Call me crazy.... I think I know Atari's plan...

[Warboss Gegguz]

 

On 12/13/2023 at 7:25 PM, Warboss Gegguz said:

I mean, speaking as a PC gamer, this has been done before multiple times and failed. The only boon to the VCS was brand recognition and production value. But the general market wasn't interested, and the retro market was interested but had no idea what to expect. Being there and watching the whole show unfold, initial pitch for the VCS was (or at least sounded like) effectively just what the Gamestation and/or 2600+ are, but it just kept ballooning until it became effectively a slightly higher-end micro console or lower end PC.

Which is what the 2600+ and Gamestation are. And that has actual appeal to the casual market AND the collector market vs. the VCS which is trying to fill a void that doesn't exist. If you want a cheap way to play retro or indie games, get a switch or learn to emulate on PC. Maybe even buy one of the many compilations of Atari games that have all of the retro titles Atari is offering already.

 

Both the VCS and the Amico (blech)were geared towards a market that is already very self-sufficient. I mean, we're all retro-fans here... who here doesn't already have emulation software or old-school hardware to play games? I got "my" 2600+ for my dad because it's easier and more quaint/cute than teaching a 61 year old who can barely use facebook how to run Stella or retroarch. And I like it because of the form-factor and authenticity. I just wish the damn thing was flash-cart compatible. But it's not like I don't know how to use mame and stella on my $3000 gaming laptop + every other emulator under the sun. And if I want to play recent games, it and my switch also serve that purpose... so what reason would I EVER have to invest in a VCS? There's no market for it, and people had said that ever since they announced it was going to be more than just an "atari box".

 

I'm HOPING the investment in a tech manufacturer isn't for some new unnecessary piece of kit and is just to help reduce costs on current demands... but Atari has done dumber things in the past.

 

7 minutes ago, jeremiahjt said:

I believe you first started posting in the 2600+ subforum, and I did not see anything wrong with your posting. When you started talking about the VCS, your posting changed. You became much more antagonistic, particularly when anybody disagreed with you.

I dont think I was being antagonistic, I think I was being thorough.

 

I got annoyed because I was literally having to repeat myself multiple times because the counter arguments never changed. And THEN it turned into "you just HATE the VSC, LMAO!" and I gave up.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Warboss Gegguz

[PowerDubs]

Did I read?

 

Yea dummy...

 

It's not the same... nowhere near.  Smaller storage drive, older USB, ... waaay slower cpu...

 

I'll stick to my VCS- in it's well built pretty package....w/ my dual bank 32GB 2666MHz DDR4 CL15 RAM and 1TB SSD drive- from 3 years ago...

 

 

[Warboss Gegguz]

 

18 minutes ago, PowerDubs said:

It's not the same... nowhere near.  Smaller storage drive, older USB, ... waaay slower cpu...

And yet the specs are about all your need to run anything Atari has put out in the last 10 years + retro shit + plenty of indies.

 

So, what you've effectively said is that the VCS is WAY overpowered for what you guys are using it for... or is the VCS SUPPOSED to be a proper console competitor?

 

The goalposts seem to be shifting to whatever is convenient to get me to stop questioning this thing.

 

Ironically this is exactly what I said the problem qith the VCS was ALL THE WAY BACK at the start: the intended audience makes no sense. It's way too beastly and costly (both to buy and to make) for what is essentially an indie, streaming, and retro games machine.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Warboss Gegguz

[Matt_B]

17 minutes ago, PowerDubs said:

Did I read?

 

Yea dummy...

 

It's not the same... nowhere near.  Smaller storage drive, older USB, ... waaay slower cpu...

 

I'll stick to my VCS- in it's well built pretty package....w/ my dual bank 32GB 2666MHz DDR4 CL15 RAM and 1TB SSD drive- from 3 years ago...

 

 

That's a really slow speed for DDR4 RAM, you know, right? I'd reckon that you could get a fair bit more performance out of even the VCS if you gave it a bit of an overclock. You might even get it into the territory of a $30 desktop APU like the Athlon 3000G.

[Warboss Gegguz]

2 minutes ago, Matt_B said:

That's a really slow speed for DDR4 RAM, you know, right? I'd reckon that you could get a fair bit more performance out of even the VCS if you gave it a bit of an overclock. You might even get it into the territory of a $30 desktop APU like the Athlon 3000G.

