Atari on it's way out...again! (58% less value)

[jbanes]

Seriously, though, I agree with mos6507.  The original, pre-Warner Atari was a very unique mix of personalities and technologies that came along at just the right time, and created a lot of the momentum that the company later lived on. 

 

I've heard some of the Atari alumni talk about how they tried to get back together again and recreate the magic among themselves, at Sente and at other places.  Even they didn't succeed, so I don't know if it's even possible to reassemble ALL of the ingredients that made the early Atari successful in today's world.  Even if Infogrames wanted to, how would they do it?

997016[/snapback]

 

That's why Infotari *cannot* be that old Atari. Anyone carrying the Atari name must be a new company, with new ideas, but leveraging the old name to market those ideas. So far the Flashback 2.0 is the smartest move that Infotari has made yet. It has done well for the company, and has paved a road forward that I feel they would be wise to follow.

 

The problem is that they're going to have to get creative with this road. There are only so many old systems to revive. I think that Infotari would do well to investigate some of the holdings they inherited with the Atari brand, and perhaps use 20/20 hindsight to bring previously unreleased concepts to market.

 

Take the holographic handheld as an example. The implementation from back in the day just wouldn't work now. But nothing stops Infotari from developing a new device that builds on that technology. Imagine, for example, a handheld gaming system that replaced its screen with every cartridge. The cartridge itself would consist of the transparent Hologram, LCD pictures, and coloring over the LCD pictures. The coloring would be lit up by the unit's backlight, giving the illusion of a very colorful handheld game. Priced right, such a device could do well in today's market.

 

Another idea is a laser-projector, vector-graphics console. Can you imagine reliving Asteriod, Tempest, Gravitar, and other vector favorites, but projected directly onto a large wall instead of a tiny Vectrex screen? The technology exists, and is currently in use by hobbyists.

 

Basically, Infotari can have a very interesting future ahead of them. But they're going to have to play this different than everyone else, and follow the niche they've created.

[MCHufnagel]

Seriously, though, I agree with mos6507.  The original, pre-Warner Atari was a very unique mix of personalities and technologies that came along at just the right time, and created a lot of the momentum that the company later lived on. 

 

I've heard some of the Atari alumni talk about how they tried to get back together again and recreate the magic among themselves, at Sente and at other places.  Even they didn't succeed, so I don't know if it's even possible to reassemble ALL of the ingredients that made the early Atari successful in today's world.  Even if Infogrames wanted to, how would they do it?

997016[/snapback]

 

That's why Infotari *cannot* be that old Atari. Anyone carrying the Atari name must be a new company, with new ideas, but leveraging the old name to market those ideas. So far the Flashback 2.0 is the smartest move that Infotari has made yet. It has done well for the company, and has paved a road forward that I feel they would be wise to follow.

 

The problem is that they're going to have to get creative with this road. There are only so many old systems to revive. I think that Infotari would do well to investigate some of the holdings they inherited with the Atari brand, and perhaps use 20/20 hindsight to bring previously unreleased concepts to market.

 

Take the holographic handheld as an example. The implementation from back in the day just wouldn't work now. But nothing stops Infotari from developing a new device that builds on that technology. Imagine, for example, a handheld gaming system that replaced its screen with every cartridge. The cartridge itself would consist of the transparent Hologram, LCD pictures, and coloring over the LCD pictures. The coloring would be lit up by the unit's backlight, giving the illusion of a very colorful handheld game. Priced right, such a device could do well in today's market.

 

Another idea is a laser-projector, vector-graphics console. Can you imagine reliving Asteriod, Tempest, Gravitar, and other vector favorites, but projected directly onto a large wall instead of a tiny Vectrex screen? The technology exists, and is currently in use by hobbyists.

 

Basically, Infotari can have a very interesting future ahead of them. But they're going to have to play this different than everyone else, and follow the niche they've created.

997373[/snapback]

 

The trouble with being innovative is that has anybody who has bought the Artari name been looking to improve what Atari stood for? Of course not, the name has been bought and sold as a brand name only. Sell to people on nostalga, not creativity. If Infotari does go out of business, then the next owner of the name will just do the same old thing the previous owners have done. I mean really, how many versions of Missle Command do we need and can anybody make big money with it?

