New Atari Console that Ataribox?

[JBerel]

They should vet their clients a little better.

Good advice.

[cybercylon]

 

I know just between my PC, Xbox One X, PS4 Pro, Switch, Android, and iOS devices, I have a near infinite variety of stuff at my fingertips, and certainly more than one person can reasonably expect to be able to have time to play. Now is truly the best time to be a gamer because we just keep adding to the great stuff from the past.

 

Ha... any of these services could bend time and space so I could actually get around to what I have at my finger tips, I would pay for that!

[SignGuy81]

Im sorry to gate crash but i will be the one to put it out there, the P$4 and Xbok are complete shit! imo. The systems are so bland and stale made by companies too scared to take a chance. They produce the same system concept with updated graphics and sound every 5 years, big whoop. Obviously they cater to the young crowd with reproducing the same crap every year including 3d party developers. I mean who really wants to buy a system where 90% of the game library is first person shooters identical to the last.

 

Me: This is because it freaking works. I've like each iteration of Xbox and Playstations that have come out. The machines are good, the controllers are good, good 3rd party support. A basic console with a good controller(provided in the box with console) for gaming, no stupid gimmicks like Nintendo does.

 

There is alot of hate about the At@ri project yet the system specs arn't even announced yet. Personally i feel the console market needs a big change to appeal to all ages and gaming genres. First thing that pops up in my head when people mention P$4 or Xbok is Call Of Duty(it's an instant turn off to me).

 

Me: This console is not going to change the console market by any means. If the first thing that pops in your head is Call of Duty when people mention Xbox or PS4 is Call of Duty to me that would mean you are a previous player perhaps that done nothing but play Call of Duty on your PS3, Xbox 360 because it came with it and you were too broke to buy any other games so therefore you associate Xbox and PS with the game. There are a shit ton of good games for either system. The first thing that pops in my head whenever I hear the word television is Walking Dead(it's an instant turnoff for me I'll never buy a TV set because it must be the only thing that is offered, those darn zombies, gives me nightmares).

 

Nintindo is the only ones trying to follow it's old routes and produce fun games rather then pretty looking games. Kudos to them however, i feel after the hype of their new systems they fall short to continue producing software(cough Wii U cough). Just want a new-old player to step back in the ring whether it be At@ri or $ega. Bring the fun back damn it!

 

Me: Fun for you maybe, and others as well I'm sure but it isn't for everyone and I have fun from time to time playing Mario Kart with my daughter on the Wii U, but I'll take my Xbox any day over the Wii U. And as far as them falling short on producing software, I agree and it just makes the problem worse when you can't get 3rd party developers on board. So yeah maybe MS or PS should change something up a bit, create a kiddie toy underpowered console next generation with some stupid controller gimmick so they can show you they can do something different to please you.

 

Anyway if not i will stick with running the PC through the TV

 

Me: No Switch?

[Osgeld]

I am guilty of the "that brand doesnt offer anything" mentality, cept its towards nintendo...

 

oh look its a new nintendo system, what's it got, Super Mario who gives a shit, and Zelda the gimick I cant even start to care, yay, but! I do know and understand there is more to their consoles, even their more recent ones where there's not MUCH more, and actually the last console I bought was Wheeeee! (came with super mario who gives a shit 3d world, which I played once and vomited)

 

BACK on topic

 

(if you forgot, its what's going to be in a 3d render console box by a group of 10 marketing wanks begging for free money, one of which happened to talk to a rep who works for a company who rep's AMD along with 185 other companies ... so "cred")

 

ps: Texas Instruments bought me blackened fish taco's today, anyone want to give me a few thousand dollars, I already provided a render earlier in this thread

Edited November 10, 2017 by Osgeld

[CPUWIZ]

You forgot Metroid.

[Shawn]

 

 

 

Well, it seems RainFactory is pretty popular for Indiegogo marketing. They should vet their clients a little better.

 

More like this is just another obvious example that like animals herd.

[Jinks]

Will this be for sale in stores in North America?

[Schizophretard]

Will this be for sale in stores in North America?