Dont bother, these dudes are shareholders. They will do and say literally anything to justify the VCS, and in an openly disrespectful manner.

 

That's why I gave up being civil.

[MrTrust]

1 hour ago, Matt_B said:

Before everyone starts moving the goalposts, I'm not saying that these the better options for everyone. If only the VCS does it for you, that's fine; you like what you like.

 

It's not moving goalposts to point out that this an invidious comparison.  Those are refurbished machines.  Comparing new to new, they are comparably priced with the VCS.  I just bought a second VCS brand new for $130, do I get to use that as a data point?

 

I would say, going in the other direction, I'm not saying the VCS is the only solution of its type, or the best one (though it does have features that those machines do not), or even that it is not overpriced.  It is marginally overpriced from a dollar-per-spec standpoint.  At $400, it was grossly so.  Did anyone say otherwise?  I certainly didn't.

 

1 hour ago, Warboss Gegguz said:

Idk if you just got here, but these people seem to have worse tunnelvision than a naked mole rat. Their entire argument has boiled down to " yeah, but I like the VCS so CLEARLY there's a huge audience for it!"

 

Show me one thing I said in this thread or elsewhere that can be paraphrased that way accurately.

[Warboss Gegguz]

5 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

Show me one thing I said in this thread or elsewhere that can be paraphrased that way accurately.

 

 

I'm so fucking bored with this conversation, so please stop pinging me.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Warboss Gegguz

[MrTrust]

3 minutes ago, Warboss Gegguz said:

I'm so fucking bored with this conversation, so please stop pinging me.

 

Then stop passive aggressively referring to me to other people in the thread, distorting every point I made, and accusing me of being a secret shill.

[Matt_B]

18 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

It's not moving goalposts to point out that this an invidious comparison.  Those are refurbished machines.  Comparing new to new, they are comparably priced with the VCS.  I just bought a second VCS brand new for $130, do I get to use that as a data point?

Given that "new" wasn't specified, that is moving the goalposts. Refurbs still come with a warranty and class A ones should have no obvious visible defects on the case.

 

Meanwhile, the idea that a VCS is "brand new" has to be tempered with the fact that it'll have been sitting around in a warehouse for a couple of years since that's how long Atari have had an inventory surplus for.

 

If you're OK with individual data points, I picked up a mini-ITX PC and a laptop from a former workplace for free. They'd otherwise have been e-waste, so winners all round there.

[82-T/A]

18 hours ago, Warboss Gegguz said:

That's an extremely false equivalence.

It's more like saying there are 50 different farmers at the market all selling the exact same kind of apple but with different advertising and price.

The things I'm talking about are literally the same thing as a VCS minus the branding... and about $100.

 

Is it? Because there are no other Atari VCSes out there? I think the car example is honestly the most appropriate. 80% of cars out there will get at least 20 miles to the gallon, and go 120 miles an hour at their top speed (usually 112 mph limited). They all seat 4 people, and can generally travel 300 miles. Some are quicker, some are less quick. It is absolutely a valid equivalence. Your apple / produce example is totally a false equivalence.

 

I guess I'm trying to understand what you're point is. Are you saying it shouldn't exist? Because this doesn't make sense to me. There are obviously people who like it and willing to plunk down $300 bucks for one. Or more actually because I bought two of them, and own about half the games they've released on it. Do you think people should be spending their money on something else? Help me figure this out.

 

If the PS5/XBOX comparison was even a question, I never assumed for a minute that it would. I have no interest at all in a PS5. I own an insanely fast top of the line Lenovo Legion computer... and I mostly use it for e-mail and programming, though it's supposed to be a gaming computer. Any game that's out there for either the PS5 or the XBOX that I'd even have any interest to play, I can already get it on a PC, and would much rather play it on a PC.

 

So help me understand your argument? You're absolutely entitled to your opinion, and I don't think you should be forced to like the VCS... but I'm not sure why you're telling me I shouldn't?

 

 

8 hours ago, MrTrust said:

NOOOOOO IT'S JUST A HECKIN' LAPTOP WITHOUT A BUILT-IN SCREEN MY DUDES JUST RE-BUY ALL YOUR OLD GAMES ON SWITCH MY DUDES AND BUY 3 DIFFERENT THINGS OFF NEWEGG YOU'LL SAVE LIKE $12 MY DUDES IT SHOULDN'T EXIST MY DUDES.

