinematic universe AND instant furry cred. Wade, you can thank me later.

[+jgkspsx]

If that doesn’t work, they could turn to a recent acquisition:

 

 

What could PAWsibly go wrong???

[+Defender_2600]

For me the point is that the mascot, in addition to having a historical value, should have some prerequisites to be used in new games. Crystal Castles is not only represented by Bentley Bear but also by all the other iconic Characters, therefore the Evil Tree, the Bee Swarm, the Crystal Balls, the Gem Eaters, the Skeletons, the Ghosts, Berthilda the Witch, and obviously the Crystal Castles. It was so modern at the time, there's no need to invent new "anonymous" characters.

[Flojomojo]

@jgkspsx cinematic universe, you say?

 

In space, no one can hear you say, GOOD GOD WHAT IS THAT THING?!?

 

[desiv]

I decided to see what a Bing image generator could do, but apparently I am not using the proper terms. 

[desiv]

Actually, he's growing on me...
Thinking of calling him Catari... 

No?   
OK... 

[Lord Mushroom]

4 hours ago, PowerDubs said:

"by now'....they just recently leased on Xbox and Samsung game hub- they are growing.

The company has existed for 10 years, and the service has been on PC for 5 years. Their fixed costs should be low. Their main costs (licensing, cloud services and customer support I am guessing) should mainly be growing with their user base, and therefore their income. So why do they constantly need more money?

 

It looks to me like the cost of running the service is higher than what people are willing to pay for it, and that it is a flawed concept. Maybe they can turn it around, but it is not looking good, in my opinion. 

[+Random Terrain]

7 hours ago, Flojomojo said:

@jgkspsx cinematic universe, you say?

 

In space, no one can hear you say, GOOD GOD WHAT IS THAT THING?!?

 

 

People who had trypophobia probably pooped themselves when they saw that back then.

 

[Lord Mushroom]

5 hours ago, PowerDubs said:

Wade offered a laughably low price per share...and that was the over whelming opinion of all the shareholders. 

 

The only reason .19 was 'high' at that moment was (to you) is that he purposely drove the price down to make it appear so to those that weren't paying attention.

I agree that he intentionally drove the price down in the following ways:

1) Showed how badly Atari was actually doing by making huge appropriate write-offs.

2) Announcing they were shifting off of crypto-stuff, which some people (mistakenly) think is a huge source of future income.

3) Reduced the easy money coming from crypto and licensing.

4) Undervalued (in my opinion) the intangible assets of Atari.

 

But he has also done things to drive the price up, like:

1) Announced focus on games.

2) Improved quality of games launched.

3) Discontinued or reduced unprofitable areas of the business.

4) Taking more care of the brand.

 

So he hasn´t done everything to drive the price down, only to buy as much of the company as possible, and then announce the good news.

 

I think Atari is worth a lot more than $0.14 in the right hands. In the right hands, Atari could become a big company again. In the wrong hands, continuing losses and bankruptcy is the result.

 

With Wade Rosen I think we will be seeing something in between, small steady profits ($2-6 million per year), which makes the current valuation fair. He could do better, and the company could grow by a high percentage every year. But then the industry would notice and competition and retro IP-prices would increase, limiting how far they can get with retro gaming. He could do worse, and never recoup the investments he has made, but then he will abort the strategy before going broke.

[Wildstar]

28 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

I agree that he intentionally drove the price down in the following ways:

1) Showed how badly Atari was actually doing by making huge appropriate write-offs.

2) Announcing they were shifting off of crypto-stuff, which some people (mistakenly) think is a huge source of future income.

3) Reduced the easy money coming from crypto and licensing.

4) Undervalued (in my opinion) the intangible assets of Atari.

 

But he has also done things to drive the price up, like:

1) Announced focus on games.

2) Improved quality of games launched.

3) Discontinued or reduced unprofitable areas of the business.

4) Taking more care of the brand.