 

It first has to exist to be sold anywhere.

[+TwentySixHundred]

Fair enough, i knew some backlash would come from my statement but decided to express how i feel about the new systems. I had a P$3 and 360 yet everything i bought felt buggy and cheap. The library i could see was 90% first person shooters and although new systems have cup head and Sonic my 7 year old PC will run them without an issue(hardly worth the money for two games imo). Sorry but the sour taste i was left from the previous consoles and my Wii U that sits in storage room collecting dust left me disappointed.

 

Im fairly sure im not the only one who dislikes $ony and Micro$oft's current shovelware. Also my experience is just someone that grew up with an 2600 and acquired later systems over the years. After P$3 i threw in the towel and stuck to the PC which has never let me down (what was the point of paying $1000 @ launch for a system i owned 5 games for?). I built an $1200 PC only months after that ran rings around it. I find a PC even if running Windows to be more exciting then the current consoles. Of course i still play games so im assuming it's not i have just grown out of gaming?!

 

Anyway like i said i wasn't being and arse just honest rather then following the sheep wagon. I say it as i see it and how i feel rather then worry about offending others. I just feel some are on the verge of an heart attack if anyone opposes others hating on the Atari project. And yes im familiar that companies are their to make money, i would have to be an complete idiot to think otherwise. My statement stands though, if anyone thinks $ony or Micro$oft are in it for the consumer well they have definitely been living under a rock.

 

On the bright side though, the Ataribox has brought a load of traffic to the AA site and new members, lets see if they stick around after the dust settles....

Edited November 10, 2017 by Tony The 2600

[Bill Loguidice]

Fair enough, i knew some backlash would come from my statement but decided to express how i feel about the new systems. I had a P$3 and 360 yet everything i bought felt buggy and cheap. The library i could see was 90% first person shooters and although new systems have cup head and Sonic my 7 year old PC will run them without an issue(hardly worth the money for two games imo). Sorry but the sour taste i was left from the previous consoles and my Wii U that sits in storage room collecting dust left me disappointed.

 

Im fairly sure im not the only one who dislikes $ony and Micro$oft's current shovelware. Also my experience is just someone that grew up with an 2600 and acquired later systems over the years. After P$3 i threw in the towel and stuck to the PC which has never let me down (what was the point of paying $1000 @ launch for a system i owned 5 games for?). I built an $1200 PC only months after that ran rings around it. I find a PC even if running Windows to be more exciting then the current consoles. Of course i still play games so im assuming it's not i have just grown out of gaming?!

 

Anyway like i said i wasn't being and arse just honest rather then following the sheep wagon. I say it as i see it and how i feel rather then worry about offending others. I just feel some are on the verge of an heart attack if anyone opposes others hating on the Atari project. And yes im familiar that companies are their to make money, i would have to be an complete idiot to think otherwise. My statement stands though, if anyone thinks $ony or Micro$oft are in it for the consumer well they have definitely been living under a rock.

 

On the bright side though, the Ataribox has brought a load of traffic to the AA site and new members, lets see if they stick around after the dust settles....

A$l g$eat argument$ an$ a$l tr$ue. D$ y$o ru$ Linu$ o$ y$our co$puter? (Did I do that right?)

[+TwentySixHundred]

A$l g$eat argument$ an$ a$l tr$ue. D$ y$o ru$ Linu$ o$ y$our co$puter? (Did I do that right?)

Well looks like i have rustled some feathers anyway it's for trademark reasons, yet i doubt it really matters on AA. Sorry mate im used to other sites where posting trademark names is against forum rules(emulation sites). I run duel boot and don't get me wrong i haven't anything against Windows. Infact it's a very useful OS when de-cluttered and correct security software is installed but that's another story.

 

I will also mention the original Playstation is a favorite of mine however there is no denying the downhill slope from Sony. Also the PS2 had some great games but the majority of it's software has aged horribly and the PS3 well? well it blows. I will leave it there, otherwise ill keep treading on feet.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Tony The 2600

[Bill Loguidice]

Well looks like i have rustled some feathers anyway it's for trademark reasons, yet i doubt it really matters on AA. Sorry mate im used to other sites where posting trademark names is against forum rules(emulation sites). I run duel boot and don't get me wrong i haven't anything against Windows. Infact it's a very useful OS when de-cluttered and correct security software is installed but that's another story.

