Atari Down. Again. Guess this is just the latest...

[Aswald]

http://classicgaming.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Articles.Detail&id=397


(If the past 23 years is any indicator, I'd say bad management.)


The Atari curse strikes again? Or Just poor management?
Since 1972, the Atari "brand name" and properties have been managed by a number of different corporate entities. Each one has suffered financial defeat, starting with the spectacular collapse of the original Atari Inc. in 1982-1984 that lead to the collapse of the entire industry. Since that time, the various corporate entities have tried to revive the name and use the brand to promote their own vision of how to recapture a percentage of the market restarted by Nintendo in 1985 through 1986. Each one hoping public recognition of the Atari name will somehow equate their current product with the "glory days" and increase market share, only to ultimately fail through mismanagement, poor product lines, and ultimately financial potholes that turn in to pitfalls. The current owner of the IP seems to be no different in any respects.

The Plan
The current owners, Infogrames Entertainment, picked up the Atari brand from Hasbro in 2001 as part of the acquisition of Hasbro Interactive. Infogrames had been on a growth spurt and was snapping up more and more companies across the late 90's and early 2000's. Keeping the Atari division of Hasbro Interactive (entitled Atari Interactive), the folded it off as a separate corporate entity. Releasing a few repackagings of classic game collections originally released under Hasbro, they soon announced their strategy: to use the Atari brand name (and its recognition) to promote new systems for two consoles. To "reinvent" Atari. Seemingly not understanding that the Atari name had not been high in the modern gamer consciousness for almost 20 years, and long since replaced by the likes of Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Sega, EA, Activision, etc., they pursued their plan. A plan that was not much different than the reasons past owners had bought Atari for....and failed. A plan that would need to rely on said "updated and modern" company releasing quality products to upgrade the name from its retro recognition. After all, what good is slapping a name on a game and trying to use that name's recognition if what you're slapping it on is crap? You need to create a symbiotic relationship between the two so they pump each other up, otherwise you risk damaging the reputation of that name even further and burying it further than the 6 feet under it already was.

They began by spinning off its American operations (Infogrames North America and consisting primarily of former discount software publisher GT Interactive) as a separate corporate entity and renaming it Atari Inc., the name of the original company that founded the brand. Its other world wide groups (Infogrames Europe, Infogrames Australia, etc.) simply dropped the Infogrames and inserted "Atari". And so it was that the "modern" Atari embarked on a schizophrenic relationship with its past, treating the previous brand holder history and its old IP's like the redheaded step child. Most times pretending neither existed, except to trot out a few rehashes of old 2600 and arcade games here and there as discount software for a few quick bucks.

The Result
Has it worked? If your top "modern IP" is the Dragonball Z series, what do you think? If you were consistently lambasted by gamers and the gaming press for putting out buggy software and well past their targeted release dates, is that building a quality reputation? If the best innovation for revenue you can pursue is jumping on the in game advertising bandwagon, can you really say you're raising the company's business profile?

As for raising the awareness of the brand name, ask the average person on the street or your casual gamer about Atari and they think it died long ago, having no idea about the current one. During one of Atari's more successful marketings of its legacy IP with the Flashback 2, it wasn't uncommon to get blank stares and "those guys are still around?" questions from people in the checkout line at Walmart. Never mind that many of Atari's "modern" titles were also available in the video games section of this modern chain that is the largest retailer in the industry. The fact that a retro product in limited release buried in a toy section drew more attention said it all. And the hardcore gamers, that prime target range of teens and twenty somethings for modern games - if the previously mentioned quality problems aren't enough to tell you, lets just say expensive mega flops like The Matrix: Path of Neo and brand mishandlings like with Marc Ecko have brought a smirk to their faces when the Atari name is mentioned and they go back to Madden or Gears of War.

The schizophrenia with Atari's past didn't end with the classic IP's and brand history (which they finally came to terms with several years down the line). Atari management has had more changing faces and directions than a chameleon stuck in a room full of fun house mirrors. This is besides the fact that most of the fly by night management has come from Sony Music, the powerhouse of the video ga...I mean music industry. People from an industry notorious for being dragged kicking and screaming in to new technology and business models running a technology company and not succeeding? Who would have guessed? Not to mention you have two management teams tugging at the reigns - the people actually at Atari Inc. and the majority stock holder Infogrames Ent. board. Its a wonder any product ever got released in this environment.