 

So he hasn´t done everything to drive the price down, only to buy as much of the company as possible, and then announce the good news.

 

I think Atari is worth a lot more than $0.14 in the right hands. In the right hands, Atari could become a big company again. In the wrong hands, continuing losses and bankruptcy is the result.

 

With Wade Rosen I think we will be seeing something in between, small steady profits ($2-6 million per year), which makes the current valuation fair. He could do better, and the company could grow by a high percentage every year. But then the industry would notice and competition and retro IP-prices would increase, limiting how far they can get with retro gaming. He could do worse, and never recoup the investments he has made, but then he will abort the strategy before going broke.

I would recommend not to keep all eggs in one basket. As in don't entirely base the business on retro. Nintendo is relevant because they don't sit on their laurels on rehashing retro consoles and retro games. They develop and/or publish new titles keeping them relevant. They have a franchise of classic characters they make new games and the publish third party game. This is what they make and bank their money on. The subsidize their consoles which sells when there is content. Make and/or publish content. Right now, use those widely used platforms like PC/Android/mainstream consoles as venue to promote and publish games that gets Atari's name out there. Promote it more and make it more of a frontpage attention. This is what SEGA did for several years without a single game console at all on the market and reshore their business and build up capital. Right now, SEGA has a Sega Genesis Mini they did like Nintendo for the retro enthusiasts but guess what, it's not on their front page. What do you see on the front page.... GAMES!!!!

 

Atari should do similar and shift after the 2600+ sales wane and de-emphasize somewhat on the retro games and look at the kinds of games Sega offers for major systems and platform. Right there is a SEGA classic character, Sonic. Game is available on all the major game consoles and on Steam (which means PC). Atari and developers can work towards doing likewise and even smartphones/tablets like Android (immediate) and potentially iOS as well if you get through the Apple headache. However, Android is pretty open and that can get the games exposure and out to customers across a market landscape of a Billion+ potential customers. The actual number of customers for any given product will be considerably less and even total customers a year. 

 

Atari has a recognized name that 10s to hundreds of million people heard the same and seen the Atari logo and recognize it. Atari's immediate customer age group that would recognize the Atari name immediately would be Boomers, Gen X, and older Millennials. However, even younger millennials, Gen Z and younger folks may have seen and heard of Atari but less connected to the older Atari games but are connected to Habro/Infogram era of Atari in the 2000s, 2010s, to now and mostly as a publisher and may have remembered Atari in the early days of Perfect World Online. Atari isn't forgotten and a cultural icon of trademarks.... a special status, 90% of trademarks in the world will never have such a status.

 

Therefore, Atari brand has real potential if leveraged right. Atari has some ethos in game design that can be leveraged even in new games. The retro market is not and never can be sustainable and would require downsizing staff by possibly 50% in order to bring cost down. To sustain itself long-term and grow financially and smart growth in staffing, it must increase its revenues by at possibly doubling if not triple its annual revenues over the next 5-10 years and then double or triple that over the next 5 years after that. Over the next 10-15 years, Atari should strive to grow annual revenue by 10x. This comes from publishing and possible equity stake and investment in third-party developers or something (not necessarily to the point of them being subsidiaries but when they succeed, investment equity grows but also pulling in royalties for publishing and marketing. 

 

There is varying strategies/approaches to the above but the idea is to A) Help developers from concept through completion and getting the projects to launch and even with crowdfunding guidance. some of this is possibly helpful for small/indie developers/studios. 

 

[Lord Mushroom]

i agree that the path to great success is through new games with a lot of potential, but there are challenges with that:

1) Video games is a competitive market, it is difficult to be profitable in it.

2) Atari doesn´t have any mascots or well known games that are suitable for a modern sequel.

3) Atari doesn´t have employees with a track record of making very popular games, like especially Nintendo does.

 

I think they should take a stab at new modern games, but I think they would fail, so it is a matter of how much risk they are willing to take.

