FB3...

[jaybird3rd]

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.

967878[/snapback]

I take it that this is the reason Thrust never made it to the FB2. That's a real shame, since it would have been a great addition to the console (as would other prominent homebrews like EdTris). Given the FB2's hardware problems and the issues they've had with recruiting developers, which made the FB2 less valuable than it would have been with more homebrews, I hope that Atari learns that they should STOP being so cheap and rushing these Flashbacks to market as they've done with the first two.

 

To sidcrowe: I totally agree about the inherent worthiness of the whole classic game style (black backgrounds, "primitive" graphics and sounds, bright colors, vivid contrasts, simple addictive play patterns, etc). My only point is that you don't have to limit yourself to the 2600 to get those things. I don't know if you've ever actually used the Atari 400/800 or any of their descendants, but if you had, you'd know that they are a bona fide classic platform that can offer more growth potential for the FB3 than the 2600 can, along with the 2600-like classic gameplay that we all love. I would also argue that the FB2 can't be considered a rehash of the FB1, even though 2600 games appeared on both, because the FB2 is the authentic hardware and game code while the FB1 was neither. A third system with 2600 games on it WOULD be more of the same, though. Since Curt has already indicated that this is NOT the direction that Atari is going with the FB3, they apparently agree.

Edited November 18, 2005 by jaybird3rd

[Retro Rogue]

, I hope that Atari learns that they should STOP being so cheap and rushing these Flashbacks to market as they've done with the first two.

 

 

 

I don't recall the FB2 being "rushed to market".

[atarilovesyou]

....I'd say two months of development (correct me if I'm wrong) constitutes being rushed to market. You mean to tell me Thrust+, Skeleton+ weren't considered? If they were, you'd have a lot more to applaud other than Caverns of Mars and Yar's Return.

 

....they weren't rushed to the market after they were developed, though...that was probably out of Atari's hands.

 

If the powers that be don't want to spend the bucks on homebrews which are better than what they can come up with, then I'd say you needed more time to tweak those games. Adventure 2 and Haunted House 2 are done well...but some of those other games make you wanna go 'what the hell?'...some type of deal with Activision has to be struck up to include more of their games, as they're a huge part of Atari's success.

 

But I digress. Looks like FB3 isn't going to be a 2600 platform from the word on the street. It doesn't take a marketing genius to figure out that if it ain't 2600, it's gonna be a hard sell....at least to the people out there who are shelling out TONS of money for plug n plays from Jakks...and there's no good reason why Jakks is the big dog here....they're overpriced and only offer a handful of games per unit. All FB3 needs to be to rock the market is, if no cart slot is included, 50 of the 2600's most popular games. Anyway, the point is give people what they want.

Edited November 20, 2005 by atarilovesyou

[jaybird3rd]

....I'd say two months of development (correct me if I'm wrong) constitutes being rushed to market.  You mean to tell me Thrust+, Skeleton+ weren't considered?  If they were, you'd have a lot more to applaud other than Caverns of Mars and Yar's Return.

 

....they weren't rushed to the market after they were developed, though...that was probably out of Atari's hands.

 

If the powers that be don't want to spend the bucks on homebrews which are better than what they can come up with, then I'd say you needed more time to tweak those games.  Adventure 2 and Haunted House 2 are done well...but some of those other games make you wanna go 'what the hell?'...some type of deal with Activision has to be struck up to include more of their games, as they're a huge part of Atari's success.

969004[/snapback]

Yes, the two-month development window is what I was alluding to in my "rushed to market" comment. Some of the games (particularly Caverns of Mars, Yars' Return, and the Asteroids hacks) could definitely have used more time. I'd love to see more Activision/Imagic games on future compilations or handhelds.

Edited November 20, 2005 by jaybird3rd

[Retro Rogue]

....I'd say two months of development (correct me if I'm wrong) constitutes being rushed to market.  You mean to tell me Thrust+, Skeleton+ weren't considered?  If they were, you'd have a lot more to applaud other than Caverns of Mars and Yar's Return.

