Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 Uncertain Future for STO?
01-10-2011, 07:42 AM
I saw this article, and was a bit concerned over what Atari may be doing to our beloved Star Trek Online. The article can be found HERE, but for those that can't check it out, here's the C&P and I have set in bold the few parts that concern me the most:

Quote:
Atari has named a new chief executive today, promoting Jim Wilson from within to the top job as part of a plan to resuscitate the company’s struggling video game business.

Atari is the oldest brand in video games, but it has not been the most successful. The company has changed hands a few times and is now based in Paris, France. Wilson, who was deputy CEO, replaces Jeff Lapin, who is leaving the company.

For the first half of the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, the company reported revenues of $38 million, down 57 percent from $89.9 million a year ago. The company reported a net loss of $12 million, compared to a loss of $37.9 million a year earlier. That’s pretty sad for a company with a brand that goes back to the beginning of video games. Atari’s Pong ignited the video game revolution in 1972.

Wilson joined Atari’s U.S. division as CEO in 2008. He helped turn around that business and has been focused on getting things right in Europe. The company has shifted more emphasis to its digital, online, and mobile businesses. But it suffered a huge setback when Star Trek Online, made by the Cryptic Studios division of Atari, was poorly received. Atari has taken the Cryptic resources and focused them on social casual online games. Smaller games such as Faeries vs. Darklings (pictured) are the focus for the future.

“Jim has the board’s full support as he continues to drive new goals of growth and success. At the end of Jeff’s mandates, Atari is better positioned as we enter the next strategic phase of our plan,” said Frank Dangeard, Atari chairman, in a statement.

But Atari is a small fish in a pond full of piranhas. Rivals such as Electronic Arts, Activision Blizzard and Ubisoft are far bigger and have proven more adept at making hit games. Wilson will run the company’s operations from Los Angeles.
Does this mean the level of customer service and GM support we have now will be cut to almost non-existent levels? Will the prospect of future weekly episodes be hampered by the lack of developers for the game? I hope not. I enjoy this game thoroughly and purchased a Lifetime Subscription because I see myself playing this game for a long, long time. I would like to hear something from the Devs (who hopefully won't end up losing their jobs because of this!) to settle my fears and the worries of anyone else.

Also, if this has been brought up before, I apologize. If this is the case, please feel free to delete this thread.

Thank you
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
01-10-2011, 07:44 AM
Two things are basically keeping Atari afloat: logos and Cryptic. Unless they want to become a t-shirt emporium, I'd expect them to cling to STO like a lifeboat.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
01-10-2011, 07:45 AM
No to all of your concerns. Cryptic is the only thing making money for atari so what you are suggesting is the exact opposite of what they plan on doing
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
01-10-2011, 07:49 AM
Honestly I cant say im worried.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
01-10-2011, 08:44 AM
You know what's strange?

Atari's profits have moved closer to the green since Star Trek Online and Champions ONline were released. Unless you believe Backyard Baseball was responsible for that achievement, the author appears to be influenced by the criticial rating on STO and not it's commercial success. In other words, journalistic prejudice lead to speculation despite Cryptic being one of the few positive developments at Atari.

So, no, I'm not worried - partly because I've actually read Atari's investor information for the quarter and compared it to last year. The author of the article apparently didn't know these resources were available.

It's a shame I can be more informed on the topic than the author.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
01-10-2011, 09:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
You know what's strange?

Atari's profits have moved closer to the green since Star Trek Online and Champions ONline were released. Unless you believe Backyard Baseball was responsible for that achievement, the author appears to be influenced by the criticial rating on STO and not it's commercial success. In other words, journalistic prejudice lead to speculation despite Cryptic being one of the few positive developments at Atari.

So, no, I'm not worried - partly because I've actually read Atari's investor information for the quarter and compared it to last year. The author of the article apparently didn't know these resources were available.

It's a shame I can be more informed on the topic than the author.
He also seems to regard this Atari as the company that launched the Atari home gaming systems. Kinda poor research for a business reporter not to recognize that Atari collapsed and this is a French company that bought the name and trademark.

As I recall, 46% of Atari's revenue last fiscal year was Cryptic and that was early in the year. Almost all of their gains have been stateside, so I imagine Jim Wilson was in a prime position to move up and I honestly wouldn't be shocked if Jack Emmert wasn't asked to move up as CCO for Atari proper and we didn't see Cryptic become more synonymous with Atari.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
01-10-2011, 09:03 AM
STO is Atari's cash cow, poorly received or not, there's enough of us here to provide steady income. Plus with all the improvements and changes made over the months, I think word of mouth will help STO bring people who go turned away by the mediocre reviews from its release.

Although they could benefit from another hit game.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
01-10-2011, 09:13 AM
thats his baseless opinion that STO was poorly received, where are the facts? Sure it doesn't have a great amount of subs, but the cost to develop vs what they are making I am sure sto = profit.

That's just a stupid opinionated piece.

I am a critic of sto, and it isn't losing money.

i do think f2p would being more players, and id rather have 1 million people spending 5 dollars monthly on the c -store than 50k subs paying 15 a month.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
01-10-2011, 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruis.In View Post
thats his baseless opinion that STO was poorly received, where are the facts?
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/star-trek-online

In comparison:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/world-of-********

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/guild-wars

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/everquest

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/city-of-heroes

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/champions-online

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/st...empire-divided

For any who arent aware, Metacritic didnt come up with those scores, those are averages based upon reviews from other sites.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
01-10-2011, 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruis.In View Post
thats his baseless opinion that STO was poorly received, where are the facts? Sure it doesn't have a great amount of subs, but the cost to develop vs what they are making I am sure sto = profit.

That's just a stupid opinionated piece.

I am a critic of sto, and it isn't losing money.

i do think f2p would being more players, and id rather have 1 million people spending 5 dollars monthly on the c -store than 50k subs paying 15 a month.
The author probably mistook STO's critical performance for it's commercial performance.

It would be like saying the 300 film was responsible for financial troubles due to poor critical performance, despite doing very well commercially.

He's basically making an assumption without consulting the actual facts.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:49 AM.