New Atari Console that Ataribox?

[Flojomojo]

Yes, all true -- but "were" is the operative word. It had some time in the sun, but that was a long time ago now. You wouldn't want to mine bitcoin on it, for example (found this interesting discussion on that topic). Ataribox, or That Ataribox as this thread would have it, is unlikely to have side utility like that.

[+x=usr(1536)]

Remember the outcry when a PS3 firmware update removed the Linux install option?

I remember that very well: it was firmware 3.21 that nuked that capability, and I was one of the not-very-many PS3 users actively using it. More:

 

There may be a small amount of people, but certainly some that would like a completely open platform.

Except that, historically, demand for a 'completely open platform' (which is itself a very ill-defined term) has been miniscule, and a good chunk of the people clamouring for it are capable of building it for themselves using off-the-shelf hardware and software. In a sense, projects like RetroPie are already doing this, and there's no reason why their software stacks couldn't be moved from ARM on a RasPi to x86/x64 on Intel. Just rebuild and repackage install images for the platform of choice and go to town.

 

Coming back to the example of the PS3 losing Linux support: the majority of the outcry surrounding that debacle came from the fact that people had bought the PS3 with the ability to run Linux being an advertised feature of the console - hell, it was mentioned right on the box. Even if someone wasn't using the feature, they had still paid for it, and Sony's removal of it constituted an uncompensated removal of a part of the system that customers - in good faith - had purchased and expected to remain functional.

 

The other side of the coin was that Sony attempted to cop out of the removal by saying that you could just keep your older firmware and still run Linux - but you'd lose the ability to use the Playstation Network, possibly playback of Blu-Ray movies, and a couple of other things I've forgotten. In short, Sony behaved in a very heavy-handed and overreaching manner towards their customers, and they got their wrist smacked for it.

 

As all of the above relates to a 'completely open platform': the PS3 never was such a thing. It was capable of running Linux, sure, but it was doing so in a way that isolated Linux from the juicier parts of the hardware, namely the RSX GPU. And once people started figuring out that it might be possible to access the RSX from Linux, bam, Sony dropped Firmware 3.21 and cut all of that off by simply yanking the Other OS option out of the device.

 

Why do I mention this? Because the PS3 is not a poster child for open platforms just because it could run Linux. Not by a long shot. Neither is the TV I'm using as a second monitor, or any of the other sealed-box devices that I have around here that are Linux-based. But there is one thing to consider about open platforms as relates to the Ataribox:

 

If it ends up being a completely open platform (in the senses of unrestricted user access to both the hardware and software), its potential value proposition is going down the toilet by having it that openness turn it into Just Another Single-Board Computer. Granted, it'll be JASBC in an Atari case, but who cares? Nice aesthetics don't change the fact that that's all it is, or that people still don't want to use a PC by way of their TV.

 

I'm all for open systems and platforms where appropriate, but this is a case where it doesn't bring anything to the table you can't get elsewhere and for less spend.

Edited October 3, 2017 by x=usr(1536)

[+x=usr(1536)]

Apologies for the double post - not quite sure what happened. Fixed it now.

Edited October 3, 2017 by x=usr(1536)

[zzip]

I remember that very well: it was firmware 3.21 that nuked that capability, and I was one of the not-very-many PS3 users actively using it. More:

 

Except that, historically, demand for a 'completely open platform' (which is itself a very ill-defined term) has been miniscule, and a good chunk of the people clamouring for it are capable of building it for themselves using off-the-shelf hardware and software. In a sense, projects like RetroPie are already doing this, and there's no reason why their software stacks couldn't be moved from ARM on a RasPi to x86/x64 on Intel. Just rebuild and repackage install images for the platform of choice and go to town.

 

Coming back to the example of the PS3 losing Linux support: the majority of the outcry surrounding that debacle came from the fact that people had bought the PS3 with the ability to run Linux being an advertised feature of the console - hell, it was mentioned right on the box. Even if someone wasn't using the feature, they had still paid for it, and Sony's removal of it constituted an uncompensated removal of a part of the system that customers - in good faith - had purchased and expected to remain functional.

