The history of "Atari"

[Gregory DG]

Does the fact that the true history of Atari is ignored on the Atari.com website bother anyone else? I click the link expecting it to start in 1972 with Nolan's Pong when lo and behold, it starts in 1983 with Infogrames!

 

http://corporate.infogrames.com/corp_history.php

 

Nobody gives a rat's @$$ about you, Infogrames! That's why you changed your name to Atari in the first place!

[Ze_ro]

Their history really did begin in 1983. They claim that they bought the rights to "Atari" from Hasbro, and that they later changed their name to Atari. Keep in mind that this is a history of the company currently known as Atari, not a history of the Atari name.

 

Frankly, I'd be more upset if the site claimed that "they" created the 2600 and programmed the Jaguar. Even if they said that was done by "Atari", it would still seem like they were laying claim to Nolan Bushnell/Time Warner/Jack Tramiel/JTS/Hasbro/etc's "Atari".

 

--Zero

[Clint Thompson]

I thought I was the only one that noticed that!!!

 

Yea... I was a little tipped about it as well.. but what can you do?

 

It's bullshit they integrate their history into Atari as if they were Atari all along.. (which is BS)

 

Oh well... eventually they'll sell out as well

[cryptik76]

No, I agree with Ze_ro. Would it be worse for them to acknowledge that they are actually a different company, or for them to pretend that they were the original Atari? Either way someone would complain that they're misleading people with their "history" section.

 

Why do you even care? Do you think someone is going to go to Atari.com and come up with an incorrect view of Atari's history? Do you think you're going to have a debate with someone about Atari and they're going to say, "No! Atari began in 1983! I read it on Atari.com!" and then you're going to go "Screw you Infogrames! You've rewritten history! Nooooooooooo!"

 

I just don't see what the fuss is.

[JB]

No, I agree with Ze_ro.  Would it be worse for them to acknowledge that they are actually a different company, or for them to pretend that they were the original Atari?  Either way someone would complain that they're misleading people with their "history" section.

Same here.

 

Better that they be honest about it.

 

 

You didn't want to be around me when I found out that Bally was recently claiming they "invented PacMan".

[Saikyo]

Yeah atari started in the seventies with pong

 

(no offense) but if infogrammes starts saying that they made all the original

games that the original atari created then someone should spread the word

that infogrammes has no respect for the true history of video games

 

and thats WORD! Man!

 

Still the Unreal series that they make/distribute (Which one?) is rather cool

as FPSers go!

[sku_u]

I see nothing wrong with Infogrames' take on Atari history. As was already stated, I would have been much more pissed had they claimed to be Nolan's Atari.

[AtariDude]

It seems that they want the name but not the history of the corporation. Since they have purchased the rights to the name, they can obviously do what they want to a point. I don't think they really care about Atari's history, the same way that the Tramiels did not care about Atari's history when they purchased the corporation.

 

I doubt very much that the new Atari cares about getting history correct.

[homerwannabee]

What the people at Infogrames forgets is that it is supposed to be the history of Atari not Infogrames. Include the history of the real atari and then explain that you bought them out in 2001.

[Happy_Dude]

It's a history of info-Atari. Nothing to get worked up about.

 

What they've done to the Fuji however ......

[Cootster]

I have to agree with those who say that it would be worse if they implied they were connected to the original company . . . which I think Hasbro and JTS avoided also . . .

 

And it seems that their products are either extremely good (like Unreal Tournament) or insanely dreadful (like Survivor: The Game). Which is somehow fitting for the name that produced amazing things like Tempest and Yar's, as well as crap like 2600 Star Ship and 7800 Galaga . . .

[NovaXpress]

We also forget that about 99.99% of the videogamers out there don't give a shit about the old Atari and never will. The mainstream forgets games and systems as soon as it's off the rental shelf at Blockbuster.

 

This "new Atari" is its own company with nothing whatsoever to do with the classic era. Those stories are best left to sites such as this one.

[Agent X]

What the people at Infogrames forgets is that it is supposed to be the history of Atari not Infogrames.  Include the history of the real atari and then explain that you bought them out in 2001.      