So did their plan work? Apart from a few shining nuggets of modern games and innovative updates of their IP's through outside contractors, the important symbiotic relationship between name and product never reached critical mass. In fact, Atari's stock has been plummeting even after their recent stock split, and the Atari brand name has never been lower. It says a lot when you're making the Jack Tramiel Atari Corp. years look like the glory days of the management and product line.

Down for the count......
Atari's down for the count, and that financial referee is about to ring the bell on it. This isn't the first knockdown, but the next in a long succession. The stock price for Atari Inc. has dropped since its creation in 2003, from a a high of about $60 to less than a dollar last year when Nasdaq served notice to delist it. Atari bought itself some time by splitting the stock and in the interim changing management yet again. Even owner Infogrames Ent. cut its ties with founder Bruno Bonell. But the breathing room all this was meant to create turned out to be only a short gasp. Atari has missed both its annual report and quarterly report, and is being strongly considered for delisting. Its also fired a major portion of its remaining skeleton crew staff, and now it just cut its office space in half. Its beginning to sound more and more like history repeating itself as images of a rapidly shrinking and soon to be reverse merged with JTS Atari Corp. come to mind.

And much like the original Atari Inc. almost caused its owner Warner Communications to face bankruptcy, Infogrames Ent. isn't in good shape either. The once mighty up and coming software publisher went from a high of about 24 pounds (about US$48) at the time of the creations of Atari Inc., to its current price of .20 pounds (about 40 cents on the US market).


Atari Inc.'s stock value, from its formation in 2003 until present
Infogrames' stock value, from the time of the Atari Inc. spin off until present.

Atari Inc. is meeting with the NASDAQ board on August 30th to decide its fate....at least its fate on the stock market, where its currently struggling to stay above $2. One has to ask at this point if its really worth it to fight to keep a company listed that's so close to putting itself out of business? Why keep clinging to a name and persona that's been made far lower in reputation and value than it was when you first got it? Infogrames would be better off selling off the Atari name and properties like it has with much of the rest of its major properties bought during its era of rapid growth and acquirement. Cutting ties with a very bad chapter and its history, and starting anew with out the stigma of the current brand association. Maybe the Nasdaq board will ring that final knockout bell or Infogrames will get smart and throw in the towel on its ill fated contendor to live and fight another day. We'll just have to wait and see.....








The content of this article does not represent the opinions of GameSpy, IGN Entertainment, or Fox Interactive Media, Inc. Its content is solely the opinion of the author.

[Aswald]

From what I've seen, nobody who has run Atari in the past 23 years could find sand in the desert.

[intvsama]

It really makes you wonder how much would have changed if Bushnell never sold Atari to Time Warner.

[diskoboy]

Actually, the Atari name itself just brings alot of mixed memories to us older gamers.

Before 1982, Atari was unstoppable - Atari could do no wrong. But After 1982, the MBA's took over the company, the employees were not getting the credit they deserved and revolted, and under the direction of Ray Kassar, all the suits just drove the company into the ground. (the first time I played Pac-Man, I got in trouble for announcing out loud, in front of my parent's "What the hell is this shit!!?" when I was 9 years old)

Around 1984 - the name 'Atari' became synonomus with a bad gaming experience. And Quality control at Atari after 1981 was virtually non-existant. They made crappy products and threw money away like they were printing it themselves.

I'm an old Atari fan myself, but they haven't been a credible force in the industry for 2 decades now, and sadly, never will be again (just like Sega). But the name Atari is a burden on whatever product bares its name. (just like Sega! ;) )

And argubaly - I think Sega (speaking of which) has always had worse management than Atari. At least Sega made good games and systems, but when the Dreamcast was released, the American division of Sega should've split from the Japanese division. Because Sega Japan was making huge, careless mistakes - one after the other. From what I remember, that's why Peter Moore originally left Sega, wasn't it?

[crazyjackcsa]

I remember Infogrames making some pretty sweet games for the Dreamcast . For a little while at least every Infogrames game was really good. Too bad they screwed all that up.