 

I will also mention the original Playstation is a favorite of mine however there is no denying the downhill slope from Sony. Also the PS2 had some great games but the majority of it's software has aged horribly and the PS3 well? well it blows. I will leave it there, otherwise ill keep treading on feet.

I've never heard the use of M$ dollar in that context and considering all of the trade names used throughout this site, let alone this very thread, I don't know why you'd think you'd have to use it here. It seems like you were using it in the traditional context of money grubbing companies like your original post indicated.

 

Anyway, more power to you for not liking consoles. You're certainly not alone. But again, saying that nearly every genre is not represented in full on PS4 and Xbox One is flat out wrong. In fact, there are some sub-genres that are better represented on console.

 

I'm regards to the Ataribox, it's not out of line to say that if you don't like the selection on PS4 or Xbox One, you'll really hate the selection on Ataribox. Most likely that will have primarily the same indies found everywhere else, the only difference being this will be powered by Linux.

[+TwentySixHundred]

I've never heard the use of M$ dollar in that context and considering all of the trade names used throughout this site, let alone this very thread, I don't know why you'd think you'd have to use it here. It seems like you were using it in the traditional context of money grubbing companies like your original post indicated.

 

Anyway, more power to you for not liking consoles. You're certainly not alone. But again, saying that nearly every genre is not represented in full on PS4 and Xbox One is flat out wrong. In fact, there are some sub-genres that are better represented on console.

 

I'm regards to the Ataribox, it's not out of line to say that if you don't like the selection on PS4 or Xbox One, you'll really hate the selection on Ataribox. Most likely that will have primarily the same indies found everywhere else, the only difference being this will be powered by Linux.

Well i have to agree im a little harsh but i think it's safe to say people are blindly forking out the cash for the latest Playstation or Xbox basically for a handful of games. Browsing, Indies and other features i write off because any PC can do the same thing without much power at all.

 

I guess my frustration stems from the PS3 after paying just over $1000 for the system that had three games on launch. All of which never tickled my fancy besides Gran Turismo and COD3 (ticked the fancy for about 4 weeks). Then the wake up call was when realizing two years down the track i only really liked a small handful of the games owned, the others were tie-me-overs.

 

It's not just the hardware, it's the software that makes great games. I mean if a game was developed for a potato yet fun well that's what counts. The strict control current big players have over third party developers is a good thing yet a double edged sword, so to speak. Linux on a console is the movement iv always wanted; give the freedom back to software developers and the consumer.

 

That also raises the old simple fact of why the 2600 was so successful. The hardware was so limited meaning the software devs had to push boundaries which in return brought some unique and arguably some the most fun games ever created. With hardware racing ahead of the software devs they become lazy and take shortcuts rather then creativity. Creativity involuntary sparks new methods, designs and in some cases new concepts. Unfortunately many big players(Sony ect) think hardware advancement is the be all end all, when in reality software devs need a challenge to spark creativity.

 

Yeah you're correct im not generally a fan of Indie games besides a few, however i will say some are really well made by very small teams. It's a shame because some Indie games are really good and created for the love rather then a quick buck.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Tony The 2600

[pacman000]

 

On the bright side though, the Ataribox has brought a load of traffic to the AA site and new members, lets see if they stick around after the dust settles....

On the dark side, all this AtariBox news appears to have forced AtariAge off the 1st page of Google for the keyword "Atari."

Edited November 10, 2017 by pacman000

[Bill Loguidice]

Well i have to agree im a little harsh but i think it's safe to say people are blindly forking out the cash for the latest Playstation or Xbox basically for a handful of games. Browsing, Indies and other features i write off because any PC can do the same thing without much power at all.

