AtariAge + Atari Q&A

[Razzie.P]

1 hour ago, famicommander said:

I didn't say the emulation on the device was sub-par, I said it was an emulation device that was sub-par. And I stand by that until they can at least match the functionality of a real Atari 7800 or 2600. Only in this industry do companies release products that are less functional than the ones they released 40 years ago and have people line up to defend them. 

 

Whether it's emulation with a better cart dumper, just sticking a damn SD card slot on the device as-is, FPGA, or Flashback 2 styled real hardware isn't important to me. It should, somehow or someway, match the capabilities of the device it's pretending to be. Otherwise it's a waste of time and everyone here will get what they deserve when Atari releases iterations of it for 20 straight years that don't actually fix its problems like we've seen during the awful AtGames Flashback decade.

Yep, that's always been my thought, too.  What's particularly disheartening, to me at least, is the times I've seen people get introduced to classic games because of these lackluster systems and conclude that "these games suck..." only to see them have a blast when they play the same games on real hardware.

 

Because of that, I've held the opinion that those AtGames releases (and others) have actually caused more harm than good.  But I'm aware that I'm in the minority, there, so oh well.

 

[Xyla]

1 minute ago, GoldLeader said:

 

Just throwing it out there...

 

Maybe if they gave each Stella team member a free 2600+,  any games they could spare, and a check for $1,000.?   Still sounds like a bargain compared to creating their own emulator...

If you ask me, anything short of renaming it to the "2600+ Stella Edition" and giving the developers a cut of the profits is unfair.  If this company really wants to be Atari they should do better and stop trying to do minimal effort cash grabs with the IP they bought.

[famicommander]

2 minutes ago, Razzie.P said:

Yep, that's always been my thought, too.  What's particularly disheartening, to me at least, is the times I've seen people get introduced to classic games because of these lackluster systems and conclude that "these games suck..." only to see them have a blast when they play the same games on real hardware.

 

Because of that, I've held the opinion that those AtGames releases (and others) have actually caused more harm than good.  But I'm aware that I'm in the minority, there, so oh well.

 

AtGames is a blight on this earth. 

 

MyArcade is no better and the emulation on the new Atari MyArcade devices indicates Atari has learned absolutely nothing. 

 

It's not all bad, at least we have the Recharged series and Atari 50. And Nightdive is pretty awesome, and I am glad new 2600 carts and controllers are being made.

 

But the hardware, man. I never, ever want to see another AtGames device. I never want to see another partnership with MyArcade. And I want to see the 2600+ achieve full compatibility without having a marginally improved version every year for 8 years in a row before we finally get the goods, if we ever do at all. Nothing was more depressing every year than reading everyone delude themselves into thinking this year's version of the AtGames Flashback would have functional paddles or decent emulation, getting a bad device, then signing up for the same thing next year. My biggest fear is that's what we're in store for with the 2600+. Just more excuses every year from the company and the fans about how we're not big enough, we really tried, we'll do better next year.

[Tavi]

9 minutes ago, GoldLeader said:

 

Just throwing it out there...

 

Maybe if they gave each Stella team member a free 2600+,  any games they could spare, and a check for $1,000.?   Still sounds like a bargain compared to creating their own emulator...

I would think Atari would happily give the Stella team their own 2600+'s and whatever games they are planning on selling.

If nothing else, having the actual developers of the program you are using trying out your hardware before it goes into production and seeing how the two work together would be in Atari's interest, as well as a bit of very inexpensive goodwill.

[christo930]

12 minutes ago, Xyla said:

If you ask me, anything short of renaming it to the "2600+ Stella Edition" and giving the developers a cut of the profits is unfair

 

What you really mean is nothing Atari does is going to change my mind.

 

You have set the minimum bar of your approval to something they simply cannot do.

[Blinky]

2 hours ago, jgkspsx said:

Given that it is some three months from launch

but they're already making money on it by selling it through pre-orders. I think it's odd the official site takes the 'trouble' to give hardware specifications but do not mention software specifications at all.

[Xyla]

7 minutes ago, christo930 said:

 

What you really mean is nothing Atari does is going to change my mind.

 

You have set the minimum bar of your approval to something they simply cannot do.

What do you mean "something they simply cannot do"?  Of course they can do what I said.  You're just saying they won't, and I'm sure you're right.

Anyway, I'm just showing solidarity with the Stella devs because I think they got screwed and taken advantage of.  But my issues with this new Atari company don't have that much to do with the 2600+ specifically, but rather the 2600 dead horse beating pattern that's been going on for decades now.  They claim to be moving away from that but there's little evidence that it's actually happening or going to happen.  I WILL change my mind, if they ever give me a reason to.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Xyla

[christo930]

3 minutes ago, Xyla said:

What do you mean "something they simply cannot do"?

I'm pretty the shareholders would have something to say about Atari paying for a free software product and then profit sharing with the developers of that free software product. By law, they have to look out for the shareholders.  The shareholders own the company. They could probably have a court issue an injunction.

