Atari has revived Infogrames !

[Lord Mushroom]

8 hours ago, zzip said:

Right, he laid off a huge amount of staff when he bought the company.   One might argue that 'Atari Games' was more the 'real' Atari because they kept some of their well-known developers and stuck to the company's arcade roots,  but yet that entity gets treated as a bastard step-child of Atari around here/

 

One of famicommander´s reasons for saying today´s Atari is not Atari is that Atari SA was originally Infogrames, they just changed the name. The same thing was the case with Tramiel´s Atari. Tramiel Technology, Ltd. bought parts of Atari and changed their name to Atari Corporation.

 

Atari Inc. changed their name to Atari Games, so the original Atari company is now merged with some Time Warner company.

 

I am just trying to show that it is the owner of the brand that is Atari. Of course, the remnant of Atari Games may still have a right to the Atari name for arcade games, so they are Atari too.

Edited May 15 by Lord Mushroom

[l12n]

I find the relationship between Infogrames and Atari a bit ironic considering the former produced few games for Atari systems. It did not produce any title for the 2600 nor the 8-bit computer line. It eventually published some games for the Atari ST, but then moved on to the PC (I don't think Alone in the Dark was adapted to any Atari system)

[zzip]

14 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

I am just trying to show that it is the owner of the brand that is Atari. Of course, the remnant of Atari Games may still have a right to the Atari name for arcade games, so they are Atari too.

The "Atari Games" name was in the list of trademarks owned by Atari SA, so they must have acquired just the name at some point.    Might explain why the remnants of Atari Games now use the "Midway Games West" name instead.

Edited May 16 by zzip

[+jeremiahjt]

1 hour ago, zzip said:

The "Atari Games" name was in the list of trademarks owned by Atari SA, so they must have acquired just the name at some point.    Might explain why the remnants of Atari Games now use the "Midway Games West" name instead.

I think Atari noticed that Warner had abandoned the trademark, so they grabbed it. Whether it was for something in the future, or just to make sure nobody else gets it, who knows.

[Lord Mushroom]

2 hours ago, zzip said:

The "Atari Games" name was in the list of trademarks owned by Atari SA, so they must have acquired just the name at some point.    Might explain why the remnants of Atari Games now use the "Midway Games West" name instead.

Shaggy the Atarian said he thought Atari SA had the right to use the Atari brand for arcade games, if I remember correctly. I thought he was mistaken, but it seems likely that is true with the information you have provided.

[zzip]

26 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

Shaggy the Atarian said he thought Atari SA had the right to use the Atari brand for arcade games, if I remember correctly. I thought he was mistaken, but it seems likely that is true with the information you have provided.

Maybe?  I wonder how the non-compete agreement was written...  I.E.  Is it specific to Atari Games or any successor company of the Warner entity?   

 

Also wonder if they let "Tengen" expire?

[Lord Mushroom]

2 minutes ago, zzip said:

I wonder how the non-compete agreement was written...  I.E.  Is it specific to Atari Games or any successor company of the Warner entity? 

Maybe it was a "use it or lose it" kind of thing.

[zzip]

2 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

Maybe it was a "use it or lose it" kind of thing.

could be,  I don't think the Atari Games/Warner side has produced an arcade game in decades.

 

Also the new "Atari" arcade games are licensed from Atari, not manufactured by them, maybe that makes a difference?

[Maztr_0n]

Oh dang, my dream is them being able to reaqquire the driver ip... San Francisco was enginious shame we cannot easily play it anymore.

[Spanner]

I would be more worried about getting Atari out into other countries then bring back Infogrames, they only have one site that feeds the US only, Atari should be a cross the world by now not using 3rd party's like Amazon to sell there products, they have been Atari for 24 years and only have one site to show for it, is the Atari plain working, if they have to revive another copyright then maybe not, what's next Hasbro interactive....

 

Edited May 23 by Spanner

[TopDrawer]

Now that Embracer Group seems to be in hot water right now, it would've been cool if Atari re-aquired the IPs and games they sold off to THQ Nordic back in the day for the new revived Infogrames - Alone in the Dark series, Desperados series, Silver, Act of War.

I mean heck, they should just outright buy most of THQ Nordic and rebrand it into Infogrames.

[Lord Mushroom]

4 hours ago, TopDrawer said:

Now that Embracer Group seems to be in hot water right now, it would've been cool if Atari re-aquired the IPs and games they sold off to THQ Nordic back in the day for the new revived Infogrames - Alone in the Dark series, Desperados series, Silver, Act of War.

They could do that, but I don´t think they have the money to fund sequels themselves, so I don´t think it makes sense.

