New Atari Console that Ataribox?

[The Historian]

I think the only issue with your theory is that each of these products is a separate entity. Gameband is a different company from AtariBox. And AtariLife is yet another entity.

[BiffsGamingVideos]

"This is one of the things that really infuriates me about branding mania: more value is put in the brand than in the products sold or manufactured under it.​"

 

On 1 of my videos from 1994 SCES, I talked off camera to a VP of marketing of Konami I think it was (some big company at the time, could have been US Gold or someone). Anywho, she told me that Konami's brand was what sold games. They only allowed so many games a year and never released some of them. The reason is people bought anything Konami based of of the name. the products were good, so the next one is good to. That is one way of how you brand. Create a view of the company and stick to it (what do you think of Starbucks? or Disney World? or Ritz Carlton? You may not have been to any of these places but you have a view of them. And yes, I've been to all 3. And you know what, I stayed free at the Ritz Carlton for a week and was not impressed at the $800 for a normal night. Starbucks is just overpriced coffie which I can't stand anyways. and Disney World, well I do live in Orlando so I am a bit biased).

Edited November 15, 2017 by BiffsGamingVideos

[+x=usr(1536)]

I think the only issue with your theory is that each of these products is a separate entity. Gameband is a different company from AtariBox. And AtariLife is yet another entity.

Agreed, at least as far as the separation of relationship goes. But a branding ferret will capitalise on the interest shown in each to bolster their own product. "Hey, investors - look at how much exposure the Atari name has in the marketplace!"

 

They just won't tack the asterisk onto the end of that statement that leads to the footnote of, "none of these items have any relationship to each other beyond one word in their name and maybe a lookalike logo, too."

Edited November 15, 2017 by x=usr(1536)

[+x=usr(1536)]

On 1 of my videos from 1994 SCES, I talked off camera to a VP of marketing of Konami I think it was (some big company at the time, could have been US Gold or someone). Anywho, she told me that Konami's brand was what sold games. They only allowed so many games a year and never released some of them. The reason is people bought anything Konami based of of the name. the products were good, so the next one is good to. That is one way of how you brand. Create a view of the company and stick to it

Yep, it's essentially the Big Lie approach - repeat it enough and people won't question it.

 

My mother once had someone give her a ration for driving a Subaru; she should have bought American like they did. They didn't know how to respond to her retort of, "well, what's more American - my Subaru built in Indiana, or your Chevy made in Mexico?"

 

Modern advertising and branding is a really interesting thing, particularly when you look at how people receive and process the message.

 

(what do you think of Starbucks? or Disney World? or Ritz Carlton? You may not have been to any of these places but you have a view of them. And yes, I've been to all 3. And you know what, I stayed free at the Ritz Carlton for a week and was not impressed at the $800 for a normal night. Starbucks is just overpriced coffie which I can't stand anyways. and Disney World, well I do live in Orlando so I am a bit biased).

I realise these were really meant as rhetorical questions, but I'm going answer them anyway as I also happen to have experience with all three.

 

Starbucks: don't care about their drinks, or mugs, or Pumpkin-Spice Urinal Cakes. They have iced tea and WiFi that usually works, which makes them the cheapest office space I can rent for a couple of hours if I'm on the road. In other words, they're useful to certain of my needs at times, but I ultimately don't really care much beyond that.

 

Disney World (and, by association, Disney in general): meh. Was always more of a Warner Brothers fan, but hope they don't end up running Pixar and Star Wars into the ground. The theme parks are fun for a day, then I'm done. Don't think I've ever bought anything from one of their stores. Full credit to them for some truly beautiful animation, though less so in recent decades. Can take 'em or leave 'em for the most part.

 

The Ritz-Carlton: definitely nice, but agreed on the overpriced assessment. Would stay there again, but would also happily stay elsewhere that was comparable.

 

In all honesty, I'm probably a terrible person to talk to from the standpoint of brand loyalty as I basically have none, and current ownership of <insert item here> does not necessarily imply future (or even current) allegiance to that brand.

