Jump to content
IGNORED

Atari failure


mvirtuale
 Share

Recommended Posts

If they had not produced the jaguar and they immediately put the vga lynx, things would have been different.

In this way, it would be like having 2 console in one.
In my opinion, this is the sole cause of the failure.

Many speak of battery life, but the WonderSwan with a stack lasted most of the game boy.

 

What do you think about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Un-lol as the VGA is '87 while the Lynx '89 so yes it was around .... not that it would have mattered with only 160x102 pixels on screen.

 

 

Simple encoder (with support for SVideo and composite) like CXA1145 in use since at least '85 would have been good enough although without pixel doubling (both H and L) it would have looked very small in the middle of the screen covering barely 25% of the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was some large screen Lynx demo units built at that time. They did not exactly fit inside a Lynx.

 

Sorry about misleading info about the VGA. My Amiga was using SCART RGB monitors and most old home computers relied on composite video. But Amiga is 5 years older than the Lynx.

Edited by karri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main reason it failed was because of the Nintendo Gameboy.

I think there was a feature on the Lynx that was unnecessary, mainly the option to flip the console screen to suit lefties.

They should have included 4 fire buttons instead and drop the flipping option.

How many arcade machines couldn't you play cause you were left handed?

Just my two cents of course.

BadPricey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the cheap crap from Nintendo which made the Lynx a failure, green blurry screen, that's what the Americans wanted.

 

By that time the Americans lived in Nintendo gaga land, anything quality produced from US didn't stand a chance.

 

But on the other hand, the quality ratio of games on Lynx when compared to Lame Boy, is far higher. There's not really a bad title on Lynx, but there's plenty on GB.

Edited by high voltage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the cheap crap from Nintendo which made the Lynx a failure, green blurry screen, that's what the Americans wanted.

 

By that time the Americans lived in Nintendo gaga land, anything quality produced from US didn't stand a chance.

 

But on the other hand, the quality ratio of games on Lynx when compared to Lame Boy, is far higher. There's not really a bad title on Lynx, but there's plenty on GB.

 

As much as I wanted to believe this in Lynx's heyday, let's be honest with ourselves ... no one cared about "ratios of quality games". The GameBoy had every major developer making every major title for it, the Lynx did not. The GameBoy had Nintendo's marketing muscle and franchises. The Lynx did not.

 

There's also the reasonable arguments over battery life and that the device could slip quietly into one pocket and came with an addictive pack in as well.

 

I totally get the Lynx on technical merits, but to suggest that the Lynx shouldn't have failed given these circumstances is very much a revising of history.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the original Gameboy have a vibrant home brew community (I honestly don't know). Does it have new games popping up every now and again? Does it have the McWill screen mod? Lynx wins in the end?

 

Of course it wins in the end. It is fun to program, has good hardware. It is much better than Gameboy. I think. Actually I have never played Gameboy. So my opinions don't count ;)

 

But from the two consoles I own the PSP is the better one and Lynx comes second.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynx with a VGA wouldn't have changed much. It's not really the right resolution to play on big monitors (as i've discovered recently.)

 

Nintendo had the price, the production and availability, and the marketing, in time for holiday season 1989. The lynx didn't have the units in time, the games, or the marketing clout to get off on the right foot.

 

Like with the Jaguar, it would have needed the bulk of it's existing library early on to truly have a chance (as well as more units at a better price.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the original Gameboy have a vibrant home brew community (I honestly don't know). Does it have new games popping up every now and again? Does it have the McWill screen mod? Lynx wins in the end?

 

Of course the Gameboy has a homebrew community, although with hundreds of released games commercially there's plenty to play even without ever considering homebrew. There are also screen mods to add a backlight. But then there's also the Gameboy Advance SP which has a much better display and which is way more portable than both the Lynx and the original Gameboy.

 

By that time the Americans lived in Nintendo gaga land, anything quality produced from US didn't stand a chance.

 

 

It was about the games, price and battery life. The Lynx didn't outsell the Gameboy in any country. There were lots of quality games on the Lynx, but the Gameboy had the franchises which were popular at that time.

 

Think a 2600 or 7800 cart adapter might have helped Jaguar early on? Instant 100's games ready to play.

 

 

That's something that would've made sense later (Atari was working on a VCS emulator). But people new to the Jaguar wanted to play next-gen games, not ancient 8 bit ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remind me what having a TV Out option on later models of the PSP did for it in the PSP vs DS war? PSP there being the technically superior device. i say this as a PSP and DS owner (well my DS actually damn well died on me today but...)