[jaybird3rd]

The trouble with being innovative is that has anybody who has bought the Artari name been looking to improve what Atari stood for? Of course not, the name has been bought and sold as a brand name only. Sell to people on nostalga, not creativity. If Infotari does go out of business, then the next owner of the name will just do the same old thing the previous owners have done. I mean really, how many versions of Missle Command do we need and can anybody make big money with it?

997625[/snapback]

These points, and the points jbanes has brought up, are some of the reasons I'm so excited about the new line of Flashbacks, and in particular the forthcoming FB3. Atari does need to be creative and innovative and in the business of developing new game ideas again, instead of doing what everyone else does and recycling their existing library of classics in either emulation packs or Hasbro-style 3D "remakes." The problem is that, with the way that the modern console and computer market has evolved, it is very difficult to make money being too creative because game development is too expensive to waste on far-out ideas that might not pan out.

 

That's where the FB3 comes in. Developing games on the FB3 is going to be a lot cheaper because they'll be the work of one person or of a small group of people, and because they can be developed on a small budget, Atari will be able to sell them at competitive prices and still make a decent profit. If a new idea doesn't work out, they haven't lost very much, and if it does work out, they've got a hit. This is the same economic model that existed back in the 80s, but the new TV-game market that's opened up in recent years makes it possible in today's world. If Atari chooses the Atari 400/800 as the foundation of the FB3 as I think they will, they'll have a platform that offers all kinds of potential for future development (along with a gigantic collection of launch titles). It won't be like the old Atari was, obviously, but if they do it right, Infogrames' Atari could make it work for them.

Edited January 10, 2006 by jaybird3rd

[ferrarimanf355]

As long as Atari keeps afloat long enough to release Test Drive Unlimited, it's all good.

[thegamezmaster]

It would be nice if the FB3 was a combination of the Atari 8 bit computer games and the Atari 5200 games.

[Nemesis]

It really doesn't matter what companies name is on a game box Unreal Championship didn't sell because it was an Atari brand game,It sold because it was a good game.Atari Flashback is a novelty item and i'm sure they are making money on it and i have not seen any at discount prices yet.Atari can turn it's name back to Infrograms in an instant.

[JimmydelaKopin]

My complaint, brushed over by all the Infogrames blah-blah, is which company actually constitutes Atari more: Infogrames or Midway?

 

And why split Atari into two companies anyway?

 

Atari allowed anyone make games for its systems--and controllers and other peripherals. No 'licensing', no despotic reneging of permission if a rival might make a game more fun than those made by Atari, none of that bull.

In other words, none of the nonsense that started under Nintendo and continues today mainly--but not solely--done by Sony.

but Atari is the one that had to be split in two to make it "more competitive" and "less monopolistic".

 

...strange: I thought being able to force competitors from making competing products was monopolistic. Then again, my English isn't Aesopian.

 

 

While I'm making valid commentary, let me arc onto a relatyed subject. Back some years ago, when the third of the "big 3" was Sega and not Microsoft, the videogame press went ga-ga over Sony's letting Battle Arena Toshinden be made for a non-Sony system. Some even declared that such a system jump had never happened before.

Maybe my memories of seeing Intellivision games reformatted for the 2600...and my memories of seeing Coleco adapt arcade games for the 2600 and for its own console...are all bizarre false memories implanted by playing E.T. late at night one too many times.

Or maybe the videogame press is so parasitic (as opposed to independent back in my youthful days) that it dare not suggest that maybe, just maybe, videogaming didn't start with Nintendo, Sega, and Sony--lest they never get any more cool games to review.

 

Arcing back to my topic, I really have to wonder about the lack of an independent videogame press for modern games and consoles. Most such press is of the house organ variety; the rest is of the "we wish we were a house organ" variety.

I understand that the videogame industry is progressive and transient. But I'm the only one asking, "why is it running so fast? Is it running from something?"

Why does the industry flee its past so much?

[Artlover]

Atari allowed anyone make games for its systems--and controllers and other peripherals. No 'licensing', no despotic reneging of permission if a rival might make a game more fun than those made by Atari, none of that bull.