 

Let me put it this way: I used to be someone who almost exclusively bought Sony personal electronics. Their stuff was good - a little pricier than the competition at times, but the quality was worth it. Then their quality went to crap somewhere in the late '90s, and after three purchases that were just not up to the standards I expected, I now play the field. But, paradoxically, we still have a PS3 hooked up to the TV that sees regular use.

 

Being loyal to a brand is pointless. If someone else does it better, cheaper, and with the same or better quality, whatever logo is stuck on it is largely-irrelevant.

[+Nathan Strum]

Random question. Would any of the 2600 (or any Atari system) devs tracking this thread want their game(s) on the AtariBox?

 

 

How?

• Does this imply that the Ata®ibox is going to have a fully-compatible 2600 (or any Atari system) emulator on it? As opposed to, say, the Flashback or RetroN77?
• Would then Atari pay the developers for their homebrews to be included with the system?
• If so, would they pay the developers a royalty on each unit sold?
• Or would Atari pay the developers to feature their games in Atari's nonexistent online store?
• Is it then up to each @aribox owner to find, download, and install their own emulators to play them?
• Does this only apply to original homebrews? Would the creators of those games still fully retain the rights to them?
• What about homebrew ports of games Atari owns? Would they pay the developers to include those games, or just sue them if they didn't cooperate?
• What about ports of games Atari doesn't own? Would Atari help acquire the rights to be able to publish the homebrew versions of them on behalf of the developers?

It's an interesting question.

 

But probably one that's far too early to be asking since, y'know, the Ataribox doesn't actually exist yet.

[Flojomojo]

> Being loyal to a brand is pointless. If someone else does it better, cheaper, and with the same or better quality, whatever logo is stuck on it is largely-irrelevant.

 

100% this. Especially since we have instant access to unlimited information at our fingertips and can seek out reviews and opinions on just about anything or anyone that seeks our business and attention.

 

But if someone has made up their mind that they have an emotional connection to an ancient brand they enjoyed as a child, there's no arguing with them. Might as well be talking to a baby duckling that has imprinted on someone other than her mom.

 

Btw Atari is neither Ritz Carlton (swish fancy), Starbucks (ubiquitous reliable - like McDonald's), nor Disney (media empire that remains culturally relevant after many decades). Ask a normal person what they think of Atari and they might say

 

1980s

Joysticks

Basements

Asteroids and Space Invaders

Wood grain plastic

 

Ask a game geek and maybe they'll say

 

Garbage dump in the desert

 

Yay, let's monetize that!

[Flojomojo]

Random question. Would any of the 2600 (or any Atari system) devs tracking this thread want their game(s) on the AtariBox?

To tack on to Nathan's questions: is the question "would an indie developer want to be associated with this project for free or on spec," or "would an indie developer take money to be on board?" Two very different questions.

 

Watching Piko Interactive get taken for a ride by "Coleco Chameleon" should be a cautionary tale for any would-be partners.

[Osgeld]

I think the only issue with your theory is that each of these products is a separate entity. Gameband is a different company from AtariBox. And AtariLife is yet another entity.

 

I have no care to differentiate, its a zombie brand that is trying to gain market by throwing shit on the wall then sitting back to see if anyone eats the corn, granted this is a tacit done by many Chinese firms buying up zombie brands (for instance Polaroid magically after death making TV's and MP3 players, or Bell & Howell making shitty LED laterns) but their tone is completely different

 

you dont go buy a Polaroid Mp3 player for 200$ while someone is trying to beat in your brain "BUT POLAROID YOU LOVED POLAROID" no its a 15$ gizmo that has a name that sounds more comfortable than Ninghai Yingjiao Electrical Co., Ltd. (who is a real company, though I have no idea if they have anything to do with Polaroid, its just an example). And for their high end stuff, 1) its decent value for money, I almost bought a Polaroid TV, but the TCL was on sale, had better reviews and the local sales guy said at their store they have a lower return rate, and 2) THEY AINT BEGGING ME FOR MONEY TO PRODUCE A PRODUCT WHILE TREATING ME LIKE I AM STUPID

[+x=usr(1536)]

throwing shit on the wall then sitting back to see if anyone eats the corn

This instantly became my new favourite terrible mental image, and I greatly look forward to inflicting it upon others. Thank you!