 

Yeah, like... I really don't get this argument... and you're right, this is kind of what people are saying. I think what we need to recognize here is that it has less to do with the VCS, and more about people wanting to feel like their views are being validated. $12 bucks (to use your example)... is not something that would sway me from not buying an Atari VCS... hahah. But this is pretty much spot on.

 

 

4 hours ago, Flojomojo said:

Nobody can tell a manufacturer not to try and compete in a free and open market. 

 

Customers can choose how to spend their hard earned $300+.

 

Atari (and its fans) can say that VCS isn’t competing with x, y, and z but people have limited money and time and the market leader is usually in front for valid reasons. 

 

I’m Captain Obvious and I endorse this message. 

 

Oh, 100%. Did you mean to respond to me on this? I recognize there are cheap thin clients and other computers out there on AliExpress, but I bought the VCS because it has excellent joysticks, a great looking OS, and allows me to play Atari games and some really cool indie games, all in a near Atari package.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Warboss Gegguz said:

"4GB RAM 64GB ROM Support Auto-On After Power Failure,Support 4K HD,Dual Band WiFi 2.4G/5G, BT 4.2"

 

DID YOU EVEN READ IT?!

 

To be clear, I literally have this. I have Ubuntu running on it so that my daughter can write programs for her Arduino board. It really sucks... completely forget about the VCS right now... I expected so much more from this little Intel device. It's almost unusable. If you have more than two firefox windows open, it lags so bad that it basically hangs. Like... I don't even know why they bothered making this. It's right there along the back wall.

 

When she programs for it, she literally has to have everything else closed. The Arduino IDE can be the ONLY thing opened if she wants to use it... it's THAT shitty.

 

 

 

[Warboss Gegguz]

39 minutes ago, MrTrust said:

Then stop passive aggressively referring to me to other people in the thread, distorting every point I made, and accusing me of being a secret shill.

I'm not accusing you of being a secret shill, P-Dub is literally a shareholder and cheerleaders for Atari all the time. Other people who are shareholders have even called him out on it, lol.

I'm being passive aggressive because being direct and speaking plainly while not being convinced got me accused of being a "hater".

I gave you a HUGE breakdown of why the VCS isn't worth supporting forever ago and your response was basically restating your previous argument. zzip made a better case for you than you did.

[Warboss Gegguz]

5 minutes ago, 82-T/A said:

Is it? Because there are no other Atari VCSes out there? I think the car example is honestly the most appropriate.

Comparing a Cadillac to a Ford or a Rolls to a Toyota is different from comparing a PC to a different PC with similar if not identical specs, yes. There's actual distinction beyond just the brand name.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Warboss Gegguz

[82-T/A]

2 minutes ago, Warboss Gegguz said:

Comparing a Cadillac to a Ford or a Rolls to a Toyota is different from comparing a PC to a different PC with similar if not identical specs, yes. There's actual distinction beyond just the brand name.

 

I'm a car guy, so you're going to lose this argument hard if this is the path you're going to go.

 

Cadillacs all use "corporate Chevy" engines... they have since they got rid of the 32v Northstar V8. Since then, all mid-level Cadillacs use a regular corporate GM V6, same one that's in all the run of the mill cars, and their high-end cars have the same V8 that's in everything from the pickup truck to the Corvette, with either a different intake manifold, or crank. Ford and Lincoln cars share the exact same engines as well... which are comperable to the corporate GM engines in Cadillac and Chevy. And furthermore, a lot of Jaguars have Ford engines and transmissions in them... and vice-versa from their time when Ford owned them... the list goes on. 

 

It's obvious to me though that you seemed to ignore literally everything else, where I asked you what your point is...

 

I'm trying to understand what you're point is. Are you saying it shouldn't exist? Because this doesn't make sense to me. There are obviously people who like it and willing to plunk down $300 bucks for one. Or more actually because I bought two of them, and own about half the games they've released on it. Do you think people should be spending their money on something else? Help me figure this out.

[Warboss Gegguz]

6 minutes ago, 82-T/A said:

So help me understand your argument? You're absolutely entitled to your opinion, and I don't think you should be forced to like the VCS... but I'm not sure why you're telling me I shouldn't?

I literally said you're entitled to like the VCS but should at least be able to understand WHY from a business perspective it was/is a bad move to keep supporting or double down on it. Everyone is telling me why the VCS is good, basically missing the entire point of what I was saying.