 

Where on earth do you get 2 months? When I came on in early April the hardware had been done and I was given a full games list to work off of to start working on the manual. That was the FB1 that was about 2 months of development. Of course Thrust+ was considered at the time.

 

....they weren't rushed to the market after they were developed, though...that was probably out of Atari's hands.

 

 

If the powers that be don't want to spend the bucks on homebrews which are better than what they can come up with, then I'd say you needed more time to tweak those games.  Adventure 2 and Haunted House 2 are done well...but some of those other games make you wanna go 'what the hell?'...some type of deal with Activision has to be struck up to include more of their games, as they're a huge part of Atari's success.

 

Spending bucks on licensing = higher cost to the console, as Curt wrote in another thread. Either way, from my understanding (and I can't go in to much) happenings for the FB3 design are going to take care of a lot of that.

[Retro Rogue]

Yes, the two-month development window is what I was alluding to in my "rushed to market" comment.  Some of the games (particularly Caverns of Mars, Yars' Return, and the Asteroids hacks) could definitely have used more time.  I'd love to see more Activision/Imagic games on future compilations or handhelds.

969018[/snapback]

 

Then you guys are talking about software specifically, and a few game at that - not the entire console. And as far as I know, all the hacks/homebrews were in dev already when I came in during early April. I still have the early dev revisions on those that I was provided to get down game play.

[atarilovesyou]

For sure, I'm talking bout the games...the console is great, no doubt. If this has been answered though, I wonder...why, if Atari owns all the rights to the VCS and technology surrounding it, couldn't the FB2 be 100% compatible with all the carts out there? It seems a lot of development is hampered around cost cutting, which I suppose is fair (we're not paying hundreds of dollars, folks) but if the technology was available for you to do it, why wasn't it done? It's kind of a moot point as it's out, no changing it, and FB3 probably won't go the VCS route, but I'd like to know.

 

And was the bottom line money when it came to not including the many great homebrews, or other legal reasons?

Edited November 21, 2005 by atarilovesyou

[supercat]

For sure, I'm talking bout the games...the console is great, no doubt.  If this has been answered though, I wonder...why, if Atari owns all the rights to the VCS and technology surrounding it, couldn't the FB2 be 100% compatible with all the carts out there?

969198[/snapback]

 

The Atari 2600 was constructed using NMOS technology. Nowadays almost everything is done with CMOS. Using CMOS technology allows chips to be smaller (and thus cheaper) and also use much less power than NMOS. Unfortunately, converting NMOS designs to CMOS can sometimes be difficult.

 

Consider the 6502 and the opcodes or "ST*". If one bit in the opcode is set, it will store the accumulator. If another bit is set, it will try to store the X register. If both are set, it will try to output both simultaneously.

 

As it happens, pullup transistors in NMOS are considerably weaker than pulldowns (and in some places resistors may be used in place of pullup transistors, in which case they're weaker still). Thus, if one transistor is trying to pull a bus up and another is trying to pull it down, the pulldown will almost always win.

 

In some conflict situations, like the "ST*" instructions, it's pretty clear and obvious what will happen. In others, though, things may be trickier. In converting a design to CMOS, one has to decide who should win, because (1) bus contentions in CMOS are just plain bad and must be avoided at all costs; (2) even if one were willing to allow bus contentions in CMOS, there would be no guarantee that it would produce the same result as in NMOS.

 

Examination of schematics can be useful for allowing the emulation designers to determine what "ambiguities" exist in the original design. But the only way to determine what should happen in ambiguous sitatuations is to test for it. If the emulation designers don't think a particular ambiguous situation is relevant, they may not test for it or emulate it correctly.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Spending bucks on licensing = higher cost to the console, as Curt wrote in another thread.

How many FB2s have been sold already? ~500,000? So just 1ct/game and you have $5000.

 

And it hasn't even brought to Europe yet.

Edited November 21, 2005 by Thomas Jentzsch

[atarilovesyou]

For sure, I'm talking bout the games...the console is great, no doubt.  If this has been answered though, I wonder...why, if Atari owns all the rights to the VCS and technology surrounding it, couldn't the FB2 be 100% compatible with all the carts out there?

