Atari CEO wants Infogrames to become the ultimate preservationist publisher

[PowerDubs]

Atari CEO wants Infogrames to become the ultimate preservationist publisher

 

"Moving forward, Atari is "definitely" in the market for more IPs.. Atari's rich history in arcades means it's always interested in nabbing vintage morsels from that era"

 

 

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/atari-ceo-wants-infogrames-to-become-the-ultimate-preservationist-publisher

[famicommander]

That makes no damn sense at all. I haven't seen a single coherent argument as to why they would use both Infogrames and Atari instead of just publishing under one name.

[PowerDubs]

Then you haven't looked very hard.  Wade has explained it quite logically here-

 

 

[roots.genoa]

1 hour ago, famicommander said:

That makes no damn sense at all. I haven't seen a single coherent argument as to why they would use both Infogrames and Atari instead of just publishing under one name.

And his use of the word 'preservation' is quite strange to me, especially based on the licenses Infogrames will deal with first. Releasing new games for old franchises is not preservation at all.

Edited August 30 by roots.genoa

[Lord Mushroom]

7 minutes ago, roots.genoa said:

And his use of the word 'preservation' is quite strange to me, especially based on the licenses Infogrames will deal with first. Releasing new games for old franchises is not preservation at all.

Maybe he means preserving franchises. Keeping them alive by creating new content.

[+Fred_M]

I guess "preservation" sounds nicer than buying old IPs that aren't used anymore by the original publisher. After reading the article it is clear that the word "preservation" means something totally different to many of us.

 

There is nothing new in the article. Infogrames will buy IPs that are not associated with Atari (or similar platforms from that era) and will be able to use them for new games, republish old games, port games and so on.

[Lord Mushroom]

1 hour ago, famicommander said:

That makes no damn sense at all. I haven't seen a single coherent argument as to why they would use both Infogrames and Atari instead of just publishing under one name.

I agree. While the idea of having two different brands for two different types of games could make sense, it seems to me that is not what they will be doing. Atari will be releasing old games and sequels/remakes of old games, and Infogrames will be releasing old games and sequels/remakes of old games. The only difference is that the Infogrames´ old games will be less old.

 

The problem is that some of Atari´s sequels will be modern, like Haunted House and Fatal Run 2089. They even release modern original games like Days of Doom. So if you look at the new games Atari and Infogrames will be putting out, they will be similar. 

[CharlesEChuck]

I imagine Wade Rosen reading these comments confused as hell how you could misunderstand the simple concept of having Atari focus its development efforts (= remaster/remake/reimagine) on games and IP associated with the Atari brand and Infogrames primarily preserve (= keep playable in its original state) games that their publishers are no longer willing (Surgeon Simulator) or able (Awesomenauts) to support but really have nothing to do with Atari's history and therefore wouldn't really fit with the main brand.

 

That said, the editor in the linked article really messed up this concept, writing that the "company revived the Infogrames label earlier this year to publish a core portfolio of IP associated with the Atari brand" when Atari's press release clearly said the exact opposite, that "Infogrames is a label that will publish games that fall outside the core portfolio of IP associated with the Atari brand". Hope they can correct this.

Edited August 30 by CharlesEChuck

[mr_me]

1 hour ago, roots.genoa said:

And his use of the word 'preservation' is quite strange to me, especially based on the licenses Infogrames will deal with first. Releasing new games for old franchises is not preservation at all.

He describes it as follows.

"Sometimes it's just making it accessible on more platforms. Sometimes it's remastering. Sometimes it's sequels."

 

I don't know about sequels, but accessibility of the old games is part of it. No point in preserving these things if people can't play them. That may not be a problem for some people but for others what they're doing is helpful.

 

Edited August 30 by mr_me

[carlsson]

1 hour ago, roots.genoa said:

And his use of the word 'preservation' is quite strange to me,

Is there a possibility he is mixing up the English word "preservative" with the French word "préservatif"?  

[Lord Mushroom]

1 hour ago, CharlesEChuck said:

I imagine Wade Rosen reading these comments confused as hell how you could misunderstand the simple concept of having Atari focus its development efforts (= remaster/remake/reimagine) on games and IP associated with the Atari brand and Infogrames primarily preserve (= keep playable in its original state) games that their publishers are no longer willing (Surgeon Simulator) or able (Awesomenauts) to support but really have nothing to do with Atari's history and therefore wouldn't really fit with the main brand.

It is not that simple. Atari will still be the brand of choice for very old IP that has nothing to do with either Infogrames or Atari. Atari will also release new original games. They have just carved out a section in between very old and new, and given that to Infogrames for some reason.

