FB3...

[atarilovesyou]

...I agree, great job Curt,....but come now...all you need to do is make the FB3 a fully functional Atari 2600 with cart cap. and the thing will be a crazy success..5200?....what?!?!?!

[sidcrowe]

Yeah...the 5200...I don't get it at all :/

[atarilovesyou]

...being a fan of the many older systems is fine and dandy...and we can all dream!...however, and I'm sure Curt and others know this, to have a successful product, you gotta go with what you know...

 

...and the public knows 2600!...why spend all the money and effort for something that you don't have to?...a 2600 re-release makes the most sense....and if IT doesn't sell, brothers, NOTHING will...not a 5200, 400, 800...nuttin!

 

I don't wanna sound like a downer, it's just the reality of the business side of things.

 

I'm certain that when FB3 is released, it will most likely be another version of the FB2...and as long as it's cart compatible, I'll be happy, as will many folks. I'd love to see it be more than that, of course!

[Lord Helmet]

Yeah...the 5200...I don't get it at all    :/

964569[/snapback]

 

...do you have one?

[n8littlefield]

Well, I got thinking, and I can see using the 5200 as the backbone, since it had very good arcade ports, but I really can't see using the image/style of the 5200 as the vast majority of the public won't have the warm fuzzies that they get from the 2600.

 

I think they should have it be an Atari Arcade Flashback, have it contain a decent processor and be able to run arcade roms. Have it styled like an arcade joystick. To me, when they say it will contain a cartridge port, in a way, indicates some type of downloadable content, which would be perfect for a mini arcade machine you hook up to a TV.

[Kokovec]

I think it would be cool if Atari came up with a 2600 that takes some type of flash or memory card.

This would be the perfect avenue to play binaries from existing games as well as homebrew titles.

I think you would see an increase in homebrew development if Atari came out with something like that.

But then homebews don't make money for Atari. Unless they start licensing the games and selling them to the public.

[jsoper]

After seeing this picture of the DS Intellivision Lives in the newsletter, I wouldn't mind the FB3 being a DS cart with fully re-coded 5200 games and overlays. A colecovision collection would also rule.

Intellivision Newsletter

Edited November 14, 2005 by jsoper

[jaybird3rd]

Will it use the same hardware as FB2? Or will the obvious incompatibilities be fixed?

913658[/snapback]

Different platform...

 

Curt

913751[/snapback]

A reminder as to why it will probably *not* be a 2600-compatible system like the FB2.

 

I wish I could actually bet money on its being an A8-based product (whether it looks from the outside like a 5200 or not) because I still think that would be the coolest of all options.

[atarilovesyou]

...what good will a 5200 platform be if you can't play the arcade games that were on it due to legality?..or am I wrong in assuming that you can't have Ms Pac Man on any future FB3 product since the rights are with Jakks right now.

 

I'm just saying that a 5200 platform would have to be quite special indeed...and realistically, it's been stated many times here before that you won't hit the nostalgia crowd in the masses with a clone of a system that had limited success even back in the day.

 

I could be wrong. But doesn't it only make sense that if a cart-based FB3 that is essentially a FB2 isn't being developed, then why would the new FB3 be based on an even less successful system, the 5200? Can somebody explain this to me? People seem to want a 2600 in large numbers, not a 5200 based machine...that's not to say a 5200 machine wouldn't be great fun, but successful?

 

Oh well.

[supercat]

People seem to want a 2600 in large numbers, not a 5200 based machine...that's not to say a 5200 machine wouldn't be great fun, but successful?

965655[/snapback]

 

The 5200 and 7800, I think, tried to be 'arcade' machines in a way the 2600 didn't do as much. To be sure, there were some very good arcade ports for the 2600, but the 2600 has a unique flavor to it that I don't think would carry through as well to other machines.

 

It's funny--in some ways it doesn't make sense for the 2600 to hold such 'magic' for me. I borrowed one from a classmate one summer (with about 15 carts) but never owned one until 1993. But I've somehow formed an extreme facination with that silly little machine. I do wish I'd seen a "Basic Programming" cart back in the day. Yeah, it was sorta silly and useless, but also amazingly cool. I never would have guessed back then that the 2600 could produce a pretty darned reasonable text display with no extra hardware.

