New Atari Console that Ataribox?

[+x=usr(1536)]

Something that absolutely must be understood:

 

IGG's terms of service expressly indicate that IGG is completely indemnified from any potential problems between the fundraisers and the backers.

 

Read that a few times, underline it until it makes a hole in your paper.

 

Couple this with the simple fact that money is transferred when the whole fundraiser ends, and you'll realize that by the time the backers understand that they've been fucked over, they have almost no legal recourse.

 

save a class action lawsuit.

 

(I will inject a bit of social commentary in here, and a prediction, WHEN Freddy and his bunch are fingered as scam artists, nothing will happen to them. Very simply, it's because Freddy did not raise money from traditional investors (aka RICH people), but from a crowdfunding source (aka NON-RICH people)... furthermore, I also predict that Frederic and his executives will do everything they can to distance themselves from this campaign, indicating that the aforementioned Atari Connected LLC subsidiary that was expressly set up to fund this outright scam, was merely a licensor of Atari's name, and basically pin the whole mess on Michael Arzt.)

 

-Thom

 

I suspect that, after The Register's release of the interview audio, this has already started to happen.

 

The way Arzt handled that interview had to cause a shitstorm of embarrassment within Atari SA. It also rather conveniently handed Chesnais the scapegoat he needed to pin the Ataribox campaign's failures on in the form of Arzt, and Arzt gave himself over on a platter.

[godslabrat]

"Hey, it's not a scam until they take money!"... then they raise three million dollars.

 

"Hey, it's not a scam until they don't deliver"... and then they don't deliver. See: Gameband.

 

"Hey, it's not a scam if they tried to deliver"... as evidence of people ejecting from the project before the crowdfunding even ends arises.

 

How far can we take the willful ignorance?

[tschak909]

Given the quality of political discussion? to infinity, and beyond.

 

-Thom

[MotoRacer]

"Hey, it's not a scam until they take money!"... then they raise three million dollars.

 

"Hey, it's not a scam until they don't deliver"... and then they don't deliver. See: Gameband.

 

"Hey, it's not a scam if they tried to deliver"... as evidence of people ejecting from the project before the crowdfunding even ends arises.

 

How far can we take the willful ignorance?

 

Challenge accepted.

 

 

"Hey, it's still Atari if the company is named Atari still"

 

"Hey, they said ____ so ____ is true because Atari is my sick obsession because nostalgia"

 

"Hey, you disagree with me, and I know deep down inside you're right, but that makes me feel week and fragile in a cruel and unkind world. So I'm going to personally attack you over a box of plastic with no silicon inside"

Edited June 26, 2018 by MotoRacer

[AtariLeaf]

 

So I'm going to personally attack you over a box of plastic with no silicon inside"

 

If it's plastic and silicon they're after might I suggest Candy's Emporium of Heavenly Delights just off the interstate.

[+x=usr(1536)]

You guys know where I stand, as I've said it before. I know what to expect going into it. What I'm concerned about though, is all of the negativity may end up causing the entire thing to fail, which I tend to think some people may secretly want it to... for the sake of an "I told you so..." not suggesting the three of you feel that way (I don't know, but I assume not). I just don't want it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, so to speak.

 

I think most of Atari SA's actions have been somewhat of a... an understanding of where they stand... which is very limited resources, but lots of great ideas. Seems like they want this to work, but are short on resources, don't have their PR campaign refined, etc. So they're thinking big on a shoe-string budget... and that does come with it risk. I just know support helps more than a negative attack campaign.

 

Clarifying a few things, hopefully to make my perspective a little bit more obvious. Bear with me; this will be somewhat stream-of-consciousness.

 

When the Ataribox was first announced, I remember saying something to the effect of, 'although I see a lot of problems with this idea, there's really no reason for me to want Atari SA to fail - I'd like to see a new piece of Atari hardware as much as the next person, but I really doubt that this company has the ability to execute on bringing it to market'.

 

As the saga has progressed, I've done a fairly complete about-face on the 'not wanting to see Atari SA fail' part of that statement. The change of heart is entirely down to how Atari SA has behaved towards this community and others as well as their own backers and supporters over the past year. I'd still love to see a new piece of Atari hardware, but from a company that doesn't view its potential customers with the cynicsm and contempt that Atari SA does.

