Wow, another newbie making ill-informed, yet assertive commentary. How refreshing.
I'm sure its only a matter of time before Time Warner buys "Atari" back again and merges it with all the other entities that now comprise Warner Bros. Interactive. They acquired bankrupt Midway which owns all the Atari Games Corp. IP and is the actual descendent of the original Atari Inc. arcade division.
1) Not going to happen for a long long time. France isn't selling the properties any time soon.
2) There is no "descendant", anything left of the descendant was closed down years ago. There is simply IP, and that makes what Warner Bros. Interactive has no more a descendant than the current Atari Inc.
That's a Namco title. As was stated, they wanted to keep costs to a minimum hence no licensed titles. Likewise, the idea was to create a new themed section hence the sports titles. People are never satisfied, no matter what games are included they'd always say "Why didn't you include such and such?"
What does that matter?
Because it was a license. Licenses expire.
Original Atari had pretty much exclusive rights to the Namco titles they individually licensed for use on all Atari hardware... 2600, 5200, 7800, 400/800/XL/XE.
They had a license - i.e. a lease. Those are not indefinite. Any games with properties from other companies we would have had to of licensed that property again. Period.
But I guess the existing license does not cover ROM images.
There is no existing license.
It couldn't be because of the change in ownership of what constitutes "Atari" because if that were the case, those licensing agreements would've expired in June 1984 when Jack Tramiel took control of the company.
1) Licenses are non-transferable unless they're negotiated to be transferable.
2) Jack did not take over the company. Atari Inc. ceased to exist. Jack's Atari Corporation was a new company formed when the purchased Atari Consumer assets were folded under Tramel Technology Ltd., and TTL was renamed Atari Corporation.
The same goes for Williams titles. Their ownership is not in question...
That makes no sense as an attempt at comparison. Williams bought Midway from Bally. They then folded their video game properties in to Midway, and several years later reformed Midway as a spin off company. That company recently filed for liquidation bankruptcy and that's when Time/Warner purchased much of the assets and the Chicago studio. None of that has anything to do with any licensing, transfer of licensing, or anything of the like.
they now belong to Warner Bros. Interactive, the spiritual heir to the "real" Atari.
They are no more the spiritual heir than the current Atari Inc. is. There are no original facilities, no original employees, no resources, no anything. Just paper that says they own the IP's and copies of roms. Scott Evans has most of what was left resources wise of the original Atari Games, which he purchased when Midway was closing down the the Atari Games studio years ago and junking everything.
What??? How does Atari not own "Dark Chambers"? The Tramiels merely licensed that title for the 2600/7800 back in the day? Then again, had they been shrewd, they would've fought Atari Games over ownership of "Gauntlet" since it came from that authors APX title "Dandy".
Wow, where do I start with that one. 1) Atari never owned Dandy, any games done through APX were done in conjunction with authors, who were still given ownership. That's why we had to pull another APX title off on this version. 2) John Palevich owned Dandy. He did sue Atari Games, and they worked out an agreement. 3) Dark Chambers was a re-release of Dandy
. 4) John sold off the rights of Dandy to Electric Dreams Software. Hence anything to do with Dandy/Dark Chambers we'd have to lease from whoever still owns the assets to that company.
There's no point in offering the "Sword Quest" games because no matter how well you play, you still won't be able to win the $25k sword because playa hatin' Jack Tramiel has possession of it.
There's zero proof of that other than someone stating they may have seen it at Jack's house many years ago. In our talks with his son Leonard, who's been very forthcoming and honest (and has yet to tell us something we found later to be untrue - in fact quite the opposite) he has stated his father has none of those prizes and never has. In fact, I think it's more likely that either someone at Warner kept it (since they kept ownership of any of the ongoing or open accounts).
Edited by wgungfu, Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:05 PM.