 

This would be a good idea. They should have a history of the company as it is now (descended from Infogrames), and separately describe the history of Atari (descended from the Atari of 1972).

[Gregory DG]

What's bogus about the whole thing is that it ISN'T the history of Atari. It's the history of Infogrames. There is no mention of Atari until near the end. Why don't they just say, "Company history"? That would actually be truthful without "lying" about who they are.

[Ze_ro]

Perhaps they should have a link somewhere that goes to an authoritative history of "Atari" as it passed through the hands of various companies.

 

--Zero

[NovaXpress]

Kids, notice that the page is a site for investors. They give the history of the corporation, which is now named Atari. It is not supposed to be a historical information page for video game players, it's a company background for people who might put their money on the line. These people are not interested in fun facts about Missile Command, they want to know about the corporation. It would be unethical for them to discuss the business of the old Atari because they were not involved.

 

This "controversy" is ridiculous. Stop being so sensitive about your hobby and look at the business for what it really is.

[Saikyo]

They should change their name to "The New Atari"

To avoid confusion!

[JB]

They should change their name to "The New Atari"

To avoid confusion!

Or Atari Neo. Sounds better.

 

Or SuperHyperMegaGameCo Inc. That way they don't offend anyone.

[sku_u]

What's bogus about the whole thing is that it ISN'T the history of Atari. It's the history of Infogrames. There is no mention of Atari until near the end. Why don't they just say, "Company history"? That would actually be truthful without "lying" about who they are.  

 

Yes it is. Infogrames is now called Atari. Their history page tells the history of their company. Why should they care about the history of the name and logo? That's all Infogrames has in common with the original company.

 

Infogrames is only Atari in name, they are not imbedded in the history of the original company and had absolutely nothing to do with the original company.

[Gregory DG]

Yes it is.  Infogrames is now called Atari.

 

They WERE NOT called Atari up until recently. Before that they WERE called Infogrames. I (and I'm sure many others) feel it is disingenuous to call it the "History of Atari" when them calling themself Atari only just started.

 

If they want to call it the History of Atari and be about them, they should start it in 200x not 1983 (or whatever.)

[JB]

What's bogus about the whole thing is that it ISN'T the history of Atari. It's the history of Infogrames. There is no mention of Atari until near the end. Why don't they just say, "Company history"? That would actually be truthful without "lying" about who they are.  

 

Yes it is. Infogrames is now called Atari. Their history page tells the history of their company. Why should they care about the history of the name and logo? That's all Infogrames has in common with the original company.

 

Infogrames is only Atari in name, they are not imbedded in the history of the original company and had absolutely nothing to do with the original company.

Well, they DO have a lot of copyrights...

That gives them something to do with the original.

[msaeger]

I never understood why infograms changed their name to atari. Is anyone going to buy unreal because it says atari on it ?

[JB]

I never understood why infograms changed their name to atari. Is anyone going to buy unreal because it says atari on it ?

I think that's what they're hoping.

 

Despite many people's best efforts, the Atari name still carries some weight.

People recognize and, in some cases, respect it.

 

Which is more than can be said for Infogrames, which wasn't much of a name. It just sounds like a random mishmash of letters.

[AtariDude]

I believe that this was the rationale for the name change. No one except in France seemed to remember the name Infogrames (despite the fact that they started the Horror - exploration games on computers with the original Alone in the Dark) but people still remembered the name Atari.

 

Wheter or not it has helped them sales wise, I don't know. They have produced some really good games while using the Atari name but then they have produced some less than spectacular results with some others.

 

I wish them well if only to keep the Atari name still around. If Infogrames were to go away (assuming that they were not bought out by someone else), I wonder if anyone would pony up the money to get the rights to the name.

[Saikyo]

When i see a new game with ATARI on it i look at the fugi and imagine

twisting the three bars into the armadillo!

 

That's right Infrogrammes can NEVER be ATARI no matter how hard they

try!

 

Not that im saying that Infrogrammes dont make good games it's just that

when i see ATARI on a new game i just think Infrogrammes!

 

In fact i bought more of their games when they were under Infrogrammes!

 

What about any one else?