 

The other side of the coin was that Sony attempted to cop out of the removal by saying that you could just keep your older firmware and still run Linux - but you'd lose the ability to use the Playstation Network, possibly playback of Blu-Ray movies, and a couple of other things I've forgotten. In short, Sony behaved in a very heavy-handed and overreaching manner towards their customers, and they got their wrist smacked for it.

 

As all of the above relates to a 'completely open platform': the PS3 never was such a thing. It was capable of running Linux, sure, but it was doing so in a way that isolated Linux from the juicier parts of the hardware, namely the RSX GPU. And once people started figuring out that it might be possible to access the RSX from Linux, bam, Sony dropped Firmware 3.21 and cut all of that off by simply yanking the Other OS option out of the device.

 

Why do I mention this? Because the PS3 is not a poster child for open platforms just because it could run Linux. Not by a long shot. Neither is the TV I'm using as a second monitor, or any of the other sealed-box devices that I have around here that are Linux-based. But there is one thing to consider about open platforms as relates to the Ataribox:

 

If it ends up being a completely open platform (in the senses of unrestricted user access to both the hardware and software), its potential value proposition is going down the toilet by having it that openness turn it into Just Another Single-Board Computer. Granted, it'll be JASBC in an Atari case, but who cares? Nice aesthetics don't change the fact that that's all it is, or that people still don't want to use a PC by way of their TV.

 

I'm all for open systems and platforms where appropriate, but this is a case where it doesn't bring anything to the table you can't get elsewhere and for less spend.

 

On the other hand, if it was a closed platform where you had to download everything from the Atari store, how compelling is that really? How many compelling titles would Atari realistically offer for it? What else would it offer? The same indies that run everywhere else?

 

I would not find that as interesting as an open platform console. Yes we could DIY one with some work.

 

I don't want a PC on my TV, but there are reasons for that: The standard gaming PC is in a tower case, has many fans, so not quiet. Interface is designed for mouse/keyboard- not great for sofa usage. And if it's like my Windows PC, it will spend 15 minutes updating everything before it allows you to play any games-- ugh.

 

An open console box that's designed like a console should be, with an interface designed to be used with a controller, updates done in the background (like PS4- which will download them in rest mode), runs quiet and allows me to sideload my own emulator collection would be awesome.

 

My Pi almost fits this bill well, but they are a bit underpowered, and strangely enough they have no on/off/power switch! Having something in my living room setup that I have to unplug/plug-in to use is kind of awkward, ideal on/off could be controlled from controller too.

 

So what they talked about is actually the best possible configuration for people like me... if they deliver. I would not be interested if it was another closed system. I would not trust Atari to support it as well as Nintendo/Sony support their platforms.

[leech]

 

On the other hand, if it was a closed platform where you had to download everything from the Atari store, how compelling is that really? How many compelling titles would Atari realistically offer for it? What else would it offer? The same indies that run everywhere else?

 

I would not find that as interesting as an open platform console. Yes we could DIY one with some work.

 

I don't want a PC on my TV, but there are reasons for that: The standard gaming PC is in a tower case, has many fans, so not quiet. Interface is designed for mouse/keyboard- not great for sofa usage. And if it's like my Windows PC, it will spend 15 minutes updating everything before it allows you to play any games-- ugh.

 

An open console box that's designed like a console should be, with an interface designed to be used with a controller, updates done in the background (like PS4- which will download them in rest mode), runs quiet and allows me to sideload my own emulator collection would be awesome.

 

My Pi almost fits this bill well, but they are a bit underpowered, and strangely enough they have no on/off/power switch! Having something in my living room setup that I have to unplug/plug-in to use is kind of awkward, ideal on/off could be controlled from controller too.

 

So what they talked about is actually the best possible configuration for people like me... if they deliver. I would not be interested if it was another closed system. I would not trust Atari to support it as well as Nintendo/Sony support their platforms.

This is pretty much what I've been saying. Something that's more powerful than the Pi, more open than xbox / playstation, and in a nice small/quiet case.

