The Ultimate Atari Game System

[Fort Apocalypse]

If Atari were to create a game system that could take over the market for home game systems (in other words, a modern Atari system that could become as ubiquitous as Atari 2600 was in its prime), what would it be?

 

(Please limit your theoretical system so that it would be affordable and mass producible within a year just to keep things somewhat realistic.)

[Fort Apocalypse]

My first take on this is the "ultimate classic gaming system". To do this, I'd start with a very small linux-based system with A/V and s-video output to TV. Have it automatically start-up with a menu of games that are run via number of multi-emulators (arcade emulator such as MAME, Atari 2600, 7800, and 8-bit emulators, C64 emulator, Apple ][ emulator, etc.). The processor and memory should be upgradable, and you should be able to flash the OS and the emulators via USB/firewire or could just be cartridges. Then sell sets of different games to run on it on cartridges. It would come with a cartridge containing a mix of some of the best of breed games for the supported emulators (maybe 100 games total). It would provide generic arcade type controllers that can take a decent amount of abuse. Controllers should be connected via USB and support as many controllers as the game permits (2 controllers come with it, 4 usb ports and you can buy an optional USB hub). Should be able to hook 2 game systems together too through a wireless device (sold separately) so that people in the same neighborhood could play against each other. It would also have a pluggable network card (sold separately) so you could play against others online for games that supported network play. My guess is that you could sell these at $150 using current technology for a decent profit. After a few years you could probably sell them for $50, by which time there would be a ton of games on the market. You could also miniaturize it and do a handheld version after a few years.

 

To make it a bit more affordable/feasible, you could make it linux on a chip (non upgradable) A/V only, and not have networking.

[Fort Apocalypse]

Ok... since no one else cares to venture into the "what if" arena...

 

My second idea for a game system would be for Atari to create a 128-bit game system and also create an IDE to assist in writing games for it. Make the IDE totally open source so that it could get better and better (put on sourceforge). Then focus on drumming up people to write games for it.

 

All of the cartidges that are sold for this system would be "blank". You take home a blank cartidge and log on to the Atari.com game site and you download games to your blank cartridge (through a USB connecting device that comes with the game system). When a customer programs a cartridge it would also allow them to print the label (a printer label comes with the cartridge). Anyone could become a game programmer by downloading the IDE, writing a game, and then uploading the game to the atari.com site. After it is uploaded and it is verified by Atari to be a viable game, it is either free (if it is an unknown game artist trying to get street cred.) or it is for-pay. In addition, there would be a web-based kiosk at the store to allow you to buy and program blank cartridges (the store still makes the money on blank cartidges).

 

I know this plan has holes in it (maybe too many) but I really like the idea of open sourcing it and trying to open up the game development community.

[conda]

That would be cool, but there is too much involved in writing a game these days. When the Atari first came out, it was simple, yet advanced technology. The best part of coding for those systems back then was that is was all new technology and one person could do the coding, music, etc, all in a month or so. Also, the technology was still in it's infancy, so it took some ingenious programming to accomplish certain tasks.

 

Today, it takes so many people and so much time to accomplish what customers expect in a game, that there is no way one person could do it. It can be gratifying like the old days, but you tend to get lost in the crowd and lose the satisfaction of taking a product from start to finish.

 

It would be cool to have console like that to code for though. It would have to be simple, yet advanced enough to attract buyers.

 

Just my opinion.

[Fort Apocalypse]

Today, it takes so many people and so much time to accomplish what customers expect in a game, that there is no way one person could do it.  It can be gratifying like the old days, but you tend to get lost in the crowd and lose the satisfaction of taking a product from start to finish.

934068[/snapback]

 

Definitely. The IDE would have to make developing the game much easier and the better games would probably be team efforts. I'm thinking "Garry Kitchen's GameMaker" for the 21st century, allowing wizards for various types of games (3rd person shooter, strategy, mario scroller-type, puzzle type, etc.). Maybe Atari could have competitions and award prizes to the best games (in addition to the money the games could make if they were "for pay"). If you setup an environment that lets gamers write their own games for game console use more easily, I think you're bound to turn a lot of heads.

 

In addition, you could even let kids design their own games. You could have another open-source game creation kit for the 5-7 yr old range that was easy to use and provided no end to imaginative new games that kids could create, play, and even share with each other (maybe with some help from mom and dad).

[scogey]

I'll give the features it would need to equal and beat the competition...