969198[/snapback]

 

The Atari 2600 was constructed using NMOS technology. Nowadays almost everything is done with CMOS. Using CMOS technology allows chips to be smaller (and thus cheaper) and also use much less power than NMOS. Unfortunately, converting NMOS designs to CMOS can sometimes be difficult.

 

Consider the 6502 and the opcodes or "ST*". If one bit in the opcode is set, it will store the accumulator. If another bit is set, it will try to store the X register. If both are set, it will try to output both simultaneously.

 

As it happens, pullup transistors in NMOS are considerably weaker than pulldowns (and in some places resistors may be used in place of pullup transistors, in which case they're weaker still). Thus, if one transistor is trying to pull a bus up and another is trying to pull it down, the pulldown will almost always win.

 

In some conflict situations, like the "ST*" instructions, it's pretty clear and obvious what will happen. In others, though, things may be trickier. In converting a design to CMOS, one has to decide who should win, because (1) bus contentions in CMOS are just plain bad and must be avoided at all costs; (2) even if one were willing to allow bus contentions in CMOS, there would be no guarantee that it would produce the same result as in NMOS.

 

Examination of schematics can be useful for allowing the emulation designers to determine what "ambiguities" exist in the original design. But the only way to determine what should happen in ambiguous sitatuations is to test for it. If the emulation designers don't think a particular ambiguous situation is relevant, they may not test for it or emulate it correctly.

969205[/snapback]

 

...and thus, CMOS was chosen due to it's cost and power consumption?...hmmm, I guess the older technology NMOS is just outdated, which would mean FB2 is the closest thing we'll get to the original compatibility, eh?

[supercat]

...and thus, CMOS was chosen due to it's cost and power consumption?...hmmm, I guess the older technology NMOS is just outdated, which would mean FB2 is the closest thing we'll get to the original compatibility, eh?

969427[/snapback]

 

There is nothing inherent in CMOS that says that the compatibility problems couldn't be fixed in the next release. Really, there's only one I'd consider severe that isn't fixed in Rev. C (RESPx and RESMx should not show the first copy of the player/missile). The only other one I know about (goofy stores to HMxx can cause the movement circuitry to go bonkers in interesting ways) makes Cosmic Ark somewhat ugly, but the technique exemplified there isn't very widely used, nor does it form a 'critical' part of any game I know of.

[Retro Rogue]

Spending bucks on licensing = higher cost to the console, as Curt wrote in another thread.

How many FB2s have been sold already? ~500,000? So just 1ct/game and you have $5000.

 

And it hasn't even brought to Europe yet.

969233[/snapback]

 

 

 

Hi Thomas, not sure what you're trying to get at (looks like you're trying to say they could afford to license more because of sales?). Spending more on licensing more games would have meant the pos price would have had to been higher than the $30 target range (and as it is now, some stores are able to sell it around $23). It has nothing to do with how many wound up being sold to retailers after the fact. Hindsite is a wonderful thing, but target prices are initially set during the design phase by weighing development/manufacturing costs (which include licensing) with estimations of possible initial sales. The issue is not Atari being able to afford the licenses (which they surely can), but will the consumer want to afford the higher cost of the console (since the point is to make dev costs, manufacturing costs, and a reasonable profit back, which is what the retailer price (the price the retailer/store pays) and estimated POS price (the price the consumer pays) is set for).

Edited November 22, 2005 by wgungfu

[Thomas Jentzsch]

(looks like you're trying to say they could afford to license more because of sales?).

Yup.

 

The issue is not Atari being able to afford the licenses (which they surely can), but will the consumer want to afford the higher cost of the console (since the point is to make dev costs, manufacturing costs, and a reasonable profit back, which is what the retailer price (the price the retailer/store pays) and estimated POS price (the price the consumer pays) is set for).

I understand.

 

What I meant to say is, that for only a very few cents less profit margin, "Atari" might have been able to license many more games. I don't know how much they paid the programmers for the new games, but (almost?) any homebrew is better than what they delivered. And you didn't need a lot of hindsight for knowing that before.

