status of 2600 on a chip

[Esper Wizard]

A month or two ago I read here that the 2600-on-a-chip project was completed. A company called either "RetroGames" or "Protected From Reality" was taking over the project. Furthermore, the entire Atari 2600 was supposed to be inside a joystick controller and you would be able to play the games from a memory card. Has anybody heard about the current status of this project? I was kind of hoping it would be out before Christmas...

[Feralstorm]

That would kick gigantic amounts of ass. I'd assume it would never see production on any real scale, just because of the licensing issues that need dealing with.

 

(THAT would be an excellent Atari Flashback-thing)

[rockman_x_2002]

(THAT would be an excellent Atari Flashback-thing)

 

Yes it would... if Infogrames/Atari would decide to use it. If they did that, then yeah, it would.

 

But I don't see this happeneing, unfortunately.

[Flojomojo]

The website is http://protectedfromreality.com/2600OnAChip/ but it seems to be in limbo.

 

Someone on this board stated that this Christmas is not going to happen ... maybe Xmas 2005? Search the archives, since this has already been discussed.

 

A Jakks-style stick with real VCS hardware and unlimited control of content would be very neat. I believe that Infogrames isn't going to release anything like that, since they don't want to get sued ...unless they had a means to restrict the format so they could charge for ROMs. That would be too logistically complicated and legally risky for the small financial rewards on offer.

[mos6507]

A Jakks-style stick with real VCS hardware and unlimited control of content would be very neat.  I believe that Infogrames isn't going to release anything like that, since they don't want to get sued.

 

You've got this backwards. In the old days Atari sued the 3rd parties for making games for the 2600 without permission. You are saying the current copyright holders of the 2600 can no longer rerelease 2600 hardware if they wanted to?

 

They are more concerned that they wouldn't make any money in software, not that they'd be sued.

 

Then again, maybe the 2600 would be considered a violation of the DMCA unless it were grandfathered in (which I presume it could be).

 

2600 on a chip I think is in the clear because the patent on the 2600 hardware itself has expired. That alone might not stop Infotari from trying to sue anyone besides themselves who tried to release something like that, though, which is why I think the 2600 on a chip products are going to show up as grey-market kiosk items like the NES sticks rather than mainstream titles at Target.

 

I do hope they show up at least in the spring. I was expecting them to show up by Xmas.

 

Besides using them as-is, the compact boards these are going to be really useful for quickly hacking into VCSp's or other case mods.

[Flojomojo]

A Jakks-style stick with real VCS hardware and unlimited control of content would be very neat.  I believe that Infogrames isn't going to release anything like that, since they don't want to get sued.

 

You've got this backwards. In the old days Atari sued the 3rd parties for making games for the 2600 without permission. You are saying the current copyright holders of the 2600 can no longer rerelease 2600 hardware if they wanted to?

 

They are more concerned that they wouldn't make any money in software, not that they'd be sued.

I wasn't being clear. Let me try again: if Atari were to create a console that allowed for the easy play of unauthorized software, it seems to me that they'd be setting themselves up for a DCMA lawsuit.

 

Of course, you could say the same thing about a PC that can be used to play emulators, or a Discman that could play burned music CDs. I'm no lawyer.

[Bruce Tomlin]

I wasn't being clear.  Let me try again: if Atari were to create a console that allowed for the easy play of unauthorized software, it seems to me that they'd be setting themselves up for a DCMA lawsuit.

Ummmm... from whom? You don't get sued out of thin air. They (theoretically) own the copyrights to the binaries, even if there are titles they can't release because they don't have the license to sell the game any more. The only likely plaintiff is Activision, unless Atarigrames plans on suing themselves.

[Flojomojo]

I wasn't being clear.  Let me try again: if Atari were to create a console that allowed for the easy play of unauthorized software, it seems to me that they'd be setting themselves up for a DCMA lawsuit.

Ummmm... from whom? You don't get sued out of thin air. They (theoretically) own the copyrights to the binaries, even if there are titles they can't release because they don't have the license to sell the game any more. The only likely plaintiff is Activision, unless Atarigrames plans on suing themselves.

I don't think Atari owns the rights to anything that they didn't create. There's a reason we keep seeing the same old stuff re-released, after all. Other potential plaintiffs include Sega, Nintendo, and Namco, all of whom licensed popular games to the old Atari Corp. Let's not forget that many images and characters were licensed from other big litigators like LucasFilm and Disney, who are not to be trifled with. As for those companies who no longer exist, I'd love to see their stuff exhumed and put on a collection. What happens when a company ceases to exist and there's no one left to enforce a copyright?

[gdement]

As for those companies who no longer exist, I'd love to see their stuff exhumed and put on a collection.  What happens when a company ceases to exist and there's no one left to enforce a copyright?

 

I think somebody always ends up inheriting the copyright. When a company goes bankrupt, their assets get liquidated to pay creditors, and their IP goes with that.

[Flojomojo]

As for those companies who no longer exist, I'd love to see their stuff exhumed and put on a collection.  What happens when a company ceases to exist and there's no one left to enforce a copyright?

 

I think somebody always ends up inheriting the copyright. When a company goes bankrupt, their assets get liquidated to pay creditors, and their IP goes with that.

Bummer. Not all of them are going to be as cool about it as the company that released the Supercharger stuff into the wild, or the Vectrex group.

[mos6507]

As for those companies who no longer exist, I'd love to see their stuff exhumed and put on a collection.  What happens when a company ceases to exist and there's no one left to enforce a copyright?

 

I think somebody always ends up inheriting the copyright. When a company goes bankrupt, their assets get liquidated to pay creditors, and their IP goes with that.

Bummer. Not all of them are going to be as cool about it as the company that released the Supercharger stuff into the wild, or the Vectrex group.

 

The supercharger stuff was never "released into the wild". It was allowed to be licensed for the two CD releases. That they were willing to do this was cool of them, as the "big boys" would never have allowed something like that. But they weren't exactly putting the games into the public domain.

 

Whatever ROM distribution going on now with Supercharger games is technically illegal, although I have no remaining interest in keeping these games from circulation as Cyberpunks have long ago donated our remaining CD inventory to Randy Crihfield. That doesn't mean one day some people might get a cease and desist from Alpha and Omega (formerly Bridgestone Multimedia).

[mos6507]

They are more concerned that they wouldn't make any money in software' date=' not that they'd be sued.[/quote']I wasn't being clear. Let me try again: if Atari were to create a console that allowed for the easy play of unauthorized software, it seems to me that they'd be setting themselves up for a DCMA lawsuit.

 

Of course, you could say the same thing about a PC that can be used to play emulators, or a Discman that could play burned music CDs. I'm no lawyer.

 

I don't think the DMCA would ever be applied in this manner. Any 2600 revamp is a recreation of the original system from 1977, even if it is reduced down to a single chip or emulated in firmware. I would think that would not violate the DMCA anymore than current CD players do.

 

My point is that the current trend with these Jakks sticks is to introduce a form of DRM by virtue of black-boxing the game code into the hardware. I think this is an intentional move done in order to avoid the phenomenon of buying one stick and just downloading ROM images to a Cuttle Cart on it. It's the same reason Sony ripped out the ability to load arbitrary ROMs into Anthology.

 

Of course, it just so happens that all these sticks including Flashback don't really run the authentic game ROMs, but that's just a serendipitous thing. Even if they DID have a 2600 on a chip they'd not want to expose any way to load non DRMed games into them.