My whole argument is that it's in a market that's so niche and flooded that the costs don't justify it. It was mishandled, it doesn't appeal to most hardcore gamers, definitely is out of the scope of casual gamers, and has basically been a money sink it's entire existence. I DON'T REALLY CARE IF YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. If you enjoy it, cool... it's still not a good business move.

 

I used myself as an example for a sort of "control" when it comes to the general gaming audience, and that got taken in this asinine direction of "well, I don't like it so therefore it's bad!  " and then it just devolved into name calling and memes. The whole point was saying the VCS wasn't a good business decision IN GENERAL and they shouldn't keep trying to go further in the hardware market. Not that you have to PERSONALLY hate the thing.

 

And the fact it's turned into this is why I'm so fucking beside myself at this point. Because my entire point was completely derailed.

[Warboss Gegguz]

2 minutes ago, 82-T/A said:

 

I'm a car guy, so you're going to lose this argument hard if this is the path you're going to go.

 

Cadillacs all use "corporate Chevy" engines... they have since they got rid of the 32v Northstar V8. Since then, all mid-level Cadillacs use a regular corporate GM V6, same one that's in all the run of the mill cars, and their high-end cars have the same V8 that's in everything from the pickup truck to the Corvette, with either a different intake manifold, or crank. Ford and Lincoln cars share the exact same engines as well... which are comperable to the corporate GM engines in Cadillac and Chevy. And furthermore, a lot of Jaguars have Ford engines and transmissions in them... and vice-versa from their time when Ford owned them... the list goes on. 

I'm a car guy too... and engines are 1 component of many. The features, trim, suspension, etc. are different than a base model chevy. Also, cadies are shifting to their own EV platform for 2024. Arguing that luxury cars and base-models are identical purely on engine and/or platform sounds bizarre for a self-professed car person. This ignoring the Rolls/Toyota comparison... because you can't make the "shared platform" argument. 

If we were comparing like a toyota to a lexus or a Nissan to an Infinity I would agree because Japanese luxury cars are just rebadged for the foreign markets. But even then, comparing a Fairlady to Leaf or a Camry to a Crown is hilariously absurd.

 

And to add to my second response this is (again) all entirely besides the point I was trying to make... and everyone treats me like I'm crazy when I get annoyed.

[82-T/A]

3 minutes ago, Warboss Gegguz said:

I literally said you're entitled to like the VCS but should at least be able to understand WHY from a business perspective it was/is a bad move to keep supporting or double down on it. Everyone is telling me why the VCS is good, basically missing the entire point of what I was saying.

My whole argument is that it's in a market that's so niche and flooded that the costs don't justify it. It was mishandled, it doesn't appeal to most hardcore gamers, definitely is out of the scope of casual gamers, and has basically been a money sink it's entire existence. I DON'T REALLY CARE IF YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. If you enjoy it, cool... it's still not a good business move.

 

"it doesn't appeal to most hardcore gamers,"  ok... I think I understand the problem here. Hardcore gamers were never the intended audience for the VCS.

"definitely is out of the scope of casual gamers," ... and then this confuses me. I consider myself a casual gamer. I maybe play an hour or two a week of video games. Sometimes less.

 

Again... I'm wondering if this is less about the Atari VCS, and more about you psychologically feeling like your views need to be validated? If that's what you need, you're probably going to get a lot more support for your argument on a Playstation forum. Generally, you don't go to an Atari forum looking for agreement on why you think an Atari product sucks.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Warboss Gegguz said:

I used myself as an example for a sort of "control" when it comes to the general gaming audience, and that got taken in this asinine direction of "well, I don't like it so therefore it's bad!  " and then it just devolved into name calling and memes. The whole point was saying the VCS wasn't a good business decision IN GENERAL and they shouldn't keep trying to go further in the hardware market. Not that you have to PERSONALLY hate the thing. And the fact it's turned into this is why I'm so fucking beside myself at this point. Because my entire point was completely derailed.

 

I don't know about memes and name calling... I don't have anything to do with that. But I'm going to be really honest with you here. You're certainly entitled to your opinions... but you have to understand that people take opinions in context. I don't know where you are in life... but when you say that the Atari VCS was a bad business decision... that would mean something coming from say Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Warren Buffet, or even T.Boone Pickens. But it's coming from you... so the question is what validation do you have to say what is and isn't a good business decision. Sometimes bad decisions are obvious... I don't really see this as a bad decision.

