Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Atari Purchases Cryptic Studios For $26.7 Million

Posted by Soulskill on from the rare-positive-mmo-news dept.

Trevor DeRiza writes "Early this morning, Atari announced that they had purchased US MMO developer Cryptic Studios for an initial 26.7 million USD, along with a possible 20 million USD bonus for future performance. Cryptic has three games coming out in the next three years: Champions Online (2009), Star Trek Online (2010), and a secret project (2011). All three will now be released under the Atari logo." This is welcome news in light of all the recent troubles in the MMO market.

25 of 45 comments (clear)

  1. a secret project by u4ya · · Score: 2, Funny

    ooooh... do I see a duke nukem forever mmo in the works?

    1. Re:a secret project by brygl · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pong Forever?

  2. Champions Online by Metapsyborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hopefully Champions Online gets some additional funding due to this buy out. It could be a really awesome game if it gets enough funds. Cryptic and Jack Emmert designed City of Heroes and they learned from the mistakes made in that game. If Atari can just keep from meddling in the development cycle of CO (ie pushing it out too soon or trying to WoW-ify it), they might have a great game.

    --
    (\(\
    (^.^) INFECTED
    (")")
    1. Re:Champions Online by Bieeanda · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Emmert was basically a developer only in name, and he was the only one of the main City of Heroes developers to remain with Cryptic after CoX was sold to NCSoft. Not to mention that they've brought Bill Roper on, one of the idea men who leapt from Blizzard and sank to the bottom with Flagship.

      Assuming that Champions will be worth the plastic it's pressed on, just because the Cryptic name is involved, is like assuming that Tabula Rasa would be good because Richard Garriott was involved. Or, more accurately, assuming that the Tekwar novels would be good because William Shatner acted in science fiction parts.

    2. Re:Champions Online by Cthefuture · · Score: 1

      Looks interesting. I remember playing the Champions paper-and-pencil RPG back in the 80's (in fact I still have the rule books). I have no idea if this game is related to that in any way.

      Apparently I'm most similar to Doctor Destroyer. He reminds me of Magneto which I have to admit has always been my favorite Marvel character.

      --
      The ratio of people to cake is too big
    3. Re:Champions Online by Metapsyborg · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Tabula Rasa received a poor reception largely because it was released prematurely. A classic management error that is seen in every sector. "Talent" is usually just given the bare minimum of time to create a product before it is pushed out the door. I enjoyed the game, the same as I enjoyed Auto Assault and Saga of Ryzom. Just because a company has declared them not profitable enough to continue supporting, doesn't mean they were bad games. The "masses" are not known for their good taste in art or media.

      Of course Jack stayed with Cryptic, he basically founded the company. City of Heroes was his project for years and the other developers (who are now working for CoH with NCSoft) were brought into his project. There were many years where Jack was the lead developer of City of Heroes. I'm not too sure of his level of involvement with Champions, but the fact that he created the only other MMO in this genre means something in his favor.

      --
      (\(\
      (^.^) INFECTED
      (")")
    4. Re:Champions Online by urulokion · · Score: 1

      Crypitc bought out the Champions IP from Hero Games. Champions Online is not a MMORPG set to Hero Systems rules. It's has it's own set game fules. The only things that will be partially recognizable will be the NPCs and organizations. And I say partially because they are mangling the Champions source material. The more I found out about it, the more I'm turned off. AT the moment, I'm not going to to touch it until free trials become available.

    5. Re:Champions Online by FnordX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny, I thought it didn't do well because it wasn't fun.

      Guess us "masses" should just sit down, shut up and buy what people tell us, even if we don't like it.

      --
      ____________________
      Clouds in the Sky,
      Water in a bottle
    6. Re:Champions Online by vjmurphy · · Score: 1

      Or, more accurately, assuming that the Tekwar novels would be good because William Shatner acted in science fiction parts.

      This sentence makes no sense. Are you implying that something Shatner did was not good? Emmy-award-winning William Shatner, the man who defeated God in Star Trek V?

      I was with you until that point...

      --
      Vincent J. Murphy
      Spandex Justice
    7. Re:Champions Online by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that they've brought Bill Roper on, one of the idea men who leapt from Blizzard and sank to the bottom with Flagship.

      Oh god, if Bill Roper is there it is most likely doomed to failure. Can you say "flagshipped"? I used to really admire the guy, but after the clusterfuck that was Hellgate London and his refusal to take any responsibility for it's failure and demise, I will never again buy a product made by him.

      And CoH and CoV were really good games. I do have a lot of hope for the DC Universe, but it could end up sucking if Atari ruins it. Also, the trailer for Star Trek looks very nice.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    8. Re:Champions Online by etogre88 · · Score: 1

      That's too bad it had to happen like that though, that's all that anyone is saying.

    9. Re:Champions Online by Psychochild · · Score: 1

      Did you actually play Tabula Rasa, or are you just basing this on what other people (that is, "the masses") have said? There isn't one universal definition of "fun" because it's a very personal and subjective thing. I actually find TR to be quite fun, personally, but I know that there are people who disagree. Does that mean they're right and I'm wrong, or vice-versa? No, it's just that we have different tastes.

      This is why game design is very hard, because you have to anticipate what a lot of people will find fun. This also explains why we see so many clones and sequels instead of original games: because it's easier to copy an existing game that has been proven popular than to try to create something new that nobody is sure about. One of the hardest lessons a professional game designer has to learn is that your tastes in fun aren't universal; if you're fortunate, enough people will share your tastes in fun, though.