 

I guess the thing that I find most intriguing about the 2600 is the extent to which the graphics are driven by "raw" code. Unlike other platforms which give a certain set of tools to work with the 2600 allows (requires, even) the programmer to build his own.

[sidcrowe]

Do I have one? No.

 

They came out in Canada and I only read about them as "lease to own" in the Toronto newspaper tv guides. I don't recall ever encountering one, and after I heard about the terrible joysticks, I lost interest. Most of all, the fuckin' things cost a FORTUNE

 

And, they never appeared in the Consumers Distributing catalogs. It may have been a fine machine, but it means just about nothing to me. It is NOT the console that won the world. Neither was the 7800. For my money, the Flashback should be refined a little more in the direction of the 2600. Namely, with more games, and more homebrews.

 

The FB2 is awesome; I just want more of that quality.

[+5-11under]

I think the 5200/A800/C64 era is the era a lot of people actually remember, or want to remember. To them, the 2600 probably sucked (Pac-Man & Asteroids graphics, for instance), whereby the 5200/A800/C64 had arcade classics that looked "reasonably" close to the arcade versions. The Atari/Commodore era was hugely popular, and is prime territory for products, I think.

 

5-11under

[Shawn]

If this is a 5200 compatible machine we get with the FB3 I might actually get into the 5200. I've always wanted a good reason to get into the 5200 but the 2600 & 7800 have always been enough of a money pit on their own, But a new 5200? I don't think I could resist. Just the idea of a "new" atari with seperate games will be neat to collect and play.

 

Do you think we will see the FB3 by Xmas 06?

[kevin242]

Yea the 400/800/xl/xe/5200 have an enormous library of games to choose from and

most 2600 games have 8bit conterparts that are superiour, so it would be the perfect

system for Atari to base the FlashBack 3 on. Not only that, but Curt has said there

will be improvements (like maybe enchanced graphics) like the DTV has, so we may

see the same tech used in non-retro plug and play devices.

 

 

personally after seeing the FB2 I can't wait for the FB 3, my only request? Dont bother

getting games programmed for it, or at least give them a spin on a real TV before you

release them.

 

For those of you dying for a new FB based on the FB 2 (2600) tech, noone is saying

that product or products couldnt exist along with the FB 3.

 

 

What I am wondering is what is Atari's eventual plan? Where do they go after the

FB 3.0? A completely new platform maybe?

Edited November 15, 2005 by kevin242

[atwwong]

Curt is asking over in the commerical Atari forums Should Atari keep making consoles??? He is basically asking what consumers want Atari to do in the future, i.e., stick with simple new consoles or go back to making CD-Roms.

 

Here's my reply:

I would like to see the Flashback console line continue.  The next machine after the FB3 could be an "arcade console" featuring Atari arcade games, with good quality dual joysticks/paddles and an expansion/cartridge/memory slot for add-on game packs of 10-20 games (make them more worthwhile for consumers than the Jakks' game keys).  I think consumers wouldn't mind playing slightly more for better quality, i.e., accuracy and good materials, than paying less and having the console rushed through.

 

While we are on the topic, it would be nice to have a new Atari 2600 console with either a cartridge or memory slot that we would not have to hack in.  With all the time and resources already put into the Flashback 2, it should not be too difficult to improve the 2600's TIA compatibility to make it nearly 100% compatible with old Atari carts.  And before anyone at Atari screams "user support nightmare!" put a huge disclaimer all over the packaging saying that Atari will not troubleshoot original carts that don't work with the system and send everyone over to AtariAge if they need help.

 

I believe carts/memory sticks/etc. is the way to go to extend the revenue and lifetime of a product and both old and new games (created by homebrewers) can add to the value of a consumer's investment to benefit all.