 

They seem to be reducing costs, and their recent retro stuff is well received, so I think they can make a living in the retro market. But margins will be small. I think focusing only on the retro marked could be sustainable as they could do things with newer and newer games parallel with the passage of time.

[Wildstar]

46 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

i agree that the path to great success is through new games with a lot of potential, but there are challenges with that:

1) Video games is a competitive market, it is difficult to be profitable in it.

2) Atari doesn´t have any mascots or well known games that are suitable for a modern sequel.

3) Atari doesn´t have employees with a track record of making very popular games, like especially Nintendo does.

 

I think they should take a stab at new modern games, but I think they would fail, so it is a matter of how much risk they are willing to take.

 

They seem to be reducing costs, and their recent retro stuff is well received, so I think they can make a living in the retro market. But margins will be small. I think focusing only on the retro marked could be sustainable as they could do things with newer and newer games parallel with the passage of time.

1. I agree but if you aren't going to compete at all, then why are you in business, basically. Games are something less 'competitive' is a sense as the operating system market. What you compete for in attention and the game grabbing the attention of the potential gamer/player who would buy the game because it interests them and has substance. You will have difficulty selling something that's slapped together in a couple weekends. Individual games doesn't need to sell millions. However, if you have quantity of games to publish and something new released regularly. However, some titles could be enough to be a wild success. Who knows. 

 

2. Perhaps. They can just invent them. Nintendo did that with Mario. Give a character a name and a story and there you go. If you are successful because it is a fun game and people like it, you got something. This can be something involving third-party devs. Nintendo didn't know Mario would be a franchise on day 1 but they may have hoped it. If you make a character that is relatable, you have something for a franchise. There's stuff I am cooking up in the "skunkworks" (ie. not public yet). 

 

3. They can sure the hell learn by looking at the recipe and why it succeed and why modern character franchise that succeeds... WHY did it succeed. You don't need a track record. None of the legends started with a track record. That comes after not before. Adapt the recipe of success, understanding the underlying reason for their success, and don't forget to apply. Make new but relatable characters that are more than just some unnamed alien. Once you have a story.... doesn't even have to be elaborate but something. Basics of game design 101 stuff. 

 

Atari, I just gave you some of the basics. Do some research in what I am talking about. I'm going to even put actions to my words to show you as well. Early 70s and pre-1983 video game crashes, the systems were so simple and limited that you didn't really have room for story. As games evolved in the mid-80s and onward, characters that were more than just unnamed sprites players played began to have a story and have a name. Players are more sophisticated and especially our players who once played the arcades when they were young. They are adults and they inherently want more depth of content.... that means there is story. The depth of story is even part of the heart of the game not just merely mashing the fire button. 

 

The story can evolve and expand from one game to another. Sonic for example the protagonist has an antagonist. Each has a story. Even revealed throughout playing the game and games. Story writing is part of basics of professional game design.

 

Not all games need to have such story writing but games suitable for sequels generally have a story.

Edited October 2, 2023 by Wildstar

[Lord Mushroom]

44 minutes ago, Wildstar said:

1. I agree but if you aren't going to compete at all, then why are you in business, basically.

They would still be in the business if they only focus on retro games. It is just a niche part of the market, in which they have more experience. Although sticking to retro games does feel like they are giving up.

 

46 minutes ago, Wildstar said:

2. Perhaps. They can just invent them. Nintendo did that with Mario.

Of course, I am just saying it is harder to make a successful game when you can´t put a beloved character like Mario in it, or if you can´t call it Call of Duty: Whatever.

 

50 minutes ago, Wildstar said:

3. They can sure the hell learn by looking at the recipe and why it succeed and why modern character franchise that succeeds... WHY did it succeed. You don't need a track record. None of the legends started with a track record. That comes after not before.

Anyone can make a pale copy of something. But can Wade Rosen´s Atari make something that is better than what is already out there if they try? Maybe, maybe not. Can Nintendo? Yes, they do it all the time. Even when they are not using their own IP. Someone who has shown again and again that they are competent is more likely to succeed than someone who is unproven.