[tom]

Actually, the Atari name itself just brings alot of mixed memories to us older gamers.
(the first time I played Pac-Man, I got in trouble for announcing out loud, in front of my parent's "What the hell is this shit!!?" when I was 9 years old)


Are you saying the crash was really your fault? Teh teh teh

[idrougge]

Around year 2020, we will be seeing the same kind of posts about a new company which has rebranded itself as "Infogrames"... ;-)

I never understood why Infogrames decided to throw away their established brand in favour of something as worn as Atari.

[cyberfluxor]

(the first time I played Pac-Man, I got in trouble for announcing out loud, in front of my parent's "What the hell is this shit!!?" when I was 9 years old)
Did they wash your mouth out with soap and deny you a Red Rider BB-Gun?

[MrRoboto19XX]

Around year 2020, we will be seeing the same kind of posts about a new company which has rebranded itself as "Infogrames"... ;-)

I never understood why Infogrames decided to throw away their established brand in favour of something as worn as Atari.

I don't ever recall Infogrames ever being a really well established name, all I remember them doing was a lot of GBC software alongside Vatical and 3DO.

Then again, this was a time when Ubisoft was comparatively unknown.

[icbrkr]

I don't ever recall Infogrames ever being a really well established name, all I remember them doing was a lot of GBC software alongside Vatical and 3DO.

Then again, this was a time when Ubisoft was comparatively unknown.

I think it depends on your gaming experience. Infogrames released lots of good Amiga/C64 stuff in the early 90s (North and South being one of em) and had a pretty good following based on their early successes. I too was always surprised they switched to 'Atari'.

[Greg2600]

Atari ceased to exist in my mind following the Jaguar's demise. Anything done since is not Atari. Jack Tramiel followed other bad leadership, but his outright arrogance and stupidity did them in time and time again. Say what you will about Bill Gates, but the man has a visionary mind, he looks into the future. Atari was always about pinching pennies. They had too many people in corporate, who insisted on applying strategies from manufacturer, advertising, and sales of other goods (food, clothing, etc.) which had no bearing on video games or computers.

[swlovinist]

Atari was a powerhouse, but is dead now and has been since the 2600. Seriously I am just hoping that the company can be sold to an Atari fanboy and continue on for the hardcore atari fans. Otherwise put a bullet in the company and end the misery.

[diskoboy]

Did they wash your mouth out with soap and deny you a Red Rider BB-Gun?

As a matter of fact, I did get my mouth washed out with soap.

To this day, I'll won't even touch and can't stand the smell of Zest.

I got the BB gun when I was 12 ;) But not a Red Ryder.. AND I still have both eyes.

[Kevincal]

Despite what anyone says, the Jaguar did have some kickass games ahead of it's time... :)

[eday_2010]

Apart from Pac-Man on the Commodore 64 (which I count as a computer game and not a video game :) ), the first video games I played were on the Atari 2600. While I am not a fanatic or a huge Atari fan, I would like to see them be a major player in the industry they helped creat in the 70's. Not because their games were great or anything, but for me it would be more because of historical and nostagic reasons.

[Jorpho]

I never understood why Infogrames decided to throw away their established brand in favour of something as worn as Atari.

They got frustrated with people constantly misspelling it, maybe?

[idrougge]

Atari ceased to exist in my mind following the Jaguar's demise. Anything done since is not Atari. Jack Tramiel followed other bad leadership, but his outright arrogance and stupidity did them in time and time again. Say what you will about Bill Gates, but the man has a visionary mind, he looks into the future. Atari was always about pinching pennies. They had too many people in corporate, who insisted on applying strategies from manufacturer, advertising, and sales of other goods (food, clothing, etc.) which had no bearing on video games or computers.

If we ignore the fact that Bill Gates is anything but visionary (no Microsoft product has ever been visionary), I'll take the opportunity to stop the misguided Tramiel bashing.

Since there is no book about the darker years of Atari, I urge you to pick up "On the Edge", a big and well-written book about Commodore's entire history. If you read that, you will get a more nuanced picture of Jack Tramiel. Even after reading that, you may hold him in low esteem, but at least you will have a good reason to do so.