 

This is where I hope that they fail: as (another) warning to the next person with a half-baked idea designed to capitalise on retro-nostalgia, possibly without the intent to ever deliver anything and just looking to fleece whatever marks they can. However, I do hope that if Atari SA does fail, they're at least able to issue refunds in full to their backers. The pragmatist in me, though, realises that the likelihood of that happening in that particular scenario is pretty much nonexistent, which leads me on to my next point.

 

There is no 'I told you so' element to this for me. Everyone who has thrown money at the Indiegogo campaign is, presumably, an adult and as such can decide how to spend their disposable income regardless of the risks that expenditure may entail. Because of this, I largely hold the view that it's not my (or anyone else's) responsibility to save them from the outcome of their decisions in this case. If the backers get what they paid for, fine; if they don't, it's no skin off my nose. Neither result would either please nor displease me, though I will admit that if they actually come through with the hardware I will be rather surprised.

 

None of the above, however, precludes me (or anyone else) from pointing out through analysis where Atari SA's incompetence, lack of ethics, and fundamentally aberrant approach to this product's development exist. Bear in mind that many of us (possibly including yourself; not knowing your background, I'll freely admit that I'm in no position to comment on it one way or the other) who are vocal in our criticism have professional backgrounds in bringing products similar to or of this nature to market, and as such recognise the failure points in that process as Atari SA has engaged in it. Even people without that professional experience have witnessed the failure of other similar devices in similar circumstances (yep, the Coleco Chameleon), and can see the obvious parallels that have formed with the Ataribox. That will, naturally, lead to commentary of a skeptical nature.

 

The one thing that you mention to which I will take exception, however, is the notion that "a negative attack campaign" exists. This implies active collusion against Atari SA by those who hold opinions of the company and its intended products that are contrary to the ones that Atari SA (and / or its PR flacks) would like those of us in the skeptical camp to hold. Bear in mind that we're basing our opinions and analyses on the same publicly-accessible statements and records of action by Atari SA that its supporters can also view, and that this is a very easy argument to turn the tables on - after all, it could just as easily be said that Atari SA is attempting to eradicate or at least deeply bury any negative opinions surrounding their activities which their supporters may view and have their opinions swayed by.

 

Realistically, though, what we're talking about is people of like minds but differing opinions gathering at their respective watering holes to discuss the same subject from different perspectives. Conspiracy theories make for great thrillers or science fiction, but Occam's Razor is usually closer to the truth.

 

In any event, I appreciate you taking the time to reply, and felt that giving some perspective on where my opinions stand and how they have been formed may have been worthwhile. Or not. But, hey, you got me to have to sit down and type out something of a schematic of my mindset, so full credit for engaging my interest enough to get me to do that.

[82-T/A]

As the saga has progressed, I've done a fairly complete about-face on the 'not wanting to see Atari SA fail' part of that statement. The change of heart is entirely down to how Atari SA has behaved towards this community and others as well as their own backers and supporters over the past year. I'd still love to see a new piece of Atari hardware, but from a company that doesn't view its potential customers with the cynicsm and contempt that Atari SA does.

 

 

 

Wanted to focus just on this part as I think this is, quite frankly... been the motivating factor (negatively) for a lot of people.

 

The guys at Atari SA are not... what's the word, polished? Most corporations that produce products have a VERY well-developed set of guidelines for engaging the public. No matter the organization, there's usually a public affairs office, or a customer relations office. There are also guidelines that every employee must follow... IE: don't talk to the media, don't discuss work outside of work, don't engage with competitors or negative publicity to the company, yadda yadda. Because Atari SA is a very bare-bones operation (likely running out of a small office with a warehouse), they generally don't have such an office. That means that the people engaging the public are actually the engineers and people who are emotionally charged / tied to the operation of the business... (you'd have to be to come work for Atari). So it's somewhat of a disaster that's self-made, unfortunately... but I can see the potential past that. They really should just shut up though. Most corporations that are advertising a product that hasn't been produced yet, always have all kinds of big ideas. But they have lawyers and public affairs employees who are specifically trained to make sure they don't say stupid stuff that's going to get them into hot water. Doesn't always work... but 99% of the time, it does. Again, Atari doesn't have this... :/

 

 

As for the other thing... collusion. I don't think there's a concerted effort by a large group of people to downfall Atari (I don't know that anyone really cares, quite frankly). But there's enough negativity going around, that it could lead to a movement of backlash before there's even been a chance at producing the product.