 

I would love a box like this. I'm just a bit gun shy after watching that Feargal character (and that's the best description of him I can think of) talk about anything...(side note, how the hell is that a common enough name that I found about 5 different 'Feargal Mac <something>' out there?)

If I thought Atari had more than some weird scheme they mostly came up with after reading what people want in this forum, then I'd back this.. but not without some assurance that we aren't just going to get ripped off.

[+x=usr(1536)]

On the other hand, if it was a closed platform where you had to download everything from the Atari store, how compelling is that really? How many compelling titles would Atari realistically offer for it? What else would it offer? The same indies that run everywhere else?

Point taken, but that also applies to the existing consoles out there. And from a development standpoint, it makes sense to get your title(s) onto as many platforms as possible, provided that there's suitable financial return in doing so.

 

One of the problems with an open platform is how to make money on software delivery. Piracy will be rampant unless you can control the delivery and subsequent movement of that software. With an open system, DRM or closed-ecosystem app stores will cause a revolt amongst the part of the userbase who expect it to be open, which defeats a) the purpose of having an open system and b) any desire on the developers' behalf to develop for the system. And since consoles live and die by the games available for them, that's a huge issue.

 

I would not find that as interesting as an open platform console. Yes we could DIY one with some work.

Sure, and that's fine. But remember that there are market considerations driving this as well. The end of the market that you (and I) fall into is at the thinner end of the wedge, and for the product to succeed it needs to have as broad an appeal as possible.

 

I don't want a PC on my TV, but there are reasons for that: The standard gaming PC is in a tower case, has many fans, so not quiet. Interface is designed for mouse/keyboard- not great for sofa usage. And if it's like my Windows PC, it will spend 15 minutes updating everything before it allows you to play any games-- ugh.

What's interesting is that virtually every reason you bring up is one that I have consistently heard over the last 20 years as to why people don't want PCs on their TV. And, for the most part, I agree with those reasons. But remember that any device acting as a general-purpose computer is going to have a lot of the same tradeoffs - it's just inescapable.

 

An open console box that's designed like a console should be, with an interface designed to be used with a controller, updates done in the background (like PS4- which will download them in rest mode), runs quiet and allows me to sideload my own emulator collection would be awesome.

Which makes sense. Now allow me to pretend to be the manufacturer of the device for a moment. Here's what I see on the horizon:

 

No way to attract developers because we've got a platform that anyone can easily copy software on.

 

A metric f***ton of warranty claims and support calls when the end-user nukes the filesystem because someone thought it would be hysterical to have them type 'sudo rm -rf /' into an xterm.

 

The need to build an infrastructure to handle updating these devices so that they don't become a security nightmare for end users, the company, or the Internet at large. Good luck handling that in a consistent manner when your end users are altering your system.

 

A feature (open design) that only a very small percentage of customers actually care about, but that brings the above disadvantages with it.

 

How will the market perceive my device? Will they see it as a low-power PC, gaming console, or something else altogether? Can I actually carve out an identity for it?

 

There are others, but those are the ones that I feel are key. Bear in mind that we're talking about a potential installed userbase in the millions; these are not small considerations.

 

My Pi almost fits this bill well, but they are a bit underpowered, and strangely enough they have no on/off/power switch! Having something in my living room setup that I have to unplug/plug-in to use is kind of awkward, ideal on/off could be controlled from controller too.

Nah, just ssh into it as the 'pi' user and issue a 'sudo reboot' - or, if you want to shut it down, do a 'sudo shutdown && sudo poweroff'. Can't help you on the power switch part, though, but there are plenty of projects out there to start you off on building your own, or buy one pre-made if you prefer plug & play. Easy!