I was a Lynx Mk 1 and MK 2 owner as well as a Game Gear Owner and still have the GB i was given as a gift-hate the wretched thing personally...
But it really did tick all the right boxes:Small enough to fit in the pocket, long batt.life, very clever advertising by Nintendo and just a mountain of software support.
By the time Sega had secured it's 3rd party support, there was little left for Atari to have and i refer you to comments from likes of Ian Stewart (Gremlin) as to why they never did more than just the 1 Lynx game (Switchblade 2).It never sold enough for Lynx to be considered a commercially viable platform.
Maybe had atari actually delivered key games like:Rolling Thunder, Cabal etc instead of plastering them in promo.magazines etc, more people might have bought 1.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And regarding being able to play 2600/7800 games on it...

 

Well since it's suddenly very much the fashion to quote John Carmack, who was indeed a big fan of Lynx Hardware:

 

'..Having last years games on your new system does'nt help..it was tried before on Genesis with Master system plug-in, SNES was going to have NES compatibility...nobody cares about last years games'

 

(That from:Boot Interview )

 

 

'The Atari Lynx showed how it should be done years ago:A memory mapped frame buffer, a reasonable CPU, a blitter co-processor and unfied memory.Large form factor and short battery life were it's problems.Several more backwards systems have unfortunately been produced since then'

 

Voodo Extreme Interview Sept 2000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And regarding being able to play 2600/7800 games on it...

 

Well since it's suddenly very much the fashion to quote John Carmack, who was indeed a big fan of Lynx Hardware:

 

'..Having last years games on your new system does'nt help..it was tried before on Genesis with Master system plug-in, SNES was going to have NES compatibility...nobody cares about last years games'

 

(That from:Boot Interview )

 

Nintendo Wii sold with GC support for some years. PS2 supported PSX games. PS3 supported both PS2 and PSX games. DS and DS Lite supported GBA games. And that's not counting downloadable classics like Legend of Zelda on 3DS, Those systems sold very well so being able to play older games sometimes help. I'd say it's more of hit or miss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the BC factor, for myself it's been 'nice'...PS1 games looked better played on PS2 and PS3 and saved me having to dig out the PS1, but it was never a huge factor in why i bought a PS3 (won my 1st PS2, was given my 2nd for free).

 

I did put a lot of use into the GB Player on the GC though so that was very much a hit for myself.

 

Nowadays companies are very keen to sell us last few gen gens tarted up in HD collections etc, but with state it's in know? i'm not looking at PS4 thinking..fantastic i can play slightly better looking versions of Dark Souls 2, TLOU, GTA5 etc.

 

But yes over the years it's been hit/miss a nice feature to have, but i've never really seen people i know buy a new system based on fact it can play older games, it's always been the flashy, mega-hyped new titles that have drawn them in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nintendo Wii sold with GC support for some years. PS2 supported PSX games. PS3 supported both PS2 and PSX games. DS and DS Lite supported GBA games. And that's not counting downloadable classics like Legend of Zelda on 3DS, Those systems sold very well so being able to play older games sometimes help. I'd say it's more of hit or miss.

 

True, but the Wii was essentially an enhanced GC, thus adding backward compatibility didn't increase the price much. PS1 and PS2 are only one generation apart. GC and PS1 games were also still on the store shelves. PS3 was powerful enough to emulate PS1 in software. PS2 backwards compatibility contributed to the high price tage of the PS3 so it was removed in later models. DS and GBA were just one generation apart, so old games didn't look too outdated ;)

 

There is at least a two generation gap between the Jaguar and the 2600. Atari was already being ridiculed for putting out too many games that looked like 16 bit titles. Launching a VCS adaptor together with the Jag would've diminished the Jag's reputation as a next-gen console even more. Releasing a software emulator with dozens of games included would've been ok and apparently Atari was thinking about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never considered the Lynx a failure. It had a lifespan of several years and many great games. Was anyone ever pissed off over having 70+ games to choose from? Did Atari actually lose money on this system?

It was an expensive toy with expensive games and a need for batteries. It was the Lamborghini of portable game systems. The Gamboy was the Toyota Corolla, it was affordable in every way so of course it sold more than all the color systems combined at the time.

Go back 25 years ago and no one in their right mind would have taken a pea green GB over a Lynx, Game Gear or Turbo Express. It was a Toyota vs. Lamborghini, Porsche and Ferrari.

Failure would be something like the Virtual Boy with literally a handful of games. Maybe a year after its release, I bought mine brand new for $20 bucks. There were mountains of them at places such as Walmart, Toys R Us and Babbage's for no more than $25 and they weren't flying out the door at that price either. How much did Nintendo lose on that system? How many consumers initially spent nearly $200 and ended with about 14 games to choose from?

Don't know if it is true or not, but I read where Nintendo stooped to forcing stores to take VB stock in order to receive N64 consoles.

Edited by Turbo-Torch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...