 

 

 

 

[MrTrust]

18 minutes ago, 82-T/A said:

Yeah, like... I really don't get this argument... and you're right, this is kind of what people are saying. I think what we need to recognize here is that it has less to do with the VCS, and more about people wanting to feel like their views are being validated.

 

Single woman wants to find a millionaire to marry.  She can't find one on the dating sites, so she takes bids for someone to write an algorithm to filter all the applicants to disqualify men who are not millionaires.  Dude comes in with a solution that is guaranteed to be 99% accurate and undercuts everyone else.  Fantastic.  Woman uses it for a year; never finds a millionaire.  "Hey!  You said this algorithm was 99% accurate!"

 

Yeah, it is.  It disqualifies 100% of the applicants.  Since only 1% of the potential matches are millionaires, the algorithm is accurate 99% of the time.

 

There's no safer thing that predicting the demise of any new entrant into a saturated market.  You're going to be right, almost every time, in the same vacuous way that the algorithm writer is right.

 

Again, we are all well aware that the VCS was a money loser, that Atari bungled the project, that it was a long shot at best at being profitable.  Has anybody here not heard this a thousand times?  Are we supposed to be impressed with this analysis or something?

 

The interesting question relative to this particular thread's topic is what could be done in the future on the hardware side, what market conditions might emerge to make things viable that were't before, or what would they have to do to avoid failure in the future.  Now, why people get so butthurt that anyone has any answer to those questions other than "nothing", when they're all speculative anyway, is beyond me.

 

 

[82-T/A]

8 minutes ago, Warboss Gegguz said:

I'm a car guy too... and engines are 1 component of many. The features, trim, suspension, etc. are different than a base model chevy. Also, cadies are shifting to their own EV platform for 2024. Arguing that luxury cars and base-models are identical purely on engine and/or platform sounds bizarre for a self-professed car person.

 

Luxury:

 

 

 

Non-Luxury:

 

 

 

Same chassis, same engine, same suspension, same brakes, same transmission.

 

 

 

... and, ARE you a car guy? What do you define as a car guy then? I have to ask then because you also claim to be the arbiter of business decisions. You are entitled to your opinion... and THAT'S what we need to focus on here, it's just your opinion.

 

I do question when someone says they're a car guy though. If you've restored a car, rebuilt an engine, swapped out a transmission, burned out bushings with a torch, or you know how to weld... then maybe you're a car guy. But if you changed an air filter once... then you can say you're a car enthusiast. Tim Allen would agree.

 

 

 

[Matt_B]

The VCS was a bad business decision because development overran by a couple of years on a project that was supposed to be done in months, and sales nosedived pretty soon after launch leaving them with a lot of unsold inventory. That Atari lost money on it is documented in their own financial reports.

 

The 2600+ displays a couple of things that they learned from that. They partnered up with someone who could help with the development and marketing, greatly reducing the risk to themselves, and they didn't announce a thing until they knew they were going to hit a release date. You might not like the device, and I'm no fan myself, but I think that's progress at least.

[Warboss Gegguz]

Just now, 82-T/A said:

Hardcore gamers were never the intended audience for the VCS.

Then as I said to P-Dub, it's WAY too beastly for that audience. That was part of my point. If you're looking to play indie shit and retro-games casually, you DO NOT need something as strong as the VCS. And even if you don't have a machine that can atm, you can get one from reputable companies for less than a VCS. That's why I made the switch comparison. Because that's a very casual-heavy device in the same market. At the same time, if you're a hardcore gamer you most likely already have ways of playing everything the VCS offers and more... so the market that this exists for is microscopic.

 

4 minutes ago, 82-T/A said:

Again... I'm wondering if this is less about the Atari VCS, and more about you psychologically feeling like your views need to be validated? If that's what you need, you're probably going to get a lot more support for your argument on a Playstation forum.

First off, I would rather die than be surrounded by Sony stans. Second, I like atari and don't want them to go down the drain again, and playing yes-man isn't going to help that. Honestly, I think my take was very level-headed so idk why it turned into me being a "blind hater who was never part of the market for this thing" or whatever. I'm mainly still here because I'm hoping for more meaningful discussion rather than just a circle jerk, and you've at least been civil enough to provide that. So I thank.