[idrougge]

They got frustrated with people constantly misspelling it, maybe?

Where? Everyone in this thread has spelt it correctly.

[Jorpho]

Where? Everyone in this thread has spelt it correctly.

Sure, everyone here has, but "Infogames" still turns up 40,000 hits on Google. (Of course, that's still only two percent of the total number of hits for "Infogrames", but it still seems significant.)

[PentiumMMX]

It's kind of sad seeing Atari possibly going away for good, but they haven't made any good games since the early '80s.

[Slate]

It's about time. Atari may have been good from 1977 to 1981, But with their newest "game" Bullet witch, I lost all hope for them. Or was that when Driv3r came out?

[DigitalSpace]

Imo, Tempest 3000 was Atari's swan song. To me, Atari died with the Jaguar. Infogrames was a subpar third party company before the Atari name, and today, they're the subpar third party company with the most recognizable name.

[Tron 2.0]

Atari of old golden Atari of today a smelly stinking turd.

Any ways that's how i see it.

[Jorpho]

Wasn't one of the UT games released under the Atari label?

[udisi]

The bigger question here is...who is gonna buy Atari here. It still has a market capitalization of 28 plus million dollars. I'm still looking for their last full earnings statement, but the break-up value would probably be atleast somewhere around 9 million. That still too expensive for a random person to buy. Will Microsoft try and buy it?...instead of the xbox720, it's the Atari 2010? Highly doubt that, but honestly, some big publisher or company will buy it up if not just for the IP to the Atari classics.

[Aswald]

Part of Atari's problem was- and this hasn't changed- the arrogance of the older generations.

The last generation to leave behind anything worth anything was the WW1 generation. After that, it was endless ruin.

Whether it was Star Comics, video games, or anything else, the Baby Boomer generation just never could stop focusing on itself. This is what really ruined the industry back in 1984, NOT- and I repeat, NOT- any so-called "glut." that was never anything more than a cop-out.


If you were around in those days, as I was, you'll remember all too clearly the tired old mantra about how "video gaming is dead, the future is in computers."

If this was true, then why (lesson in basic logic here), in 2007, are we talking about games for the X-Box 360 and Playstation 3? In spite of the monumental acts of stupidity (32X, anyone?) since 1984, why has the industry survived?

Answer- Video gaming was NEVER dead- ever.

So- how then did that tired old line about video games/computers ever become "common knowledge?"

Read your "Dilbert Principal," people.

What happened was this: a bunch of Baby Boomer MBAs and marketers, as well as "experts," talked about it AMONG THEMSELVES. Somewhere along the line they came up with the idea that "gaming was dead."

As is usual with that bunch, this soon grew in the retelling. Soon, it was "common knowledge."

Note the one missing element.

At no point were the gamers of the younger generation- mine- ever asked. And if we ever wrote in, it was simply ignored. Never mind that we were the ones feeding quarters into arcade machines, or playing (and either buying or asking parents to buy, depending on your age back then) the games. We, in effect, were the customers. And, after all, who needs to ask customers what they want? Marketers know better than you what you want, right? Especially if you are in the post-Boomer generations.

This has never changed. The only thing we're good for is getting the blame for everything. Ever hear Judge Joe Brown admit that the things he bullies and rants about were the products of the theories of his generation?

Video gaming was just part of a pattern that has lasted now for at least three decades. And it ain't ever going to change.

So it was with Atari. They bought in to these idiotic beliefs. And so, doomed themselves.

If they had been smart, they would have ignored the "experts," and done the following:

The Atari 2600 was good, but by 1984 it was over. Atari itself should not have continued with it, except for any nearly-completed projects.

The 5200 should NOT have been abandoned in favor of the 7800, at least, not then. Ms. Pac-Man, Robotron: 2084, and certainly Centipede, were all just about as good on the 5200. And other games, such as Pengo, Super Pac-Man, and Millipede, were all about as good as 7800 games were/would have been.

Instead, they should have kept up the learning curve of the 5200. Maybe, possibly, in certain specific cases, offered "super" versions of games like Joust. Limited production. Added some RPGs, like Lord of the Dungeon for the ColecoVision.

