Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

Hi. First-time poster here.


Why does the media keep thinking Atari still exists? Isn't present-day
Atari really Infogrames?

The following article doesn't seem to make a distinction between
present-day Atari and old Atari.


Sorry if the link doesn't come out right.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/16/co [...] tm?cnn=yes

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

pi wrote:

> Why does the media keep thinking Atari still exists? Isn't present-day
> Atari really Infogrames?

The probably don't. Infogrames changed their name to Atari after they
acquired all of the Atari properties.




--
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall
pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend,
oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of
liberty. This much we pledge—and more.

- President John F. Kennedy, Jan. 20, 1961

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

>
>Why does the media keep thinking Atari still exists? Isn't present-day
>Atari really Infogrames?
>The following article doesn't seem to make a distinction between
>present-day Atari and old Atari.

Well, he references the Atari 2600, but it's not really important to the
article. The article pretty much reserves it's reporting for recent
"Infogrames" news.

Sort of related: I don't really understand why some many people keep
saying Infogrames isn't "really" Atari. Atari hasn't "really" been Atari
since Nolan Bushnell left. If you can accept Ray Kasser Atari and Tramiel
Atari as legitimate Ataris, that I can't see why Infogrames Atari isn't
legitimate. I'm just glad the name is back in the hands of a videogame
company. They've even produced some good games under the name.

--
Jim Leek
jrleek@soda.berkeley.edu

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

I don't know the full details on how Infogrames acquired the name. But,
if it bought the names and at least some of the software properties, is
it really Atari if none of the programmers and personnel or any of the
development houses from the old Atari were not brought along?

If Activision decided to buy the Sega name and properties, but it
didn't bring along the development houses or any of the people, would
Activision be Sega? Imagine Activision farming out a project to some
company and sticking the Sega name on the product. Is that a Sega
product?

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

>I don't know the full details on how Infogrames acquired the name. But,
>if it bought the names and at least some of the software properties, is
>it really Atari if none of the programmers and personnel or any of the
>development houses from the old Atari were not brought along?

The changes were similar when the Tramiels took over Atari, although, of
course, some of the programmers and holdings came through the immediate
move (and were instead replaced in the long term) It basically comes down
to this question: Abraham has a boat. Over the course of owning the boat,
every single piece of the boat wears out or breaks and is replaces. Now,
does Abraham have the same boat he started with, or not?

Sure, the Infogrames change (or, more accurately, the changes leading up
to Infogrames' acquisition) was rather large and sudden, but it's still
basically the same question. Nearly everything about Atari changed when
the Tramiels took over, why was that a "valid" Atari, and Infogrames Atari
is not "valid?"

>If Activision decided to buy the Sega name and properties, but it
>didn't bring along the development houses or any of the people, would
>Activision be Sega? Imagine Activision farming out a project to some
>company and sticking the Sega name on the product. Is that a Sega
>product?

The initial question is the same as posed above. However, you do
realize that farming out projects is VERY common in the videogame
industry? The same question may be asked in the following form: if SEGA
itself farms out a project to studio Vortex, then just stamps it's name on
the product and sells it, is that product really a SEGA product?

--
Jim Leek
jrleek@soda.berkeley.edu

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

Your points are valid. I'm aware that companies farm out projects.
That's part of the reason names don't matter to me that much anymore.
Using Activision again as an example, I don't think of them as being
the same company that created the Atari boxing game I enjoyed so long
ago.

The thing about Infogrames/Atari is that I can totally picture one or
more marketing guys suggesting the name change just for name
recognition alone. It's as if they couldn't build a reputation based on
the quality of their games. They have to rely on a name (at least
partially).

