Atari Flashback Classics for the XB1/PS4

[cimerians]

 

I did the same going from Colecovision to C64 but instead of going to NES I went to an Amiga 500 & then Sega Genesis. Weren't Nintendo & Coleco in talks to bring the CV to Japan but couldn't agree on cost per unit? Who knows? Maybe the NES would have been the Colecovision II.

 

 

It seems Japan...err... Nintendo loved the CV:

 

http://www.glitterberri.com/developer-interviews/how-the-famicom-was-born/deciding-on-the-specs/

[AAA177]

Question for Mr. Loguidice,

 

This may have been answered in the thread, forgive me if it already has been (but I didn't catch it), but is there going to be another announcement about an Atari Flashback 7?

 

Also, I was curious about a couple other items. Do the original programmers/designers of these games earn royalties from the Flashbacks and software compilations? Are any of the rights to these titles that are on the collections (or not) owned by investment entities (private equity or otherwise)? I always assumed that maybe some IP rights for games that are not on these compilations might be in the hands of other corporations. I'm curious if there was a way to raise funds to get the rights to certain games (maybe ones that were on the 5200 or other systems).

[Bill Loguidice]

Question for Mr. Loguidice,

 

This may have been answered in the thread, forgive me if it already has been (but I didn't catch it), but is there going to be another announcement about an Atari Flashback 7?

 

Also, I was curious about a couple other items. Do the original programmers/designers of these games earn royalties from the Flashbacks and software compilations? Are any of the rights to these titles that are on the collections (or not) owned by investment entities (private equity or otherwise)? I always assumed that maybe some IP rights for games that are not on these compilations might be in the hands of other corporations. I'm curious if there was a way to raise funds to get the rights to certain games (maybe ones that were on the 5200 or other systems).

 

Yes, there will be two new Atari hardware products from AtGames, including a Flashback 7. In terms of royalties, as far as I know Atari has the rights free and clear at this point. The only time royalties might come into play would be with homebrew stuff.

 

The present Atari still has rights to several games across all their classic platforms, so there's always the hope for the future (just not necessarily in hardware, but software; I can't really say anymore).

[Andromeda Stardust]

Question for Mr. Loguidice,

 

This may have been answered in the thread, forgive me if it already has been (but I didn't catch it), but is there going to be another announcement about an Atari Flashback 7?

 

Also, I was curious about a couple other items. Do the original programmers/designers of these games earn royalties from the Flashbacks and software compilations? Are any of the rights to these titles that are on the collections (or not) owned by investment entities (private equity or otherwise)? I always assumed that maybe some IP rights for games that are not on these compilations might be in the hands of other corporations. I'm curious if there was a way to raise funds to get the rights to certain games (maybe ones that were on the 5200 or other systems).

Programmers were paid a salary to write software. They have no ownership of the code nor get any percentage of royalties. Atari's policy of not paying royalties to programmers was what led many to break off from Atari and create their own 3rd party studios. Activision and Imagic I believe were both founded by ex-Atari devs.

[Flojomojo]

Also, I was curious about a couple other items. Do the original programmers/designers of these games earn royalties from the Flashbacks and software compilations? Are any of the rights to these titles that are on the collections (or not) owned by investment entities (private equity or otherwise)? I always assumed that maybe some IP rights for games that are not on these compilations might be in the hands of other corporations. I'm curious if there was a way to raise funds to get the rights to certain games (maybe ones that were on the 5200 or other systems).

Are you talking about licensed games, such as Pac-Man (Namco) and Space Invaders (Taito)?

[Atariboy]

Programmers were paid a salary to write software. They have no ownership of the code nor get any percentage of royalties. Atari's policy of not paying royalties to programmers was what led many to break off from Atari and create their own 3rd party studios. Activision and Imagic I believe were both founded by ex-Atari devs.

 

Not always the case.

 

Solaris for instance doesn't seem to follow the standard format which is why it has only appeared so far on the original Atari Flashback which only utilized recreations running on a NOAC rather than original 2600 code. That implies that the corporate legacy of Atari only owns the copyright to the game title, concept, and so on while the original game code rests with the programmer, Douglas Neubauer.

 

Not only do I believe that this has been explained around here in the past, but the cartridge label clearly demonstrates the dual copyright ownership for this release.

 

 

I've never given this one much attention although I intend to change that one of these days, but it's a real shame to see it continually be absent. It's a technical showcase for the 2600 and seems to be the high point of the 3rd generation of 1st party 2600 games given the fondness often seen for it around here while many other late 80's/early 90's releases are viewed as mediocre at best.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Atariboy

[Andromeda Stardust]

With all due respect Atariboy, That was a very late release 2600 game so Atari did change it's corporate policy at some time to allow for royalty payments. It may have been as early as the release of Pacman, but my memory is rusty. I'd have to reread Business is Fun.