When they abandoned the 5200 in mid-1984, they outraged too many 5200 owners. This showed that they were too obsessed with boneheaded marketing theories to use some common sense, such as obeying the commandment "Thou shall not abandon thy game system in just 1 1/2 years."

[idrougge]

Since you're posting the same message you've posted in a gazillion other threads, I suppose I'll just copypaste a reply from an earlier thread.


One of the biggest problems with the Tramiels was that they bought into that stupid notion that "video games were dead." THIS was the real reason for the crash, and essentially nothing has changed. Baby Boomer marketers sat around making theories about my generation (and later the one after), spending Lord-knows how many hours talking away, but never doing the one absolutely vital thing that Nintendo did- asking US what WE wanted.

There was a crash. Atari was losing millions of dollars each week. The 2600 market was oversaturated and retail outlets were dropping consoles. Gamers moved to computers such as the C64 and Atari's own computers. Atari alone, especially not after a big corporate makeover, couldn't have turned that around alone. Computers were more lucrative, it's that simple.


Think about it- if video gaming was dead in 1984, why are we discussing Playstation 3s in 2007? Obviously, they were completely wrong; haven't you ever wondered why?

The video games market was dead in 1984, that is a historical fact. That doesn't mean that it is dead in 2007, because unlike living organisms, markets can revive. You can play all the games you want, but if Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo abandoned the market tomorrow, the market is dead regardless of how many games you play.


Atari never seemed able to realize that those idiot marketers were wrong, in spite of the immense popularity of the NES and SMS. Somehow, the Tramiels never seemed to believe that any console could make it, so they never really tried. It wasn't that the 7800, the Lynx, or even the Jaguar were pieces of junk- it was just that the Tramiels gave up before even trying, and this was reflected in everything they did.

As I'm saying, Atari was a computer manufacturer since 1979, and was doing well. Philips made TVs and radios and didn't care about the market which they (through Magnavox) had once created. And Coleco was making whatever it is that Coleco makes. And Mattel was making He-Man toys and Barbie dolls, ignoring the revived market which had already one cost them a lot of money.
You look at Atari from a console perspective, but try to tell that to an ST gamer or someone making music in Cubase.


Note- the one thing I will say in their defense was that old Atari was so reckless with their money, maybe they were afraid of it happening again. But they went too far; to make money, you have to spend money.

I agree, the Tramiels had a problematic relationship with money. But on the other hand, you can't say that Nolan Bushnell has been very successful in the market either.

[neogamer]

Atari (the company as it is now) is dead!

Any questions?

Financially, it would take a miracle for them to recover.

Their stock is almost worthless.

Enough said on my end.

[Jorpho]

The bigger question here is...who is gonna buy Atari here. It still has a market capitalization of 28 plus million dollars. I'm still looking for their last full earnings statement, but the break-up value would probably be atleast somewhere around 9 million. That still too expensive for a random person to buy. Will Microsoft try and buy it?...instead of the xbox720, it's the Atari 2010? Highly doubt that, but honestly, some big publisher or company will buy it up if not just for the IP to the Atari classics.

Somehow it would seem fitting if Infinium Labs renamed their console the Atari Phatom. :D

[GarrettCRW]

As I'm saying, Atari was a computer manufacturer since 1979, and was doing well. Philips made TVs and radios and didn't care about the market which they (through Magnavox) had once created. And Coleco was making whatever it is that Coleco makes. And Mattel was making He-Man toys and Barbie dolls, ignoring the revived market which had already one cost them a lot of money.

It's interesting to note that of the four major pre-Crash console manufacturers, only Phillips has kept its head out of trouble. Atari, as we know, is essentially dead. Coleco died off in the '80s after they fucked up the Cabbage Patch Kids fad. And Mattel damn near sunk in the late '80s when they bungled the He-Man, She-Ra, and Bravestarr toylines (ruining a pretty good relationship with Filmation in the process, and helping to hasten the demise of said animation studio). The fiascos with The Learning Company and the Chinese toys have more or less proven that Mattel still has the same lack of judgement that plagued the other Crash victims (and led to the Crash, naturally).

[vintagegamecrazy]

I know that Atari will probably never be a name again but it would still be cool to see some company buy them and use the name respectfully.

