Jump to content

Photo

Do you support CollectorVision licensing ColecoVision from Cardillo/Coleco


99 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you support CollectorVision licensing ColecoVision from Cardillo/Coleco Holdings (74 member(s) have cast votes)

Regardless if if you will/will not buy the new CollectorVision system, do you support CollectorVision entering into a licensing agreement with Cardillo/Riverwest/Dormitus/whatever they call themselves these days.

  1. Yes (26 votes [35.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 35.14%

  2. No (48 votes [64.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 64.86%

Vote

#26 Flojomojo OFFLINE  

Flojomojo

    Use With Paddle Controllers

  • 13,509 posts

Posted Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:40 AM

I remember hearing promotion for the Coleco Expo. What happened? Did the event actually happen?

 

Decide for yourself: http://atariage.com/...86#entry3821991



#27 Hannacek ONLINE  

Hannacek

    Moonsweeper

  • 258 posts

Posted Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:44 AM

The problem with the Coleco Chameleon was they were so concerned with the limited edition color shells, and kickstarter rewards, they never bothered to make the thing actually work. I think the lesson is to spend all the time and money making a quality product as good as it can be. Why waste money on a logo, when it doesn't add anything to the product? If anything the logo reminds the target consumers who are on AA of Coleco Holdings/River West Brands.

Someone made and sold replacement stickers for the ColecoVision Flashback. Why not refuse to pay for the Coleco branding, and let someone unaffiliated and independent sell replacement stickers for those who want the Coleco branding on the stickers?  


Edited by Hannacek, Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:51 AM.


#28 Swami OFFLINE  

Swami

    Stargunner

  • 1,817 posts
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:52 AM

 

The show being a complete joke is likely responsible. 

Could be. Cardillo seriously could have screwed it up even with 100 AA related vendors and 5000 AA members attending.



#29 Osgeld OFFLINE  

Osgeld

    Quadrunner

  • 5,496 posts
  • Location:Nashville, TN

Posted Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:14 PM

Needs another poll option "don't care"

#30 pacman000 ONLINE  

pacman000

    Stargunner

  • 1,203 posts

Posted Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:29 PM

The purpose of the poll is not to tell CV who to deal with. Ultimately they are free to deal with who ever they wish. As is everyone here free to buy or not buy their system (which if you go read the original thread, I said I most likely would despite my objections).

The poll ultimately came from him saying I was in the minority of saying the community believes they shouldn't deal with them. This poll is here to settle that argument. Nothing more, nothing less.

That being said, I would argue that if you don't care, then that is a vote for support of the agreement. Indifference means you are ok with the status quo. Which as of right now is CV going through with a licensing agreement.

So far it seems you're in the minority, but it's not one against the world.

 

For the record, I'm not against CollectorVision licensing Coleco's old content, even if it's owned by someone I don't trust. I wouldn't trust Jack Tramiel, but if I'd still like to work on an Atari platform, if it was 1987. Licensing the rights may be the best solution. If Coleco Holdings wanted to make trouble; CollectorVision could spend years in court, eat up a bunch of cash, & still loose. Should CollectorVision risk the whole project for a self-righteous position? That would help no one. If they're able to legally get games from this deal, that helps everyone.

 

Now, let's have some fun with something containing a z80. ;)



#31 grips03 OFFLINE  

grips03

    River Patroller

  • 3,664 posts
  • Location:New England

Posted Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:38 PM

I hope everyone here knows they only own the Colecovision name.  They do not own any IP of the former Coleco company.  Even the name was illegally obtained. 



#32 Hannacek ONLINE  

Hannacek

    Moonsweeper

  • 258 posts

Posted Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:15 PM

 

 

For the record, I'm not against CollectorVision licensing Coleco's old content, even if it's owned by someone I don't trust. I wouldn't trust Jack Tramiel, but if I'd still like to work on an Atari platform, if it was 1987. Licensing the rights may be the best solution. If Coleco Holdings wanted to make trouble; CollectorVision could spend years in court, eat up a bunch of cash, & still loose. Should CollectorVision risk the whole project for a self-righteous position? That would help no one. If they're able to legally get games from this deal, that helps everyone.