 

Cheers,

Tony

[supercat]

I think the 5200/A800/C64 era is the era a lot of people actually remember, or want to remember. To them, the 2600 probably sucked (Pac-Man & Asteroids graphics, for instance), whereby the 5200/A800/C64 had arcade classics that looked "reasonably" close to the arcade versions. The Atari/Commodore era was hugely popular, and is prime territory for products, I think.

965813[/snapback]

 

I remember the C64 quite fondly, but I'd rather play 2600 Millipede than C64 Centipede. And if I wanted arcade quality, there's no reason I shouldn't just go for that.

 

On the other hand, some of the "newer" titles for the Atari, such as Save Mary, do a really nice job of balancing modern quality with classic 2600-ness.

 

I'd think it neat if someone came up with a handy C64 clone that used MMC (or similar) cards. Or an Atari 800 clone. But I don't think I'd be nearly as interested in a system that just sported a small number of built-in games for that platform, unless it happened to have those games I was interested in.

 

I guess one difference between the Atari 2600 and other machines is that the former sported a few 'must-have' games. By contrast, the C64's selection was far more varied and came from many different sources.

 

It's too bad Atari couldn't find the licensing paperwork for Space Invaders, or else that they didn't just rename the game Avenger (hey, Commodore got away with that--even using graphics resembling the arcade game; no reason Atari shouldn't get away with it using graphics that don't particularly resemble copyrighted elements from the arcade).

 

Personally, I'd like to see a 2600-compatible FB3 with the TIA quirks properly emulated, some form of cartridge slot people could program (even if user-programmed carts were "officially" unsupported), and some reasonable licensing terms for homebrewers whose software was included. If Atari's legal department could manage the latter, it could be a really big win for everyone. A $0.01/game royalty would be a bargain for Atari, but a major payout for developers.

[jaybird3rd]

Aside for the inherent merits of the A8 platform (high-quality arcade ports, popular cross-platform computer titles, interesting titles that were unique to the A8, etc.), consider this: the FB1 was mostly 2600 ports. The FB2 was entirely 2600 games. If Atari releases the FB3 as a 2600 system, it will be increasingly hard to find popular titles that haven't already appeared on the first two (without running into nasty licensing issues) and to avoid the impression among the general public that Atari is reheating its old leftovers. Aside for Atari's TV game units, there are 2600 emulation packs for the PC and modern game consoles, as well as the Jakks products, and I fear that there's a danger of overexposing the 2600 properties at the expense of other equally worthy properties in Atari's possession.

 

The C64 30-in-1 was, to my mind, the model that Atari should follow in developing the FB3. As I've pointed out earlier in this thread, the A8 hardware with its built-in capabilities as a computer platform is a significant departure from the standard cheapie NOAC offerings, and brings with it a HUGE collection of quality games that already exist in a cartridge format (which, according to Curt, the FB3 will implement in a pin-compatible package). Let's not downplay the recognizability of the computer titles; the classic computer games from companies like EA and Broderbund still have a lot of nostalgic value, and as has been pointed out, the vast majority of popular arcade games are also there on the A8. And if Atari wants to do new games, it would probably be a lot easier to bring new developers up to speed on the A8 than it would be on the 2600.

[supercat]

Let's not downplay the recognizability of the computer titles; the classic computer games from companies like EA and Broderbund still have a lot of nostalgic value, and as has been pointed out, the vast majority of popular arcade games are also there on the A8.

 

And how easily will Atari license those titles?

 

And if Atari wants to do new games, it would probably be a lot easier to bring new developers up to speed on the A8 than it would be on the 2600.

966475[/snapback]

 

Hey, us 2600 developers are here and we'll do stuff relatively cheap. I don't think a neophyte on the A8 is going to come up with something unique the way the AA crew can on the 2600.

[sidcrowe]

Fast reply two quotes

 

"Hey, us 2600 developers are here and we'll do stuff relatively cheap. I don't think a neophyte on the A8 is going to come up with something unique the way the AA crew can on the 2600."

 

Exactly. That area was weak on the FB2. Showed promise, though. I want more.

 

"And before anyone at Atari screams "user support nightmare!" put a huge disclaimer all over the packaging saying that Atari will not troubleshoot original carts that don't work with the system and send everyone over to AtariAge if they need help."