 

10 minutes ago, 82-T/A said:

I don't know about memes and name calling... I don't have anything to do with that. But I'm going to be really honest with you here. You're certainly entitled to your opinions... but you have to understand that people take opinions in context. I don't know where you are in life... but when you say that the Atari VCS was a bad business decision... that would mean something coming from say Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Warren Buffet, or even T.Boone Pickens. But it's coming from you... so the question is what validation do you have to say what is and isn't a good business decision. Sometimes bad decisions are obvious... I don't really see this as a bad decision.

I mean, I'm not lying when I say I'm an econ major with a focus in marketing, but whatever, fine people can make shit up on the internet. But I think I've made a very rational argument. My support is the fact that the VCS isn't flying off the shelves or even considered relevant outside of its initial release period and on this forum. If it were some tiny indie company like Analog we were talking about that might be different, but we're talking about a multi-million dollar studio/publisher. At best, being super generous, the VCS is like the PC-Engine of the current market.

But NEC also pulled out of the console business sooooo...

 

My whole point was OPINIONS OF THE VCS ENTIRELY REMOVED, it's not worth supporting into the foreseeable future or making some successor too when there are way better things that resources could be used on. THAT IS ALL.

I was asked to explain why the VCS isn't the future, and then gave my own opinions grounded in it's software library (or lack thereof) it's commercials performance vs. competitors, general lack of public interest, and the state of the market, none of which are "opinions". 

So unless I send you a scanned copy of my transcript or something IDK what argument I'm supposed to make that would at least be seen as VALID let alone convince you... which, again, is why I gave up.

[Warboss Gegguz]

12 minutes ago, 82-T/A said:

 

Luxury:

 

 

 

Non-Luxury:

 

Same chassis, same engine, same suspension, same brakes, same transmission.

 

Well given ford has basically abandoned Lincoln and just started shilling SUVs yeah, I expect that. Shame really, the Mark series is one of my dream cars.

the last Lincoln with any personality was the MKS. I also just hate SUVs and crossovers though. I pray to god that market trend ends soon. Especially since making EV SUVs and Trucks is hard AF with weight regulations.

 

I'm not a mechanic. I know internals and know general shit... and none of the comparisons I made were cars by the same parent for a reason. Because the "AKSHULLY they're a shared platform" doesn't work. Your initials response said Caddies are chevys when I was comparing them to Fords. So literally nothing changed other than the trim and price tag. And I never mentioned modern Lincoln's either for a similar reason. But even then your argument was "all cars are the same because they go vroom and move" which means a Corvette is the same as a Smart Car.

[Warboss Gegguz]

23 minutes ago, Matt_B said:

The VCS was a bad business decision because development overran by a couple of years on a project that was supposed to be done in months, and sales nosedived pretty soon after launch leaving them with a lot of unsold inventory. That Atari lost money on it is documented in their own financial reports.

THANK YOU!!!

 

I feel like I'm in fucking One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest here!

I have no fucking Idea what to say here anymore because all rational discussion has been exhausted.

I feel like if I say "gravity is universal" someone would have some "counter argument" at this point.

 

The VCS was not a commercial success. This is AN OBJECTIVE FACT! You liking the console doesn't change that!

[82-T/A]

16 minutes ago, Warboss Gegguz said:

I mean, I'm not lying when I say I'm an econ major with a focus in marketing, but whatever, fine people can make shit up on the internet.

 

Man, don't do that. There are tons of people here with degrees. I have two masters degrees, a bachelors, an associates, and 5 masters certificates with about 10 technical certifications. None of these make me any smarter than you... so don't be throwing out degrees. All it means is that you spent a lot of money, did some homework, and listened to a person talk at you. There's always going to be someone with "more" when you throw out examples, and I'm quite sure there's a couple of PhDs on here. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Warboss Gegguz said:

My whole point was OPINIONS OF THE VCS ENTIRELY REMOVED, it's not worth supporting into the foreseeable future or making some successor too when there are way better things that resources could be used on. THAT IS ALL.

 

Ok, I can work with this.