 

 

 

They don't own any games as far as I can tell. I don't think they even own the few ColecoVision original games like Destructor or Super Action Football.

The initial Super Game Module has the Coleco and  ColecoVision brand name and logo. They look as it is an official Coleco product that came out in the 80s complete with box and manual. Where as the later SGMs have no Coleco logo or branding, and the packaging looks like a homebrew product. It is the same exact same thing, the only difference is the box, manual, and sticker on the product.

 

For me it is a waste to spend any money on a sticker and logo on a box. The actual product is what matters. 


Edited by Hannacek, Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:16 PM.


#33 Swami OFFLINE  

Swami

    Stargunner

  • 1,817 posts
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:30 PM

I hope everyone here knows they only own the Colecovision name.  They do not own any IP of the former Coleco company.  Even the name was illegally obtained. 

 

 

 

They don't own any games as far as I can tell. I don't think they even own the few ColecoVision original games like Destructor or Super Action Football.

The initial Super Game Module has the Coleco and  ColecoVision brand name and logo. They look as it is an official Coleco product that came out in the 80s complete with box and manual. Where as the later SGMs have no Coleco logo or branding, and the packaging looks like a homebrew product. It is the same exact same thing, the only difference is the box, manual, and sticker on the product.

 

For me it is a waste to spend any money on a sticker and logo on a box. The actual product is what matters. 

I've wondered about the games IP on the ColecoVision Flashback console and Steam pack. I could not find any reference to it on the console or Steam pack home screen. However, Bill Loguidice with AtGames seems convinced RWB rights to the games are legit. There is an air of vagueness and a lack of sense of confirmation/finality about it all, though.

 

http://atariage.com/...load/?p=3846363



#34 nick3092 OFFLINE  

nick3092

    Chopper Commander

  • Topic Starter
  • 104 posts

Posted Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:02 PM

So far it seems you're in the minority, but it's not one against the world.

I'm in the minority? I'm against the licensing deal. Right now the poll is 29 against the licensing deal to 15 for it. Which is roughly 66% against and 34% for it. That puts me in the majority. And honestly, I knew there would be some people in the community who would say yes. I figured it would be less than 10 though. So it is surprising to me.

And on another note, I know last night I may have riled up some people and been a bit quick to anger. That was not my intention at all. This all started because I was just trying to prove that the majority of the community is against it.

The subject is just a bit of a sore point for me. My parents were pretty early adopters of the CV. Prior to that, all we had was a pong game. So I grew up on it. My family gathered around it. It brought us together. I have a lot of fond childhood memories where CV was the center of them. So the CV is near and dear to me, as I assume it is to many of you. So in my mind what Cardillo did is unforgivable. And it doesn't take much to get me defensive about the CV for those reasons.

And I would again like to reiterate that I fully support CollectorVision. And I will very likely buy the system regardless of the licensing deal.

My whole purpose was to show them the community is largely against the deal, and possibly get them to reconsider. The purpose wasn't to restart the Cardillo conversation, or to start/further any potential divide in the community.

Edited by nick3092, Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:04 PM.


#35 pacman000 ONLINE  

pacman000

    Stargunner

  • 1,203 posts

Posted Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:08 PM

Ah, forgive me. I misread.

#36 5-11under OFFLINE  

5-11under

    River Patroller

  • 3,365 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada

Posted Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:55 PM

I hope everyone here knows they only own the Colecovision name.  They do not own any IP of the former Coleco company.  Even the name was illegally obtained. 

 

That's how I understand it. Everything else is up for grabs.



