New Atari Console that Ataribox?

[tschak909]

You're deflecting from my point. Really wanting to hold onto that dream, aren't you?

 

-Thom

[bojay1997]

 

Just like most of Atari's systems or 2600 games. They were done by someone else. Lynx, ST....What's with all of the Fox news hatred here. This is common practice and has been sense, well forever.

The difference is that Atari in all of those examples was a legitimate company with hundreds of employees, including engineers and other technical people who had real expertise. The current incarnation of Atari is nothing but a shell company that controls some IP and lacks any technical expertise. I mean, at least Ouya and Gamestick and other similar projects were created by actual engineers and hardware people and not by a marketing company that just was looking to slap its logo on something.

 

On a related note, your constant references to Fox News are offensive. Real journalists are skeptical and critical. Fox News is partisan and could care less about getting to the truth of matters. In this instance, you are far more "Fox News" than any of the rest of us given your unbridled passion for a non-existent product.

[tschak909]

The difference is that Atari in all of those examples was a legitimate company with hundreds of employees, including engineers and other technical people who had real expertise. The current incarnation of Atari is nothing but a shell company that controls some IP and lacks any technical expertise. I mean, at least Ouya and Gamestick and other similar projects were created by actual engineers and hardware people and not by a marketing company that just was looking to slap its logo on something.

 

On a related note, your constant references to Fox News are offensive. Real journalists are skeptical and critical. Fox News is partisan and could care less about getting to the truth of matters. In this instance, you are far more "Fox News" than any of the rest of us given your unbridled passion for a non-existent product.

 

^^ THIS.

[+KaeruYojimbo]

OMG people, let the tacos Fox News comparisons go. This is almost as old as my underwear (which is pretty old). Now back to the the Ataribox.......

[+KaeruYojimbo]

 

Just like most of Atari's systems or 2600 games. They were done by someone else. Lynx, ST....What's with all of the Fox news hatred here. This is common practice and has been sense, well forever.

 

The 2600, 5200 and 8-bit computer hardware was all developed in-house by Atari engineers. Most of the first-party 2600 games were done by in-house Atari programmers. It wasn't until several years in that Atari started shopping development out to GCC.

[The Historian]

The difference is that Atari in all of those examples was a legitimate company with hundreds of employees, including engineers and other technical people who had real expertise.

And Apple started with two guys in a garage selling a build-it-yourself kit.

 

As many have said this isn't the Atari of old. It's a new company, trying new things in new ways.

Edited November 30, 2017 by The Historian

[bojay1997]

And Apple started with two guys in a garage selling a build-it-yourself kit.

 

As many have said this isn't the Atari of old. It's a new company, trying new things in new ways.

Yes and one of those guys was an amazing engineer and the other was a marketing genius. You're correct that this isn't Atari at all. It's a totally unrelated company that owns some of the old IP and is looking to cash in on it in whatever manner is most profitable.

[Osgeld]

Yes and one of those guys was an amazing engineer and the other was a marketing genius. You're correct that this isn't Atari at all. It's a totally unrelated company that owns some of the old IP and is looking to cash in on it in whatever manner is most profitable.

 

and neither one of them had a case designed before the computer, that wouldn't come until the second generation of the product

[The Historian]

Yes and one of those guys was an amazing engineer and the other was a marketing genius. You're correct that this isn't Atari at all. It's a totally unrelated company that owns some of the old IP and is looking to cash in on it in whatever manner is most profitable.

It's not uncommon for companies to trot out the same old IP out over and over again. How many systems can you play Mario World on? or Final Fantasy? Or Sonic? The "Hasbro Interactive" Atari did it too.

 

and neither one of them had a case designed before the computer, that wouldn't come until the second generation of the product

My point is if you've got nothing you've got to start somewhere. Yeah, right now Atari is an IP farm but it doesn't have to stay that way.

Edited November 30, 2017 by The Historian

[Keatah]

But they don't have the creative and engineering talent. So they are likely to stay the same.

[Bill Loguidice]

My point is if you've got nothing you've got to start somewhere. Yeah, right now Atari is an IP farm but it doesn't have to stay that way.

 

There's a long way to go from that to being internally engineering/development-minded. However, I agree, it's not impossible, particularly how things are done these days. As I've expressed earlier, I do think there's a hard cap on how successful something like this can be, but, if executed well, it can certainly be a stepping stone. Nothing wrong with that.

