Topic: Sony getting hit Hard lately

[ShyGuy]

Apparently Phil Harrison left to head up Atari. Yeah, that's right, Atari.

[MaryJane]

There was some confusion previously over Atari Inc and the Infogrames companies, which are not the same entity. David Pearce was the former CEO of Atari Inc, while David Gardner replaced Patrick Leleu at Infogrames. It is Infogrames that is the possible destination for Mr Harrison, not Atari Inc. GamesIndustry.biz would like to apologise for any confusion arising from this.

Found here: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=33463

Says he's moving on because Nintendo is winning the casual market and Sony is doing nothing to stop them... interesting.

[Caliban]

And how is going to Atari going to be any better?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Atari doesn't compete with Wii.

Phil can spout victory all he wants now.

Every press release is a reason to celebrate.

[Caliban]

Haha. I see your point.

[Ceric]

And how is going to Atari going to be any better?

Bigger Pay check, Less Work?

[MaryJane]

And how is going to Atari going to be any better?

He's not going to Atari!!! Here I'll do it again and help you guys out this time:

There was some confusion previously over Atari Inc and the Infogrames companies, which are not the same entity. David Pearce was the former CEO of Atari Inc, while David Gardner replaced Patrick Leleu at Infogrames. It is Infogrames that is the possible destination for Mr Harrison, not Atari Inc. GamesIndustry.biz would like to apologise for any confusion arising from this.

Anyway, don't forget he's going to lead Infogrames if he wants to take them in a casual direction he has the power to do so, although the stockholders may have something to say if his strategy doesn't produce Nintendo-like results.

[Kairon]

Ha. Inforgrames is the company that BOUGHT the Atari name!

[Chozo Ghost]

With Phil on board, Atari might be set to re-enter the console market.

[MaryJane]

Ha. Inforgrames is the company that BOUGHT the Atari name!

So in other words he's not going to Atari...

I actually wouldn't be surprised if he spearheaded a Wii knockoff with subtle improvements.

[KDR_11k]

Um, Infogrames and Atari are publishers, not console manufacturers. They won't make a console, just games.

[Mikintosh]

It would be a good idea to make Atari more casual-focused...it's remembered as the classic gaming king, not as the company that made "Enter the Matrix" and Dragonball Z stuff.

[Chozo Ghost]

I wonder if he will still hold a sentimental view of the Playstation line and might be biased towards it in his new role?

[MaryJane]

Um, Infogrames and Atari are publishers, not console manufacturers. They won't make a console, just games.

And Nintendo started by making playing cards...

A return to the console scene for Atari, or the move for publisher Infogrames isn't completely out of the question.

They can try to make a cheap (as in cost to manufacture not necessarily low quality) console, and cash in Nintendo style with casual games. What if they made a console that ONLY allowed casual games to be made for it? That could catch on depending on how it's done, except that I doubt most people who own a Wii would switch.

It really makes me wonder about the next Nintendo console, the casual gamers who are satisfied with the Wii the way it is, may be unlikely to buy an upgraded version just for graphics or a few new gameplay elements. Although I bet Nintendo is working on a way to counter this. Perhaps we will truly have a third pillar in the Nintendo line up, with the new console focusing more on core gamers(the sequel craving whores that we are; SSB, SMB, Mario Kart, and so on) and keep the Wii for people who will continue to play WiiSports and may pick up one or two other games in the next 5 or 10 years.

[Chozo Ghost]

Yeah. Any company could become a console manufacturer at ANY time. Sony originally only made software, but in 94 or whenever it was they broke their alliance with Nintendo and came out with the Playstation. The same is true with Microsoft who were also originally software manufacturers, but then they jumped in out of nowhere with the xbox.

So why couldn't Infrogrames/Atari do the same? The Atari brand name still holds some credibility, so if there was a new system named Atari something or other, then people would take notice of it. It doesn't need to be Atari, though. EA could jump in out of nowhere with a console, or Ubisoft, or SEGA once again...

Edit: And as a matter of fact, I think Nintendo released some of their earliest games on the Atari 2600 before they created the NES. So again, what's to stop Atari or EA or someone from deciding they can be like Nintendo and make their own console and use their own games to sell it?