[vdub_bobby]

Just to toss my two cents in here; I don't think development time is why the new games on the FB2 were poorly programmed - the most severe problems that plague them, the jittery, unstable, and rolling displays, are the result of just plain old poor programming, probably stemming from inexperience.

 

You don't need a lot of time to get a stable scanline count. Any homebrewer could probably fix the scanline counts in those games in a day.

 

It's the poor design choices, like excess flicker, that could have been improved with more time.

[+Allan]

Just to toss my two cents in here; I don't think development time is why the new games on the FB2 were poorly programmed - the most severe problems that plague them, the jittery, unstable, and rolling displays, are the result of just plain old poor programming, probably stemming from inexperience.

 

You don't need a lot of time to get a stable scanline count.  Any homebrewer could probably fix the scanline counts in those games in a day.

 

It's the poor design choices, like excess flicker, that could have been improved with more time.

970016[/snapback]

 

Curt has stated here before that the programmers were new to programming the 2600 and had a short time to learn it and then write the games. It's too bad more homebrewers didn't jump on board to program for it but they would have had a short time to write the programs. I think homebrewers are used to taking their time on their games and not rushing things. Which is why they are usually of excellent quality.

 

Allan

[HP Atari King of Michigan]

RESERVE MY FB3!!! :!: :!: :!: :!:

[Flojomojo]

Better yet, produce enough of them so we don't have to stand out in the rain for 10 hours to get a ticket for the privelige of buying one. @#)*$!@#_*!

[atarilovesyou]

You stood in line, Flomojo?....you're the man!....I just waited for months...Save Mary sure is fun!...frustrating fun!

 

Before this thread goes into shoulda coulda territory, it seems there's two camps....homebrewers and "atari"....I would have paid 50 canadian bux for this system easy, if it had all the great homebrews out there....the money saved on (in my opinion) wasted efforts like C of M, Space Duel. Games that once you try once you go, hmmmm....what were they thinking??!?!

 

So for me, of course I love the FB2...but since I guess the word on the street is that FB3 isn't going the 2600 route,all I can do is wonder what coulda been with the FB2, as far as more homebrews being involved. Time shouldn't have been a problem, the homebrews were done, you just needed to hammer out details...much easier than starting from scratch.

 

I don't know if I'm alone on this, but since I really wanted new atari hardware and av compatibility for this price, I'm happy. Sure, I have to mod it, but oh well. Hope the house doesn't burn down!!...lol...because without an external cart port built in, the games on the system, while majority are very good, the ones that make you go huh really stand out.

 

I know it was a tough go and I don't have a good solution, so I'm not gonna go on and on....just something to think about in the future....gamers in this genre WILL pay a few bucks more for something we haven't played before, especially if it's great proven homebrews!...and some Activision games!...hell, do you know how successful the FB2 would do if the ONLY difference was to load it up with the games from the Activision Anthology?....it would be monstrous, literally monsterous...that disc has sold more than any retro game pack. Of course licensing would be an issue, but I guess I have to get real for a sec...Atari could have done that, sold it at a higher price, but the profits would be cut and no company would do that....oh well.

[Flojomojo]

I didn't wait in the rain for a video game, nor will I.

 

I voted for FB2 since it's given me much more gaming pleasure than the 360 I don't have.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Curt has stated here before that the programmers were new to programming the 2600 and had a short time to learn it and then write the games.

Curt had given those guys my address, just in case they have any questions. Unfortunately they never asked.

[Curt Vendel]

That is correct, I'd given them Thomas info and specifically stated that if they were to run into ANY and I meant, ANY kind of problems, to tap Thomas. He waited and even checked in with me asking if I'd heard anything from the programmers and if they'd needed him too... So Thomas was more then willing to get involved.

 

 

 

Curt

 

Curt has stated here before that the programmers were new to programming the 2600 and had a short time to learn it and then write the games.

Curt had given those guys my address, just in case they have any questions. Unfortunately they never asked.

