Atari not that bothered about pre-owned

By Robert Purchese Published 4 December, 2008

Plans to make games no one would sell.

Towering Atari spokesperson Phil Harrison is not worried about the "macro-economic" impact of the pre-owned market on the industry, because he reckons Atari can create games so valuable that no one wants to trade them in.

"There's no doubt that second-hand games sales has a macro-economic impact on the industry and a lot of people get miserable about it," said Phil Harrison, president of Atari, at a worldwide press event watched by GamesIndustry.biz.

"But it's no coincidence that the most valuable games, the ones that have the most lifetime as a game experience, are the ones that don't get resold, that don't get traded.

"The games that have the embedded community, the embedded commerce, the extended, expandable experiences, are the ones that you would never want to trade, the ones you want to keep hold of. And that's perfectly in line with our future strategy so we're not that concerned about it," he added.

Atari's biggest new hitters include Ghostbusters, The Witcher for consoles and a mysterious music game from maestro Tetsuya Mizuguchi, who's been responsible for Lumines among others in the past.

The publisher also picked up Ready 2 Rumble Wii and Tekken 6, and revealed plans to revisit the Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights and Test Drive properties in the future.

Harrison, who joined Atari after being Sony Worldwide Studios boss, has learned a thing or two about development after championing games like LittleBigPlanet, and he's got a clear idea of how to deliver eye-catching and successful titles out.

"All of the mistakes I have made in software development have been based around one problem and one problem alone, which is accelerating through this pipeline without successfully and properly satisfying the requirements of each of the stages - and typically it involves going from concept to production in one jump," said Harrison.

"That's pretty much the definition of why projects fail - because you don't know what you're building, you don't know how you're going to build it, you don't know who you're building it for, but you've got 60 people working on it and they're all running in different directions - that's how most games fail.

He added: "Experiment earlier, fail more often, and fail more cheaply. This is the mantra - you want to fail early, to kill those poor ideas, but you also want to do it repeatedly and quickly so that you will eventually find those great ideas, but you want to do it as cheaply as you can so you save money."

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (30) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • PearOfAnguish #1 3 years ago

    "Harrison, who joined Atari after being Sony Worldwide Studios boss, has learned a thing or two about development after championing games like LittleBigPlanet"

    He learnt a thing or two about spouting ridiculous hyperbole, that's for sure.

  • ZuluHero #2 3 years ago

    heh its true - how quickly they learn...

    TBH it's not really a plan is it? I mean everybody strives to make better games - its not like a dev studio says, "I’m aiming for mediocrity".

    But alas - regardless of how good this 'plan' might be, a lot of end users will just continue to trade games - to save some money off the "next" experience (esp. with the current climate). Regardless of how memorable an experience the game has etched into their mind.

    EDIT: i just can't write today... :(
    Edited by 6 at 04/12/08 @ 09:16

  • mattigan #3 3 years ago

    I reckon EPIC has slipped an opening salvo against the second hand market under the radar with Gears 2, sell the game with a one time redeamable code for multiplayer maps, which once used, immediately make a second hand purchase less desirable than buying it new (of course if you play multiplayer), plus, they can offer the maps as paid DLC at a later date for secondhand buyers and make some of the money lost on full game purchases back that way.

    An elegant solution I think.

  • brooza #4 3 years ago

    I misread that as "Plans to make games no one would buy"

  • space_ace #5 3 years ago

    atari lol

  • mingster #6 3 years ago

    Well the list of games they have in the pipeline is a complete FAIL then.
    None of those games are keepers.

  • anomagnus #7 3 years ago

    surely they tag line should not be

    Plans to make games no one would sell.

    but rather

    Plans to make games no one would buy

  • anomagnus #8 3 years ago

    DAMN YOU FARTICUS, DAMN YOU STRAIGHT TO HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Eraysor #9 3 years ago

    This is the correct approach.

  • DoctorZoidberg #10 3 years ago

    Interesting how your all mocking Atari, but I bet you all have at least one Atari game in your collections that you enjoy.

  • Thunderbolt #11 3 years ago

    ^^^ Nope

  • ZuluHero #12 3 years ago

    no - i traded them all in ;)

  • kangarootoo #13 3 years ago

    He speaks much truth.

    The core priciple is the same for solving the DRM issue.

    Instead of trying fruitlessly to PREVENT people from doing X or Y or Z, create a service that gives them a REASON NOT TO.


    Funny how some of you will find fault with his comments, even though you will rant happily in other threads about evil publishers trying to stop you trading in your games.

  • Thunderbolt #14 3 years ago

    Might have something to with the fact Far Cry 2 sucked

    As for Atari I have been burned so many times from them from Driver to the Matrix to AITD. The game would have to be a AAA before I would consider purchasing it.

  • kangarootoo #15 3 years ago

    "The game would have to be a AAA before I would consider purchasing it"

    Isn't that the normal way of things though? I mean, who buys games they know are actually a bit crap, regardless of who the publisher is?