 

I'm sure there must be some legal loophole or statute of limitations as even if development teams got cuts from games, I somehow doubt every developer who ever worked on a game were given cuts decades later whenever it reappeared, ie for classics compilations or Virtual Console releases. I'm no lawyer so I have no clue on the legal aspects. A ton of great licensed IP got held back and even removed in some cases due to rights issues.

[Flojomojo]

Solaris is the exception to the rule, and as KS says, it came along VERY late in the cycle, as did Secret Quest which has a Nolan Bushnell credit.

 

If you look at every Activision VCS game manual, you'll see a bio of the designer, including a photograph and some quotes. That was just not happening at Atari. Look up "Ray Kassar towel designers" for some tales about how game developers were treated in those days.

[AAA177]

Are you talking about licensed games, such as Pac-Man (Namco) and Space Invaders (Taito)?

 

Generally speaking, yes, but I suppose in these specific cases, the ownership is clear (as well as the reason for not being able to license them -- i.e., the advances would be too high; AtGames would have to make a deal whereby there would be no/little advance). I was also thinking about smaller titles, like Montezuma's Revenge, Miner2049er, B.C.'s Quest for Tires, stuff like that -- you have to wonder if some of these games are held by smaller investment companies, thus making a small advance more feasible. But I don't really know, I am not an expert on this stuff.

[Atariboy]

With all due respect Atariboy, That was a very late release 2600 game so Atari did change it's corporate policy at some time to allow for royalty payments. It may have been as early as the release of Pacman, but my memory is rusty. I'd have to reread Business is Fun.

 

I wasn't saying that releases such as this were commonplace, just that they were in fact there.

[Bill Loguidice]

 

Generally speaking, yes, but I suppose in these specific cases, the ownership is clear (as well as the reason for not being able to license them -- i.e., the advances would be too high; AtGames would have to make a deal whereby there would be no/little advance). I was also thinking about smaller titles, like Montezuma's Revenge, Miner2049er, B.C.'s Quest for Tires, stuff like that -- you have to wonder if some of these games are held by smaller investment companies, thus making a small advance more feasible. But I don't really know, I am not an expert on this stuff.

 

We generally can't pursue something like a BC's Quest for Tires that has more than one layer of rights (all releases need to be legally defensible, which is why AtGames is very strict about what they license). And yes, it's generally more cost-effective to deal with a single rights holder with lots of games than a rights holder with just one game. Some exceptions might be made if the IP is particularly impressive, meaning it's fairly well-known both by the general public and avid gamers, e.g., Battlezone, although that still doesn't mean it would work out.

[Flojomojo]

 

Generally speaking, yes, but I suppose in these specific cases, the ownership is clear (as well as the reason for not being able to license them -- i.e., the advances would be too high; AtGames would have to make a deal whereby there would be no/little advance). I was also thinking about smaller titles, like Montezuma's Revenge, Miner2049er, B.C.'s Quest for Tires, stuff like that -- you have to wonder if some of these games are held by smaller investment companies, thus making a small advance more feasible. But I don't really know, I am not an expert on this stuff.

 

Someone needs to write a good FAQ about this. Someone who knows, like a licensing IP lawyer or someone like that. I have the same question.

[jhd]

 

And yes, it's generally more cost-effective to deal with a single rights holder with lots of games than a rights holder with just one game.

 

In general terms, how does one ascertain who the current copyright holder of a legacy IP is? Corporations dissolve and people die -- often leaving rights in limbo. Someone owns them, but they may not even be aware. In the book publishing world, these are called "orphan works", and there is specific legislation in Canada (at least) to provide a mechanism to address unknown/unlocatable copyright owners.

 

I remember one situation in the early-1990s where a former programmer wanted to release his 1970s-vintage software into the public domain, but needed permission of the successor of his corporate employer. Well, company A had been purchased by company B, and subsequently by company C. Each firm wanted only to acquire the then current IP, but they got the legacy rights as well.

 

Company C flatly denied that they owned anything from the 1970s; indeed the firm did not then exist. Frustrated, the programmer just went ahead and released "his" software, reasoning that if the firm denies that they own the copyright, then they are not going to sue him.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

Someone needs to write a good FAQ about this. Someone who knows, like a licensing IP lawyer or someone like that. I have the same question.

Yes. Too many gamers are spoiled by our piracy of ROMs for free and basically giving a big middle finger to copyright law. Keatah knows what I'm talking about...

 

That will fly for something like a MAME cab where you buy a kit from one vendor, download the open source software for free, and then get ROMs from your favorite WAREZ repository. It's a three-step process where each party is essentially covering their own ass by declaring the end user is ultimately responsible for his or her own infringement.