[CPUWIZ]

But...Polaroid

[leech]

This instantly became my new favourite terrible mental image, and I greatly look forward to inflicting it upon others. Thank you!

Ha, my new favorite saying (edited here) was from the Amazon original series called "Tin Star" with Tim Roth. The quote (edited) is "we'd stick out like c**** at a c*** fest"

[The Historian]

I've reordered your questions a bit, to make them easier to answer.

• Does this imply that the Ata®ibox is going to have a fully-compatible 2600 (or any Atari system) emulator on it? As opposed to, say, the Flashback or RetroN77?
• Is it then up to each @aribox owner to find, download, and install their own emulators to play them?

It's Linux based. I'd think it is safe to assume emulators, preinstalled.

• Would then Atari pay the developers for their homebrews to be included with the system?
• If so, would they pay the developers a royalty on each unit sold?
• Or would Atari pay the developers to feature their games in Atari's nonexistent online store?

I'm guessing it will be more like steam, doesn't cost you to upload them, and they would get a percentage of whatever you chose to charge for the game.

• Does this only apply to original homebrews? Would the creators of those games still fully retain the rights to them?

 

I would assume the rights would be retained by the authors, just like Steam.

• What about homebrew ports of games Atari owns? Would they pay the developers to include those games, or just sue them if they didn't cooperate?
• What about ports of games Atari doesn't own? Would Atari help acquire the rights to be able to publish the homebrew versions of them on behalf of the developers?

These are tricky. For the games that are copies of Atari owned properties, there may be some way to make those available. Atari might want a bigger cut since they would own the rights. I would strongly advise them that working with the author would be far better than litigation. Hopefully, they've learned that from recent "breakout" events.

 

As for the licenses, they do not own. That might be an issue. There is the possibility that in seeking rights to publish on AtariBox could cause a great deal of extra scrutiny to the items already sold by the authors. I guess I'm just saying that if someone were to approach Namco about a Pac-Man homebrew going on AtariBox, they might start to wonder about licensing of the carts of the homebrew game that have already been sold.

 

EDI - accidentally a word.

Edited November 16, 2017 by The Historian

[+x=usr(1536)]

But if someone has made up their mind that they have an emotional connection to an ancient brand they enjoyed as a child, there's no arguing with them. Might as well be talking to a baby duckling that has imprinted on someone other than her mom.

More stream-of-consciousness: this is actually something I'd like to speak a bit to from personal experience, particularly as regards the name (and, specifically, not the brand) 'Atari'.

 

I grew up with Atari. Not their game consoles - I didn't even own a 2600 until I was in my early 20s, despite being in the right age range to have had one when they were still new and exciting - but rather their arcade games and, especially, their computers. Atari also didn't make the first computers I had or had access to, but Atari did make the ones that had the greatest impact on me, and those same computers directly led to a career in multiple facets of IT. It's not stretching the truth to say that if it hadn't been for the Atari 800, 800XL, and various STs, my family would probably be cold, unclothed, and starving right now because I really don't know what else I would have done with my life over the past two-and-a-half decades.

 

For this, Atari more than deserves my acknowledgement, appreciation, and gratitude, and receives all of them unreservedly.

 

But that same appreciation, acknowledgement, and gratitude is not unconditional. The original Atari/s had its/their share of turds, and I'll recognise them. Similarly, I won't just blindly buy into anything that comes down the pike with a Fuji slapped onto it.

 

There is a name that has to be lived up to, and branding can never have the value to me that the meaning of that name does. When I see AtariBox trying to make an emotional appeal on the basis of nostalgia without understanding why either one has meaning beyond making some sort of lifestyle identification through branding, it's just insulting.

 

And yet I still want to see AtariBox be something worthy of the name. That - not a brand - is worth it living up to.

[CPUWIZ]

It's Linux based. I'd think it is safe to assume emulators, preinstalled.

 

 

So, another company selling open source software for profit then?

[The Historian]

 

So, another company selling open source software for profit then?

