For those who are interested in such things, here is Atari's 2010 - 2011 1st Quarter financial report: Report

Enjoy!

*Edit* Just a reminder, Atari's fiscal year (this one) runs from April 1,  2010 to March 31, 2011. If you do not keep that in mind, the dates in the reports can get confusing.

So basically, they're still drowning. No surprise.

The only thing that intrigued me was this" Changes in the management team with two new members joining the board of Directors: Atari’s co-founder Nolan Bushnell

So Infrogrames actually managed to get the guy who created the REAL company "Atari". Be interesting to see if even he can turn them around.

Originally posted by eyeswideopen

So basically, they're still drowning. No surprise.

The only thing that intrigued me was this" Changes in the management team with two new members joining the board of Directors: Atari’s co-founder Nolan Bushnell

So Infrogrames actually managed to get the guy who created the REAL company "Atari". Be interesting to see if even he can turn them around.

   It's actually not a bad move on their part, fiscally speaking; they now have a more legitimate claim to the Atari name, and along with the other guy they hired just a while back (his name escapes me, but he's known for turning troubled companies around), they might be able to get some better damage control going. As far as losing money goes, yes they still are; however, they are losing far less money now than they were in previous fiscal years.

Originally posted by Dinendae

Originally posted by eyeswideopen

So basically, they're still drowning. No surprise.

The only thing that intrigued me was this" Changes in the management team with two new members joining the board of Directors: Atari’s co-founder Nolan Bushnell

So Infrogrames actually managed to get the guy who created the REAL company "Atari". Be interesting to see if even he can turn them around.

 

   It's actually not a bad move on their part, fiscally speaking; they now have a more legitimate claim to the Atari name, and along with the other guy they hired just a while back (his name escapes me, but he's known for turning troubled companies around), they might be able to get some better damage control going. As far as losing money goes, yes they still are; however, they are losing far less money now than they were in previous fiscal years.

 Atari Net Revenue of €19.3 million for the 1st quarter of fiscal year 2010/2011 vs. €54.5 million in the prior year

they made 35 million euros less, and there losing less money? i dont understand dinedae? theres something im missing here.

Originally posted by Dinendae

Originally posted by eyeswideopen

So basically, they're still drowning. No surprise.

The only thing that intrigued me was this" Changes in the management team with two new members joining the board of Directors: Atari’s co-founder Nolan Bushnell

So Infrogrames actually managed to get the guy who created the REAL company "Atari". Be interesting to see if even he can turn them around.

   It's actually not a bad move on their part, fiscally speaking; they now have a more legitimate claim to the Atari name, and along with the other guy they hired just a while back (his name escapes me, but he's known for turning troubled companies around), they might be able to get some better damage control going. As far as losing money goes, yes they still are; however, they are losing far less money now than they were in previous fiscal years.

Might not be a bad idea, to get one of the founders involved again worked fine for Apple at least. 

Once Atari made pretty good games, now they make crap so back to basics might turn things around even if it is a different world today. On the other hand it might not.

Originally posted by raistalin69

 

 Atari Net Revenue of €19.3 million for the 1st quarter of fiscal year 2010/2011 vs. €54.5 million in the prior year

 

 

they made 35 million euros less, and there losing less money? i dont understand dinedae? theres something im missing here.

    That's because you're not looking at the entire picture outlined in that report, in conjunction with their prior reports. You need to remember that this was intended to be a very lean quarter for them, as they really didn't have any launches; they even stated as much in previous reports. With no games launched during this quarter to really speak of (remember that STO launched the previous quarter), there would of course be little in the way of revenue generated.  That is why this quarter is, fiscally speaking, far worse than last year's.

    However Atari reduced the amount of loss last year to just a fraction of what it had been, and it looks like they will do so again. It may not be enough to save them (it seems to be a race against the clock), and the limited number of game launches scheduled for 2010 will not help matters (and may lead to them rushing more games out of the door), but at the moment it is a step in the right direction for them.