 

With a multi-in-one plug-n-play manufactured by a reputable company and sold through traditional retail channels, generally with the goal of raking in profit, each game or IP rights must be acquired and licensed through the proper channels. A C&D order or lawsuit could spell bankruptcy for a small fish swimming in a sea of corporate sharks.

[Flojomojo]

I'd like to see old abandoned software go free (as in speech and as in beer) after a certain amount of time if no one steps up to enforce their copyright.

 

What do you think would be an appropriately long period of time? As of this writing ...

20 years (N64, PlayStation, Saturn)

25 years (SNES, Genesis)

30 years (NES, SMS)

35 years (Atari VCS, Intellivision, Colecovision, classic arcade)

 

We all know of commercial attempts to monetize stuff from all these eras -- but only certain titles. I feel that Atari is pushing it, especially after so many times at bat with this ROM set, even though it's totally their legal right to do so.

[Bill Loguidice]

 

In general terms, how does one ascertain who the current copyright holder of a legacy IP is? Corporations dissolve and people die -- often leaving rights in limbo. Someone owns them, but they may not even be aware. In the book publishing world, these are called "orphan works", and there is specific legislation in Canada (at least) to provide a mechanism to address unknown/unlocatable copyright owners.

 

I remember one situation in the early-1990s where a former programmer wanted to release his 1970s-vintage software into the public domain, but needed permission of the successor of his corporate employer. Well, company A had been purchased by company B, and subsequently by company C. Each firm wanted only to acquire the then current IP, but they got the legacy rights as well.

 

Company C flatly denied that they owned anything from the 1970s; indeed the firm did not then exist. Frustrated, the programmer just went ahead and released "his" software, reasoning that if the firm denies that they own the copyright, then they are not going to sue him.

 

I can only speak in the one instance I know and that's try and identify who owns what and then make sure all of the contracts are in place. It's nothing more sophisticated than that, i.e., take reasonable precautions, have the paperwork in place, and make sure the onus is on the ones claiming they own whatever it is you're licensing.

 

I still think it's not safe for most businesses to utilize even what are clearly abandoned IPs, because you never know who will acquire rights in the future and cause trouble. I do agree though that it would be wonderful to have a rights database so legitimate companies (and homebrewers for that matter) could make use of as many classic properties as possible. It would be a win-win for all sides.

[Bill Loguidice]

I'd like to see old abandoned software go free (as in speech and as in beer) after a certain amount of time if no one steps up to enforce their copyright.

 

It's a multi-layered issue I think, and there are what would otherwise seem to be straightforward cases that are not necessarily all that straightforward. Let's take Frogger, for instance. For new Frogger games to be made, even emulated ones, you have to remove the music since that's a separate, no-longer-available, license (and it wasn't exactly properly licensed in the first place). So we'd need something that covers videogames, music, movies, TV, books, etc., and there's probably no good way to do that. The current copyright system stinks, but I don't think it will be all that easy to fix it considering the monumental commercial interests involved. Just look at what Disney did to the copyright system.

 

Thanks to Jason Scott, I was reminded of this article the other day as it relates to who owns what with the original Donkey Kong: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134790/the_secret_history_of_donkey_kong.php

 

Messy, messy, stuff, even for stuff that we take for granted, i.e., x owns y, when in reality it's not necessarily all that clear.

[cimerians]

 

 

Thanks to Jason Scott, I was reminded of this article the other day as it relates to who owns what with the original Donkey Kong: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134790/the_secret_history_of_donkey_kong.php

 

Messy, messy, stuff, even for stuff that we take for granted, i.e., x owns y, when in reality it's not necessarily all that clear.

 

 

I keep forgetting about this.....Ikegami Tsushinki developed some classics, I didn't know they also did Zaxxon and Congo Bongo. Amazing skills. I wonder what happened to all those programmers. Truly deserving for some recognition for bringing to life someone else's ideas which is basically the structure today (Designer(s) + programmers = game). Zaxxon and Congo Bongo were graphically amazing back then. Pretty fun too.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

It's a multi-layered issue I think, and there are what would otherwise seem to be straightforward cases that are not necessarily all that straightforward. Let's take Frogger, for instance. For new Frogger games to be made, even emulated ones, you have to remove the music since that's a separate, no-longer-available, license (and it wasn't exactly properly licensed in the first place). So we'd need something that covers videogames, music, movies, TV, books, etc., and there's probably no good way to do that. The current copyright system stinks, but I don't think it will be all that easy to fix it considering the monumental commercial interests involved. Just look at what Disney did to the copyright system.