970633[/snapback]

[birdie3]

I am curious to know what sort of considerations were made for the FB2 when determining/calculating what consumers are supposedly currently demanding from a retro-Atari product. You know, what sort of numerical data did they have to back up the decision to sell a retro-Atari plug and play unit with the particular selection of games that were chosen etc...

 

Here is my unresearched vision of what sort of similar product will be successful with consumers:

 

- A brand new retro-Atari console that accepts cartridges like the old days

- The console would have to be retro in the sense that is uses old technology (ie: Atari XL/XE) to make the games look and play like they are old school

- release a selection of well researched brand new games that are similar in spirit and quality to the games from the 80's

- re-release the most sought after original titles from the past

- spend the bucks on the marketing

 

Good luck to anyone from Atari who has a say in this next project.

[atarilovesyou]

....that's a great wish list....it seems though, that FB systems and plug n plays in general are a 'lesson in restraint'....there are many things holding a company back from releasing the 'optimal' product. I'd have to say the main reason is lack of mainstream customer support, which, right off the bat means we're not going to get the best product possible....but we get the best product possible with the time, money, resources available....which was what we got with the FB2.

 

I don't know how many units have to sell to make a company say it's time to redesign a product to an awaiting public. I'm sure the FB2 must have surpassed sales of the FB1 by now, but I don't know. It comes down to dollars, as does everything else.

 

I think that all things cosidered, the FB2 is the best thing we could have expected for the price we paid. Were it to cost 20% more, perhaps we would have seen a standard cart port. I refuse to believe the reason why it wasn't included was due to fear of a flooded customer phone service line, or lawsuits from people, or any of that. It was cash, and that's fair to say. We it to have costed more and we still didn't get a slot, then I'd think, hmmmm, profit gouging....but that didn't happen. For my dollars, the FB2 is a great value compared to ANY other plug n play out there.

 

If the FB series has a big enough following, and I hope it does, then my vision for a newer system would simply be this...or not so simply....it doesn't contain anything that I think is outlandish or demanding, IMHO:

 

The 'new' FB2:

 

Same system in package

(sure I'd love some actual flip switches and such, but really, the system is fine)

WITH a cart slot that accepts and plays the majority of the old 2600 games..I can live without Cosmic Ark, or what have you that isn't compatible.

 

Multi-carts released quarterly, or even just around Christmas. This has been brought up and it's a golden idea. For themes you simply deal with Activision, Imagic and some others. Slap 10 or 20 games per cart, and go.

 

A paddle expansion set with a multi cart which includes the one and only Kaboom! and an Indy type game...I don't know the problems with making a paddle controller which has no 'stops' on it, just make it like a driving controller which has a 'range' when you play regular paddle games, or no range on Thrust and Indy games.

 

An option for a homebrewers cart....or else the homebrewers can get together and release their own cart for the system if Atari won't climb on board. The problem would be with hacked games and licensing problems, but real homebrews could and should be released.

 

...and that's pretty much it. That's what would make me go WOW, and in a sense, re-release the Atari that will capture the majority of fans out there during this time of retro-ness...whether it lasts or not, I think it would be the best way to capatilize on the current marketplace.

 

Just my two cents! ..and it doesn't even have to be a FB3, just a re-released FB2. Let the ones that sell now sell, and for the next one, incorporate the changes, boost the price to cover it. A problem could be in dealing with a public who has already bough the original and not seeing the possibility of the carts....which could happen if the carts aren't available when the system ships. This kind of project would need to be started soon, so since the FB3 is already being designed I doubt that my idea will see the light of day, but if anybody agrees, give a shout out!

[n8littlefield]

Ok, I have a new dream. I want it to be a superthin, handheld Atari 2600 with a slot for a memory card to download roms onto it (in some secure way so they can be sold online of course). Also, it would feature TV output. Is that asking too much !!

[moderntimes99]

How many FB2s have been sold already? ~500,000? So just 1ct/game and you have $5000.

 

And it hasn't even brought to Europe yet.

969233[/snapback]

Any news on when it will arrive in Europe? Any chance for more homebrew games on it in the PAL version?

 

Best regards,

Moderntimes99