 

Yes. People say "Oh, they'll phone," well, not if the boxes and console says words to the effect of "You eediot! Don't bug us with those old carts, man. The thing has games built in. You wanna play the old carts you take your chances. Don't phone us, you sick little monkey!"

 

If they phone anyway, you tell them, "Sorry pal. Not our problem. Goodbye."

 

As for the era AFTER the 2600 being the one we want, ummm...methinks not. The era after the 2600 was technically better, yes, but we hardly look back here at the Atari as being an old piece of crap. People around here actually STILL PLAY the 2600 games, they don't just think back and remember how much they MAY HAVE liked them.

 

Just my 2¢

[RickHarrisMaine]

I'd be really psyched if there was a system that could handle the carts for all of them, the 2600, 5200, 7800. I mean, it could certainly be done. I can even picture how something like that could work. Failing that, I see no problem with the next FB having say, about 60 games or so, and half being 2600 and the other being 5200 stuff. I got my wife to try the 5200 down in the basement and she's asking me about every night to go down and play Centipede with her. And I have no idea how she always kicks my ass in that game too!

[jaybird3rd]

I'd be really psyched if there was a system that could handle the carts for all of them, the 2600, 5200, 7800.  I mean, it could certainly be done.  I can even picture how something like that could work.  Failing that, I see no problem with the next FB having say, about 60 games or so, and half being 2600 and the other being 5200 stuff.

966561[/snapback]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but how could that possibly be done in the real world? The 2600 and 5200 were two totally different systems except for the CPU, and the 7800 would require its own video chip (the MARIA) and RAM on top of all of that. Think about it: that's essentially three separate systems, somehow mashed together and sharing one CPU and one set of controller ports and one cartridge slot (even though the original cartridges and controllers were different from one another), all shoehorned into one hybrid system from hell. The engineering on that would be a nightmare and it would cost an insane amount of money. The only realistic way of having games from all three systems in one unit would be to pick the games you want and port them over to ONE hardware platform that is capable of reproducing them all if programmed correctly (such as a NOAC-based system like the FB1). Is that really what you want?

 

I've seen this idea come up a few times before, but let's be realistic. Atari is competing against companies that sell 2600 compilations for $15 to $30. Those companies can only afford to sell at the prices they do because they use off-the-shelf NOAC chips and don't have to fabricate their own. Atari can't afford to do lots of elaborate engineering on the FB3 if they're going to play within that price range and make a profit. They need to implement a design that already exists and already has a large library of games, and something that is DIFFERENT from the competition. If they release another 2600-based system, it won't stand out from the crowd and it will be competing against their own FB2. If they build a system that has USB, integrated keyboard/mouse ports, VGA graphics, flash drives, integrated tape/floppy drives, and all the other crazy ideas people seem to have, it's going to push it WAY over the price of the FB2 and nobody will buy it. I'm not trying to pour cold water on anybody's anticipation here, but we need to adjust our expectations if we're to avoid being disappointed when Atari finally comes up with something that doesn't live up to all these wild predictions.

 

A few other points:

 

Hey, us 2600 developers are here and we'll do stuff relatively cheap.  I don't think a neophyte on the A8 is going to come up with something unique the way the AA crew can on the 2600.

966486[/snapback]

That apparently wasn't the case when Atari was putting the FB2 together. They succeeded in getting ONE totally new homebrew game (Atari Climber) and had to hire a software house to flesh out their collection. What makes you think the FB3 will be any different? I agree it would be great, but is it likely?

 

"And before anyone at Atari screams "user support nightmare!" put a huge disclaimer all over the packaging saying that Atari will not troubleshoot original carts that don't work with the system and send everyone over to AtariAge if they need help."

 

Yes. People say "Oh, they'll phone," well, not if the boxes and console says words to the effect of "You eediot! Don't bug us with those old carts, man. The thing has games built in. You wanna play the old carts you take your chances. Don't phone us, you sick little monkey!"

 

If they phone anyway, you tell them, "Sorry pal. Not our problem. Goodbye."