1000584[/snapback]

No, Atari didn't "allow" that to happen, they didn't have a choice. They tried to stop 3rd party game makers, and hardware makers, and clone makers, and kept loosing in the courts.

[kevin242]

InfoAtari?

 

why didnt we call it TramielAtari back in the day?

 

or before that

 

Warner Atari?

 

 

It's Atari get over it.

Edited January 15, 2006 by kevin242

[JimmydelaKopin]

So, Artlover.........

 

...when did the change in patent and/or copyright law happen?

 

You know the one I mean: the one that prevented Atari from banning 3rd-party materials for its systems...

...but did let Nintendo, Sega, Sony, etc., ban such 3rd-party material from being made for their systems.

 

When exactly did that change happen?

The U.N.O. Library has reopened. Give me the date; I'll go look up the details myself.

 

Because if there's actual legal precedent for 3rd-party game/peripheral makers to make such materials without the console manufacturer's consent...

...then, given how big the Big 3 are these days and how popular they are...

...why do such people have to continually seek said console manufacturers permission for their products, in effect making them 2nd-party game/peripheral makers?

Given how expensive PS2 memory cards alone are ($25 for one card), one would think another maker would have appeared long ago with its own cards undercutting Sony's prices. Now there are non-Sony PS2 cards--but made with Sony's permission and charging Sony prices for them.

 

Help out this ol' free market advocate here. If other manufacturers were free to make stuff for the consoles all along...

...then why haven't they?

Ball's in your court, answer-man.

[Shaggy the Atarian]

While I haven't bought many "InfroAtari" products, those that I have bought I've been pleased with, including Battle Engine Aquila, The FB2, and a couple of the Unreal games. I also am very much looking forward to TimeShift. I've seen a few preivews and it looks good. I just hope that it plays as well as they say.

[supercat]

...when did the change in patent and/or copyright law happen?

 

You know the one I mean: the one that prevented Atari from banning 3rd-party materials for its systems...

...but did let Nintendo, Sega, Sony, etc., ban such 3rd-party material from being made for their systems.

1001571[/snapback]

 

On modern game systems, there is a BIOS ROM which is necessary for a variety of functions, but which also includes code which makes sure that a game is one of which the manufacturer approves. A game can't run unless the console contains a ROM which is very much like the real one, and game system vendors keep secret the means that they use of marking approved games.

 

Many system mods seem to replace the BIOS with one which will still perform the necessary functions, but will skip some of the approval checks. Since the BIOS is copyrighted, however, the distribution of such mods violates the copyright of the BIOS author.

 

Some programmers may try to reverse-engineer the BIOS to determine what "security keys" their game requires, but not only is the validation code deliberately designed to be hard to understand, but there's no guarantee that a security key that works with one BIOS will work with another. It would be fairly easy for someone developing a "security key" system for games to include 16 different security keys in every legitimate game, but have the initial release of the BIOS only check the first one. Somebody who reverse-engineered the BIOS might be able to produce a valid "first" security key, but the manufacturer could respond by releasing a BIOS upgrade that would check the second. The game based on the reverse-engineered BIOS would then ONLY be usable on the old BIOS and would be rejected by the new one.

 

Back when Atari created the 2600, I don't think they foresaw the possibility that someone else would reverse-engineer it. For that matter, I don't know that they even foresaw any possibility that anybody else would even want to make cartridges for the thing, since Atari wasn't expecting it to sell for more than 3-4 years or so.

[Artlover]

So, Artlover.........

 

...when did the change in patent and/or copyright law happen?

 

You know the one I mean: the one that prevented Atari from banning 3rd-party materials for its systems...

...but did let Nintendo, Sega, Sony, etc., ban such 3rd-party material from being made for their systems.

1001571[/snapback]

What supercat said.

 

Nothing changed with the laws. The 2600 didn't have many patented parts in it, and the one it did have was reverse engineerable. Same has not been true for anything else since, including from Atari.

 

Ball's in your court, answer-man.

1001571[/snapback]

Not sure if that was meant to be sarcastic or not. Don't know what you want. The publicly known failed lawsuits Atari filed against Activision and Coleco should have been enough.