 

The Stella team are free to update the license any time they want, at least for versions going forward.  They could have excluded commercial use from day 1. They chose not to exclude such use.  While its possible you can argue this was unforeseeable in 2000, it's not unforeseeable now and hasn't been for well over a decade.

[christo930]

11 minutes ago, Xyla said:

But my issues with this new Atari company don't have that much to do with the 2600+ specifically, but rather the 2600 dead horse beating pattern that's been going on for decades now.  They claim to be moving away from that but there's little evidence that it's actually happening or going to happen.  I WILL change my mind, if they ever give me a reason to.

I actually agree with most of this.  Unfortunately, the reality is the 2600 is the biggest asset they have besides the Atari name.  People keep buying the near yearly 2600 pnp consoles.

 

Given all the cash-grabs of the various incarnations of Atari, I don't expect anything different going forward.

 

I was very hesitant to join Atariage itself.  I thought at the time that the move from rec.games.video.classic and a few others as putting the community in the hands of one or 2 guys trying to monetize it. That the forum could fold. Or any other number of bad things.  But over time none of that happened and the news groups aren't even provided for anymore by most ISPs.

Hopefully all this mistrust and apprehension will prove to be just as unfounded as my initial atariage skepticism.

[Giles N]

15 hours ago, Trebor said:

Further, Barnyard Blaster (Misspelled "Blster"), Meltdown, and Sentinel received a 'Pass', but all three games require a light gun. 

More reasons for improving things - either games or hardware & either prior to or after launch,

in one way or another…

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Giles N

[Nall3k]

7 minutes ago, christo930 said:

I'm pretty the shareholders would have something to say about Atari paying for a free software product and then profit sharing with the developers of that free software product. By law, they have to look out for the shareholders.  The shareholders own the company. They could probably have a court issue an injunction.

 

The Stella team are free to update the license any time they want, at least for versions going forward.  They could have excluded commercial use from day 1. They chose not to exclude such use.  While its possible you can argue this was unforeseeable in 2000, it's not unforeseeable now and hasn't been for well over a decade.

This, 100%. You can’t put something as free to use in the public domain and then turn around and demand or expect payment.

[JetSetIlly]

1 minute ago, Nall3k said:

This, 100%. You can’t put something as free to use in the public domain and then turn around and demand or expect payment.

Small point of correction but it's important. Stella isn't in the public domain. It's copyrighted and licenced under the GNU GPL v2.

[Xyla]

8 minutes ago, christo930 said:

I'm pretty the shareholders would have something to say about Atari paying for a free software product and then profit sharing with the developers of that free software product. By law, they have to look out for the shareholders.  The shareholders own the company. They could probably have a court issue an injunction.

 

The Stella team are free to update the license any time they want, at least for versions going forward.  They could have excluded commercial use from day 1. They chose not to exclude such use.  While its possible you can argue this was unforeseeable in 2000, it's not unforeseeable now and hasn't been for well over a decade.

Alright, fair points about shareholders and profit sharing, but they should be going above and beyond on the recognition rather than effectively trying to conceal it.  They could also pay the developers for ongoing improvements.
 

There is a reason so many people don't accept this new Atari company as the real Atari... they just keep bleeding the IP for as much easy money as they can, and now that means using emulation they didn't develop to make yet ANOTHER woodgrain device that doesn't have all the functionality of the real 2600 & 7800, and not even giving the people who made it possible (Stella) credit.

I would like nothing more than to see this new Atari company truly become ATARI.  But that requires doing a lot more than they are currently doing, and overall being better.

[Nall3k]

2 minutes ago, JetSetIlly said:

Small point of correction but it's important. Stella isn't in the public domain. It's copyrighted and licenced under the GNU GPL v2.

Thank you for the correction.

[+Stephen]

6 minutes ago, Nall3k said:

This, 100%. You can’t put something as free to use in the public domain and then turn around and demand or expect payment.

Like the Jaguar and its logo?

[DirtyHairy]

23 minutes ago, christo930 said:

The Stella team are free to update the license any time they want, at least for versions going forward.  They could have excluded commercial use from day 1. They chose not to exclude such use.  While its possible you can argue this was unforeseeable in 2000, it's not unforeseeable now and hasn't been for well over a decade.

This is not true. Changing the license requires explicit permission permission from everybody who has contributed to the codebase, or removal of those pieces. With a project with a history so long as Stella's, this is simply not realistically possible.

 

That said, to reiterate, as this seems to be implied by some comments: Atari's use of the GPL is technically perfectly valid as long as they point to the source and release their changes under the GPL once they ship, and I am not whining about it. What Thomas and me are pointing at is the obvious mismatch between the all-for-the-fans attitude that we perceive in their public communication regarding the acquisition of AAge and fact that they are neither mentioning Stella anywhere in their presales announcement nor contributing to the project.

Edited September 10, 2023 by DirtyHairy

[Thomas Jentzsch]

20 minutes ago, christo930 said:

I'm pretty the shareholders would have something to say about Atari paying for a free software product and then profit sharing with the developers of that free software product. By law, they have to look out for the shareholders.  The shareholders own the company. They could probably have a court issue an injunction.