[moycon]

I for one think it is amazing that Atari is still relevant today. At one time it seemed like Blade Runner got it all wrong. Atari seemed gone and irrelevant, I almost convinced myself never to watch that movie again because it displayed the Atari sign prominently as Decker walked the streets, proof that it had survived the decades. (FYI: Blade Runner takes place in 2019)

 

Now that I know Atari is still active and relevant in 2024 I have decided Blade Runner is again worth watching. 

 

We just have to hope they make it to 2049.

Edited June 11 by moycon

[NE146]

46 minutes ago, moycon said:

I for one think it is amazing that Atari is still relevant today. At one time it seemed like Blade Runner got it all wrong. Atari seemed gone and irrelevant, I almost convinced myself never to watch that movie again because it displayed the Atari sign prominently as Decker walked the streets, proof that it had survived the decades. (FYI: Blade Runner takes place in 2019)

 

Now that I know Atari is still active and relevant in 2024 I have decided Blade Runner is again worth watching. 

 

We just have to hope they make it to 2049.

Dang. I've never watched Blade Runner but that's interesting that Atari was featured in that way in the film. I never knew that! Now you actually make me want to watch it!

Edited June 11 by NE146

[mr_me]

On 5/16/2024 at 12:16 PM, zzip said:

Maybe?  I wonder how the non-compete agreement was written...  I.E.  Is it specific to Atari Games or any successor company of the Warner entity?   

 

Also wonder if they let "Tengen" expire?

They stopped using the names Atari Games and Tengen back in 1999. If there was a non-compete agreement it died with the company in bankruptcy in 2009, assets sold to Warner.

 

13 hours ago, moycon said:

I for one think it is amazing that Atari is still relevant today. At one time it seemed like Blade Runner got it all wrong. Atari seemed gone and irrelevant, I almost convinced myself never to watch that movie again because it displayed the Atari sign prominently as Decker walked the streets, proof that it had survived the decades. (FYI: Blade Runner takes place in 2019)

 

Now that I know Atari is still active and relevant in 2024 I have decided Blade Runner is again worth watching. 

 

We just have to hope they make it to 2049.

The movie was made in 1982, and although things were starting to come apart at Atari Inc, at the time they were like Google and Apple today, all rolled in to one. If the movie was made a year or two later, that part might have been different. 

[TopDrawer]

17 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

They could do that, but I don´t think they have the money to fund sequels themselves, so I don´t think it makes sense.

True. Though they could just at least secure the IPs for future releases (when they'll eventually have more means to do so) and the rights of the old games' backlog for re-releases in today's platforms.

And to be fair, THQ Nordic hasn't done much with these IPs in the first place, aside from getting the old games available on Steam, Desperados 3, an Outcast remake and sequel, and an Alone in the Dark remake (which I've heard the latter is actually pretty good).

Buying the insane amount of game studios that THQNordic has bought throughout the years, without an actual strategic purpose, would be extremely counteractive for Atari. They would wind up losing focus and commiting the same error Embracer did in the first place.

[roots.genoa]

2 hours ago, mr_me said:

The movie was made in 1982, and although things were starting to come apart at Atari Inc, at the time they were like Google and Apple today, all rolled in to one. If the movie was made a year or two later, that part might have been different.

I'm pretty sure he's well aware of that and just meant Blade Runner had been wrong in retrospect. Of course they couldn't know at the time.

[Giles N]

18 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

They could do that, but I don´t think they have the money to fund sequels themselves, so I don´t think it makes sense.

But wouldn’t make sense to aquire more IP if they can get it now for a decent price, but perhaps in the future the same IPs may either rise in price or be bought by others?

 

They can sell the originals on e-store for normal price for older games ($2-$15) until they can get the money or necessary partnering to make either sequels or Remasters?

 

Or are there many other aspects to consider also, which I haven’t taken into account, or are all of it simply too much money for Atari?

 

My point is: isn’t it something to be said for acquiring interesting IPs when its actually possible to get them?

 

Then you have something to work on or work with in the future?

 

No offense to Intellivision-fans, but I think ‘Alone in the Dark’ has greater recognition value ‘out there’ overall.

 

I may be wrong of course, - particulary since I don’t know the exact IP-prices in question, and how much money Atari could dig out rigth now, with too much/high risk.
 

 

Edited June 11 by Giles N

[TopDrawer]

4 minutes ago, Giles N said:

No offense to Intellivision-fans, but I think ‘Alone in the Dark’ has greater recognition value ‘out there’ oversll.

Specially considering that Atari is now trying to revive Infogrames. Alone in the Dark in particular is probably the company's most well-known IP and one of their major past achievements.

I think it was literally the title that put them on the map back in the day and has actual historical notoriety for being one of the very first survival horror games.