 

But we agree that Atari should try. They have one thing (other) newcomers don´t, and that is a strong brand that opens doors and provides free marketing. I think that probably won´t be enough, but the potential reward is worth the risk.

[roots.genoa]

8 hours ago, Rodney Hester said:

Not sure I see the need for a mascot at all.  The Fuji logo has more marketing power than anything else Atari has ever done in terms of symbology.

Indeed, it's not the 90s anymore. What's Xbox's mascot? Master Chief.

 

But Microsoft didn't decide it would be their mascot then create the game. Atari needs a hit first, then we'll see...

[Wildstar]

6 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

They would still be in the business if they only focus on retro games. It is just a niche part of the market, in which they have more experience. Although sticking to retro games does feel like they are giving up.

 

Of course, I am just saying it is harder to make a successful game when you can´t put a beloved character like Mario in it, or if you can´t call it Call of Duty: Whatever.

 

Anyone can make a pale copy of something. But can Wade Rosen´s Atari make something that is better than what is already out there if they try? Maybe, maybe not. Can Nintendo? Yes, they do it all the time. Even when they are not using their own IP. Someone who has shown again and again that they are competent is more likely to succeed than someone who is unproven.

 

But we agree that Atari should try. They have one thing (other) newcomers don´t, and that is a strong brand that opens doors and provides free marketing. I think that probably won´t be enough, but the potential reward is worth the risk.

Regarding them being in business, they would still be competing but with retro businesses and this would not sustain them or the staff. Most retro businesses are boutique shop scale businesses with a few little larger but if we are talking 6000 to 18,000 customers, they can't sustain payroll of 24 or whatever their current number of employees. Eventually, the VCs / angel investor(s) would pull their funding and investment including any money from the CEOs family. In short, they would have to cut staff or close up doors. Simple reality. Business is business.

 

That's why you leverage the knowledge, skills, and experience of third-party developers who knows how to make games for modern systems and so forth. Publishing is ultimately marketing / advertising for the target audience. Any marketing professional knows this. You look at what works and what doesn't for any given market of customers. It involves researching. It involves observing the competitors and learn from their actions. How they market. How they advertise. How they connect with the customers. Learn from their successes and failures. You have to be like a chameleon and adaptive. Jack Tramiel knew this and succeeded with Commodore. He just never felt the same with Atari as with Commodore but he darn well knew how to market, sell, and quickly adapt to compete and do so aggressively. That's how he built Commodore from a little shop into a billion dollar business surviving IBM and TI. Video games are different products and actually less aggressive because each game is its own creative work unless you are just copy cat cloning. 

 

Guess what, game designers can not be lazy and merely copy cat. They must put real effort of creativity. That's what part of my responsibility as game designer-developer. Atari can learn how to play and adapt with the ebb and flow of the video game industry or they don't. 

 

If Atar's goal is to grow, they can not on the niche market of retro computing alone... at least not much and isn't exactly what the people they have as board of directors and as employees. Yes, they have already done the retro stuff but how long can you lose $3M+ a year until you are broke? You build a track record by doing. You gain experience and learn by doing. Yes, there are those track record. Atari isn't going to get Mr. Carmack, Eugene Jarvis, etc. Therefore, either learn "how to play" and produce. Learn how to publish and build the portfolio of games. Third party developers, too. No, you're not going to make a AAA 3d game overnight or out of a small studio. Not going to happen.

 

Atari does have some professionals with experience in the video game industry so they know thing.

 

However, this doesn't mean you can't make games that are good, enjoyable and something people will pay for. This doesn't mean you'll get $70 for the game. You might get $5-20 for a modest game, usually.