[supercat]

Nothing changed with the laws. The 2600 didn't have many patented parts in it, and the one it did have was reverse engineerable. Same has not been true for anything else since, including from Atari.

1001656[/snapback]

 

I know that reverse engineering can protect against copyright lawsuits, but not patent lawsuits. I thought that Atari had won its patent-infringement suits against U.S. companies producing 2600 clones and was able to demand royalties from them. It's on the software front that the doors were wide open since there weren't any applicable and enforceable patents relating to software. I think Atari might have won a patent lawsuit against any company that made carts with the sliding door thingie, but third-party carts never did.

 

BTW, I'll admit I'm a little surprised that Atari never enforced a patent on the F8 bankswitching, though I'll confess I'm also surprised that so many third-party cart vendors used it. I wonder why that is, given that some other schemes would have been simpler to implement (e.g. simple proposal: access to address '0 xx0x 0Nxx xxxx' selects bank N of ROM--only needs two 7400's to provide both banking and chip-select).

[mos6507]

That's where the FB3 comes in. Developing games on the FB3 is going to be a lot cheaper because they'll be the work of one person or of a small group of people, and because they can be developed on a small budget, Atari will be able to sell them at competitive prices and still make a decent profit. If a new idea doesn't work out, they haven't lost very much, and if it does work out, they've got a hit...

 

That's a lot of heavy speculation. We really don't know what the business model is for FB3. For all we know, the removable cards are going to be all pre-existing titles.

[Artlover]

I know that reverse engineering can protect against copyright lawsuits, but not patent lawsuits.  I thought that Atari had won its patent-infringement suits against U.S. companies producing 2600 clones and was able to demand royalties from them.

1001667[/snapback]

All my goolging of atari lawsuits shows that they lost their suit against Coleco over the VCS adaptor and Gemini clone, judge siting that no copyighted or patented hardware was contained in them.

 

The only lawsuits I'm aware of Atari winning were copyright violation lawsuits over game & character design (aka: KC Munchman and the like).

[Smiley]

To be blunt: ninty should thank their lucky stars that they have the gameboy and the ds..cause without them, imo, they'd be another sega.

I love nintendo, I'm just stating my opinion.

 

 

The last atari published game I bought was Ikarugi for the cube

[JimmydelaKopin]

Soooooo.....

 

...Nolan was smart enough to get people together to come up with this stuff, smart enough to make their efforts work-for-hire product...

...but not smart enough to get legal protection for his stuff?

 

Who was giving him legal advice, John Santangelo?

 

Sheesh. And I though it was bad enough that Toys-R-Us is selling two storebrand knockoffs of the same Hasbro/MB game. Knockoffs are bad enough...

...but not even bothering to legally protect your work except after people have started copying it is downright short-bus stoopid.

 

I guess it's true: never let a creator run a business.

[jbanes]

...Nolan was smart enough to get people together to come up with this stuff, smart enough to make their efforts work-for-hire product...

...but not smart enough to get legal protection for his stuff?

 

Who was giving him legal advice, John Santangelo?

 

That's not really fair to Nolan. You need to realize that the Atari VCS was a followup to the single-purpose Pong units. Atari's plan was to expand their Pong market by creating a more general machine that played about 10 cartriges which could be purchased separately. I seriously doubt they saw that that VCS would become as popular as it did. They certainly didn't expect their own programmers to leave and create competing companies. (i.e. Activision and IMagic)

 

 

Sheesh. And I though it was bad enough that Toys-R-Us is selling two  storebrand knockoffs of the same Hasbro/MB game. Knockoffs are bad enough...

...but not even bothering to legally protect your work except after people have started copying it is downright short-bus stoopid.

1002320[/snapback]

 

Hindsight is 20/20. Back when the VCS was made, there wasn't a whole lot of legal protection in the computer industry. Ffiling for a patent was like annoucing your inventions to your competitors. A lot of the intellectual rights of computer companies didn't stablize until the 1980's, in part because of Atari's suits.

 

The weapon of choice used by modern console makers is the Digital Millinium Copyright Act which makes it illegal in many circumstances to break the encryption or lock-out software present on console systems. Such provisions didn't exist in the 1970's when it wasn't clear if software could be copyrighted and the USPTO rejected patent applications on software. As a result, "security through obscurity" and healthy doses of trade secret contracts were seen as the best solution.

