Author: 0 (0)
Date: -0
Everyone seems to want to ramble on about Hasbro resurrecting Atari's name for software, all that's going to do is ressurect Atari's
past successes like PONG, Centipede and Missile command etc, Now in
their day, yes that were great games etc. but even updating them to
32/64/128 or 256 bit standards for graphics/gameplay etc isn't going to
help them compete with the like of Tomb raider, Quakes , bango kazooi,
Sega rally dreamcast etc. because Atari has only a limited ammount of
titles to select from, what going to happen when these dry up, where are the next sales going to come from, perhaps Atari should start selling old ocean or usgold or activision s/w or horror of horrors old CBM64 software from CBM themselves, or colecovision, nes or Sega MD or MS software- do you want this to happen don't you
After all if youv'e followed Atari history in software publishing, you'd
know that Atari triedf this type of thing with Atarisoft (converting
Atari hits to c64 speecy, amstrad,apple pc etc) and Atari Interactive
(converting Atari hits to PS, Saturn and PC) and these futile attempts
at getting Atari known as a software developer were only remarkable for
their apparent failiures and also because they eventually lead to Atari
being bought out or being sold off as a going concern
I accept the fact that Atari failed because of BAD MGMT (Warners &
Tramiels resperctively) ABSOLUTELY no consistant and cohesive sales &
marketing stragedgy or plans (Tramiels only), or total lack of product
knowledge (Warners again) but the 2 main reasons why Atari failed is
A- Atari wasn't prepared to invest in the very technology that it had
created, and this was reflected in the fact that heaps of projects were
either scraped or put on indefinate hold this is because Atari was
ingnorant about the technology it had created, and if one is ingnorant
of what one has, then how can you invest in ingnorance (this applies to
both the tramiel and Warner managements- And because Atari wasn't
prepared to invest in it's own technology, it therefore couldn't
advance the developoment of it's own products and therefore it's own
technology, which basically turns Atari from a creator and
pioneer/inventer in these technologies, into little more then a mass
manuf.. of electronic boxes with outdated technology, very much in the
same guise of the mentallity of virtually every manuf. of games systems
and computer technology.. ie selling masses of plastic boxes with
outdated technology, without intending to update or advance the product
or in the very least it's technology... Who is conning who, the
manufacturers conning the end users, or is it the other way round
After all, it's an established fact that consumers are a fickle bunch,
and they no longer have the same loyalty for brands these days as they
once did, if that was so then why are Jap co's like sega sony nintendo,
dominating an industry, ultimately created by Atari, because- it cant be
the technology- because these other manufacturers are essentially
putting Atari technology and design concepts, into theri own plastic
electronic boxes, without advancing the development of product or it's
technology, and if sega nintendo and sony stay on the same course any
longer, they themselves will end up in the same situ. at our beloved
atari, ie as a software producer
It's going to need a TRUELY ressurrected Atari (H/W and ALL) to breath
some much needed life into a very stale and staid industry, and do
something that the Atari of old and also these other so called games h/w
manufs. haven't done and never did, and that's simply that Atari has to
invest in the technology that it creates and to do that Atari needs to
have confidence in the products, and instead of wasting money in
ineffective advertising and marketing (which is what all previous Atari
managements are guilty of), they should invest that money in advancing
this new found technology, into modern standards, or tommorows
standards, after all I remember someone telling me that technology
designed today, or tommorow only lasts for ONE day
It's just a shame that no-one company has learned from Atari's mistakes
and folly, they may think they have but they haven't
After all, you can take a look at any company product or service
(doesn't have to be computers or v/g's) and just have a look at how the
company views the product or service, after all if you don't have a
prod. or svc. you have nothing to sell, nothing to sell= no business,
the mistake that companies make these days, is that they've got to
modify their sales/marketing, or they've got the snowball the
consumer/end user with advertising, or that they've got to change their
customer service/customer care program (if they have one) now I admit
that these areas of business are very important, but what modern
business (Atari included) has overlooked and there fore the most
important, is the product or service and USP's/features and benefits are
all well and good, but if you are not investing in the future
development of your companies product or service, then USPs, features
etc are irrelevant and pointless, also why should the consumer buy your
products, after all the ultimate investor in any idea, product or
service is the person or persons that buy's the idea/prod. or svc, this
is called the consumer. and not the company doing the selling.. After
all as the consumer is the ultimate investor, surely the consumer has a
vested interest in the future development of that product or service,
after all the consumer has just invested money in the company, the
consumer needs confidence that the company will invest these funds
effectively, and looking at it logically, if the company isn't
interested in investing in advancing the development of the product or
service and in the p/s related technologies, then will the consumer come
back tommorow and buy the companies product again, what do you think
(after all would you buy the same product using the same technology
fromn the same comnpany say in 20 years or in 2 months from now, when
you know that their competitors have vastly better products, and they
are investing in advancing development of their p/s and related
technologies- I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD), by investing in the product and
it's technology and development, you are investing in future custom,
future custom= more investment in advancing development and technology
in their p/s, only once this is investment framework is
firmly established, then the company then can start investing in
supporting the product, in regards to marketing, advertising, sales,
customer service/care etc, and not the other way arround, which is what
virtually every single company is doing including those outside of the
computing and v'g h/w ind.. After all if companies follow their current
path they will be doing nothing more then making little more then
electronic plastic boxes with outdated technologies, with a very limited
market potential, youv'e all heard of the old saying about flogging dead
horses and ever decreasing circles, think about it each time you go
arround the block, selling the same prod. and each time you do this,
they investment you get (ie people buying the product) isn't being
invested in the godds/services themselves the more times you go arround
the less you sell, you#ll get to the point where your'e not selling, as
you have no product as it's now like flogging dead horses
Tied in with this reason, i refer to a listing that i saw in an American
Business Directory (those Dunn & Bradstreet type jobbies), I remember a
listing for a US company i think it was a small incorporated cloting
company, had a look at it's personnel listing (8 snr vice pres. 5 Exec.