I doubt that this is true. Reputation is worth a lot of $$$, even for shareholders.

 

20 minutes ago, christo930 said:

The Stella team are free to update the license any time they want, at least for versions going forward.  They could have excluded commercial use from day 1. They chose not to exclude such use.  While its possible you can argue this was unforeseeable in 2000, it's not unforeseeable now and hasn't been for well over a decade.

Even if we wanted to (which is not the case at all), changing the license like you describe, is very close to impossible. Numerous people ave contributed to Stella under its current license. They all would have to agree to change it. This is never going to happen. Stella is a group effort.

 

And we are not after money, else we would do something else in our spare time.

[+jgkspsx]

9 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Like the Jaguar and its logo?

Trademarks are not the same as copyright. Copyrights that are released into the public domain cannot be taken back. Trademarks that are abandoned can be reregistered by anybody who uses them commercially and wants to use them. Anybody selling Jaguar games since 1996 could have registered the Jaguar logo, but nobody did.

[JetSetIlly]

12 minutes ago, DirtyHairy said:

This is not true. Changing the license requires explicit permission permission from everybody who has contributed to the codebase, or removal of those pieces. With a project with a history so long as Stella's, this is simply not realistically possible.

9 minutes ago, Thomas Jentzsch said:

Even if we wanted to (which is not the case at all), changing the license like you describe, is very close to impossible. Numerous people ave contributed to Stella under its current license. They all would have to agree to change it. This is never going to happen. Stella is a group effort.

It's far too late now but one thing you could have done is change the licence to GPL v3. The project's Copyright.txt file says it be modified and distributed using "version 2 of the license, or any later version" . The change doesn't require agreement from previous contributors as they've already implicitly agreed with that.

 

But of course, you might be happy without the anti-Tivoisation clause that was added in v3.

 

It's nothing to do with me really but I'd prefer it if the 2600+ was user upgradable. IMO, that would make a potentially good product into something great.

 

[christo930]

7 minutes ago, Thomas Jentzsch said:

I doubt that this is true. Reputation is worth a lot of $$$, even for shareholders.

But Atari isn't going to improve brand recognition or reputation by not paying for the use of Stella.

 

9 minutes ago, Thomas Jentzsch said:

And we are not after money, else we would do something else in our spare time.

The comment I was replying to said Atari should pay for the license and profit share with the developers.  I personally have no idea what the developers think of the existing plan.  When you say "we" presumably you are a Stella contributor?

 

11 minutes ago, Thomas Jentzsch said:

Even if we wanted to (which is not the case at all), changing the license like you describe, is very close to impossible. Numerous people ave contributed to Stella under its current license. They all would have to agree to change it. This is never going to happen. Stella is a group effort.

 

I'm not a lawyer and I've never even read the licensing agreement.

 

My point though is that you shouldn't get mad at Atari for following the rules.

 

24 minutes ago, Xyla said:

I would like nothing more than to see this new Atari company truly become ATARI.

 

The "ATARI" of yesteryear wasn't much better.  They didn't care about the developers. They didn't really even care about their customers. It was giant corporation owned and run by Warner.

[+jgkspsx]

12 minutes ago, christo930 said:

The "ATARI" of yesteryear wasn't much better.  They didn't care about the developers. They didn't really even care about their customers. It was giant corporation owned and run by Warner.

I am curious to know which version of Atari was the kind and gentle one. It seems like there are plenty of grievances to have with each version.

[Xyla]

15 minutes ago, christo930 said:

The "ATARI" of yesteryear wasn't much better.  They didn't care about the developers. They didn't really even care about their customers. It was giant corporation owned and run by Warner.

That's not what I'm getting at.  The same can (and is, every single day) be said about Apple not caring about their customers or developers.  But this new Atari company is basically like if Apple went completely out of business and then later someone came along and bought the IP rights for for the name and products, and then decided to only release iPods (no Macs, or anything else) that were actually Raspberry PIs running iPod emulators that someone else made and didn't get credit for.  No one would ever accept that company as Apple.  That's what I mean by they need to do more and be better.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Xyla

[youki]

Congratulation Albert,  happy for you.  May a little less for AtariAge...  we will see...

 

[ThatVintageToaster]

Will games that have a melody chip and/or a hokey work on the new 2600+? Is the AtariVox compatible with the new 2600+ as well?

[Thomas Jentzsch]

17 minutes ago, JetSetIlly said:

It's far too late now but one thing you could have done is change the licence to GPL v3. The project's Copyright.txt file says it be modified and distributed using "version 2 of the license, or any later version" . The change doesn't require agreement from previous contributors as they've already implicitly agreed with that.

 

But of course, you might be happy without the anti-Tivoisation clause that was added in v3.

 

For many years, I never bothered with any licensing. I guess I wouldn't even have started this hobby with all the lawyers around like today.

 

Over the years I have learned that licenses are required because there is significant money in our hobby now. But I can't say I like them and I am mostly not interested.