      I believe the parent post's point is not that "the masses" need to STFU and enjoy what someone says is good, rather that "the masses" don't speak for everyone and thus the opinion of the masses shouldn't be taken as gospel. Further, the grandparent post's point works with this as well: people don't always know what's good or not, they tend to use mental shortcuts like looking at a particular individual on the team or going along with the groupthink on a topic.

      Games, and especially online games, are a team effort. One person's contribution is only part of the whole, even in a leadership position. So attributing a game's success (or sometimes failure) to a single person misses the mark.

      Some thoughts from an online game developer.

      --
      Brian "Psychochild" Green
      MMO developer's blog
  3. Can't possibly be any good. by DreamsAreOkToo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sorry if I sound especially critical, but almost all MMOs just aren't worth playing. Not only are they expensive ($50 + $15 a month), but they also require huge time demands, so typically people have especially high standards.

    If the company is producing three in tandem, I can't see how they could possibly finish all the content and polish an MMO needs.

    1. Re:Can't possibly be any good. by grahamd0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the company is producing three in tandem, I can't see how they could possibly finish all the content and polish an MMO needs.

      Three distinct teams?

    2. Re:Can't possibly be any good. by bdenton42 · · Score: 1

      And if nothing else, saying that having three projects in development at once means they will all suck is ridiculous. Blizzard is working on at least that many projects right now.

      Blizzard has $100M to $150M revenue coming in every month, which is a ton more potential development funding than a company that is worth only $26M is capable of.

    3. Re:Can't possibly be any good. by CrashPoint · · Score: 1

      [MMOs] also require huge time demands...

      That isn't really true anymore. City of Heroes, for example, is a very easy game to play in short bursts. MMO's have been trending towards casual-friendliness for a good few years now.

      Well, American ones have, anyway. I think the Asian games are still in the "you will spend ten hours questing with a carefully chosen selection of classes and LIKE IT!" mentality.

  4. Re:atari HAS 47 million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, this is Atari in name only. The brand has been handed around for some years, and now Infogrames owns it. They've been slapping it on stuff to try to cash in on the nostalgia factor. Atari of today has absolutely nothing in common with the console maker of yesteryear.

  5. Re:Sharing my first experience by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Funny

    [citation needed]

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  6. Re:atari HAS 47 million dollars? by grahamd0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am surprised Atari still exists, even more so that it has tens of millions to invest.

    Atari, the company that made those cartridges you remember, doesn't exist. The name is still around, and they've published some good titles.

    I played Champions online at Gen Con, it looks pretty cool. I wouldn't be surprised if it prints money for them.

  7. MMO's are fine. by Inominate · · Score: 1

    The MMO market is fine and is growing.

    It's relatively easy to build a player base even in a bad game. For an MMO to truly fail requires a staggering chain of bad decisions and mismanagement. Tabula Rasa is an ideal example of it.

    One of biggest mistakes made is to try and compete with World of Warcraft.

  8. Re:atari HAS 47 million dollars? by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Informative

    They went bankrupt, that only thing that is still the same about Atari is the name.

  9. 2009, not 2010 by Swordopolis · · Score: 2, Informative

    STO is projected for a late 2009 release, and nothing I've seen related to this merger has changed that.

    --
    Alchemist: Be Thou For the People
  10. Denny Crane by Technopaladin · · Score: 1

    he is Brilliant as Denny Crane

  11. Re:atari HAS 47 million dollars? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    It did more or less go bankrupt after the 2600 had fully closed up shop. It petered along as little more than a name and a P.O. box, then started getting into publishing and distributing other people's work, and that's where there big money nowadays comes from. Hence buying the guys who built City of Heroes (yes, NCSoft did do a successful MMO) and a few other successful things ahead of their next superhero game, Trek Online, and whatever the secret project is.

    A bit of a stretch, but if they can learn from Eve: Online and Star Wars: Galaxies about what to do and not to do with a SF-based MMORPG, they should be ok.

    I don't even know if Eve did anything wrong, now that I think about it, aside from mechanical stuff like stability and, of course, lag issues (does the screen still, 4 years later, have to freeze for 2 seconds every time I open a new window?)

    SW:G, though, don't get me started. That was a SW wrapper aound a standard MMORPG with very little Star-Warsy about the gameplay whatsoever. Because, if you'll remember from the movies, nothing says Star Wars like running around grasslands killing thousands and thousands of giraffe-thingies, which, for some reason, can give 5 guys with blasters and 1 guy with a flame thrower a good, serious 60-second tussel.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  12. Re:atari HAS 47 million dollars? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

    I don't even know if Eve did anything wrong, now that I think about it, aside from mechanical stuff like stability and, of course, lag issues (does the screen still, 4 years later, have to freeze for 2 seconds every time I open a new window?),

    now that you mention it:

    * Boring missions
    * Grind (yes, GRIND! for Rep & ISK)
    * Confusing UI
    * Ugly-ass ships
    * meaningless character portrait
    * the meat of the game being unfun on its own.
    * too clear and too short a line between "safe" and "dead"

    So, yes, aside from all of those things, CCP didn't do anything wrong with Eve. (They did a fair bit RIGHT, but they did a hell of a lot wrong.)