   The interesting part of that report for me are the retail versus online sales numbers; they seem to indicate a fundamental shift in Atari's marketing, moving away from retail and towards selling the games themselves (which we first saw them really do to a great extent with the Ghostbusters game). That is a smart move on Atari's part, if they can keep those percentages up; more online sales, especially games sold directly by Atari themselves, means that they get the full game price instead of just a fraction of the price like they would with a retail store such as Walmart or Gamestop. That has to be playing a big part in their loss reduction.

Originally posted by Dinendae

       The interesting part of that report for me are the retail versus online sales numbers; they seem to indicate a fundamental shift in Atari's marketing, moving away from retail and towards selling the games themselves (which we first saw them really do to a great extent with the Ghostbusters game). That is a smart move on Atari's part, if they can keep those percentages up; more online sales, especially games sold directly by Atari themselves, means that they get the full game price instead of just a fraction of the price like they would with a retail store such as Walmart or Gamestop. That has to be playing a big part in their loss reduction.

I hate to break it to you but retailers make no profit on game software, and if they want to bring shoppers in with a bargain on the game price they will take a minor loss.  Although I have no doubt that it does lower the costs, since there is no need to spend money on the production costs for placing their product on the shelf.  They could also offer " back up " discs and make a small margin on those too. 

Originally posted by thinktank001

 

I hate to break it to you but retailers make no profit on game software, and if they want to bring shoppers in with a bargain on the game price they will take a minor loss.  Although I have no doubt that it does lower the costs, since there is no need to spend money on the production costs for placing their product on the shelf.  They could also offer " back up " discs and make a small margin on those too. 

    Try that one on someone who didn't run a store; if retailers didn't make a profit on games, they wouldn't stay in business. It may not be a big enough profit in your mind, but a profit is made. The deal we had with our distributor saw us getting up to a 50% discount on most merchandise, after a certain amount had been ordered for that year (not all that much either). What you're talking about is more along the lines of Walmart, which is known for making deals with huge orders, and then undercutting the competition.

   The one deal that immediately comes to mind was when D&D's 3.5 books came out; Walmart made a special deal with WotC, order a ton o those books, and then sold them in its online store for (if I remember correctly) $17.49 per book. As I recall from a friend who managed a (electronic) game store (Babbage's) that had ordered some of those books, that was below the price they paid for those books (I think he said they paid $17.99 for them, about 50% off the cover price). However, we're talking about a store that is known for intentionally undercutting the competition to drive them out of business, and then raising the prices back up. Ironically when the D&D 3.5 rulebooks shipped, Walmart let their customers know that the books would be a month late.

   Specialty stores such as Gamestop do make a profit off of videos games, or they just wouldn't survive. Granted there are some items where they barely see any profits on, such as specialty items (think of those collectable figuers, such as the ones WoW has), but on the game store's primary sales (games) they do indeed see a profit. That is why companies such as Atari are trying to get into digital distribution themselves; that way they see the full game prices when someone buys directly from them, instead of a percentage of the sale that they would see when distributors and retail stores get involved.

Originally posted by thinktank001

Originally posted by Dinendae

       The interesting part of that report for me are the retail versus online sales numbers; they seem to indicate a fundamental shift in Atari's marketing, moving away from retail and towards selling the games themselves (which we first saw them really do to a great extent with the Ghostbusters game). That is a smart move on Atari's part, if they can keep those percentages up; more online sales, especially games sold directly by Atari themselves, means that they get the full game price instead of just a fraction of the price like they would with a retail store such as Walmart or Gamestop. That has to be playing a big part in their loss reduction.

 

I hate to break it to you but retailers make no profit on game software, and if they want to bring shoppers in with a bargain on the game price they will take a minor loss.  Although I have no doubt that it does lower the costs, since there is no need to spend money on the production costs for placing their product on the shelf.  They could also offer " back up " discs and make a small margin on those too. 

 i didnt realize that the many shops that only sell video games are doing  so at a loss (which must be huge considering retail lease prices these days) just so we can get games and the game makers have somewhere to sell them. what kind hearted people to set up stores at a huge loss for us.

/sarcasm off