 

I don't get your point here. First you're critical of PS4 and Xbox One for being FPS boxes, then you're critical that they also play indies because "any PC can do the same thing." Yes, the PC can probably run greater than 90% of the games available on other platforms, but that's ignoring the benefits other platforms, console, mobile, or otherwise, bring to the table. There's something to be said for a box, a console, that's 100% optimized for a TV-based experience, over a PC that can work on a TV, but is not exactly optimized for it. The same thing with mobile device. Sure, you get a better Doom experience on every other platform its on other than the Switch, but the Switch has the advantage of its unique form factor. None of this is black or white.

 

 

 

I guess my frustration stems from the PS3 after paying just over $1000 for the system that had three games on launch. All of which never tickled my fancy besides Gran Turismo and COD3 (ticked the fancy for about 4 weeks). Then the wake up call was when realizing two years down the track i only really liked a small handful of the games owned, the others were tie-me-overs.

 

So, you bought a PS3 at launch in 2006 and they're still making games for it in 2017, 11 years later. It has over 2,000 games available for it at this point across nearly every conceivable genre, not to mention if you got a launch unit you can also play thousands more PS1 and PS2 games. I think we can agree most people would have felt they would have gotten their $1000 AU investment out of it, no? In other words, perhaps your opinion and feeling is something of an extreme outlier? Just a bit?

 

 

 

It's not just the hardware, it's the software that makes great games. I mean if a game was developed for a potato yet fun well that's what counts. The strict control current big players have over third party developers is a good thing yet a double edged sword, so to speak. Linux on a console is the movement iv always wanted; give the freedom back to software developers and the consumer.

 

I think we all agree games come first. But it's even better when both games and power come together.

 

In terms of the "strict control" you refer to, that would be an issue if it limited what can appear on these consoles, but it really doesn't. There are gatekeepers even on the PC, and those services, like Steam and GOG, are the most popular ways to game. Curation does not have to be a negative, and in fact has many positives.

 

We also don't know if Atari will be doing any gatekeeping of their own. They almost certainly will, since they'll need some type of store to make money off of. It remains to be seen if they'll let you side-load apps - it's implied that they will - but that's not really an average person activity (or desire).

 

I can certainly understand the desire for a Linux console. Open platforms have been implemented before with varying degrees of success, and there's always a hope that the next attempt will be the one that sticks. There's no reason this can't fulfill the desires of a vocal niche, but I simply don't get a sense there's any type of mass frustration with the way things currently are. In other words, I don't see an opening here for this to be a mainstream product, even with perfect execution. And frankly, I think everyone involved knows that, it's just something you'd never state. I'm sure they're expecting to sell in the tens of thousands of units and will consider that a great success, while of course they publicly need to state that they think gamers everywhere will want to have one (as any smart company would do - there's the internal reality and the external bluster).

 

 

 

That also raises the old simple fact of why the 2600 was so successful. The hardware was so limited meaning the software devs had to push boundaries which in return brought some unique and arguably some the most fun games ever created. With hardware racing ahead of the software devs they become lazy and take shortcuts rather then creativity. Creativity involuntary sparks new methods, designs and in some cases new concepts. Unfortunately many big players(Sony ect) think hardware advancement is the be all end all, when in reality software devs need a challenge to spark creativity.

 

The Ataribox or almost any modern device built on these types of components is not that, though. This will run the same types of games you'd find on a PC, using the same types of dev tools and middleware. The only restrictions are in what it will be able to run and how well, not in how you develop for it. This is no different than making sure your game runs on a low end PC as well as with improved performance on a high end PC, or, in the modern console model, where a game has to run well on the original console, but can gain significant benefit from running on the newest version of the console.

 

There are also a lot of developers who will say that being limited making for a better developed game experience is a myth. Sure, constraints can help, but there are plenty of examples of games that didn't quite come together because the developers were limited by available resources. There are just as many developers out there who will say they were empowered by the freedom a development environment gave them to realize their full visions. Games in the past were developed why they were because there was literally no other way to do it. The constraints were not a means to an end, just the reality.

[The Historian]

Games in the past were developed why they were because there was literally no other way to do it. The constraints were not a means to an end, just the reality.