  • PearOfAnguish #16 3 years ago

    "I mean, who buys games they know are actually a bit crap, regardless of who the publisher is?"

    Ermm...me? I have some real tat on the shelves.

  • jack_klugman #17 3 years ago

    Given Harrison has only been at Atari about a year I don't imagine he's had much visible impact on the company's direction yet. It'll be interesting to see where Atari are in 2010/11.

  • Triggerhappytel #18 3 years ago

    Big Phil has the right idea here (look at how many second hand copies of CoD4 you see - I'll bet not many), but given his penchant for talking shit and Atari's publishing history, I think I'll wait to see if these comments ever come to fruition rather than taking his word for it.

  • penhalion #19 3 years ago

    So Atari have somehow kidnapped the ICO team have they. Because ICO is the only game in my collection that I never even consider selling. Even when I've blown the old games budget for the month (halved due to resession).

    @farticusmaximus

    Apologies for thinking it was you who shot down my legit comments on the mediocrety of the LBP gameplay vs all the hype that surrounded it pre-launch. Turned out to be the usual sony fanboys (you know who you are you zero credibility muppets!).

  • Thunderbolt #20 3 years ago

    'Isn't that the normal way of things though? I mean, who buys games they know are actually a bit crap, regardless of who the publisher is?'

    Well I will be getting Mortal Kombat vs DC which I know is kinda crap but hey its silly fun. But also look how many people will be buying Wii music for example.

  • sneetch #21 3 years ago

    "Towering Atari spokesperson Phil Harrison is not worried about the "macro-economic" impact of the pre-owned market on the industry, because he reckons Atari can create games so valuable that no one wants to trade them in."

    Does he know when they're going to start making these games? ;)

    I'd love to see games that are "valuable" enough that we'd never dream of selling them (not that I do) but TBH, I reckon that most of that additional value will be restricted to multi-player features. DLC could also increase the value of single-player games but it would be better as free or very cheap DLC. A lot of the DLC I've seen on Live has been shockingly poor value (looking at it as a long time PC player where we get this stuff for free).

    @mattigan
    "I reckon EPIC has slipped an opening salvo against the second hand market under the radar with Gears 2, sell the game with a one time redeamable code for multiplayer maps, which once used, immediately make a second hand purchase less desirable than buying it new (of course if you play multiplayer), plus, they can offer the maps as paid DLC at a later date for secondhand buyers and make some of the money lost on full game purchases back that way.

    An elegant solution I think. "

    A lot better than pleading with the user to not sell the game. If, as you say, you play multi-player.

    This may be a small step on a path where they sell the game with a one time key to add the game to your Xbox/PSN account, a bit like Steam.

  • Sean.Aaron #22 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    "I mean, who buys games they know are actually a bit crap, regardless of who the publisher is?"

    Add me to the list that bucks that conventional wisdom: I own a few games that I enjoy and I acknowledge their shortcomings, but I still enjoy them. One of them is Godzilla Unleashed (Atari), so there you are. I also have Namco Museum Remix, which they brought over from Namco. I'll happily support Atari's efforts under their new leadership. Just don't forget to flog the classic catalogue to death, guys!

  • Skywise #23 3 years ago

    with such a Nintendo-like attitude a bad place on the GreenPeace list seems assured ;-)

  • SilentScream #24 3 years ago

    There's a few games I've held onto.

    It'll be cool having games that are worth keeping too rather than: Buy, Complete, Sell, Repeat.

  • mingster #25 3 years ago

    Just don't make short single player games with no replay factor.
    Multiplayer is essential to get people to keep the game longer.

  • kangarootoo #26 3 years ago

    Jesus, seems like its only me then :)

    I buy games very rarely these days, as I tend to rent a lot of stuff. The games that I do buy have to be a) very good and b) have plenty of hours or replay value in them.

    I am a freak :(

  • Redeye #27 3 years ago

    As long as Atari actually pull their fingers out and get around to releasing Ghostbusters some time soon, I'll overlook the fact that, as a publishing entity, they are little more than a laughable moneypit relying on a dead company's corporate identity to keep going.

  • Sean.Aaron #28 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    "The games that I do buy have to be a) very good and b) have plenty of hours or replay value in them. "

    Well, define "very good." I don't keep a game unless it has some replay value, so even the games I think have faults are good enough that I figure I'll play them again...

  • kangarootoo #29 3 years ago

    Well, very good means that it will be fun to play. I used "and" so I require fun AND plenty of hours of said fun to be in the same bundle.

  • Slipstream #30 3 years ago

    That statement is far to ambitiopus, as nice as it would be to have a game that keeps you coming back for more, is more than just about 'the community' it's also about a unique and quality gaming experience that you would want to return to.

    Heh, and even if you achive this people would still trade the game in for something new at one point, a completley new genre and game engine, the best you could do is hope that somewhere down the line they get this game back, but it wont be a new copy I'm afraid, it'll be another pre-owned one, making you 0 profit still. Not long before people start returning to CoD4 in-fact.