 

 

1. Backward compatibility....this is what nintendo is planning for Revolution. Connect to the internet.....see #2.....and download any 2600-7800 classic game.

 

2. Online play...including online classic 2600/5200/7800 online play...imagine playing combat online....wow...(i didnt say it would be easy)

 

3. Wireless controllers...or classic controller ports for classic games.

 

4. contracts with major third party software developers like EA

 

5. a major multimedia ad camaign...ya gotta spend if ya wanna sell.

 

 

This type of system should dominate the classic gaming demographic and at least hold its own against the big boys.

[Fort Apocalypse]

3.  Wireless controllers...or classic controller ports for classic games.

934129[/snapback]

 

Wireless controllers would be awesome! However I am not a fan of batteries, especially when it comes to the potential to leak and corrode things from the inside. Maybe they could be kinetically powered and you could shake the heck out of them every once in a while.

 

It would also be nice to have force-feedback in the controllers (even though that is not new).

 

How about electric shock feedback in the controller? When I was playing Satan's Hollow at an arcade in the 80's the joystick would shock me at random during game play.

 

Other ideas: transparent game console lit up on the inside (maybe lights could be controlled and used in gameplay), new types of controllers that could measure your breathing, heartrate, head movement.

 

BTW- I wonder how far we are from having a holographic game console. This one didn't really take off: http://www.atari-computermuseum.de/spector.htm

[jlh2600]

3.  Wireless controllers...or classic controller ports for classic games.

934129[/snapback]

How about electric shock feedback in the controller?

935383[/snapback]

 

 

Ebay Listing:

 

ANIB Atari Evolution GnadPad with testi-lectrical feedback (includes pair of once used electrodes).

[Joe Stella]

If Atari were to create a game system that could take over the market for home game systems (in other words, a modern Atari system that could become as ubiquitous as Atari 2600 was in its prime), what would it be?

 

(Please limit your theoretical system so that it would be affordable and mass producible within a year just to keep things somewhat realistic.)

933006[/snapback]

 

Given enough "brute-force" capital outlay, ok, maybe.

 

That's an interesting question. At first I wanted to dump all over it with the nostalgia and modern Atari Inc. argument. But your question really cuts to the core of what is Atari. Personally, it's really hard to separate Atari from the 2600, A8's, and ST's. THAT's Atari to me. It's a brief period in time that I try to relive for whatever reason -- pretty subjective.

 

We could talk about the startup capital involved.. going up against MS, Sony, and Nintendo... Signing major labels to produce games... Distribution.. Whether or not the games were just rehashes or clones. Do they have the Atari Essence...

 

My gut feeling, outside nostalgiacs <?> such as ourselves, no significant numbers identify with the label.

 

I thank Curt and others for keeping the dream alive.

 

js

[Flojomojo]

Why bother with dedicated hardware when I can run:

 

A. The real thing!

2. The real thing, in modern form, a la Flashback 2!!

iii. Stella, MESS, MAME, and all the other emulators out there!!!

[Fort Apocalypse]

Why bother with dedicated hardware when I can run:

 

A. The real thing!

2. The real thing, in modern form, a la Flashback 2!!

iii. Stella, MESS, MAME, and all the other emulators out there!!!

936334[/snapback]

 

I agree on all points! But I still think that a game console that does emulation (and I mean real emulation, not rewritten games!) is a good idea. Why?

 

1. It is easy to turn a game console off and on.

2. Typically game consoles are built to load quickly (no waiting on the OS and having to move the mouse click to open the emulator, go to full screen, etc).

3. It is usually easy to choose a game to play and start playing.

4. You can play on your TV. Typically there is a lot more sitting room next to a TV vs. the space by a computer, and most people don't have a "media center" computer hooked to their TV.

5. Most people don't know about MAME, Stella, Atari800Win, etc. and even if they do know about it, most don't bother with it.

 

I'd think that someone would create a device like this after having seen the popularity of Jakks releases like Ms Pacman.

 

I think that if Atari wants to create another game console and really make Atari a household name, they would need to not only cover the bases on previously released Atari home console and computer games, and get into the real arcade stuff, or try to beat Sony, MS, Nintendo at their own game and produce a top end game console (and if you do all of the above, even better!)