[Kairon]

I can't imagine console manufacturing being appealing to ANY company right now except those already stuck with investments in it. This is high-risk, long-term, and high-tech. MS has lost billions already, the only reason they're here is because they're the only ones who can afford to lose billions over 7 years or so and not get overthrown by shareholders.

[MaryJane]

I can't imagine console manufacturing being appealing to ANY company right now except those already stuck with investments in it. This is high-risk, long-term, and high-tech. MS has lost billions already, the only reason they're here is because they're the only ones who can afford to lose billions over 7 years or so and not get overthrown by shareholders.

That's if you make a cutting-edge console, if they make a Wii clone, where they can make a profit from the first console they sell, it's no longer such a huge risk.

[KDR_11k]

Yeah but then you still have to compete with Nintendo, except you also have a huge entry fee for getting any of your games.

Hardware manufacturing isn't cheap to get into and not forgiving if you flop. It's probably more profitable to make games for all consoles.

[Chozo Ghost]

One of the big game publishers could pull it off. Imagine if EA came out with a console and then all of their games appeared only on that console and none of the other systems. I think EA has things like Madden, the Sims, and a LARGE number of other stuff which would show up on the EA system exclusively. Then if other developers join them and publish on that system then I think you've got a serious contender.

Nintendo could probably go it alone if it lost all 3rd party support, but maybe EA could too. They're very large.

[Mikintosh]

One of the big game publishers could pull it off. Imagine if EA came out with a console and then all of their games appeared only on that console and none of the other systems. I think EA has things like Madden, the Sims, and a LARGE number of other stuff which would show up on the EA system exclusively. Then if other developers join them and publish on that system then I think you've got a serious contender.

Nintendo could probably go it alone if it lost all 3rd party support, but maybe EA could too. They're very large.

No one buys a 360 to play the newest Madden, as much as they don't buy a PC just to play the Sims. (well, maybe my sister, but...)

And why would anyone join them? They probably already resent the company for its leadership position in the first place. Plus, have they ever made hardware? Ever?

[KDR_11k]

Many people buy the hardware for Madden but not every Madden buyer bought the hardware just for it. My guess would be that they'd get maybe 70% of their old userbase on the new console but that'd still be bad business.

[Deguello]

And considering Madden Sales universally dropped last year (even the 360 version sold a little less than the year previous), Madden's appeal isn't a kingmaker anymore.

[Chozo Ghost]

Many people buy the hardware for Madden but not every Madden buyer bought the hardware just for it. My guess would be that they'd get maybe 70% of their old userbase on the new console but that'd still be bad business.

Imagine they do get 70%. Then add the revenue they'd generate from hardware sales (they'd have to sell it for a profit like Nintendo does). And to top it all off, they wouldn't have to pay licensing or development fees to any other company, because they own their own hardware. So I think even with a 30% loss in sales they'd still make more profit. Plus they would make more if they can draw in 3rd party support and collect license fees...

[MaryJane]

3rd party support would be the bigges hurdle, the current console makers struggle with it to this point. They're scared of competing with Nintendo's 1st party titles, scared of losing money on a big budget PS3 game, and Microsoft gets the best support for being set firmly in the middle, yet rarely get exclusives (at least not anymore).

EA, Atari, or any others would have a lot to prove to other publishers to get them to make solid(exclusive and good) titles for their console.

[NWR_insanolord]

Many people buy the hardware for Madden but not every Madden buyer bought the hardware just for it. My guess would be that they'd get maybe 70% of their old userbase on the new console but that'd still be bad business.

Imagine they do get 70%. Then add the revenue they'd generate from hardware sales (they'd have to sell it for a profit like Nintendo does). And to top it all off, they wouldn't have to pay licensing or development fees to any other company, because they own their own hardware. So I think even with a 30% loss in sales they'd still make more profit. Plus they would make more if they can draw in 3rd party support and collect license fees...

The problem with that logic is that if EA were to make a console it would certainly be at least at the same level graphically as the 360. Microsoft is selling the 360 at $400 and they're taking a loss on it, which means EA would have to charge more than that. Nobody is going to pay more than that for a console that only plays EA games.

Also, Nintendo's quality and diverse selection of games is only part of the reason they were able to survive the latter halves of the N64 and GameCube's lives. The other part is a very devoted fanbase that didn't abandon the platform when things got bad, something that EA doesn't have.