 

As for the era AFTER the 2600 being the one we want, ummm...methinks not. The era after the 2600 was technically better, yes, but we hardly look back here at the Atari as being an old piece of crap. People around here actually STILL PLAY the 2600 games, they don't just think back and remember how much they MAY HAVE liked them.

966523[/snapback]

With the FB2, they've apparently already decided that they don't want those support calls. Companies that are in the business of delivering professional customer service don't resort to putting stickers on boxes as you've described, especially if those consumers are doing the very thing you want them to do. Think about it: you put in a cartridge slot so people can play old games. People try to play old games. They don't work because the carts are broken. They call Atari, and Atari says they can't help them because the games are too old? That's going to generate way too much confusion. You can say that using old cartridges will void the warranty, but if the new carts are of the same form factor as the old carts, how do you prove that an old cart was inserted? The best way to avoid that problem is to put in a cartridge slot that is pin-compatible with the old one (so you can bring the old games right over to the new format without too much trouble), but in a different form factor. That's exactly what Curt has indicated is already being done with the FB3.

 

As for the A8 being AFTER the 2600 and less appealing because of that ... I'm not sure what to say. Both systems were released in the late 1970s, had games released for them throughout the 80s, and were both discontinued in the early 1990s. They were sold and supported at the same time, and most of the 2600 games we remember so fondly came out after the A8 systems did. The console and computer markets that the two systems served were very different. There was some overlap and many titles showed up on both (with the A8 versions almost always being superior, and not just in terms of graphics), but the computer could handle games that weren't well-suited for consoles. That is a very large class of games that the C64 30-in-1 succeeded in tapping into and bringing to the TV-game market, and it's something that Atari should seriously consider for the FB3 instead of the done-to-death 2600 and top-40 arcade games.

Edited November 16, 2005 by jaybird3rd

[atarilovesyou]

I love this thread!

 

...I think that lots of great points have been brought up. Here's my thoughts...of course the 5200/7800 hardware made for more realistic games...better games in almost everyway, but the thing is that yes, you can buy a Jakks stick or some emulated disc and go nuts with games that are very close to arcade quality..or go MAME.

 

But the older Atari fans, those fans that are like us in their love for Atari (but maybe not big enough to post here) remember a time in their lives, and that's a big part of the FB2...to tell the truth, the old games are good, but there are just so many GREAT ones that can't be played on the FB2 unless you mod it. So you add a slot, release 10 packs of expansion games, and watch the money flow in!...release it next year so that you still benefit from the FB2 profits...AND, by sticking to the original hardware, 3rd party developers and homebrewers get a chance to build games on this system!

 

And therein lies the REAL appeal, at least to me..games like Save Mary, simple graphics, great gameplay!...games that, unlike when they were created, are DESIGNED on a system where the programmers aren't compelled to 'over program' due to the limitations...allowing them to really concentrate on NEW games, NEW gameplay, and that great addctive simple appeal will work wonders!

 

Gamers buy the FB2 knowing what they're going to get...if they wanted super graphics and sound, they'd go play their modern system!...but without a cart slot, this can't happen...unless you cram a bunch into the system like previous efforts, but then you're forcing people to buy redundant systems...much costlier to produce in the long term, anyway, one would think.

 

Remember, Atari could lock up a profit worthy segment of the retro scene if it plays it's cards right. You CAN'T get the same Atari experience on an emulator, or another plugnplay...FB2 you get REAL joysticks, you can't beat that!

 

I'm pumped for the new 'old' stuff....ultimately, whatever they do, I'll buy simply to support the scene...that is, unless it comes out like FB1....or is just another FB2 with different games...I won't be interested in that unless a built in cart slot is available.

[jaybird3rd]

Oh, I totally agree. I'll be an owner of the FB3 regardless of what it turns out to be, because I trust the people behind it and love what Atari is doing in revisiting these older consoles and games. I am constantly amazed at how the classic games have held up and remained popular over the years. Through its newest incarnation in the FB2, I believe the Atari 2600 is the only video game console that has been on the market with first-party support for four consecutive decades (support in the early 90s was pretty sparse but still counts). That demonstrates a kind of staying power that the 2600 wouldn't have if it was a simple fad or a flash-in-the-pan retro craze as its critics have always claimed.