[Foxsolo2000]

Its an interesting idea but aside from loyal fans such as ourselves who would actually want to purchase it. I like the idea of say a 250 bit super system that would have all the gimmicks necessary to satisfy gamers of today such as DVD, internet connections, the ability to play other gamers in other countries etc, etc and the backward compatability idea is a good one but the main sticking point has to be that the market already has three big players such as Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo and I doubt that many would be willingly weened off their prefered brand to buy a brand new product from a company that allowed its reputation to decline.

Added to this would gamers want the hassle of collecting old cartridges to play on it when most of the time the full potential of the system would not be exploited with games that would be available for it anyway. Someone already mentioned that developing games is now an expensive and time consuming business and unless the software was there to dazzle potential buyers it would fail just like the 7800 and Jaguar before it, not to mention the Saturn and Dreamcast by Sega. Sad to say that it is little more than a dream that would never even get off the drawing board.

[Flojomojo]

A pre-modded XBOX could do all this. Illegally, too. Underground cult bonus points for that.

[frogstar_robot]

Given enough "brute-force" capital outlay, ok, maybe.

 

That's an interesting question.  At first I wanted to dump all over it with the nostalgia and modern Atari Inc. argument.  But your question really cuts to the core of what is Atari.  Personally, it's really hard to separate Atari from the 2600, A8's, and ST's.  THAT's Atari to me.  It's a brief period in time that I try to relive for whatever reason -- pretty subjective.

 

936148[/snapback]

 

I understand that Atari used to have an informal slogan: "Easy to Learn but a Lifetime to Master." Consoles these days come with controllers that are encrusted with pads, analog sticks, and lotsa buttons. These in turn are used to control games that you have to be a Capital G Gamer or highly reflexed 8 year old to play.

 

There just MIGHT be room for a console with controllers no more complicated than the old NES controllers. The games for this hypothetical console should lend themselves to casual ten minute sessions and not require some sort of time investment to either learn or "finish". The only real difference between this console and the old school ones would be in the graphics and sound department. This thing should also be cheap and relatively open to third party development. Given the type of games involved it should either have a portable version or be a portable that hooks up to a home video system easily.

 

If anything my hypothetical Modern Atari is the opposite of what the topic starter proposes. Simple but modern and fairly cheap. This thing needs to be $120 or less from the git go and come with a goodish selection of packins.

 

A more consumer oriented version this is getting very close to what I have in mind. The XGamestation is meant to be simple but interesting system to learn console programming on. It can output graphics and sound that look quite good but it is possible for a single developer to throughly comprehend all of its subsystems at a low level. Case it up nicely with slightly more expressive controllers and sell it as a "Simple and Fun" console and you just might have something.

[shadow460]

I don't see a console as much as I do a portable.

The main thing I see is a Phoenix style portable with the cart slot rotated 90 degrees so that the cart is parallel to the unit.

I also see it having a cart that runs either mini DVD's or microdrives which could hold games as well.

Under the hood it would probably have a 32bit system in addition to the capability to play classic games.

 

Control wise it would probably have A, B, and C fire buttons at least, and a self centering analog stick (think a 5200 stick without the rest of the controller and self centers) with a pole that could unscrew and be placed in the carrying case with the unit. The controller might even rotate to simulate 2600 paddle/driving controllers.

 

The unit would have AV out jacks and possibly a controller port so that two or more people could play it on a TV, or one person could plug in a special controller.

[DamageX]

Let me start by saying that I don't think even an infinite number of FLOPS or polygons/s would make games more fun. My single biggest problem with games today is control, or IOW the interface between the player and the game. Some dedicated gamers can manuever gracefully through a 3D environment with a mouse and keyboard, I'm not one of them. If it's oldskool Megaman or a shmup (or even the original DOOM) then I rule. If it's Counterstrike then I have the coordination of a 1st grader. How can the player simultaneously move along X,Y,Z axes and control the direction that they are looking with a combination of buttons that are only off or on, or sticks and mice which only measure movement on one plane?

 

There are two ways around this problem. The first is simply to stick with games that respect the limitations of the controller like the aforementioned titles Megaman, DOOM, etc. But, developers seem to think a game should look like a movie, so 2D and fixed camera perspectives are not too popular.

 

The 2nd possibility, of course, is to improve the controls. I would like to see stereo displays, force feedback, etc... all that "virtual reality" gear that could've/would've/should've been here by now but isn't.

 

PS... "Easy to Learn but a Lifetime to Master?" I thought that was the assembly language slogan.