 

Thanks to Jason Scott, I was reminded of this article the other day as it relates to who owns what with the original Donkey Kong: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134790/the_secret_history_of_donkey_kong.php

 

Messy, messy, stuff, even for stuff that we take for granted, i.e., x owns y, when in reality it's not necessarily all that clear.

So the actual game code in Donkey Kong is tied into a copyright dispute, meaning even if Nintendo wanted to release Donkey Kong as Virtual Console Arcade title, or even if they went third party or make dedicated plug 'n' plays using the arcade code, they wouldn't be able to do so???

CONGRATULATION !IF YOU ANALYSE DIFFICULT THIS PROGRAM,WE WOULD TEACH YOU.*****TEL.TOKYO-JAPAN 044(244)2151 EXTENTION 304 SYSTEM DESIGN IKEGAMI CO. LIM.

[cybercylon]

 

So the actual game code in Donkey Kong is tied into a copyright dispute, meaning even if Nintendo wanted to release Donkey Kong as Virtual Console Arcade title, or even if they went third party or make dedicated plug 'n' plays using the arcade code, they wouldn't be able to do so???

CONGRATULATION !IF YOU ANALYSE DIFFICULT THIS PROGRAM,WE WOULD TEACH YOU.*****TEL.TOKYO-JAPAN 044(244)2151 EXTENTION 304 SYSTEM DESIGN IKEGAMI CO. LIM.

 

I've wondered why we haven't seem the arcade original as well on the VC, but it sounds like it would be a bit messy to settle things out.

[Atariboy]

I wouldn't assume that the source code issue remains for Donkey Kong.

 

We've never been privy to the results of their settlement from over 25 years ago. Nintendo certainly had the financial resources and respect for its IP to seek a settlement to yield them clear title to Donkey Kong and any other affected arcade classics. And there was nothing to gain for Ikegami Company by hanging on to any rights to that old source code.

 

They were out of the gaming business at that point as I understand it and they only controlled the copyright to the source code and thus couldn't just go out and do something with it even if they wanted to without Nintendo. The only value there to Ikegami after winning a lawsuit would be to sweeten the pot by having those rights change hands in return for a larger settlement.

 

Is it not emulated in its 2005 Namco arcade rerelease form? I've played on one of these and saw nothing that showed any indication that anyone but Nintendo controlled the rights to this content. And we have seen the arcade original in a roundabout way on the Wii U Virtual Console thanks to Donkey Kong 64, although I don't personally know if it's a recreation from scratch, a port of original code, or emulation.

 

Either way, we simply don't know much of anything about the rights to this title since the trail goes cold over a quarter of a century ago.

Edited July 2, 2016 by Atariboy

[Andromeda Stardust]

I wouldn't assume that the source code issue remains for Donkey Kong.

 

We've never been privy to the results of their settlement from over 25 years ago. Nintendo certainly had the financial resources and respect for its IP to seek a settlement to yield them clear title to Donkey Kong and any other affected arcade classics. And there was nothing to gain for Ikegami Company by hanging on to any rights to that old source code.

 

They were out of the gaming business at that point as I understand it and they only controlled the copyright to the source code and thus couldn't just go out and do something with it even if they wanted to without Nintendo. The only value there to Ikegami after winning a lawsuit would be to sweeten the pot by having those rights change hands in return for a larger settlement.

 

Is it not emulated in its 2005 Namco arcade rerelease form? I've played on one of these and saw nothing that showed any indication that anyone but Nintendo controlled the rights to this content. And we have seen the arcade original in a roundabout way on the Wii U Virtual Console thanks to Donkey Kong 64, although I don't personally know if it's a recreation from scratch, a port of original code, or emulation.

 

Either way, we simply don't know much of anything about the rights to this title since the trail goes cold over a quarter of a century ago.

The Donkey Kong N64 thing is not the original arcade game First time around (or was it second loop), you have to rescue the N64/Rareware coin logo instead of Pauline. They obviously scripted the game physics and mechanics, and got a good feel for it, but the fact that they replace Pauline with a N64 or Rareware logo (I forget which) tells me they're not running original arcade code.

[Atariboy]

It has been so long since I unlocked it that I really didn't remember.

 

I rather suspected though that it was a recreation from scratch since coding an emulator for a single title is more effort than just simulating it the old fashioned way.

[Andromeda Stardust]

It has been so long since I unlocked it that I really didn't remember.

 

I rather suspected though that it was a recreation from scratch since coding an emulator for a single title is more effort than just simulating it the old fashioned way.

On the flip side, there is a rather nice NES emulator built in to the Everdrive N64. The AV (on my CRT) is actually cleaner than my stock NES. Still no replacement for the real thing though.

[negative1]

looking over the games,

i would probably get volume 2 over 1, since the arcade games i like are on there.

 

also, hoping some kind of achievement lists come out.

 

later

-1