#37 enoofu OFFLINE  

enoofu

    Stargunner

  • 1,062 posts

Posted Sun Jul 29, 2018 2:34 PM

Personally I don't even understand a FPGA for Colecovision Only system when their is a already a few that play Colecovision with a bunch of other systems

 

Here is Kevtris doing it in 2013



#38 Bmack36 ONLINE  

Bmack36

    Moonsweeper

  • 457 posts

Posted Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:03 PM

Personally I don't even understand a FPGA for Colecovision Only system when their is a already a few that play Colecovision with a bunch of other systems

 

Here is Kevtris doing it in 2013

There are a couple reasons:

 

Most people don't have $1000 lying around to buy a NT mini on Ebay.

There are not any that play actual cartridges or use cv controllers (except for Kevtris who has a cartridge adapter or emulation systems)

Not all homebrew games play on the NT mini colecovision core

 

A lot of colecovision hardware is failing and it is getting harder to find working systems.

 

and just because it launches with only colecovision support doesn't mean that it will only support colecovision.


Edited by Bmack36, Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:04 PM.


#39 Greg2600 OFFLINE  

Greg2600

    River Patroller

  • 2,943 posts
  • Location:NJ

Posted Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:08 PM

Personally I don't even understand a FPGA for Colecovision Only system when their is a already a few that play Colecovision with a bunch of other systems.

 

 

I personally don't have much of a stake in the game, since I find spending $$$ enhancing a system beyond it's original capabilities to play games that were released on more advanced systems (and easily playable) to be of little interest or worth.  Creating all new systems that are compatible with some of those vintage consoles is a financially dubious venture, given the tiny percentage of the community who are truly interested in paying for such products.

 

On the subject, I think bothering to pay a license is dumb, since I doubt many people care whether the homebrew box or the title screen says Colecovision ®.



#40 Swami OFFLINE  

Swami

    Stargunner

  • 1,817 posts
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:17 AM


and just because it launches with only colecovision support doesn't mean that it will only support colecovision.

I've been looking into what is involved in implementing new cores into a random FPGA console and it's all Greek to me. It sounds more complicated than installing an emulator on your PC and that is usually a pain. If the only core the console comes with is ColecoVision, what would be involved in adding the MSX/2, 2600 and SMS core firmware and OS files ourselves? Do compatible ones already exist? It sounds like you can't necessarily take cores made for the Mist or jail-borked Analogue and add them to the particular FPGA unit.



#41 bobstoned OFFLINE  

bobstoned

    Space Invader

  • 15 posts
  • Location:Staffordshire - England

Posted Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:49 PM

The fact that CollectorVision is paying CH will mean there's zero possibility I'll buy any more of their games in the future, never mind buying their console. It'll be OpCode all the way from now on. Integrity and fair play matters in a small community like this, and Eduardo made the right call.

#42 MiniRPG OFFLINE  

MiniRPG

    Space Invader

  • 45 posts
  • Location:Orlando, FL

Posted Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:11 PM

The fact that CollectorVision is paying CH will mean there's zero possibility I'll buy any more of their games in the future, never mind buying their console. It'll be OpCode all the way from now on. Integrity and fair play matters in a small community like this, and Eduardo made the right call.

 

I'll take an open source platform any day over the politics surrounding the Super Game Module.



#43 bobstoned OFFLINE  

bobstoned

    Space Invader

  • 15 posts
  • Location:Staffordshire - England

Posted Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:20 PM

I'll take an open source platform any day over the politics surrounding the Super Game Module.


Will you elaborate on what those "politics" are?

#44 mr_me OFFLINE  

mr_me

    River Patroller

  • 3,054 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:43 PM

I've been looking into what is involved in implementing new cores into a random FPGA console and it's all Greek to me. It sounds more complicated than installing an emulator on your PC and that is usually a pain. If the only core the console comes with is ColecoVision, what would be involved in adding the MSX/2, 2600 and SMS core firmware and OS files ourselves? Do compatible ones already exist? It sounds like you can't necessarily take cores made for the Mist or jail-borked Analogue and add them to the particular FPGA unit.

