The Atari VCS Controversies Thread

[toiletunes]

Haunted House's Mansion?

[Mockduck]

The Atari logo is Atari's "mascot" as it were. I've always felt that Haunted House had potential for a spiritual new game, but doing it right won't be easy. Unsure how it would actually play. Part of me feels like it'd be a bit more Binding of Isaac and less of an adventure game, but either could work. 

[godslabrat]

If Atari did actually come up with a decent mascot, you just know they'd sell it off when their gas bill was due.

[leech]

17 minutes ago, Mockduck said:

The Atari logo is Atari's "mascot" as it were. I've always felt that Haunted House had potential for a spiritual new game, but doing it right won't be easy. Unsure how it would actually play. Part of me feels like it'd be a bit more Binding of Isaac and less of an adventure game, but either could work. 

Haunted House VR.  Also, with original graphics mode!  Pixel Art VR would be sweet...

[leech]

6 minutes ago, godslabrat said:

If Atari did actually come up with a decent mascot, you just know they'd sell it off when their gas bill was due.

On the bright side, the latest Battlezone game is amazing.

[Shaggy the Atarian]

9 hours ago, leech said:

On the bright side, the latest Battlezone game is amazing.

It is a great game, but it's also not been owned by Atari coming up on 10 years now. They sold it off to Rebellion back when they declared bankruptcy circa 2012.  

 

As for who the Atari mascot is, I'm surprised how often Atarians overlook what Atari came up with over the years. The only reason none are "iconic" is because after Warner, the company did little to nothing to turn them into a franchise, like Nintendo or Sega did with theirs. The only one who came close was Commander Champion, who did appear in a number of games and the comic books during the Warner era. When you look at his "resume," seems to me that he was the de facto company mascot, at least up to 1982-83. Main problem was that apart from the comics/pinball and the super rare Liberator arcade game, you don't see his face, while in Mario & Sonic, you know you are controlling said mascot, and their faces have been plastered on everything.

 

Atari characters - mascot potential all depends on that creative vision to do something with them beyond their original games, or reinventing those classics in a fun way:

 

-Commander Champion + The Atari Force (Space Riders & Middle Earth pinball, Liberator, Star Raiders, comic books; You could also probably tie him in with Asteroids & Gravitar)

-Oliver (Centipede)

-Archer (Millipede)

-Yar

-The Claw (Tempest, not from the movie Liar, Liar  )

-The Square Knight/Mage/Gnome from Adventure

-Major Havoc

-The eyes from Haunted House (joking aside  )

-Bentley Bear

-Charley Chuck (Food Fight)

-Tarra & Torr (SwordQuest)

-Robot 1984 (I, Robot)

-The Time Fairy/Angel (Time 2000 pinball)

-The Ninja (Ninja Golf)

-Kung Fu Lu (Off the Wall)

-The adventurers from Dark Chambers

-Desert Falcon

-Black Widow (from the arcade game, but no one likes spiders...)

 

I might be missing one or two, but seems to me that Atari has a lot to choose from, despite no one at Atari ever figuring out what to do with them. As for a logo or the Pong paddles being a "mascot" - meh, that's pretty forgettable instead of relatable. Usually when a company tries to turn their logo into a mascot, it doesn't last for long, like 7up's Spot or Dominos Pizza's Donny The Domino. 

 

 

[+Nathan Strum]

Sorry for the momentary off-topic post. But I felt compelled to put these two responses together for some reason:

On 4/6/2021 at 6:09 AM, Shawn said:

Very interested to hear how the money was spit up. Smells really fishy to me.

 

On 4/6/2021 at 10:52 AM, The Historian said:

That appears to be Chesnais' baby. 

 

[Cebus Capucinis]

I get a sneaking feeling it's more of a "sorry not sorry" thing..... 

[Shawn]

On 4/6/2021 at 11:18 PM, toiletunes said:

It's okay to like the Atari Hotel. We don't need to be told we can get a better room for less, and we don't want to hear anything else. Stop picking on us, you mean haters, naysayers, and ne'er do wells. Just leave us alone to enjoy our overpriced understaffed hotel rooms!

 

*I am not in any way associated with Atari hotels*

 

This post is perfect. I had to mention that and quote it for the attention it deserves.

[Lord Mushroom]

On 4/6/2021 at 3:45 PM, x=usr(1536) said:

"Effective April 6, 2021, Wade J. Rosen will become Chief Executive Officer of the entire Atari Group, Frédéric Chesnais to focus on Atari Blockchain and Licensing"

 

Perhaps "Atari Blockchain and Licensing" is the new longhand for "Elba".

Literally made me laugh.

[Lord Mushroom]

On 4/6/2021 at 8:45 PM, Mockduck said:

Yeah, having read the full release now this seems to largely be, "Business as usual for the Games Division, a new Blockchain 'division' that aims to become a separate spin off and blockchain-powered IPO headed by Fred, who is super into crypto."

Fred is super into anything which makes people part with their money.