Hey, I could buy Tom Cruise's house, clothing, cars, etc. and change my
name to Tom Cruise, if I were rich enough. None of that stuff will make
me Tom Cruise. (Sorry, bad analogy)

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

"James Robert Leek" <jrleek@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news8uvla$5ep$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> >I don't know the full details on how Infogrames acquired the name. But,
>>if it bought the names and at least some of the software properties, is
>>it really Atari if none of the programmers and personnel or any of the
>>development houses from the old Atari were not brought along?
>
> The changes were similar when the Tramiels took over Atari, although, of
> course, some of the programmers and holdings came through the immediate
> move (and were instead replaced in the long term) It basically comes down
> to this question: Abraham has a boat. Over the course of owning the boat,
> every single piece of the boat wears out or breaks and is replaces. Now,
> does Abraham have the same boat he started with, or not?
>
> Sure, the Infogrames change (or, more accurately, the changes leading up
> to Infogrames' acquisition) was rather large and sudden, but it's still
> basically the same question. Nearly everything about Atari changed when
> the Tramiels took over, why was that a "valid" Atari, and Infogrames Atari
> is not "valid?"
>
>>If Activision decided to buy the Sega name and properties, but it
>>didn't bring along the development houses or any of the people, would
>>Activision be Sega? Imagine Activision farming out a project to some
>>company and sticking the Sega name on the product. Is that a Sega
>>product?
>

The contrast would be with nintendo. Noone asks if Nintendo is still
Nintendo because, regardless of what low-level staff changes have happened,
Nintendo still has a reasonably consistent ethos and consistency towards
what games and consoles they produce.

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

In article <d8urqa$3k7$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
jrleek@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (James Robert Leek) wrote:

> If you can accept Ray Kasser Atari and Tramiel
> Atari as legitimate Ataris, that I can't see why Infogrames
> Atari isn't legitimate.

I think a lot of people like to consider Atari the great Martyr of video
games. The one time greatest giant of the hobby, now a ghost of a
beloved past. That the Infogrames Atari doesn't make hardware anymore
also belies a legitimacy in many minds, also.

I would think that some would reject a resurrected Coleco should someone
revive that name and start developing games, also.

jt

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

In article <1119024982.756120.71060@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"pi" <personaincognito@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't know the full details on how Infogrames acquired the name. But,
> if it bought the names and at least some of the software properties, is
> it really Atari if none of the programmers and personnel or any of the
> development houses from the old Atari were not brought along?

Well, considering that many , most or possibly even all original Atari
developers are in the retirement age, and perhaps more telling is that
to the best of my personal awareness on the subject, none of them are
involved in developing games today for other entities, I would have to
say that the above quoted requirement may not be possible to fulfill.

I would also counter that if Atari had not gone belly up, but continued
to thrive, but in the course of these 30 plus years of successful
existence, everyone who had been working there up to the 7800 project
had either moved on or retired, would that make today's Atari any less
legitimate?

Atari today retains the software rights, patents and other intellectual
properties of the Atari of old, and as such, is just as legitimate today
as it always was. It just went into hibernation for a few years.

jt

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

In article <1119029542.663758.152320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"pi" <personaincognito@yahoo.com> wrote:


> Hey, I could buy Tom Cruise's house, clothing, cars, etc. and change my
> name to Tom Cruise, if I were rich enough. None of that stuff will make
> me Tom Cruise. (Sorry, bad analogy)

Actually a good analogy. It makes your point quite well.

However, let me counter.

You go to a McDonalds. You learn that the one you are at is actually a
holding of Davis Marketing Services, LLC, and that company has pruchased
franchise agreements for their 32 fast food restaurants, and they are
only using the name McDonalds, and all its recipes, logos and relevant
intellectual properties by liscense. Does that make it any less a
McDonalds in your mind?

If somebody won the grand prize on the latest War or the Worlds /
McDonalds sweepstakes at this particular McDonalds you were eating in,
the local media would have a feature story about the dude who won the
big prize at the neighborhood McDonalds, not the neighborhood Davis
Marketing, LLC hamburger joint.

jt

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

>You go to a McDonalds. You learn that the one you are at is actually a
>holding of Davis Marketing Services, LLC, and that company has pruchased
>franchise agreements for their 32 fast food restaurants, and they are
>only using the name McDonalds, and all its recipes, logos and relevant
>intellectual properties by liscense. Does that make it any less a
>McDonalds in your mind?