Someone knowledgeable with fpga development would have to prepare the cores. All the heavy work has been done, it's just a matter of migrating that work to this board and interfacing with its i/o. Once that is done it would be simpler for an end user to add system cores than it is installing an emulator on their computer.

Edit:
Unlike the open source mist and mister projects the analogue nt mini cores are closed source to kevtris. They should contact kevtris about his intellivision core. It has not been implemented anywhere as far as I know and may never be. This thing could even take Intellivision controllers.

Edited by mr_me, Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:08 PM.


#45 phoenixdownita OFFLINE  

phoenixdownita

    River Patroller

  • 3,166 posts

Posted Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:50 PM

DELETED



#46 xybot67 OFFLINE  

xybot67

    Moonsweeper

  • 271 posts
  • Location:Montreal, Canada

Posted Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:42 PM

Wow, I can't get over some of the reactions around here! Why did we first come to this site? For Collectorvision?, for Opcode? Probably not. We came here for the nostalgia and love of the Colecovision! I believe that Collectorvision just wants to name their system after their favourite system without getting their asses sued! Secondly, if it helps them sell more to the masses, good for them. I refuse to let Cardillo turn Colecovision into a dirty word!



#47 Swami OFFLINE  

Swami

    Stargunner

  • 1,817 posts
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted Mon Jul 30, 2018 8:47 PM

Someone knowledgeable with fpga development would have to prepare the cores. All the heavy work has been done, it's just a matter of migrating that work to this board and interfacing with its i/o. Once that is done it would be simpler for an end user to add system cores than it is installing an emulator on their computer.

Edit:
Unlike the open source mist and mister projects the analogue nt mini cores are closed source to kevtris. They should contact kevtris about his intellivision core. It has not been implemented anywhere as far as I know and may never be. This thing could even take Intellivision controllers.

 

I will be very disappointed if they are adding Cardillo for launch, but removing said cores for launch. It ends up being a wait and see if it materializes scenario.



#48 DuggerVideoGames OFFLINE  

DuggerVideoGames

    Dragonstomper

  • 600 posts

Posted Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:37 PM

While I support the homebrew scene and their endeavors, I simply will NOT buy anything that gives even a single penny to Cardillo and his cronies.  Does having the Coleco name or logo on something matter to me?  Is it important to me in my life?  Is it important for me to have on a video game product?  The answer:  A RESOUNDING NO.  I bear no ill will towards any of the homebrew developers, but I am disappointed in any acts of making a deal with the devil who not only made it perfectly clear that he doesn't care about the homebrew developers, but also that said devil's only potential market (the very community he shat on and picked fights with).

 

You don't need the Coleco name or logo.  Let the quality of your work speak for itself.  There is no need to empower Cardillo in even the slightest way.  My refusal to buy anything that has a licensing deal with Cardillo is not a refusal of support for homebrew developers, but rather a reinforcement of my support for the developers and the community.  It is also a reminder that I stand by my principles.  I still wish Collectorvision success, but I and other like-minded individuals simply will not contribute to any act that puts a single penny in the pockets of the aforementioned leeches who shat on the community.


Edited by DuggerVideoGames, Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:39 PM.


#49 Jinks OFFLINE  

Jinks

    River Patroller

  • 4,369 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted Fri Aug 3, 2018 6:48 PM

Cardillihole is still around? After the flopexpo people still support him?
Sunken ships float?
I don't support trolls.
No one needs that tarnished dirty swear word of a name on their products that they made.

#50 Swami OFFLINE  

Swami

    Stargunner

  • 1,817 posts
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted Fri Aug 3, 2018 7:08 PM

Cardillihole is still around? After the flopexpo people still support him?
Sunken ships float?
I don't support trolls.
No one needs that tarnished dirty swear word of a name on their products that they made.

 

Flopexpo? What do you mean? Here's a shot of this year's 2018 Coleco Expo in full swing: :rolling:

Attached Thumbnails

  • P1060339.jpg





0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users