 

I am being slightly facetious with that example, but it does represent the reality of using a low-cost, low-power, single-board computer intended for experimentation. At the last count, there were a total of 8 RasPis floating around here and I completely understand the point that you're making because these are things that are valid concerns for a RasPi aimed at consumer use - but the RasPi isn't aimed at a potential Ataribox buyer. For you or I running small projects off of them, they're great, but in a $300 device that's primarily a gaming machine the expectation is that it will be good at gaming. As soon as feature creep starts setting in and it moves away from having a clearly-defined mission, expect it to be something that becomes not particularly good at much of what it does. Focus is a good thing.

 

So what they talked about is actually the best possible configuration for people like me... if they deliver. I would not be interested if it was another closed system. I would not trust Atari to support it as well as Nintendo/Sony support their platforms.

Understood, but I'm not sure that Ataribox, Inc. (or whatever their name is) has even made it far enough into development that post-sales support is even a consideration for them at this point.

Edited October 3, 2017 by x=usr(1536)

[leech]

sudo rm -rf / doesn't actually work on modern distros by the way. There was a big thing about it a few years ago because a bunch of jerks on the Ubuntu forums kept suggesting that people do it. Try it in a new VM, it gives a warning.

[leech]

For raspberry Pi power. 'sudo shutdown -h now' also.. https://www.amazon.com/LoveRPi-MicroUSB-Switch-Raspberry-Female/dp/B018BFWLRU

[Osgeld]

For raspberry Pi power. 'sudo shutdown -h now' also.. https://www.amazon.com/LoveRPi-MicroUSB-Switch-Raspberry-Female/dp/B018BFWLRU

 

that's what I use sudo shutdown -h now, those dumb switches inline with the power supply just scream "fk my SD card in the ass on the 3rd time I shut this crap off" I have stats to prove that btw, over 1000 power cycles it averages every 3rd cycle kills your os

 

so on my pi setup power is sent to a attiny 85 setup with a ~5 amp relay and the "power switch"

 

you press the power switch the tiny registers it and clicks on the relay, it then fades in and out the power LED of the console until the pi boots enough to run a command to send a GPIO pin high, this happens like a few hundred ms before the retropie splash screen

 

the tiny monitors the gpio pin, on startup the gpio is low so the tiny fades in and out the led, once the system gets its ass in gear the gpio pin stays high, the tiny see's that and stops the fade in out and sets its 100% solid

 

you play games and blah blah blah and hit the button, that triggers the same input on the tiny, which sends a bit low to the gpio header on the pi, which is monitored by a script in linux, that fires shutdown on the pi and starts back up the pulsing led on the tiny

 

this continues until the pi halts the gpio pin on the pi goes to its default low state, which the tiny see's, waits about 3 seconds and cuts power to the relay which disconnects the pi from power leaving about a 1ma draw from the wall in shutdown mode

 

this is 2 wires from the pi gpio to the tiny, 2 wires from the tiny to the switch and a couple wires to the relay with a transistor to handle the load and some protection components, I think in total parts would be about a buck ... including the perf board ... if you didnt have to pay for postage

Edited October 4, 2017 by Osgeld

[Keatah]

What's interesting is that virtually every reason you bring up is one that I have consistently heard over the last 20 years as to why people don't want PCs on their TV. And, for the most part, I agree with those reasons. But remember that any device acting as a general-purpose computer is going to have a lot of the same tradeoffs - it's just inescapable.

 

The industry has been trying PC/TV convergence since the early Multi-Media days. Remember the Gateway Destination rigs? Big 25" or 32" tube TV shipping with a 486 or Pentium computer which had a TV Tuner in it. It flopped, as have all other efforts to combine the two.

 

TV = Lazy non-interactive entertainment. The engagement is one way. You don't interact or output anything.

PC = Two-way interaction, you're thinking, you're working on a task, you're playing a game, communicating, doing something.

 

Both formats are distinctly different and call for different frames of mind and body postures. There is some crossover here and there. But it's trying to mix water and oil. The industry is trying to change basic instinct here. It will fail. It has failed.

[zzip]

This is pretty much what I've been saying. Something that's more powerful than the Pi, more open than xbox / playstation, and in a nice small/quiet case.