[DeputyMoniker]

This is good. The Atari name needs to sit a couple rounds out. It keeps hangin' out like the old guy at the party. Silently leaning on the wall, stiffly bobbing his head to the music...wondering if he looks as out of place as he feels.

[Aswald]

You have to keep in mind that physical reality does not run the market- perceptions do.

How else did the dot.com fiasco last as long as it did? Why did people buy into Internet companies that had no product, no real plan, no service...just lots of hype? Because of that- hype. So, value was given to something that had no value.

Video gaming was not dead in 1984; we were as eager as ever. We wanted Coleco, Atari, and the like to go on. But nobody was listening. No, they just listened to "experts," who knew NOTHING about the business, except in self-reflective theories...a pattern that has not changed.

The idea that the industry was dead in 1984 but somehow rose up, Phoenix-like, in 1986, is just a cop-out used by those idiots. Have you EVER heard those generations admit about being wrong about anything, in spite of the mess in 2007?

It is true that the industry was poorly-run, but that is NOT the same as it being dead. "Dead" is when there is no demand. There was. Coleco damn near bankrupted itself in 1983 with that stupid, ill-conceived ADAM computer. Clearly, they bought into the line that "it will be computers, computers, computers." Had they not, had they stuck with the ColecoVision, then they may well have made it.


If there is a real demand for apples, but "experts" convince you (because you are not listening to the consumer base) that it's grapes, what do you think will happen if this is not true? You will invest in everything needed (poorly, at that, if you were Coleco) for growing grapes, and then lose out.

I've mentioned this before- in 1984, magazines were "discussing" the fate of vector games. They kept quoting a single anecdote, that of some repairman saying "anything vector can do, raster can do- usually better." One magazine quoted this three times!

So...that's it? One alleged statement from someone indicates the entire industry? Even if it happened, it was not- I repeat, NOT!- any real indicator you should base your decisions on. Yet, this became "common knowledge." Again, straight out of the "Dilbert Principal," years before the comic even came out!

Look- in my CV review for "Frantic Freddy," I gave it a good rating. Most other reviews don't. Therefore, my view on it is unique, and probably does not reflect most peoples'. This is why, if you are interested in buying the game, you should check a NUMBER of reviews. Not just one.

The industry did not die- it committed suicide. Through an inability to pay attention to a younger generation, the belief in moronic theories advanced by know-nothing experts, and a total and complete inability to simply look at the real world. Nintendo did not make these mistakes, and, simple as it was, they managed to do well. This was another reason the older generations gave them such a hard time back then- they were proven wrong about people no longer wanting video gaming.

[Iron Draggon]

From what I've seen, nobody who has run Atari in the past 23 years could find sand in the desert.

much less all those unsold ET carts they buried somewhere in the desert...


Actually, the Atari name itself just brings alot of mixed memories to us older gamers.

Before 1982, Atari was unstoppable - Atari could do no wrong. But After 1982, the MBA's took over the company, the employees were not getting the credit they deserved and revolted, and under the direction of Ray Kassar, all the suits just drove the company into the ground. (the first time I played Pac-Man, I got in trouble for announcing out loud, in front of my parent's "What the hell is this shit!!?" when I was 9 years old)

Around 1984 - the name 'Atari' became synonomus with a bad gaming experience. And Quality control at Atari after 1981 was virtually non-existant. They made crappy products and threw money away like they were printing it themselves.

I'm an old Atari fan myself, but they haven't been a credible force in the industry for 2 decades now, and sadly, never will be again (just like Sega). But the name Atari is a burden on whatever product bares its name. (just like Sega! ;) )

And argubaly - I think Sega (speaking of which) has always had worse management than Atari. At least Sega made good games and systems, but when the Dreamcast was released, the American division of Sega should've split from the Japanese division. Because Sega Japan was making huge, careless mistakes - one after the other. From what I remember, that's why Peter Moore originally left Sega, wasn't it?