 

It is always fascinating to look at launch titles vs the very last games released on a console. To see the ways that have been learned to push the hardware as far as they can. Perhaps this is truer today since we don't have the ability to add chips to a cart to extend the console's capabilities.

Edited November 10, 2017 by The Historian

[BiffsGamingVideos]

OMG, there is so much negativity here I thought I was on Fox News for a bit.

 

 

The thing is this, what sells is games, not hardware. People buy Nintendo for Mario and Zelda and Metroid and Pokemon. It doesn't matter what's unde the hood.

 

People will buy Atari if they stay true to what made them in the 1970's.

That is 1) arcade shoot em ups, 2) their proprietary line of game sequals, and 3) exclusive games.

For this,

they need 1) exclusive titles, 2) not allow non-Atari games tobe run on their system like Linux, and 3) limited number of titles.

 

As a developer, I can't stand Android. With 1 MILLION plus apps, there is no way to make money. 99.9% of android devlopers have made less than $100. By limiting the number of titles on a platform, you increase sales for the devlopers. The key is to get developers to make exclusive titles to sell enough copies to make money.

[+TwentySixHundred]

deleted

 

In response to Biff, i agree software is what makes or breaks and i kind of reject my statement about the big players to some degree(they're still deceptive and sly though). It's like when i mentioned COD the fact is people going to buy a Playstation or Xbox solely for COD, therefor a guaranteed sale for the big players and they know it. Problem with that, is you end up with the same game slightly revamped. There is no real creativity because the latest game released is basically the same as the last(most later features could have been added on the last gen console with some optimization). It also leaves a sour taste to those who're thinking "ok what else is on the system to make it worth while".

 

Personally, if Atari can use their name brand to produce some amazing exclusives and show what's possible with an unlocked system it may swing the trend. Lets face it, the 2600 was intended to be a pong system with combat yet the developers turned it into a success. A company that had the vision of making a few hundred grand turned into a multi million dollar business. To be fair without the developers Atari would have produced another failed Pong console.

 

I will say though, maybe im tapping into another separate issue all together...

Edited November 10, 2017 by Tony The 2600

[leech]

OMG, there is so much negativity here I thought I was on Fox News for a bit.

 

 

The thing is this, what sells is games, not hardware. People buy Nintendo for Mario and Zelda and Metroid and Pokemon. It doesn't matter what's unde the hood.

 

People will buy Atari if they stay true to what made them in the 1970's.

That is 1) arcade shoot em ups, 2) their proprietary line of game sequals, and 3) exclusive games.

For this,

they need 1) exclusive titles, 2) not allow non-Atari games tobe run on their system like Linux, and 3) limited number of titles.

 

As a developer, I can't stand Android. With 1 MILLION plus apps, there is no way to make money. 99.9% of android devlopers have made less than $100. By limiting the number of titles on a platform, you increase sales for the devlopers. The key is to get developers to make exclusive titles to sell enough copies to make money.

Why would they limit it by not allowing others to develop for it? While they could release their Atari IP based games exclusively on the system, why would they if they are in the business of making money. Generally exclusive games are paid for by the publisher to only run on their system, they would have to outsource to another company to do thay, and we're pretty sure they don't habe the capitol for that, right? Kind of the whole reason the are crowd funding.

[BiffsGamingVideos]

Why would they limit it by not allowing others to develop for it? While they could release their Atari IP based games exclusively on the system, why would they if they are in the business of making money. Generally exclusive games are paid for by the publisher to only run on their system, they would have to outsource to another company to do thay, and we're pretty sure they don't habe the capitol for that, right? Kind of the whole reason the are crowd funding.

 

I mean do not have Ataribox (or Atari Lightwave which is a better name) to have Linux games run on it. Like from Steam. Do not make it open like a computer (which it is). Atari needs to have a SDK to handshake with its devlopers. Limit it to Atari games and third parties. That way you at talking hundreds of games and not millions (like on Android). A good way to do it is have a downloading service where only official licensed games from Atari and its third party developers can install games ont he Ataribox.