 

I would love a box like this. I'm just a bit gun shy after watching that Feargal character (and that's the best description of him I can think of) talk about anything...(side note, how the hell is that a common enough name that I found about 5 different 'Feargal Mac <something>' out there?)

If I thought Atari had more than some weird scheme they mostly came up with after reading what people want in this forum, then I'd back this.. but not without some assurance that we aren't just going to get ripped off.

 

oh I won't be backing it via crowdfunding. But if they release such a system as I described, I may buy the final product.

[zzip]

Point taken, but that also applies to the existing consoles out there. And from a development standpoint, it makes sense to get your title(s) onto as many platforms as possible, provided that there's suitable financial return in doing so.

 

One of the problems with an open platform is how to make money on software delivery. Piracy will be rampant unless you can control the delivery and subsequent movement of that software. With an open system, DRM or closed-ecosystem app stores will cause a revolt amongst the part of the userbase who expect it to be open, which defeats a) the purpose of having an open system and b) any desire on the developers' behalf to develop for the system. And since consoles live and die by the games available for them, that's a huge issue.

I believe Steam uses DRM on Linux already, so it can be done. The Steam store being DRM doesn't stop me from loading my own apps on the system, like the PS4/Xbox do.

 

 

 

What's interesting is that virtually every reason you bring up is one that I have consistently heard over the last 20 years as to why people don't want PCs on their TV. And, for the most part, I agree with those reasons. But remember that any device acting as a general-purpose computer is going to have a lot of the same tradeoffs - it's just inescapable.

Not necessarily. The Xbox + PS4 chose the AMD Jaguar architecture precisely to lower cooling requirements and power consumption while still delivering reasonable performance. Since Ataribox will be drawing from the same CPU/GPU family, it can hopefully get the quiet part right with reasonable power. As far as the keyboard/mouse problem, SteamOS has already shown that a controller oriented interface can be done, while still allowing the user to "escape out" into a mode that allows them to install other things. It doesn't require a keyboard for everyday use, but allows you to plug one in to do advanced configuration.

 

 

No way to attract developers because we've got a platform that anyone can easily copy software on.

It can run the games that developers are already putting on Linux, which already includes a number of impressive titles. Now getting a lot of AAA games and compelling exclusives will be a challenge.. But a box like this would have been able to play games like "Cities Skylines", and "Pillars of Eternity" a few years before they showed up on PS4 + Xbox

 

A metric f***ton of warranty claims and support calls when the end-user nukes the filesystem because someone thought it would be hysterical to have them type 'sudo rm -rf /' into an xterm.

ok, but you could do this with Android devices too. Phones are "locked" by default to prevent this kind of abuse by users who don't know any better. But they can be unlocked via a procedure that's intimidating for novices, but not too difficult overall to allow complete freedom. Ataribox could adopt this to prevent accidents. In fact every Linux-based device I've owned, whether its a wifi router or media streamer requires a bit of effort on the user to completely unlock it for this reason.

 

How will the market perceive my device? Will they see it as a low-power PC, gaming console, or something else altogether? Can I actually carve out an identity for it?

I think the right way to position it is "open console with large existing gaming library". The world doesn't need another "low powered PC". But I do see an opportunity for TV connected devices that the user has control over. For instance, a lot of frustration from PS4 users was how slow Sony was to offer certain media features to the PS4. On an open box, you could just install Kodi and be done. Also I used be able to watch youtube on my TV via my cable box, my Blu-ray player, my Wii, or my PS4. Now it only works on my PS4- Google killed support for all the other devices. On an open box, I don't have to worry about apps getting deprecated as long as it works on Linux. Also better mod support in games becomes possible. Mod support on existing consoles tends to be limited. Now I'm not saying it's going to replace the PS4 or Xbox (it won't for me), but such a box could make a good second console.

 

Nah, just ssh into it as the 'pi' user and issue a 'sudo reboot' - or, if you want to shut it down, do a 'sudo shutdown && sudo poweroff'. Can't help you on the power switch part, though, but there are plenty of projects out there to start you off on building your own, or buy one pre-made if you prefer plug & play. Easy!