[supercat]

That's not really fair to Nolan. You need to realize that the Atari VCS was a followup to the single-purpose Pong units. Atari's plan was to expand their Pong market by creating a more general machine that played about 10 cartriges which could be purchased separately. I seriously doubt they saw that that VCS would become as popular as it did. They certainly didn't expect their own programmers to leave and create competing companies. (i.e. Activision and IMagic)

1002336[/snapback]

 

From what I understand, Atari expected the 2600 to hold their place in the market until they could come up with something better. I'm sure none of the people involved in its design thought anyone would still be making games for the thing ten years later (much less 28!) My guess would be that they would figured that by the time someone could reverse engineer the thing it would be obsolete anyway. I'll admit I'm still a bit surprised that Atari didn't have any patents on the thing. Indeed, if nobody had done horizontal positioning the way Atari did the ball on its original arcade "Pong" machine I would think that would be worthy of a patent (and the 2600 uses the same principle for its horizontal motion).

 

BTW, I find it an interesting irony that some of the design decisions that were done to make the Atari 2600 simple and cheap ended up making it versatile and powerful. The 2600's video and processor are tightly coupled out of necessity, but that tight coupling makes possible effects that cannot be achieved on other, more sophisticated, machines. The design put the burden of selecting good luma/chroma combinations on the programmer, which meant that the programmer could choose from a wide palette. The machine, when created, had more untapped potential than anyone could have imagined. Indeed, I would suggest that the recognizable untapped potential even today is greater than in 1977.

[Artlover]

What patents could Atari have had on it?

 

#1: It was 99% off the shelf parts that they had no part of, being used in standard ways. The didn't invent the DB9 connector, resistors, push buttons, card edges, 6502 cpu, rf modulators, joysticks, etc.. Only thing they specificly did was the TIA, which I believe was patented, but not reverse enginnerable proof.

 

#2: The entire concept of the type of machine that it was, a video came console with program cartridges, was also not theirs to protect. That falls under Mr. Baer and later, Magnavox & Fairchild. Atari only made video games a household word by producing and selling their own versions, they didn't invent/develop the technology.

 

#3: As a continuation to 1, there is no software in it, copyrighted or otherwise. Just 99% free use hardware. Even the Fairchild Channel F, which pre-dates the 2600, had a bios and thus copyrightable code contained within.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Artlover

[jbanes]

#2: The entire concept of the type of machine that it was, a video came console with program cartridges, was also not theirs to protect. That falls under Mr. Baer and later, Magnavox & Fairchild. Atari only made video games a household word by producing and selling their own versions, they didn't invent/develop the technology.

 

Mr. Baer's design (the Odyssey) didn't have cartridges in the same way that the 2600 did. The Odyssey's cartridges contained none of the game code or hardware, and merely rerouted the circuits inside the Odyssey to activate a game that was already in the system. It's difficult to say if Atari would have been able to block the VES/Channel F had they filed a patent immediately after they'd developed the cartridge idea.

 

As for the rest of the stuff, Atari only needs to show that they significantly improved on existing concepts in order to be granted a patent. They would then have exclusive rights to those improvements for the duration of the patent. Atari in fact, did file a patent on the TIA in 1976, and was granted the patent in 1978. It didn't seem to do them much good against Coleco, though. The judge decided that because Coleco had used off the shelf parts instead of Atari's custom hardware, Atari's patents didn't apply. (Does anyone actually have the full text of the judge's findings in the Atari v. Coleco case? I've been trying to find it for a little while now.)

 

Addendum: Here's the patent Atari filed on their cartridge design. I believe someone mentioned this earlier in the thread. (supercat?)

 

#3: As a continuation to 1, there is no software in it, copyrighted or otherwise. Just 99% free use hardware. Even the Fairchild Channel F, which pre-dates the 2600, had a bios and thus copyrightable code contained within.