This analogy doesn't really fly because pretty much every McDonalds is
franchise restaurants. I don't know if there is even such thing as a
corporate McDonalds restaurant, so it may be argued that Atari is a
different case.

--
Jim Leek
jrleek@soda.berkeley.edu

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

"James Robert Leek" <jrleek@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news91hpd$17ke$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> >You go to a McDonalds. You learn that the one you are at is actually a
> >holding of Davis Marketing Services, LLC, and that company has pruchased
> >franchise agreements for their 32 fast food restaurants, and they are
> >only using the name McDonalds, and all its recipes, logos and relevant
> >intellectual properties by liscense. Does that make it any less a
> >McDonalds in your mind?
>
> This analogy doesn't really fly because pretty much every McDonalds is
> franchise restaurants. I don't know if there is even such thing as a
> corporate McDonalds restaurant, so it may be argued that Atari is a
> different case.
>

There are corporately owned McDonald's restaurants.

Dane.

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

In article <d91hpd$17ke$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
jrleek@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (James Robert Leek) wrote:

> >You go to a McDonalds. You learn that the one you are at is actually a
> >holding of Davis Marketing Services, LLC, and that company has pruchased
> >franchise agreements for their 32 fast food restaurants, and they are
> >only using the name McDonalds, and all its recipes, logos and relevant
> >intellectual properties by liscense. Does that make it any less a
> >McDonalds in your mind?
>
> This analogy doesn't really fly because pretty much every McDonalds is
> franchise restaurants. I don't know if there is even such thing as a
> corporate McDonalds restaurant, so it may be argued that Atari is a
> different case.

I can assure you that there are a sizable number of corporate own McD's
around the company. It varies from roughy 25% to 40%. The corporation
will own and operate in markets where they want to maintain market
placement but cannot attract franchise operators for whatever given
reasons. The business why's are too complex and too off-topic to go
into here, but I know a gentleman who owns some franchise units here in
StL, and he explained to me several things I never realized about McD's,
including much about franchising vs. corporate owned units.

jt

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

On 17 Jun 2005 09:16:22 -0700, "pi" <personaincognito@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I don't know the full details on how Infogrames acquired the name. But,
>if it bought the names and at least some of the software properties, is
>it really Atari if none of the programmers and personnel or any of the
>development houses from the old Atari were not brought along?


Atari didnt have much developement in the end. I think it consisted
mainly of Jeff Minter and a couple other guys. Like the OP said, the
original Atari was started by Nolan Bushnell. When Warner Brothers
purchased Atari most of the original people left (some went on to form
Activision, Amiga, and Imagic) so was the Warner brothers Atari the
real Atari? When Atari went to the Tramiels it was yet again a
completely different Atari... The one thing that stayed the same was
selling hardware and the HQ was in Sunnyvalle CA. When IG bought
Atari they created a subsidy compay called Atari (whose headquarters
are in New York) and they are only a publisher of software, the only
hardware they have is the Flashback systems... but still they are
"Atari"

Another thing IG's Atari has is commen with the previous Atari's, they
are failing in the marketplace.

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

It doesn't matter, to me anyway, how many owners (corporate or
otherwise) that McDonalds has had. That site has been delivering the
same service, at the same quality (good or bad) for many years. I can
eat one of their products in a blindfold test and tell you where it
came from. There is a distinctive quality to their product. Something
has been passed along to each encarnation of the place (recipes and I
don't know what else).

A restaurant owner can't just open up a hamburger place, put a
McDonalds sign on the roof, and say, "We are McDonalds."

To me, Infogrames is that restaurant owner, who opens up a hamburger
place, buys the McDonalds name to put it on the roof, without actually
inheriting anything from the old McDonalds. The only real connection
between the old restaurant and the new one is a few, old, hamburgers
that were left in the fridge.