[Lord Mushroom]

On 4/6/2021 at 9:40 PM, Shaggy the Atarian said:

Either this guy will turn the ship or continue to manage the decline.

Atari is actually doing better now than they have for many years. 

[Lord Mushroom]

On 4/7/2021 at 12:25 AM, x=usr(1536) said:

To me, that smacks of a company that lacks strategy and vision.  It's the laziest possible approach to holding the IP short of doing absolutely nothing with it, and only reinforces the idea that the company exists solely to inflate its value and be passed off to the next sucker who wants to try the same thing.

 

Atari tries both to make money passively by licensing, and actively by making games and a console. 

[Lord Mushroom]

On 4/8/2021 at 2:30 AM, Matt_B said:

A McDonalds franchise is worth something though, in that it'll bring a guaranteed stream of customers that an otherwise superior burger joint would struggle to attract.

The Atari name, and a video game theme, would separate it from the crowd. Thus attracting customers.

 

On 4/8/2021 at 2:30 AM, Matt_B said:

the sort of brands that'd add crossover value are the ones that are currently hot in gaming. Sega might be on the wane a tad in the West but they still own and operate resorts in Asia. Alienware kitted out that hotel room in Panama with high end gaming PCs in exchange for brand placement. Nintendo just opened that theme park in Japan. If the same thing is to happen in the West, you'd think it'd be the likes of Sony and Microsoft (albeit under the PlayStation and Xbox brands) that'd have to be the ones at the forefront of it. Atari are, as ever, just some bit part player with delusions of grandeur.

I figure the Sega and Nintendo names would be too expensive to aquire. And Playstation and Xbox doesn´t sound like good names for a hotel to me.

[+x=usr(1536)]

4 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

Atari tries both to make money passively by licensing, and actively by making games and a console. 

Note the emphasis above.  They're trying.  That doesn't mean that they're succeeding, or that they have any sort of strategy and/or vision for where to go beyond "give us money."

[Lord Mushroom]

8 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Note the emphasis above.  They're trying.  That doesn't mean that they're succeeding, or that they have any sort of strategy and/or vision for where to go beyond "give us money."

Fair enough. They have been very successful in the passive part, but not so much in the active part.

[godslabrat]

1 hour ago, Lord Mushroom said:

Fair enough. They have been very successful in the passive part, but not so much in the active part.

Unfortunately, for all the money they make on the passive part, they seem to lose (or earn at a highly inefficient rate) money on the active part.

 

That's why 'strategy' is kind of important.

[youxia]

1 hour ago, Lord Mushroom said:

They have been very successful in the passive part

Have they, though? What exactly were these succesful licensing ventures? I can only recall insta-forgettable ones (mobile apps), the ridiculous ones (hats or some such), and the shady ones - tokens or casinos. That's really not something to be proud of.

 

Now, the hotels were also something that I derided initially, but admittedly as an idea they make some sense, if it was executed properly (riiight...). Not for me, but it could work as a sort of novelty weekend-getaway package, and at least have some link to the Atari's gaming past, unlike the other crap. But so far all you have is a website, some CGI renders and...hoodies (*eyeroll.gif)... so, somehow I have a feeling it will also end up like everything else from ASA: tainted & damaged goods style.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by youxia

[Lord Mushroom]

7 minutes ago, godslabrat said:

Unfortunately, for all the money they make on the passive part, they seem to lose (or earn at a highly inefficient rate) money on the active part.

 

That's why 'strategy' is kind of important.

Perhaps the new guy in charge can change that.

[Lord Mushroom]

54 minutes ago, youxia said:

Have they, though? What exactly were these succesful licensing ventures? I can only recall insta-forgettable ones (mobile apps), the ridiculous ones (hats or some such), and the shady ones - tokens or casinos. That's really not something to be proud of.

 

Now, the hotels were also something that I derided initially, but admittedly as an idea they make some sense, if it was executed properly (riiight...). 

 

I mean successful relative to where they were 8 years ago. Then they had total revenue of $1.2 million and an operating profit of $0.6 million. Now the revenue is over $20 million and the operating profit is about $3 million (except in this covid year). According to Atari, 52% of the revenue for the fiscal year 2019/2020 was from licensing.

 

While tokens, NFSs and casinos may not be something to be proud of, they have been and probably will continue to be, profitable for them. So they are a success.

 

The hotels have a big potential, but even if it amounts to nothing, they will still walk away with $4 million. A smash hit considering where they came from.

 

Other sources of income is Atari Flashbacks, Atari Arcade, other devices, movies, TV shows, other stuff and of course clothes. 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Lord Mushroom

[godslabrat]

1 hour ago, youxia said:

Have they, though? What exactly were these succesful licensing ventures? I can only recall insta-forgettable ones (mobile apps), the ridiculous ones (hats or some such), and the shady ones - tokens or casinos. That's really not something to be proud of.

 

T-shirts, flashbacks, keychains, and LCD games seem to be evergreen products for them.  I don't see those ever going out of style.  I do see them being a point of diminishing returns, though, and l'Atari would be smart to try and build something relateable to people born after Watergate.  Slapping their logo on anything and hoping for the best, however, isn't going to work.  Even if they occasionally get a winner*, the losers they end up picking will decreaase the overall value of their brand.  