 

For the most part, they are selling you hardware. If you ask nicely, they might even take the free stuff off for you if you don't want it.

[Osgeld]

 

So, another company selling open source software for profit then?

 

if done right that in itself is perfectly legit

 

It's Linux based. I'd think it is safe to assume emulators, preinstalled.

 

 

the only linux distro I have ever seen in my life of dicking with linux, which dates back to the early 90's with any emulator installed was retroarch (which is what retropi is based on) and has a specific well known note about not selling it, so they are going to have to roll their own setup, which inspires even more confidence ... unless they plan on pulling a retron 5

 

hell most distro's its not quite plain sight to see emulators even in their repo's

Edited November 16, 2017 by Osgeld

[Flojomojo]

But...Polaroid

That almost looks worthy of the name, at least. Instant photo prints could be neat if they work, a somewhat modern take on the old instant film.

[The Historian]

retroarch (which is what retropi is based on) and has a specific well known note about not selling it, so they are going to have to roll their own setup, which inspires even more confidence ... unless they plan on pulling a retron 5

 

 

I'll be honest I haven't dug into the licenses for RetroArch or Libretro. I do know some of the emulators that run on them are covered under non-commercial licenses. But that wouldn't prevent them from being an easily available free download for the system.

 

I think, being open source softeware... if AtariBox were to make use of Libretro or RetroArch they would also need to open source their modifications.

[vcoleiro1]

I'll be honest I haven't dug into the licenses for RetroArch or Libretro. I do know some of the emulators that run on them are covered under non-commercial licenses. But that wouldn't prevent them from being an easily available free download for the system.

 

I think, being open source softeware... if AtariBox were to make use of Libretro or RetroArch they would also need to open source their modifications.

 

Out of curiosity, are you doing volunteer community management for Atari, or is it for what ever company is behind Feargals Ataribox?

[The Historian]

Out of curiosity, are you doing volunteer community management for Atari, or is it for what ever company is behind Feargals Ataribox?

It's for AtariBox, not Atari (though I think Atari does have a community manager) and to be really honest there isn't a community to manage just yet.

[vcoleiro1]

It's for AtariBox, not Atari (though I think Atari does have a community manager) and to be really honest there isn't a community to manage just yet.

I see

 

Have they shared any info with you at all?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting you to spill the beans, just wondering if they have shared info with you at all, like when they will launch the indiegogo campaign etc. Or have they told you nothing

[Osgeld]

 

I'll be honest I haven't dug into the licenses for RetroArch or Libretro. I do know some of the emulators that run on them are covered under non-commercial licenses. But that wouldn't prevent them from being an easily available free download for the system.

 

I think, being open source softeware... if AtariBox were to make use of Libretro or RetroArch they would also need to open source their modifications.

 

easily downloadable != out of the box installed, I can already download any emulator I please, doesnt come installed just cause linux

 

your original statement I quoted was

 

It's Linux based. I'd think it is safe to assume emulators, preinstalled.

 

 

why would you assume that, no distro comes with emulators pre installed except for one, and it specifically says you are in violation for selling it or a machine with it installed, or any other media with it pre installed

 

I think its safe to assume you are talking out of your ass

Edited November 16, 2017 by Osgeld

[The Historian]

I see

Have they shared any info with you at all?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting you to spill the beans, just wondering if they have shared info with you at all, like when they will launch the indiegogo campaign etc. Or have they told you nothing

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[+frankodragon]

 

 

Garbage dump in the desert

 

Yay, let's monetize that!

If the Shartbox ever comes to life, I can visualize what Atari would make as a peripheral: The VR Garbage Dump Visor with garbage dump smells. Just like the Nosulus Rift.

[+x=usr(1536)]

It's for AtariBox, not Atari (though I think Atari does have a community manager) and to be really honest there isn't a community to manage just yet.

I'm asking this in all honesty: does this community not count, or does it not fall within your purview?

 

That's not to say that we're being discounted (though I really have no idea if that's the case or not), but I am trying to understand how you're positioned here in light of your above statement.

Edited November 16, 2017 by x=usr(1536)