 

Having said all that ... I think one of the imbalances that exists in classic game circles is that the 2600 tends to get all the attention and soaks up all the oxygen and leaves other classic platforms gasping for attention. That applies to collectors, homebrewers, and game players alike. The 2600 has gone beyond being a game console first and foremost and has become some sort of pop culture icon, and to a lot of people, classic gaming and 2600 gaming is one and the same thing. But there are many other classic platforms that are equally worthy of attention and also have the kind of appeal you've described: simple graphics, simple controls, and great and innovative gameplay. The A8 family, with the incredible collection of popular arcade ports as well as the eclectic and interesting mix of games I alluded to earlier, has the kind of variety and classic appeal that can make it succeed as a TV-game unit, and that's why I'm advocating it as the source platform for the FB3.

 

There's another reason, though. One of the things that Atari has a unique opportunity to do with the FB3 is to experiment with new game ideas and to create some NEW classics. They can afford to do this because the console and the cartridges will be relatively inexpensive to produce, which makes it a lot easier to take creative risks and to try new things. I think it would be very sad in a way if Atari limited itself to recycling its old products and living off of the remains of its former glory. It would be a lot more difficult to create something totally new with a 2600-based system: it's hard to find and attract developers (as we've learned with the FB2), and since the 2600 hardware is so limited and probably close to 100% exploited, any new games that are written for the 2600 would likely be variations on previously established themes. The A8 has enough versatility and untapped potential to allow for more experimentation, it's a lot easier to learn to develop for than the 2600, and it has enough genuine classic appeal to make it attractive to discerning retro gamers.

 

EDIT: I just noticed that this thread has now passed 10,000 views. If anyone is wondering whether the public is interested in another Atari console, there's your answer.

Edited November 17, 2005 by jaybird3rd

[sidcrowe]

jaybird3rd

 

I too am on board for an FB3, whatever it may be. But...

 

I think the warnings about old carts would work. Disclaimers work. Just put them right beside any customer service contacts. That's why McD's puts the hot coffee warning on the coffee. Nobody's gonna sue again because the notice is there. If you wanna pour the clown's java on your lap and sue, go ahead, but you won't get anywhere with a lawusit. Ergo, what goof would phone after being warned? Why even leave a customer service number, if some people like to get high and make a crank call? The likelihood that they're going to phone is, in my opinion, next to zero.

 

The argument against a 2600 FB3 could also have applied to the FB2. Why make an FB2, it'll just seem old hat compared to the FB1, then, right? And competing with itself? Nah. Dump the old stock, and bring in the new. The FB2 is doing fine.

 

I think the heart of the matter is whether or not we're talking about a limited ride down memory lane, or the appreciation of the 2600 as a style with its own inherent qualities.

 

Like Sake or Chinotto, it's an acquired taste (for the uninitiated, that is). I feel there will always be a place, and should be, for the classic definition of a videogame, which is–to be brief–coloured specks and beeping.

 

I believe that style has a future, if managed well. Others believe it is a fad which will be entertained briefly, and then discarded.

 

I think the 2600 had abundantly proven it is beyond a "fad."

 

How it does is out of my hands. If it fails, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was meant to fail. Curt delivered a great product in the FB2, but there are other things outside of the unit itself that could have been done better.

 

I can't make the decisions. Yet personally, I'd like an FB2 on steroids. Maybe these are cash-ins, but maybe with a bit of luck, Atari might sneak back into a full console again.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

That apparently wasn't the case when Atari was putting the FB2 together.  They succeeded in getting ONE totally new homebrew game (Atari Climber) and had to hire a software house to flesh out their collection.  What makes you think the FB3 will be any different?  I agree it would be great, but is it likely?

Only if Atari's legal department does a better job this time. They either have to be able to offer substantial money to get their demanded "unlimited rights" or they have to (be able to) agree to terms where the homebrewer keeps some control about what is happening to his game.