 

 

 

It's not uncommon for companies to trot out the same old IP out over and over again. How many systems can you play Mario World on? or Final Fantasy? Or Sonic? The "Hasbro Interactive" Atari did it too.

 

This is true to a point. Using Nintendo as an example - since they re-use IP more than anyone - they generally go the route of creating a new game, even if it's just a minimal iteration on what came before it. The less desirable yang to this Yin is generally going the route of reissuing the same exact versions of the same exact games. Until the presumption that Atari is going to include Atari Vault in the Ataribox is disproven - or it's shown to be just one of several inclusions - then they're playing in that less desirable zone.

[leech]

This isn't the Atari of old. It isn't even the Atari of 25 years ago. Atari today are a bunch of dicks in suits, and all of the apologists need to come to grips with this.

 

-Thom

This reminds me of a particular scene in Big Mouth on Netflix. And if you haven't watched that, and you have a sick sense of humor, you REALLY should...

[leech]

The difference is that Atari in all of those examples was a legitimate company with hundreds of employees, including engineers and other technical people who had real expertise. The current incarnation of Atari is nothing but a shell company that controls some IP and lacks any technical expertise. I mean, at least Ouya and Gamestick and other similar projects were created by actual engineers and hardware people and not by a marketing company that just was looking to slap its logo on something.

 

On a related note, your constant references to Fox News are offensive. Real journalists are skeptical and critical. Fox News is partisan and could care less about getting to the truth of matters. In this instance, you are far more "Fox News" than any of the rest of us given your unbridled passion for a non-existent product.

Real Journalists are a very rare breed indeed!

 

But totally. So maybe someone got a copy of the Gimp (they didn't want to spend on Photoshop) and mocked up the Ataribox case, then another marketing/sales guy got a hold of AMD and struck a deal with them. Then another guy created a twitter bot... so that's 3 employees, I thought they had 10? Guess one has to repeat the word Branding every chance he gets.

[Osgeld]

Real Journalists are a very rare breed indeed!

 

But totally. So maybe someone got a copy of the Gimp (they didn't want to spend on Photoshop) and mocked up the Ataribox case, then another marketing/sales guy got a hold of AMD and struck a deal with them. Then another guy created a twitter bot... so that's 3 employees, I thought they had 10? Guess one has to repeat the word Branding every chance he gets.

 

well, you forgot the interior designer buying all the new ikea shit

[leech]

 

well, you forgot the interior designer buying all the new ikea shit

"Where'd you go, Ikea Boy?" "I felt like destroying something beautiful."

 

What I find kind of funny about this discussion.

 

I recall in the height of the Genesis / SNES era when Sony had first announced that it was getting into the Console business. Magazines all around were saying they'd fail, and no one would buy their platform because everyone knows Nintendo and Sega are dominating. My opinion then was "But Sony has the money to push/market it!" And the PSX is one of the most successful platforms ever, and they're here generations / iterations later.

 

Atari right now doesn't have the mega bucks that Sony did to power through any of the doubt though...

[CPUWIZ]

Next person who injects politics into this thread, will be permanently removed from it.

 

 

[+Nathan Strum]

Question: if you had a choice of eithe all 2d games or all VR games, which would you prefer?????

 

I'm assuming you mean for the Ataribox, rather than just in general?

 

It wouldn't be VR. I think VR is an interesting technology, but I really dislike the headsets. I can tolerate them for a few minutes, but then the novelty wears off, and I prefer to step back into a real world where I don't have my head encased in a bulky, heavy thing that reminds me of orthodontic headgear with a brick attached to it.

 

Once someone can make the headset as lightweight as a pair of glasses, and the hardware to drive it wireless (or the size of a smartphone - rather than a backpack), then I'll be more interested in VR as a viable gaming option.

 

 

So given only that choice, I'd prefer 2D.

 

Even then, it shouldn't be all 2D. Any modern console should be able to handle 2D and 3D - especially at a $300 price point. Presumably, the Ataribox will. For all I know, it will microwave popcorn, too. I have no idea.

 

 

I play games on my iPad more than on any console. I have access to tens of thousands of games - 2D and 3D. All genres and styles. From Indie developers to huge studios. At any and all price points. It's portable, powerful, and also useful as a web browser, media player, and a whole host of other things. I can take it anywhere, or connect it to my TV. And, you can get one for $299. And it's far from being the only device like that on the market.

