Matt_B

I doubt he'd go to jail over this, because rich guys almost always get a chance to buy their way out. Still, I'd think that Nintendo's lawyers must be scenting blood here, on the heels of that $12 million LoveROMs settlement.

I like the "Dates and schedules are subject to change due to unforeseen circumstances" line. Does that mean anything not picked up by their clairvoyant?

Atari Vault will already run on Ubuntu, so all they'd have to do to test the games out would be to install that on their dev board. All they need to figure out now on the software front will be that this thing has such a limited market that it's not worth the effort of developing a custom OS.

Unless he stopped turning up to work or was caught stealing something of value, I doubt he was actually fired. Most likely they just put him on gardening leave until his contract ran out. Whatever happened, he'd most likely be a multi-millionaire now if he'd pulled his head in a bit, and stuck it out with them for the product's lifetime.

SE - Sometime Eventually, you might get to see a prototype of one working Pro - There are no pros, only cons Slim - Your chances of getting what you paid for Gold - Well, there's been plenty of comedy gold, at least

I wouldn't question any of that. It just seems odd that not having a working controller would cause them to cancel the crowdfunding when they don't seem to be in the least bit bothered by going there six months later without ever having had a working prototype of the console itself. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if matters had also come to a head between them and Feargal in December, and they used it as an opportunity to cut him out at the same time too.

I'm pretty sure that the first we heard of Feargal Mac being off the project was in March this year when Michael Artz gave that series of interviews at the GDC, including the infamous car crash one with The Register. That said, December 2017 is significant as that was when the original crowdfunding campaign was canceled. There original excuse at the time was something along the lines of "development problems", but given that we now know no actual hardware development took place until after the crowdfunding had wrapped up, canning it so that they didn't have to pay Feargal's cut seems a much more plausible explanation.

I'd add that things are now moving in that direction, in that a lot of cross-platform tools will now let you develop apps for web browsers along with all the usual targets. However, most of what's currently out there wasn't built with them, and a lot of people have had to re-invent the wheel just to get something that looks like a website.

I can't help but think that Rob is heading for an inevitable clash with Atari's management here, as he still seems to be under the mistaken impression that he's making a games console that'll need a substantial amount of development work and online infrastructure to support, while they'll just be wanting something cheap that can be chucked out the door and forgotten about. Assuming that Feargal doesn't clean them out in court first, I'd think it more likely to ship with stock Ubuntu and a free Steam key for Atari Vault.

If they were to demonstrate so much as POST screen on the actual hardware that'd be more than we've seen so far, let alone any games.

If you're after a few quick bucks you could always go on Indiegogo with a vapourware console

Yeah, most businesses run on credit. Even if they've got a net positive balance sheet, they've probably got most of their assets in forms that can't be liquidated. In the case of Atari, it's almost all going to be IP, and they can use that as collateral for cash loans. So, if they know they're going to the wall, they'll just pay themselves huge bonuses out of the borrowed money, declare bankruptcy, and leave the creditors to fight over the assets. They'll auction what's left off to cover their loans, and if there's anything after that it can be distributed to the shareholders. In order to protect employees some states require companies to keep a bond that'll be enough to pay out their contracted notice periods, but such provisions are far from universal. Customers and suppliers are totally stuffed though. I remember one of my nephews asking for Toys R Us gift vouchers for Christmas just before they went under. It told him and his parents why that wasn't a good idea.

No, it's definitely 94 million Euros. They have 255.11 million outstanding shares at .37 Euros each if you want to calculate it yourself. You're right in that getting a controlling stake would require Fred to sell though, and he's likely to be wanting above the current price too, so even buying a controlling stake for $50 million would probably be unrealistic. Alternatively, what you might have worked out before was their book value, i.e. the net assets minus liabilities. That currently stands at around 14.5 million Euros and is what they'd be worth in an asset stripping situation. If you want to play the long game - to the point when neither t-shirt sales or Flashback licensing can sustain its operations - the company could potentially go as low as that. However, I'd think that's still somewhat outside the realms of a crowdfunded fan rescue.

The market cap for Atari SA is 93 million Euros. That's a little over $104 million in US money. To buy the company and all its assets outright - assuming enough of the shareholders would sell - would cost at least that much. Good luck coming up with that in a crowdfunding whip round. Realistically, the only candidate for buying them would be a games company who wants the name because, despite what the current management are doing with it, it's still a recognizable one.

I'd like to see a video update too. This was all so much more fun when we were figuring out how they were faking them.

It's not even that. Infogrames used to make some good games. The Atari of today exists purely to slap their labels onto other people's products and sue anyone who comes within a million miles of one of their trademarks.

The only winners out of this are likely to be the lawyers. $3 million will only go so far, and if this suit ever actually sees a court, the chances are it'll all be gone. Still, maybe Feargal will settle for a couple of hundred thousand in non-preferential Atari stock? If he's so sure that the VCS is a ticket to riches for the company, that could ultimately be worth millions for him.

Yeah, I doubt anyone would be weeping around here if Atari cut back to doing nothing but Flashbacks and shirts. On top of that they've published a couple of good games, albeit among a lot more bad ones, and some art books, but that's pretty much where they should be stopping. When everything else is just car-crash bad, why even bother?

Obviously not, but I thought we were discussing the brand, not whether Atari are actually capable of making anything themselves. They plainly aren't. Edit: And in case it's not obvious, I think they should stick to only licensing quality products and not allow their name to be associated with anything that's not yet ready for market. They obviously won't though, and it'll continue to be slapped on an assortment of bad vapourware.

Atari have products. They've got shedloads of them, even. Just go to Amazon, search for Atari, and you'll see about twenty pages of results. They'll slap that logo on anything for a trickle of income. The problem isn't a lack of product; it's that 99% of it's crap.

Mini was most definitely a pimped brand. It went through a crap-ton of owners before ending up at BMW, and the car as it stands now has practically no relation to the one that was made prior to them getting control of it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-manufacturers/mini/10456893/Mini-a-brief-history.html That said, I'd be the first to agree that the VCS is a very half-baked attempt to pull the same strategy. The problem being that the new Mini managed to be a great car with a few nostalgic hints, but the VCS at best is going to be a mediocre PC. I've always said that the case looks nice, but whether they can fit any worthwhile hardware into it remains an open question, and even if they could, Atari just doesn't have the software to make it worthwhile. If Atari are to make a genuine comeback as a brand, they'd seem far better advised to cull all their bad products and concentrate on the few things they can do well. I'd think that's unlikely to happen under the current management though, as they've shown themselves time and again to be just chancers who'll slap their logo on anything in the hope of a quick buck, no matter how ill-conceived.

Brands occasionally comeback from near death. Lego, Mini, Apple and Nokia would be some examples. However, they all did it on the back of desirable products that, at least for enough of their audience, had some hope of living up to the hype. If Atari are to do the same they're going to need something good, and the VCS definitely isn't it.

If Atari need expert witnesses to testify that it's a worthless crock of shit, they know where to come.

Maybe he's just decided that his name is now so toxic that further crowdfunding attempts are pointless, so he's going to try his hand at something else, like frivolous lawsuits?

My money is on sushi tacos. Yes, they're a thing. Google them if you dare.