[Matt_B]

 

I suspect that, after The Register's release of the interview audio, this has already started to happen.

 

The way Arzt handled that interview had to cause a shitstorm of embarrassment within Atari SA. It also rather conveniently handed Chesnais the scapegoat he needed to pin the Ataribox campaign's failures on in the form of Arzt, and Arzt gave himself over on a platter.

 

Arzt probably thought that Feargal Mac was going to be the scapegoat too.

[Shawn]

 

I mean you can see the guy is waggling the joystick around and stuff is happening on the TV, so it has to be real, right?

What's next, showing someone who has no idea what is going on seated at a kitchen table surrounded by equipment that looks appropriate for the production of a console prototype?

 

Fixed that for ya:

 

 

 

 

[godslabrat]

Wanted to focus just on this part as I think this is, quite frankly... been the motivating factor (negatively) for a lot of people.

 

The guys at Atari SA are not... what's the word, polished? Most corporations that produce products have a VERY well-developed set of guidelines for engaging the public. No matter the organization, there's usually a public affairs office, or a customer relations office. There are also guidelines that every employee must follow... IE: don't talk to the media, don't discuss work outside of work, don't engage with competitors or negative publicity to the company, yadda yadda. Because Atari SA is a very bare-bones operation (likely running out of a small office with a warehouse), they generally don't have such an office. That means that the people engaging the public are actually the engineers and people who are emotionally charged / tied to the operation of the business... (you'd have to be to come work for Atari). So it's somewhat of a disaster that's self-made, unfortunately... but I can see the potential past that. They really should just shut up though. Most corporations that are advertising a product that hasn't been produced yet, always have all kinds of big ideas. But they have lawyers and public affairs employees who are specifically trained to make sure they don't say stupid stuff that's going to get them into hot water. Doesn't always work... but 99% of the time, it does. Again, Atari doesn't have this... :/

 

 

As for the other thing... collusion. I don't think there's a concerted effort by a large group of people to downfall Atari (I don't know that anyone really cares, quite frankly). But there's enough negativity going around, that it could lead to a movement of backlash before there's even been a chance at producing the product.

Describing Atari SA as a "small company with a warehouse" is being generous. It's more like "twelve French guys who accidentally bought the rights to Asteroids".

[+frankodragon]

When a company wants to make a video game system, they first make an actual system without the bells and whistles saying, "Hey! Look at What I've Got!" It's a prototype and under the tightest security and they make sure to iron out all the bugs in it. When they have done so, they release a public statement mentioning this have an actual system with actual hardware inside.

 

Instead, you have a group of twelve people and who knows what experience they had with consoles..we're talking about a former game company that made a $50K song for crying out loud. Top it off with shysters looking to suing anyone that uses the word, ATARI or any of the old Atari's hardware used for art pieces or for commercials selling chocolate bars and you get something that's not a company. You get leeches, pests, trolls whatever you call it. Then these guys spend more time with mindless zombie tweets proclaiming that "Hey Ataribox! This looks super cool! Can't wait to play!" bullshit.

 

And that's what is sums up to: Bullshit. These guys are probably muttering, "Heh, these people are so gullible! Just wait until we come up with our latest excuse that we had to cancel the whole campaign due to Chesnais' suit getting eaten by moths. Let's head for Cancun!"

[tschak909]

82-T/A your speculation does not trump the actual knowledge that has been leaked by an insider who not only knows the suppliers involved, and the extent of their involvement, but has also done extensive engineering work for Atari (and related companies) in the past, designing no less than several hardware products for them, over a decade.

 

This person has also spent multiple decades being an extensive historian for the company, both past and present, and has interacted one on one with the people at the company who make the decisions.