vice pres. 15 vice pres) now your most probably saying, so what, now if
this is for a small cloting co. I'd hate to think of what the numbers
would look like for a larger US multinational- for just one of the US
offices, take a guess 4, 5 or 6 x, or how about 10 or 20 x, and remember
that these people people were hired and put into these positions of
responsibility because they were good at making 'DECISIONS', now think
of this structure, a manager, he has to report to a manager, he then
reports to a manager, who reports to a manager, in another department,
who reports to a manager, her then reports to a manager, who reports to
a manager in another department, and so on and so forth till you get to
the top, and just imagine this same process happening when one
department needs a decision on a new idea in advancing devlopment in
existing product(s) and it's related technology, all it needs is one
manager, be it a VP, SVP or EVP from the same dept, or a related dept or
even a total unrelated dept who have alterior motives to say no, and
that wipes out the entire efforts of one or several entire
divisions/dept... and for what, short term prestige/gains, what about
the long term, what about the continued survival of their product in the
face of competing products (from companies with lesser rigid structures
and also beleive in investing in their p/s future advances and
developement), and not only thant but how will this other company
survive, whats going to happen to the structure of decision making, the
future of their product (so far as advances and deveopments are
concerned), creativity and commitment to the company itself, all that's
going to happen is people will leave, because the company isn't
interested in the product and it's future the people will not have faith
or confidence in the direction the company is taking, it's decision
making process, there will be no creativity and therefore no committment
Essentially the companies structure becomes beaurocratic and therefore
area's like creativity, product advancement and development, decision
making and committment are stifled, to such an extent it drives people
to leave, which is ironic because, wasn't it these very same people
that got the company and the product/service to where it is today, and
remembering the concept about the consumer being the ultimate investor,
if this is so then the penultimate investor is the employees (who have
as much vested interest in the future developement and advancement in
the companies product/service)and what happens when they leave, everyone
moves up one, but the problems stay the say, and because virtually all
companies have the same philsophy, are these people who are leaving,
going to join their competitors, i don't think so, all that will happen
is that they will set up their own company, selling the same prod/serv.,
wtih the same technology (because they don't yet have the investment to
advance the tech.) so straight of the bat they allready in a hole facing
an uphill struggle to compete with est'd names, in an ever decreasing
market (I was once told that the average market share for any new
entrant to any market for the first 5 years is the equivalent to the
ammount of brain capacity as used by human beings which is less than
10%, my thought is, is it realy worth it) and because more and more
companies are competing for less and less market share (in the same
market-ie USA etc) all it will need is a foreign competitor to advance
and develope the same product with new technologies, and actually invest
in it- and they've virtually got the market sown up, because existing
users aren't going to wait while their current suppliers start advancing
their product, irrespective and regardless of the quality or their
sales/marketing/advertising/customer care/service, because as you
remember consumers are very fickle, they want the latest thing, which
means they will go with whichever company is prepared to invest in it's
own product (thru advances in product/service development and related
technologies-thus investing their customer investment
wisely/effectively), so therefore theres always going to be a decline in
so call brands loyalty- You cannot compute, eat, see or sleep image, or
marketing or sales or advertising or customer service/care, these are
things that are earnt or created as a resulting of investments made by
the consumer, the only way you can create or earn image, marketing,
sales ,advertising or customer service/care is by investing in your
customers confidence and faith in the future advances and development in
the prod./serv., and the only way a self respecting company can invest
in this concept, is by doing so.... but no-ones doing so, so ultimately
instead of going forward into the '3rd Millenium' we might as well go
back to the 1st millenium
Atari failed simply because of what I outlined above, little of no
investment in advancing their product and related technologies, little
or no creativity, no commitment to atari's concepts, to beaurocratic,
you might as well say that virtually every company involved in video
games h/w of s/w was born and created on the back of Atari's technology,
and unless they change their ways they will suffer the same indignity
Yes, we are still using Atari technology, but it's in someone elses
plastic electronic box, sold just like baked beans, jeans, perfume...
wheres the sense in that... I though Atari's represented computers and
video games h/w with a personality- ie Atari technology in Atari boxes,
and not someone elses, BUT with Atari investing in the future advances
and development of their (ATARI'S) product and it's related technologies
The second reason why atari failed is because the American consumer
simply gave up on Atari, they didn't like the idea about Atari, an
American company dominating an industry that Atari itself had created,
so they showed their support to ATARI, by buying sega, nintendo and
eventually sony or to put it another way buying, Atari technology in
someone elses boxes
interesting when you consider that Sony, Sega & nintendo are JAPANESE
companies, and I am constantly told that American's cant stand buying
JAP goods (talk about contradiction big time), and according to most
european and US computing press and commentary during the tramiel era,
it was the European markets (incl.UK) that was keeping Atari going (or
at least alive and surviving) whilst you American's were content in
buying Sega sony and nintendo, or buying, Atari technology in someone
elses boxes
perhaps I am wrong, there again I live in a so called democratic country
(England) so i guess with the so called freedom of speach concept (what-
freedom of speach- democracy- england, you are joking aren't you) anyway
I guess i'm entitled to my opinion, even if others don't neccessarily
aggree... But in saying that, as anyone who has an ounce of HUMAN
intelligence will know, sooner or latest this internet thing with simply
become an unweildy authority with an unweildy institutionalised
mentallity
Yours
Carmel A
|
why did hasbro bother 3 new