 

Incrementally, you make better and more advance games as you increase human resources to put towards such project and deliver. Atari doesn't have to do this in-house. 80+% of the games Nintendo publish is likely third-party developed. Atari can focus on publishing and make select games in-house. That would be a smart thing because they don't need to directly employ game designers and 3d modelers, animators, etc. making dozens of titles to sell. They don't need to.

 

That is what the third-party studios do as the game developers. Atari with a limited game development staff can work on select projects. However, they would need to employ people who know how to publish and market games. 

 

Publishing games doesn't require the skills to develop games. It's more contracts, licensing, marketing, and business. Developing games requires the skills needed to take the idea and make the game... the product. Where publishing is about how to market and sell the product. Ultimately, would go hand in hand. I think for now Atari is best equipped at the moment for publishing than developing games.

 

Good thing is Atari does have people employed that has a clue about this industry. Looking on at the board of directors might lead you to think they know nothing. They don't need to intimately know the video game industry. They employed people with some background in video game industry. 

 

It would be the individual developers/studios making the games that needs the know how and this experience or learn how. They also are the ones that needs to have the human resources to put their project together. They need the know how. 

 

Atari needs to have the know how to effectively publish games as a publisher in the publishing role. That's how I would leverage the Atari brand.

 

[Jstick]

I nominate a duck dragon for their mascot.

[Lord Mushroom]

9 minutes ago, Wildstar said:

Most retro businesses are boutique shop scale businesses with a few little larger but if we are talking 6000 to 18,000 customers, they can't sustain payroll of 24 or whatever their current number of employees.

Atari made $7.3 million from games last year (not counting income from licensing). As long as costs are low, there is room for 24 employees there. I highly doubt the board would have allowed a strategy that was obviously going to be losing money.

 

18 minutes ago, Wildstar said:

Atari can focus on publishing and make select games in-house.

That is probably a good idea.

[+Random Terrain]

22 minutes ago, Jstick said:

I nominate a duck dragon for their mascot.

 

I nominate the Atari Logo.

 

 

 

[Wildstar]

20 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

Atari made $7.3 million from games last year (not counting income from licensing). As long as costs are low, there is room for 24 employees there. I highly doubt the board would have allowed a strategy that was obviously going to be losing money.

 

That is probably a good idea.

Part of the issue of losses relates to Chenais Era which sounded good on paper but didn't materialized. One reason to act as licensing / publisher is reduced expenditures and if done right would be better yield and grow capital that can do more. Leveraging Atari brand recognition to enhance publishing of quality games by less known studios. There are plenty of good studios and indie developers but their name is not as recognized as say, Atari. This in turn helps those studio and in return Atari gets some piece of the revenue from sales which boosts Atari's coffers. 

 

This doesn't mean they drop supporting retro niche but it does allow them to grow... over time. It can over time allow growth of human resources. The key is game quality. Good quality games tend to sell better than cheap garbage. Not making any particular statement regarding current projects. Get the publishing down well, I think Atari can do fine. Some of the more capable studios may even publish through Atari at some point.

[JPF997]

1 hour ago, Wildstar said:

Part of the issue of losses relates to Chenais Era which sounded good on paper but didn't materialized. One reason to act as licensing / publisher is reduced expenditures and if done right would be better yield and grow capital that can do more. Leveraging Atari brand recognition to enhance publishing of quality games by less known studios. There are plenty of good studios and indie developers but their name is not as recognized as say, Atari. This in turn helps those studio and in return Atari gets some piece of the revenue from sales which boosts Atari's coffers. 

 

This doesn't mean they drop supporting retro niche but it does allow them to grow... over time. It can over time allow growth of human resources. The key is game quality. Good quality games tend to sell better than cheap garbage. Not making any particular statement regarding current projects. Get the publishing down well, I think Atari can do fine. Some of the more capable studios may even publish through Atari at some point.

There are a lot of companies in the retro market alone that Atari could probably buy for dirt cheap and greatly increase they're overall game and hardware development capabilities, for example Polymega, Anstream arcade and  Analogue, two of which Atari already owns big stakes in.