 

 

 

*Let's call the VCS a "winner" for the sake of argument.  It at least had positive cash flow.  Yeah, I'm keeping my standards insanely low here.

[Mockduck]

Back to an old topic from the taco thread: I initially bought $40 in Atari stock in 2018 mostly to poke at some AAgers who were howling in rage at the time, and I totally agree with the general advice about Atari stock. That said, whatthehell with PONGF stock, right? Riding that crypto bubble I guess...That $40 is worth almost $120 today; how many people would kill for a 200% profit in three years on an investment?!? What if I'd actually say invested $50k, I'd be sitting on $100k in profit today. 

[Shaggy the Atarian]

5 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

I mean successful relative to where they were 8 years ago. Then they had total revenue of $1.2 million and an operating profit of $0.6 million. Now the revenue is over $20 million and the operating profit is about $3 million (except in this covid year). According to Atari, 52% of the revenue for the fiscal year 2019/2020 was from licensing.

 

While tokens, NFSs and casinos may not be something to be proud of, they have been and probably will continue to be, profitable for them. So they are a success.

 

The hotels have a big potential, but even if it amounts to nothing, they will still walk away with $4 million. A smash hit considering where they came from.

Yeah, when the bar is already low to begin with, it's not terribly impressive when the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" strategy does get a bump from a couple of things doing the sticking. Still, good for them. I wouldn't mind being a few million dollars richer either, from the low bar I'm at right now.

 

Quote

Other sources of income is Atari Flashbacks, Atari Arcade, other devices, movies, TV shows, other stuff and of course clothes. 

Hardware & clothes yes, but I've not seen any evidence that they have even managed to produce any kind of income generating film or TV show. They've got some licensing to throw stuff like Centipede into Pixels some years ago, but the game show they did was barely shown in Europe (and they were sued by contestants who never received the cash they won). The Nolan Bushnell movie, as well as the Asteroids and Missile Command movies never happened. Even if an old Atari game was turned into a big Hollywood film, expecting any Atari IP to have the same success as Sonic The Hedgehog or Mortal Kombat though would be prime Rose-Colored Glasses. That's likely why they didn't happen - who wants to take the multi-million dollar risk on turning a game that only old dudes like us remember, into a big movie? A few people around here might go and see a movie about the Atari logo, but that would probably make as much as any recent Shia LaBeouf film.  

 

On hardware though, manufacturing & supporting hardware is a very expensive endeavor and it can easily bankrupt the company depending on how it's handled. They've already burned through their IGG beggar's potdonations, so they'll need sales to keep the VCS - and the company - going. Yes, Atari has momentary advantages in the licensing stuff, but without anything truly successful in raising or reinvigorating the brand, that stuff will eventually peter out while mediocre hardware endeavors that the general public doesn't care about will drag things down further. It also doesn't help that this current bunch has done plenty to ruin their brand among many of us that should be their strongest supporters too.

 

Could the new guy figure things out and keep the expansion going? Sure. He has his work cut out for him though. 

[Lord Mushroom]

51 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

Hardware & clothes yes, but I've not seen any evidence that they have even managed to produce any kind of income generating film or TV show.

When I said other sources of income, I meant other sources of income from licensing. There is no way they are gonna make a movie with a reasonable budget.

 

The movies they have received money from are at least Pixels, Ready Player One and Blade Runner 2049.

51 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

the game show they did was barely shown in Europe (and they were sued by contestants who never received the cash they won).

I didn´t know that show was such a failure. I just saw it mentioned in a presentation for potential Atari investors. I can´t believe they didn´t pay the contestants. Or sadly, I can believe it.

 

They do get income from TV, though. I have read somewhere that TV shows was on the list of stuff where they get income from licensing.

 

51 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

Yes, Atari has momentary advantages in the licensing stuff, but without anything truly successful in raising or reinvigorating the brand, that stuff will eventually peter out while mediocre hardware endeavors that the general public doesn't care about will drag things down further.

I agree.

 

51 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

It also doesn't help that this current bunch has done plenty to ruin their brand among many of us that should be their strongest supporters too.

Yes, when you factor in the damage done to the brand, the financial results become less impressive.

 

51 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

Could the new guy figure things out and keep the expansion going? Sure. He has his work cut out for him though. 

I don´t think he is a miracle worker either. But I am more optimistic about Atari now than under Fredric Chesnais. Frederic didn´t have the necessary passion for Atari. He just wanted to cash in on the brand in any way he could. 

 

Frederic provided the cash, now Wade must put it to good use.

Edited April 15, 2021 by Lord Mushroom

[leech]

23 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

They do get income from TV, though. I have read somewhere that TV shows was on the list of stuff where they get income from licensing.

Wonder how long royalties for such things last.  Like if a show is in re-runs, do they get some cash every time it pops on screen?  They should show more Bud Bundy then, as he almost always had an Atari in the background!