 

He knows full well that he is setting himself up for libelous action, and has wanted to say something about the whole AtariBox endeavor, since its inception. It took Atari flinging poo at journalists doing their job for him to finally say "fuck it" and start spilling lots of sensitive information. I am only mentioning this, because he has outed himself publicly.

 

And he's not done.

 

The more Atari lashes out, the more he will reveal.

 

I will re-state, AGAIN... Atari wanted to, from the very beginning, find a way to inflate their piece of shit penny stock, making their company attractive enough to be acquired, and Freddy could walk away with some money in his pocket. He could give a flying fuck about anything else. THERE WAS NO PRIMARY INTENT TO MAKE A GAME CONSOLE.

 

But, if you'd like, you can swim in the safe assumption that Atari were simply incompetent, and handled this whole thing terribly. It would be incorrect, however.

 

They are not ignorant. They are criminally negligent.

 

-Thom

Edited June 26, 2018 by tschak909

[Osgeld]

82-T/A your speculation does not trump the actual knowledge that has been leaked by an insider who not only knows the suppliers involved, and the extent of their involvement, but has also done extensive engineering work for Atari (and related companies) in the past, designing no less than several hardware products for them, over a decade.

 

This person has also spent multiple decades being an extensive historian for the company, both past and present, and has interacted one on one with the people at the company who make the decisions.

 

He knows full well that he is setting himself up for libelous action, and has wanted to say something about the whole AtariBox endeavor, since its inception. It took Atari flinging poo at journalists doing their job for him to finally say "fuck it" and start spilling lots of sensitive information. I am only mentioning this, because he has outed himself publicly.

 

And he's not done.

 

The more Atari lashes out, the more he will reveal.

 

I will re-state, AGAIN... Atari wanted to, from the very beginning, find a way to inflate their piece of shit penny stock, making their company attractive enough to be acquired, and Freddy could walk away with some money in his pocket. He could give a flying fuck about anything else. THERE WAS NO PRIMARY INTENT TO MAKE A GAME CONSOLE.

 

But, if you'd like, you can swim in the safe assumption that Atari were simply incompetent, and handled this whole thing terribly. It would be incorrect, however.

 

They are not ignorant. They are criminally negligent.

 

-Thom

 

dammit atarileaf spill the beans already

[tschak909]

For those who want to know why Atari pulled the first round of Crowdfunding, and what the excuse of "Problems with the supplier" really meant:

 

[youxia]

The guys at Atari SA are not... what's the word, polished? Most corporations that produce products have a VERY well-developed set of guidelines for engaging the public. No matter the organization, there's usually a public affairs office, or a customer relations office. There are also guidelines that every employee must follow... IE: don't talk to the media, don't discuss work outside of work, don't engage with competitors or negative publicity to the company, yadda yadda. Because Atari SA is a very bare-bones operation (likely running out of a small office with a warehouse), they generally don't have such an office. That means that the people engaging the public are actually the engineers and people who are emotionally charged / tied to the operation of the business...

 

This paints a picture of an indie-style garage operation ran by people who are perhaps a bit inexperienced in the big leagues but nonetheless well meaning, enthusiastic and full of novel ideas.

 

I'm afraid the reality is slightly different. You need to look no further than their Wikipedia page to ascertain that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari,_SA

It started over 3 decades ago as Infogrames* and grew to be a huge and influential publisher of quality games. Then, around the millenium time they got too big for their shoes (common affliction in the biz at the time) and went on a voracious acquistion spree followed by a $$$ leaking, sell-offs, renaming as Atari and finally a bankruptcy.

 

Their post-bankrupt story is even sadder, and the patterns learned from it are one of the main sources of skepticism and "negativity" here. Even if they want to assure you that they're still a "profitable and respectable stock-listed company". The sort of which goes to E3 and rubs shoulders with the movers and shakers, signs deals right left and center. If only. But, they used to, so there's no excuses about inexperience.

 

Sorry, but there's no passionate engineer manning the boards. It's either some smartphone-engaged unpaid intern (the lame replies) or one of the "execs" in a coke-comedown mood (the angry replies).