Sega Japan was making huge careless mistakes regarding what Sega America should or should not do or could or could not do ever since the Saturn... the Dreamcast was just the system that forced them to finally admit it... what Sega America should've done is split from Sega Japan after learning from all their FMV mistakes, and go on to give both the 32X and the Saturn a full life span here... but Sega Japan wouldn't allow it, and Sega America wasn't bold enough to stand up to Sega Japan and do it anyway... so Sega Japan took great pleasure in rubbing Sega America's noses in all their FMV mistakes, and from that point on Sega America was always being dragged around on a leash by Sega Japan, which was so focused on reminding Sega America that they fucked up, and preventing them from ever recovering from their fuckups, that they too fucked up, and so it is that now we have software-only Sega...


Since you're posting the same message you've posted in a gazillion other threads, I suppose I'll just copypaste a reply from an earlier thread.



There was a crash. Atari was losing millions of dollars each week. The 2600 market was oversaturated and retail outlets were dropping consoles. Gamers moved to computers such as the C64 and Atari's own computers. Atari alone, especially not after a big corporate makeover, couldn't have turned that around alone. Computers were more lucrative, it's that simple.



The video games market was dead in 1984, that is a historical fact. That doesn't mean that it is dead in 2007, because unlike living organisms, markets can revive. You can play all the games you want, but if Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo abandoned the market tomorrow, the market is dead regardless of how many games you play.



As I'm saying, Atari was a computer manufacturer since 1979, and was doing well. Philips made TVs and radios and didn't care about the market which they (through Magnavox) had once created. And Coleco was making whatever it is that Coleco makes. And Mattel was making He-Man toys and Barbie dolls, ignoring the revived market which had already one cost them a lot of money.
You look at Atari from a console perspective, but try to tell that to an ST gamer or someone making music in Cubase.



I agree, the Tramiels had a problematic relationship with money. But on the other hand, you can't say that Nolan Bushnell has been very successful in the market either.

actually, Aswald is right on the money... it's all the fucking arrogant Baby Boomers who think they're all so special that they're still fucking EVERYTHING up for everyone else, to this day... just because their parents fucked each other so much when WWII ended and caused so damned many of them...

it is indeed the suits who always decide all this stupid shit, despite the most valiant efforts of what their REAL markets, not their PERCEIVED markets, are telling them... if this were not true, the gaming industry would've suffered MULTIPLE crashed by now, and they all would've been REAL crashes, not just imaginary crashes that some suits somewhere succeeded in making them LOOK real...

indeed, the REAL market NEVER DIED, or it would NEVER have been "revived" by Nintendo... you can't resurrect something that really IS as dead as it SEEMS to be... unless of course, you call it ATARI... in which case, it will NEVER really DIE... it will just be "revived"... again and again, by someone looking to make a few quick bucks, and later write it all off as a really bad investment, so they in turn can sell it all off to someone else looking to make a few quick bucks, by passing it off to the next investor in the relay race...

it's called PASSING THE BUCK, and the great "CRASH" was just an excuse for it... because somebody somewhere finally figured out that there was even more money to be made in constant fuck-ups than there is in REAL success!

[Nintendo Gamer]

.....

[idrougge]

One more, Aswald:

Atari lost a million dollars a day in 1983. It was economic realities that killed the market, and nearly killed Atari too. Only with a rich mother company like Warner would Atari have been able to survive as a console maker throughout 1983, 1984 and 1985 and reestablish trust with the sales outlets which were losing a lot of money as well. And Warner thought more about economic realities than suffering through what amounted to a great depression in the games industry with no goal in sight.

Mattel thought the same, and so did Coleco. None of them made any money on games anymore. Texas Instruments pulled out of home computers because competing cost them too much. You can say in hindsight that they should have invested even more, risking their entire companies, but had they done so, there would possibly not be any Atari, Coleco, Mattel or TI today.

Activision moved over to home computers and survived.

You criticise Coleco for investing in computers, but to use your own argument, we are all using computers today, just as we are using consoles today.

[swlovinist]

There are alot of reasons why atari screwed up and is but a shadow today. I have to agree with some that the company stopped listening to customers and made some poor corportate blunders that cost them dearly. I personally think that the 5200 was the beginning of the end for Atari that was a critical mistake for the company to make in console gaming. I do think that the only way Atari will be anything worth remembering anymore is if a gamer buys the company...period.

[GarrettCRW]

The industry did not die- it committed suicide.

That's a bad metaphor, seeing as how suicide tends to lead to being, well, dead.