 

If I did want to get into console gaming again, I would've picked up a PS4 on Black Friday for $199. Even now, they're still only $299 - with Star Wars: Battlefront II. There are similarly priced Xbox One and Switch deals out there, too.

 

Price-wise, this is what Atari is trying to compete against. And all of those platforms have a massive, established user base, and active, current software libraries.

 

 

I still play classic games a lot (nearly all 2D) - and I play them in emulation, or on my original consoles. I already have all of that, so if the Ataribox is about emulation, it's already redundant.

 

I wouldn't pay $300 for any console or gaming device unless the software was already there. And in the case of everything else on the market - it already is. Atari has nothing in its library that isn't already as common as dirt. Whether in emulation, or on a Flashback, or as a Taco Bell giveaway, or on their own website. They have marketed the same handful of games over and over again to death. They don't have any in-house game developers (that I'm aware of). And unless they've got some really amazing new, exclusive software to announce at the time of their crowdfunding campaign, and some serious commitment from established developers, I can't see how they're going to market this, apart from the nostalgia factor of it being a new "Atari" console.

 

What's the hook that will make people spend $300 on an Ataribox, when there are so many other established options out there? They'd better have something up their sleeve.

 

Maybe they're going to throw in a free Speaker Hat™.

[Flojomojo]

[+frankodragon]

[BiffsGamingVideos]

I still think Atari should start dialog to sell to Microsoft or Google or Facebook (an American company) or even Dell or HP. Then release an AtariPhoneTM (I am claiming that name) that is compatible with the console. It could be dual use, Android and AtariBox.....AndroidBoxTM(I am claiming that name too).

Edited November 30, 2017 by BiffsGamingVideos

[dj_convoy]

Really sick of being told that critical thinking is somehow bad.

[JBerel]

Really sick of being told that critical thinking is somehow bad.

Sheep get nervous when the other sheep don't just say "baaaaaaahhhhh."

[+x=usr(1536)]

Really sick of being told that critical thinking is somehow bad.

Dude, you totally don't have to worry about any of that! Just look at our awesome brand! It's awesome! And it's a brand! Totally awesome!

 

I'm hedging on taco futures ahead of the Ataribox for the foreseeable future.

Edited December 1, 2017 by x=usr(1536)

[+x=usr(1536)]

Something I want to mention re: preproduction console hardware: until the first devkits are sitting on programmers' desks, there's no way to know what the final hardware will look like. And even then it can still be a crapshoot.

 

Of course, Atariboxcorp, Inc., doesn't need to deliver devkits since anyone can install gcc and the appropriate libraries on a Linux box if it didn't come installed with them to begin with. Just know which compiler flags to throw at it at build time, and you too can make your very own Ataribox game!

 

Here's the problem with that approach: making a video game that people are likely to want to actually buy requires game developers, and, strangely enough, they usually expect to be compensated for their not-inconsiderable investment of time and effort in developing said game. Then there are royalties and bonuses to figure out... Oh, and distribution, too. Just because it's squirting down the Intertubes into your Ataribox doesn't mean that it's free to develop or deliver it to said device.

 

Now, I'll admit that all of this assumes that there is an actual device to deliver it to, but I'm playing devil's advocate here, so bear with me on this one.

 

Who will be developing software for the Ataribox?

 

All of the other practical considerations aside, I have yet to hear one developer - established, indie, or otherwise - make any sort of announcement regarding their commitment to the platform.

 

I'm willing to stretch to the idea that they can pull off the emulation part and attendant frontend out of Kickstarter or seed fund money - but if there's nothing at launch time other than a bunch of titles that people already have or have access to freely, then there's no compelling reason to not buy delicious, delicious tacos instead.

 

And no, media streaming is not a value-add these days; we're no longer in 2007 so it's just something you sort of expect to be there. And, if it isn't, no big deal, because you probably already have 27 other devices that do that already.

 

Even if they get this thing to market, it's like they only kinda/sorta grasp the realities of the market as it is today. There're some modern approaches to it going on, but so many more that are stuck in a decade-old (or older) model - at least, from what we can be derived from the lack of meaningful communication.

[CPUWIZ]

This is just a social experiment, to see who the poopie-heads are.