 

My argument, which has been unfavorable, is that Atari should make the Atari OS available to the outside. I don't expect people will be clamoring to install it on millions of machines, but then people SHOULD be able to install it on other hardware (like mini-PCs off Ali Express) if they want... and it will extend the life of it. Atari continues to offer games on the VCS, and eventually the games that are offered will be limited (if it isn't already) by the performance of the system. I know a lot of people on here would probably buy a new VCS 2 if one was to ever come out. If you can extend the life of the Atari OS, you can make new hardware for it and expand it's reach. Again... I'm not thinking this will explode and millions will get it... but for the casual gamer like me... I enjoy the OS and the simplicity. I'd thought about getting a Steam deck at one point... but really don't play enough to make it worth it.

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by 82-T/A

[MrTrust]

3 minutes ago, Warboss Gegguz said:

Honestly, I think my take was very level-headed so idk why it turned into me being a "blind hater who was never part of the market for this thing" or whatever.

 

You're not being accused of being a blind hater.  You're being accused of being a dick.

 

The whole thing that got this started is I was trying to explain to you that you're not the "general gamer," demographically speaking.  Trends being what they are, the general gamer is beginning to look more like myself and 82, though not as price-insenstive as him and not as receptive to Atari branding as either of us.  

Whatever the platforms of the future are, including hardware, are going to change in light of that.  One may look more like a VCS/Polymega-type combo than current consoles.

 

That something was likely, and that it happened, does not mean it was so metaphysically inevitable that to even entertain any counterfactual is just an exercise in obstinacy, and it certainly doesn't make the guys who bet the Vegas odds any more insightful, or their analysis more interesting.

 

That's it.  That's all I said initially before we got dragged into a debate over the value proposition of a VCS.  You didn't address any of those points even once.  You came right out the gate with a condescending, prickish attitude BRO and then proceeded to throw a total hissy fit when you didn't find a receptive audience, which you admit yourself you shouldn't have expected.

 

That's your prerogative to do, but nobody called you a hater, or a PC master race snob, or any other paranoid thing you've read into what we've said.  Nobody broke down and acknowledge your genius in the face your arguments because we've heard them all already.

[Warboss Gegguz]

Just now, 82-T/A said:

Man, don't do that. There are tons of people here with degrees. I have two masters degrees, a bachelors, an associates, and 5 masters certificates with about 10 technical certifications. None of these make me any smarter than you...

We are LITERALLY talking about business, management, and marketing. If I was showing a degree for mechanical engineering it would be a different story. Also, It was hypothetical and a joke, holy shit. You asked if I had bonafedes relevant to the topic. I said I do. I didn't say my IQ was higher than yours, I said I literally studied this topic for over 4 years of my life + honors classes in econ in high school, so even if I can't code or build a car from the ground up I think I at the very least gasp this topic more than a casual consumer.

Also, you literally asked me what my experience was and said "if you were Warren Buffet your opinion would matter". I didn't bring it up to 1-up you... WTF is wrong with you people?!

 

But even if I didn't have a degree that in no way changes my arguments when they're grounded in the OBJECTIVE REALITY of the VCS' commercial performance.

You can question my explanation as to why, but it being a commercial failure is a demonstrable fact.

 

8 minutes ago, 82-T/A said:

My argument, which has been unfavorable, is that Atari should make the Atari OS available to the outside. I don't expect people will be clamoring to install it on millions of machines, but then people SHOULD be able to install it on other hardware (like mini-PCs off Ali Express) if they want... and it will extend the life of it. Atari continues to offer games on the VCS, and eventually the games that are offered will be limited (if it isn't already) by the performance of the system.

What is the point of that when literally every game on the VCS is also on PC and the major console platforms? And even then, it's just a Linux shell, so it already is public.

 

9 minutes ago, 82-T/A said:

I know a lot of people on here would probably buy a new VCS 2 if one was to ever come out.

Yes, because we're on a forum literally made for fans of Atari. That's not a lot of people. If carts are barely turning a profit how the fuck is a console supposed to? NONE OF THIS MAKES SENSE IF THE GOAL IS TO MAKE MONEY! Why is this impossible to understand?!

The question isn't "would some people like it?", it's "would it be profitable?" And when the original VCS is already unprofitable to begin with, what do you think the answer is?

 

Again, everyone is treating me like I'm insane and toxic for being annoyed, but holy shit how many different ways can I say the exact same fucking thing before the point sinks in?

YOU GUYS AREN'T WHO I'M TALKING ABOUT! I DON'T CARE IF YOU LIKE BOUGHT THE VCS, IT OBJECTIVELY FAILED COMMERCIALLY!