 

Also, the Ataribox (AKA Lightwave) NEEDS to have Apps like Netflix, Pandora, hulu, Facebook, YouTube, web browser and other popular social media on it from day 1. This is not an option.

Edited November 10, 2017 by BiffsGamingVideos

[BiffsGamingVideos]

"Generally exclusive games are paid for by the publisher to only run on their system, they would have to outsource to another company to do thay, and we're pretty sure they don't habe the capitol for that, right? Kind of the whole reason the are crowd funding. "

 

 

Not really. For example, I have a mini-golf game that is 90% done and a remake of pitfall which is 99% done. Atari can license these games from my company and pay a royalty per copy. They would have 2 exclusive titles from day 1 at launch. Even on their crowdfunding page, they could have a special 5 games pack at 50% off or something. Whoever buys the console will want games. It would not cost them anything and they still would get their 30% cut from the download store.

 

I have reached out to Atari numerous times as a developer and all I ever get back in my e-mail box is spam selling a game of theirs. This is actually devastating. Atari needs developers and just are not working with them ....but that is another story (Conan the Destroyer)

[+TwentySixHundred]

 

I don't get your point here. First you're critical of PS4 and Xbox One for being FPS boxes, then you're critical that they also play indies because "any PC can do the same thing." Yes, the PC can probably run greater than 90% of the games available on other platforms, but that's ignoring the benefits other platforms, console, mobile, or otherwise, bring to the table. There's something to be said for a box, a console, that's 100% optimized for a TV-based experience, over a PC that can work on a TV, but is not exactly optimized for it. The same thing with mobile device. Sure, you get a better Doom experience on every other platform its on other than the Switch, but the Switch has the advantage of its unique form factor. None of this is black or white.

 

 

So, you bought a PS3 at launch in 2006 and they're still making games for it in 2017, 11 years later. It has over 2,000 games available for it at this point across nearly every conceivable genre, not to mention if you got a launch unit you can also play thousands more PS1 and PS2 games. I think we can agree most people would have felt they would have gotten their $1000 AU investment out of it, no? In other words, perhaps your opinion and feeling is something of an extreme outlier? Just a bit?

 

 

I think we all agree games come first. But it's even better when both games and power come together.

 

In terms of the "strict control" you refer to, that would be an issue if it limited what can appear on these consoles, but it really doesn't. There are gatekeepers even on the PC, and those services, like Steam and GOG, are the most popular ways to game. Curation does not have to be a negative, and in fact has many positives.

 

We also don't know if Atari will be doing any gatekeeping of their own. They almost certainly will, since they'll need some type of store to make money off of. It remains to be seen if they'll let you side-load apps - it's implied that they will - but that's not really an average person activity (or desire).

 

I can certainly understand the desire for a Linux console. Open platforms have been implemented before with varying degrees of success, and there's always a hope that the next attempt will be the one that sticks. There's no reason this can't fulfill the desires of a vocal niche, but I simply don't get a sense there's any type of mass frustration with the way things currently are. In other words, I don't see an opening here for this to be a mainstream product, even with perfect execution. And frankly, I think everyone involved knows that, it's just something you'd never state. I'm sure they're expecting to sell in the tens of thousands of units and will consider that a great success, while of course they publicly need to state that they think gamers everywhere will want to have one (as any smart company would do - there's the internal reality and the external bluster).

 

 

The Ataribox or almost any modern device built on these types of components is not that, though. This will run the same types of games you'd find on a PC, using the same types of dev tools and middleware. The only restrictions are in what it will be able to run and how well, not in how you develop for it. This is no different than making sure your game runs on a low end PC as well as with improved performance on a high end PC, or, in the modern console model, where a game has to run well on the original console, but can gain significant benefit from running on the newest version of the console.

 

There are also a lot of developers who will say that being limited making for a better developed game experience is a myth. Sure, constraints can help, but there are plenty of examples of games that didn't quite come together because the developers were limited by available resources. There are just as many developers out there who will say they were empowered by the freedom a development environment gave them to realize their full visions. Games in the past were developed why they were because there was literally no other way to do it. The constraints were not a means to an end, just the reality.