[Giles N]

47 minutes ago, TopDrawer said:

Specially considering that Atari is now trying to revive Infogrames. Alone in the Dark in particular is probably the company's most well-known IP and one of their major past achievements.

Yes, and then there are all the financial stuff behind it all. Do they have the money? If they could buy it, but it being risky, is it worth the risk?

 

47 minutes ago, TopDrawer said:

I think it was literally the title that put them on the map back in the day and has actual historical notoriety for being one of the very first survival horror games.

So finally Infogrames wasn’t any longer alone in the dark of obscurity in the world of videogames, after that one?

 

Well, it could come in handy in the future, with Nightdive and all.

 

In the meantime, they could sell the original for a low/cheaper price on newer systems.

 

They could even make a 2600 version of it where you explore a dark mansion or old haunted… place… dodging haunts and search to find hidden important objects…

 

 

 

Edited June 11 by Giles N

[TopDrawer]

2 hours ago, Giles N said:

Yes, and then there are all the financial stuff behind it all. Do they have the money? If they could buy it, but it being risky, is it worth the risk?

As long as they don't overpay for it and actually have a plan to use the IP (or IPs), my guess is that it wouldn't be that much of an issue. Realistically, these IPs aren't really super valuable compared to other ones. They could probably get them cheap.

 

I think Atari seems to have a grip when it comes to handle these types of IP buyouts (Intellivision, M Network, buying back past Infogrames/Accolade titles from Billionsoft). All these buyouts seem to have an actual investing purpose - they probably bought Intellivision & M Network titles for future Digital Eclipse classic games collections, Recharged titles, capitalizing on the nostalgia factor via merch, etc.

 

Nightdive started off their business by buying out the rights of abandonware boomer FPS titles that weren't available anywhere to purchase. They started it off with the System Shock IP for example.

 

In my opinion, as long as Atari doesn't go on the same route as Embracer and waste money on buying crazy amounts of game studios without any rhyme or reason, I think they'll be fine.

Even Wade Rosen has implied in interviews that he's not willing to bet the house down in a risky manner like that. He said it in this interview, don't have a timestamp though:

 

By the way, this is the two cents coming from me, a layman. I'm no business guru.

 

Edited June 12 by TopDrawer

[Lord Mushroom]

7 hours ago, Giles N said:

But wouldn’t make sense to aquire more IP if they can get it now for a decent price, but perhaps in the future the same IPs may either rise in price or be bought by others?

It all depends on the price. Unlike the IP Atari has bought recently, this is IP that other gaming companies are actually interested in, so I think the price would be too high.

[Lord Mushroom]

3 hours ago, TopDrawer said:

In my opinion, as long as Atari doesn't go on the same route as Embracer and waste money on buying crazy amounts of game studios without any rhyme or reason, I think they'll be fine.

Even Wade Rosen has implied in interviews that he's not willing to bet the house down in a risky manner like that. He said it in this interview, don't have a timestamp though:

I think Atari is making the same mistake as Embracer. Buying buying buying, and losing money until they are broke. The acquisitions are supposed to be a part of a master plan of synergy, but I think that is all bullshit.

 

Nightdive Studios and Digital Eclipse don´t need to own the IP to make games, they can just license the rights. Mobygames has a lot of information about video games, so what? Atari doesn´t need to own a piece of Antstream Arcade to have their games on it. Almost all of the very old IP they bought is useless ancient crap that is barely worth putting on Steam. And so on.

 

If AtariAge was going to shut down if Atari didn´t buy it, then at least that purchase makes sense.

4 hours ago, TopDrawer said:

By the way, this is the two cents coming from me, a layman. I'm no business guru.

 Ditto.

[roots.genoa]

Regarding Alone in the Dark, you must also realize that its creator Frederick Raynal fought years to get the license back from Infogrames/Atari, and to get acknowledged as its creator actually. So I'm not sure he would be OK with Atari trying to get the IP again. At best they can license it for a game, though.

[Matt_B]

Embracer's problem was that their backers pulled out of a $2 billion deal. That's something that would cause an existential crisis at all but a handful of the largest games publishers and even they'd probably have to cull some big projects to make ends meet.

 

That's not going to happen with Atari, because it's pretty much all funded out of Wade Rosen's wallet. Also, the deals with Nightdive and Digital Eclipse are relatively cheap ones, where they only get paid the full amount if they're highly profitable. If both under-perform badly, he's only around $10 million out of pocket. Conversely, for them to get the full $20 million each, they'd need to be wildly successful to the extent that they'd be paying back the acquisition costs and then some. The risks are considerably smaller than the sort of deals that Embracer was in.