I have a USB cable with power switch already, but that's not the way you're supposed to shutdown Linux. But since the Pi I use it with only runs Kodi, and plays media only via DNLA from external devices, there's a limited amount of file corruption it can actual cause, so I don't sweat it. And if it hosed the OS, I can just provide another pre-baked Kodi image, so no real loss

[zzip]

For raspberry Pi power. 'sudo shutdown -h now' also.. https://www.amazon.com/LoveRPi-MicroUSB-Switch-Raspberry-Female/dp/B018BFWLRU

But don't you still have to yank the power and plug it in to get it to start up again? Also this command isn't convenient for living room use. So it's still one of the biggest weaknesses of a Pi used as a gaming system or media center.

[Flojomojo]

Why turn it off at all? It draws very little power.

[Hwlngmad]

I deeply appreciate and respect the technical banter back and forth. However, I think we all need to keep in mind that we all are, for the most part, in the dark about what this console will and will not be. Personally, a well done light-PC device could work. There have been many multi-media attempts in the past (Commodore CDTV, Phillips CD-i, etc), but maybe, just maybe, they can put together a really intriguing product. However, anything that is discussed right now will just be pure speculation, at least it appears that way to me at least. I think it is safe to say everyone has the right to be highly speculative of what the Ataribox will be, but until we have all of the facts we can only just wait and see. Just my two cents.

[Bill Loguidice]

I deeply appreciate and respect the technical banter back and forth. However, I think we all need to keep in mind that we all are, for the most part, in the dark about what this console will and will not be. Personally, a well done light-PC device could work. There have been many multi-media attempts in the past (Commodore CDTV, Phillips CD-i, etc), but maybe, just maybe, they can put together a really intriguing product. However, anything that is discussed right now will just be pure speculation, at least it appears that way to me at least. I think it is safe to say everyone has the right to be highly speculative of what the Ataribox will be, but until we have all of the facts we can only just wait and see. Just my two cents.

 

The problem with the CD-i, CDTV, 3DO, etc., was that they were too early in terms of both technology and market. The potential problem with the AtariBox is just the opposite, too late in terms of both technology and market. Indeed, though, we'll all wait and see.

[Hwlngmad]

 

The problem with the CD-i, CDTV, 3DO, etc., was that they were too early in terms of both technology and market. The potential problem with the AtariBox is just the opposite, too late in terms of both technology and market. Indeed, though, we'll all wait and see.

You are most correct Bill. What 'Atari' is proposing has been attempted and pulled off to some degree or another already. However, I think 'Atari' has an opportunity to pull things together (gaming, streaming, browsing) in a unique and (possibly) complete package. Still, the chances that the Ataribox could be a total and utter-failure are more likely. I am sure that if odds were taken in Vegas, it would not look pretty.

[Flojomojo]

I deeply appreciate and respect the technical banter back and forth. However, I think we all need to keep in mind that we all are, for the most part, in the dark about what this console will and will not be. Personally, a well done light-PC device could work. There have been many multi-media attempts in the past (Commodore CDTV, Phillips CD-i, etc), but maybe, just maybe, they can put together a really intriguing product. However, anything that is discussed right now will just be pure speculation, at least it appears that way to me at least. I think it is safe to say everyone has the right to be highly speculative of what the Ataribox will be, but until we have all of the facts we can only just wait and see. Just my two cents.

 

Of COURSE "wait and see" makes sense if you're interested in the PRODUCT Atari might produce if they're successful enough with their begging panhandling crowdfunding campaign. I just don't think an underpowered, overpriced mini PC that hooks to a television and attempts to duplicate the functionality of a streaming box/stick or a game console is very interesting in 2017.

 

What's fascinating to me is the PROCESS by which a tiny holding company with a barely-relevant brand name tries to get back in the game. There are sixty pages of comments in this thread by aging dorks like me who love(d) the Atari brand, and I'll bet we hold personal assets that are worth a lot more than the $1M cash on hand held by modern Atari. You mention Commodore and Philips, which were industry leaders in a time of emerging technology more than twenty years ago. Atari today is a trademark troll trying to get a slice of ... what? Retro gaming? Crowdfunding suckers? The thing they are offering is coming along at a time of extreme technological democratization -- cheap little boards are there for everyone to use. It's easy enough to roll your own that unless they can bring something VERY special, they're not needed.