I don´t think Infogrames´ brand is any more relevant to those kinds of games than Atari is, so I don´t see the point. Both Atari and Infogrames will keep old games available, and make remakes and sequels of bought IP. So they are the same in that way too. It is just resulting in two tiny brands (one much more known than the other), instead of one small well known brand.

 

This division has nothing to do with business, it is about paying respect to an old brand. And divisions into further brands may be coming.

[famicommander]

The most notable IP associated with Infogrames is Alone in the Dark, which Atari doesn't even have anymore. 

[roots.genoa]

Don't get me wrong; I mostly like what Wade Rosen is doing these days. I published an optimistic editorial about it on my retrogaming website. But I'm part of an association that preserves computers and video games (think VGHF but French), so I'm easily triggered when people use 'preservation' very liberally - like when people claim they're doing 'preservation' by downloading ROMs... 🙄

 

The confusing thing to me is Atari is already doing preservation through the work of Nightdive and Digital Eclipse (plus their own re-releases), while I don't feel like franchises like Awesomenauts and Surgeon Simulator are endangered or anything. Maybe they're not doing well right now, but they're quite recent games and they're still available afaik.

[CharlesEChuck]

13 hours ago, CharlesEChuck said:

Hope they can correct this.

They fixed it. Thanks.

Edited August 31 by CharlesEChuck

[+jeremiahjt]

7 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

Don't get me wrong; I mostly like what Wade Rosen is doing these days. I published an optimistic editorial about it on my retrogaming website. But I'm part of an association that preserves computers and video games (think VGHF but French), so I'm easily triggered when people use 'preservation' very liberally - like when people claim they're doing 'preservation' by downloading ROMs... 🙄

 

The confusing thing to me is Atari is already doing preservation through the work of Nightdive and Digital Eclipse (plus their own re-releases), while I don't feel like franchises like Awesomenauts and Surgeon Simulator are endangered or anything. Maybe they're not doing well right now, but they're quite recent games and they're still available afaik.

Isn't Awesomenauts unplayable because there are no servers running?

[roots.genoa]

7 hours ago, jeremiahjt said:

Isn't Awesomenauts unplayable because there are no servers running?

Yeah, you're right, I'm not familiar with the game, I didn't know it was a MOBA. Well, preserving online-only games is a real problem indeed, which is actually unsolvable because servers won't run forever anyway.

Edited August 31 by roots.genoa

[zzip]

On 8/31/2024 at 3:08 AM, roots.genoa said:

Don't get me wrong; I mostly like what Wade Rosen is doing these days. I published an optimistic editorial about it on my retrogaming website. But I'm part of an association that preserves computers and video games (think VGHF but French), so I'm easily triggered when people use 'preservation' very liberally - like when people claim they're doing 'preservation' by downloading ROMs... 🙄

 

Yeah I heard amber was good at preserving old fossils, so that's why I only download my roms using an amber monitor, because I'm serious about preservation and not one of those filthy pirates

 

[TopDrawer]

They should divide their brands essentially like this:

 

Atari

• Re-releases and new games based on the core, classic Atari titles, as well as other IP libraries of old companies contemporary of Atari's golden age (Stern games, M Network, Intellevision);
• New AAA releases or remakes of classic, well-known non-Atari games built from scratch (new System Shock);
• High quality remasters (Nightdive releases like The Thing and Doom 1&2 remasters);
• Top of the line collections (Digital Eclipse's "documentary game genre" titles like Karateka and Tetris Forever, as well as other releases);
• Games based on well-known licenses (Digital Eclipse's new Power Rangers game);

Infogrames

• Re-releases based on core Infogrames titles (Rollercoaster Tycoon, Bubsy, Drakkhen, Alone in the Dark if they eventually get back the IP rights from Embracer);
• Re-releases of AA, eurojank and indie game titles from defunct studios or from companies in trouble (the TinyBuild titles they recently bought);

Essencially, I think Infogrames should work the same way Ziggurat works, or THQ Nordic back in its early days - focus on acquiring as many underrated AA games with a niche audience as possible - while also not devoid the brand into a random dumping ground and completely lose its original identity, by also re-acquiring their classic titles they've lost since Atari's bankrupcy years (Alone in the Dark, Act of War, Silver, Hogs of War, Slave Zero, etc)

Edited September 4 by TopDrawer

[Skydog]

Agree, leave the general crap with Infogrames

[harmonyFM]

This seems like a pretty logical move on their part given that their whole business model is premised on nostalgia and retro culture and now is the time to get clear title to these properties before they disappear forever into copyright limbo or are sold off to some IP hoarder that keeps otherwise perfectly playable games in the dark. It’s not the ideal way for preservation of gaming history to happen but it’s at least ensuring some of these ancient titles are re-released to remain playable on modern hardware.