 

*as an unrelated aside I wanted to spare a thought for original Infogrames - what the hell happened? I loved this company as a kid, always quirky and original: Captain Blood, North & South, Alone in The dark and so on. How the mighty've fallen...

[AtariNerd]

For those who want to know why Atari pulled the first round of Crowdfunding, and what the excuse of "Problems with the supplier" really meant:

 

Oh, schnap.

 

Just quoting this, to make sure it doesn't escape notice.

[Matt_B]

If nothing else, at least it's now clear why they've partnered up with PowerA; they're presumably that other manufacturer who was going to make the cheap knock offs. They've just got to do the design work all over, which presumably will consist of a little more than taking an Xbox controller and sticking a bit of tape over the logo.

[MrMaddog]

For those who want to know why Atari pulled the first round of Crowdfunding, and what the excuse of "Problems with the supplier" really meant:

 

 

Sam Tramiel would be so proud, cause that's how he stole the Lynx from Epyx...

[Matt_B]

 

Sam Tramiel would be so proud, cause that's how he stole the Lynx from Epyx...

 

I'm pretty sure Sam used to wait until his partner companies went bankrupt before trying to claim their assets. Current Atari seem to want to be doing it while they're still solvent.

[PlaysWithWolves]

The guys at Atari SA are not... what's the word, polished? Most corporations that produce products have a VERY well-developed set of guidelines for engaging the public. No matter the organization, there's usually a public affairs office, or a customer relations office. There are also guidelines that every employee must follow... IE: don't talk to the media, don't discuss work outside of work, don't engage with competitors or negative publicity to the company, yadda yadda. Because Atari SA is a very bare-bones operation (likely running out of a small office with a warehouse), they generally don't have such an office. That means that the people engaging the public are actually the engineers and people who are emotionally charged / tied to the operation of the business... (you'd have to be to come work for Atari). So it's somewhat of a disaster that's self-made, unfortunately... but I can see the potential past that. They really should just shut up though. Most corporations that are advertising a product that hasn't been produced yet, always have all kinds of big ideas. But they have lawyers and public affairs employees who are specifically trained to make sure they don't say stupid stuff that's going to get them into hot water. Doesn't always work... but 99% of the time, it does. Again, Atari doesn't have this... :/

 

You described Retro VGS/Coleco Chameleon, not Atari. Atari, SA employs attorneys and marketing/PR companies that cost $5000-15000 per month.

[carlsson]

I suppose if the Atari VCS goes down the drain, it is Ataribox LLC that gets axed, not Atari SA. Also remember the mother company earlier this spring had a new emission from investors worth 7.5 million Euro to be invested in developing their IP. While some of you may consider new emissions a form of money laundering, there ought to be financial partners in the background who may not look lightly if Atari SA is purposedly orchestrating a $3 million scam.

[AtariLeaf]

 

dammit atarileaf spill the beans already

 

I have no beans to spill I'm waiting for a good bean spilling myself. All I know so far is the name of the person with the huge barrel of beans for spilling

 

On another note, I just noticed that a video that belonged to the person Tipster was debating about the merits of the VCS has been removed. Looks like he's pulled all his videos on the VCS. This was his channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3177dkqHcEwz_-lFRoeFFg/videos

 

I debated him but I kept with the facts. I hope he wasn't getting personal attacks.

Edited June 26, 2018 by AtariLeaf

[Flojomojo]

He was strident in his defense of AtariBox on Twitter, too. Name of @bomerneetv

 

Could just be seeking attention, I guess -- because his arguments are quite illogical and don't seem like anything an intellectually honest person would say. More like a kid picking and defending a side in a debate without really understanding the issues. D-

 

I'm a little uncomfortable with the lack of authentication on the YouTube "insider info" comments some people are quoting. They seem plausible enough, and certainly fit my biases, but I'd feel better if they weren't so easily faked. The supposed leaker could just as easily post that info here, where it would have more credibility, in my opinion.

[8Bitjunkie]

can anyone confirm that?!?

 

 

 

[PlaysWithWolves]

That there's an actual Atari VCS?

 

can anyone confirm that?!?

 

proof.PNG