 

Even if they "succeed," this won't be a product you will be able to buy in stores, and if it breaks, it will be tough toenails for you, there won't be replacement stock or support. It's not going to get the next Call of Duty, or even the next No Man's Sky, Cuphead, or Angry Birds. They'll have Adventure, Asteroids, Air-Sea Battle, the usual codswallop.

 

Note: the trademark sign here is used ironically, to express disdain and contempt for the new firm that, like Coleco, is using the name of what was once a great, innovative little company.

[leech]

Ha, I wouldn't have called Atari a 'little' company, back in its glory days, it was raking in money as fast as many of the leaders in the tech industry. Hell, it WAS the leader for a while. Otherwise no one would have any fond memories of them at all.

 

For your other points.. we can't say until we have official specs, but being that they have a deal that AMD announced as well leans toward a piece of hardware approximating the power of a PS4. Since a PS4 (non-pro) sells for about the same price point. While the PS4 was considered underpowered generic PC hardware when it was released, it seems to have done alright.

 

Will this handle 4k gaming? Most likely not. Will it support 30fps at 1080p? Probably.

 

For support.. if it is open enough Linux.. any number of places can provide support. Hell, I would do it for free, but only for AtariAge members.

[SignGuy81]

I'm gonna try to be remain positive about this until I see it. I will not purchase anything until I see some reviews and if they seem okay then I might buy one if I have the extra money when it comes out. The only thing that would stop me really is if Sega announced something similar then I'd probably go with them instead.

[Bill Loguidice]

The only thing that would stop me really is if Sega announced something similar then I'd probably go with them instead.

 

Nostalgia is one hell of a drug.

[SignGuy81]

 

Nostalgia is one hell of a drug.

 

 

That and speed(Sonic the Hedgehog).

[Bill Loguidice]

Will this handle 4k gaming? Most likely not. Will it support 30fps at 1080p? Probably.

 

My concern is not so much 4K gaming. Right now only Xbox One S/X and PS4 Pro have various levels of support for that. My concern is does this support 4K video apps? If it doesn't, I'd consider that a big omission for a modern streaming box, particularly since all of the other streaming box companies have already moved to that, and are and will be less expensive. It all depends on the expectations of their target market, I suppose (and I still don't really believe this can or should be targeted to the mass market).

[Hwlngmad]

 

My concern is not so much 4K gaming. Right now only Xbox One S/X and PS4 Pro have various levels of support for that. My concern is does this support 4K video apps? If it doesn't, I'd consider that a big omission for a modern streaming box, particularly since all of the other streaming box companies have already moved to that, and are and will be less expensive. It all depends on the expectations of their target market, I suppose (and I still don't really believe this can or should be targeted to the mass market).

Very much agreed Bill. If this device is going to be for Gaming, Streaming, and Browsing, then 4K video apps is a must. If it doesn't have that, it will be DOA. However, if it can be a super-charged Nvidia Shield TV with lots of gaming stuff already onboard, then we (could) have a really good product. Still, we gotta wait and see.

[SignGuy81]

I wish I had the internet that people have where they are able to worry about being able to stream in 4k. I have DSL, paying for 8Mbps and am lucky to to get 6Mbps most of the time, and sometimes once in a blue moon speed drops below that while trying to watch an HD movie on vudu and halfway through have to switch to SD, and honestly that really doesn't bother me too bad when that happens but yes it is definitely noticeable but bearable. But heck I have a 55" 1080p TV and I don't see a need for 4k, 1080p looks fine to me, and would be pointless for me to get a 4k TV unless I went with comcast for internet but then if I did that I might have trouble there because I heard they were starting to impose caps, and I do a lot of streaming now, and if I were doing it in 4k instead I'm sure I'd go over their caps.