1002445[/snapback]

 

Software wouldn't have protected the Channel F prior to 1980. Before the 1980 ammendment to the Copyright Act of 1976, there was a lot of question over whether software was copyrightable. Thus Atari took the patent route instead of bothering with BIOS software. It's difficult to say if it would have helped them, though. In 1982, Compaq reverse engineered the PC BIOS. The courts decided that it was a completely clean room revision, and that Compaq was in the clear. On the other hand, Keith Robinson seems to believe that Coleco failed to produce it's Intellivision module for the Colecovision because of fears over software copyright infringement. So, it's hard to say what would have happened if Atari had used software as a protection mechanism.

Edited January 18, 2006 by jbanes

[Artlover]

Mr. Baer's design (the Odyssey) didn't have cartridges in the same way that the 2600 did. The Odyssey's cartridges contained none of the game code or hardware, and merely rerouted the circuits inside the Odyssey to activate a game that was already in the system. It's difficult to say if Atari would have been able to block the VES/Channel F had they filed a patent immediately after they'd developed the cartridge idea.

1002471[/snapback]

Re: Mr.Baer, true. But you're getting into fine details that would escape most people. Would the courts of the 1970's had made such a distinction.

 

Re: Fairchild. Fairchild was first on the market in 1976 with it's programable console and cartridge design. Atari's cartridge patent wasn't till 1977, the same year as the 2600. Sure, they could have been working on it earlier, but then so could have Fairchild.

 

Software wouldn't have protected the Channel F prior to 1980. Before the 1980 ammendment to the Copyright Act of 1976, there was a lot of question over whether software was copyrightable. Thus Atari took the patent route instead of bothering with BIOS software. It's difficult to say if it would have helped them, though. In 1982, Compaq reverse engineered the PC BIOS. The courts decided that it was a completely clean room revision, and that Compaq was in the clear. On the other hand, Keith Robinson seems to believe that Coleco failed to produce it's Intellivision module for the Colecovision because of fears over software copyright infringement. So, it's hard to say what would have happened if Atari had used software as a protection mechanism.

1002471[/snapback]

It seems to make sence tho. When you look back at those days, the 2600 was pretty much the only system being cloned, wasn't it. It can't be just a coincidence that it was the only system without any copyrighted systems in it.

[JimmydelaKopin]

Using standard off-the-shelf products in standard ways is irrelevant, you must realize, Artlover.

If a person, using ordinary products in ordinary ways, puts them together to form a new product completely unheard-of before, that person can secure a patent for inventing a new product.

The Patent Office doesn't require a draconian "you must build from scratch every component from which your new device is made" standard. Most inventions are made by people who look at objects...and get ideas concerning them: new uses, new additions, new ways of using ordinary products put together.

If that draconian standard was the case, I doubt if we'd ever really have a patent office, for how many inventions actually qualify under such a standard?

 

No, I was being very fair with Nolan Bushnell...nice even. He's a heck of a creator...

...and one lousy businessman.

As I said, so be it set in stone: creators shouldn't run businesses.

Because creators aren't businessmen; they're creators.

[supercat]

It seems to make sence tho. When you look back at those days, the 2600 was pretty much the only system being cloned, wasn't it. It can't be just a coincidence that it was the only system without any copyrighted systems in it.

1002502[/snapback]

 

It's not coincidence, but I don't think it mean what you're suggesting.

 

The lack of a copyrighted BIOS in the 2600 is a result of Atari's desire to make the thing as cheap as possible. This coincides with their decision to make the code on the cartridge be responsible for almost everything, including many aspects of video generation.

 

It turns out--though I don't think anyone would have predicted this--that leaving everything up to the cartridge code made the system much more versatile than other systems which included BIOSes and lots of dedicated logic.

 

Did anyone bother cloning the Atari before it became apparent that it was going to be the system with the most, interesting games?

 

BTW, I'm curious: what games were developed for the 2600 before the hardware design was finalized? Many of the techniques that push the 2600 beyond the apparent design goals in fact appear within 1977 carts, including the use of different data/color on sprite copies (Blackjack), mid-screen sprite positioning (Air Sea Battle and Street Racer), and assymetric playfields (Surround and Street Racer). The 48-pixel VDEL-sprite trick is the only thing I can think of that wasn't done by 1977, but I have a hard time believing that the hardware designers planned for all those things.