Sorry Bill by deleted i meant i had a novel of responses but deleted them when i noticed other posts(no disrespect)

 

Basically you have some great points that are very much noted. However, wasn't the whole point of the Ataribox to fill this niche?

 

"a console, that's 100% optimized for a TV-based experience"

 

Anyway i just feel many looking at specs as a hurdle when i look at it as an advantage. We all know Majong became highly successful from their software alone. I don't really care for Minecraft but i do think it's a brilliant concept, and even David Crane has used the same game for the example.

 

I guess, im just wanting a 'comeback tour' so to speak where development succeeds the need of hardware development. Don't get me wrong Hardware is critical but some developers have shown the latest hardware means nothing when the software succeeds. We all know the Atari brand has alot up it's sleeve and whether it's the same suits or not, it changed hands atleast three times when in full motion back in the day. No one cared who owned the company or the fact Nolan wasn't running the show, the games paved the way

Edited November 10, 2017 by Tony The 2600

[+TwentySixHundred]

Or should i say "a PC like console, that's 100% optimized for a TV-based experience"

Edited November 10, 2017 by Tony The 2600

[Bill Loguidice]

I'm just not sure what present day Atari could incentivize small-fry developers with to be exclusive to their platform. Do you want to be a small fish in a small pond? Develop for Ataribox. Do you want to be a small fish in many large ponds? Develop for everything else. From a business standpoint, the latter - being everywhere - makes the most sense. And, in keeping with the idea of making the most sense, why not just develop for everything, including Ataribox? That seems like the best of everything (except for a reason to specifically own an Ataribox).

 

Also, I just don't see masses of people clamoring for these ultra indie games (smaller than the usual indie production), which are already available on PC and other platforms like Xbox One, iOS, and Android. Are there lots of people who really want (or need) another mini-golf game or another update of Pitfall!? Are the reasons these games are ignored on the saturated platforms really just because they get lost in the shuffle or is it that they're not necessarily all that interesting (and I'm speaking in generalities here, since I don't know the titles in question). I don't know?

 

As a small-fry creator of things myself, I 100% sympathize with the issue of discoverability, but those are the breaks in this modern world of plenty. It's as much about luck as it is about having a quality product. Ready Player One, for instance, is terribly written and far worse than many other similar books, yet that's the one that took off because it was the right place, at the right time, with the right connections touting how wonderful it is, helping it to snowball from there. The only real solution is to keep plugging away and try to find some way to make what you do profitable. I don't think that's going to be through a fairly generic box from an IP company.

 

Finally, in terms of the Ataribox being locked down like other platforms, I really see that as cutting off niches that they really need, which includes Linux enthusiasts and the other hobbyists who are into emulation and what-not. Being a closed platform might be better for developers and Atari on one level, but on another level it takes away a big reason to own this thing. I think the best strategy for Ataribox is to have their own store - that should be a no-brainer - as well as allow easy access to add your own stuff. That's the only way I can see this platform being healthy in the modest way it might be able to given all that it has going against it.

[+TwentySixHundred]

Well i agree everyone wants to be in the big pond; big pond = big money (money does rule the world). As for Atari branded games, many forget the masses that were licensed post 2600 days. That's the problem, Atari has licenses to the current day, franchises like the Test Drive, Tycoon series ect ect that they can tap into if smart. They can draw whole genres of fans into a series if they play the cards right and still keep the system unlocked for third party development. Exclusive is exclusive it doesn't mean they need to hold back on third party it just means they cement the niche.

 

The biggest issue they face is the accustom market that wont steer towards other avenues. So really, there has to be a trend setter, that further on opens the minds to other developers that there is a system unlocked loaded and ready to go. Hard task, and by all means i have my doubt they will pull it off but lets hope.

 

We need change, the PS/Xbox scene is stale to say the least and lets not forget Majong became successful for PC development where the limitations are basically non existent. Having said that i will repeat pure gameplay rather then graphics is the key so in a nutshell Ataribox has potential if done right

Edited November 10, 2017 by Tony The 2600