Retro Rogue
-
Content Count
3,426 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Retro Rogue
-
-
Atari's assets were sold *again* and on this page they list who bought what. Most of it relates to newer titles and franchises, but a company named "Humongous" bought Math Gran Prix. Has Atari even done anything with that title since the 2600? I can't find anything on it.
http://gamasutra.com/view/news/196701/Wargaming_Rebellion_and_Stardock_all_bid_on_Atari_assets.php
No, Atari's assets were not sold yet. People are getting really confused by all the press. By Atari they mean the modern Atari (Atari SA/Infogrames) and just about all the assets under that umbrella.The actual "original Atari" assets will be auctioned in the near future.
Math Grand Prix and Battlezone were part of other auctions because they were split off from the main original Atari IP because of internal products. One of the umbrella companies, Humongous, had taken over Math Grand Prix because they were going to do a new series with it as a kids game.
-
What does Pong have to do with puppies? I don't get why they would even think of this or do this. I assume it's got to be just regular Pong in the cabinet. No way this is worth half a mil either way. That's just ridiculous. My son would love this, as he's puppy obsessed right now, but a real puppy would be cheaper than this.
http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/arcade/puppy-pong.html
-
The FB3 was done by a different company, not by us. Atari decided to license out the brand and product we created to a Chinese firm. There are no mod capabilities in that or the FB4, and neither use our 2600-on-a-chip. They instead use emulation via a custom emulator.
-
Nintendo has a tiny bit of involvement with the arcade industry these days. They don't seem to do any programming and I doubt they're involved in things like distribution, support, and marketing. But their properties have made appearances over the last ten years and their GameCube hardware formed the basis of an arcade system a few years ago.
They just released their third Mario Kart Arcade collaboration with Namco.
Understood and certainly true, and that's what I was getting at - the games are usually created, manufactured and distributed by other small arcade companies that are either licensing or partnering with the more major company, such as Nintendo.
That's a shame that Battlezone has likely been permanently split up from Atari's other classic properties. Why would Math Grand Prix have been auctioned separately? Can't imagine that having any significant value.
It happened because of a business deal, Math Grand Prix had been shifted over behind the scenes to one of the other subcompanies under the Atari SA umbrella who was going to create a new game and possibly series with the property. And it's not just a name, there's original code involved as well.
And it's just a name so I don't see the significance. Particularly when apparently some of their classic IP has been auctioned off despite you saying it's only Atari SA/Infogrames. Seems to have little relevance in a discussion outside of a court room when things like Battlezone were still sold off and apparently the rest is due to follow.Again same thing. Battlezone had already been separated due to another previous project, hence not being a part of the main classic IP, which is all still under Atari Interactive/Atari Inc.. As I stated it's still only just the non "original" Atari properties and companies at this point, all the other stuff under the Atari SA umbrella, which those two specific games had been moved under because of the above.
I guess you would know. But that's a new one on me. I thought Midway owned only Atari Games arcade releases and had no ownership in things like Asteroids, Missile Command, etc. I thought that stuff went with the console games and computer assets?No, the pre '84 properties were split in '84. Atari Corp. got the copyrights and trademarks, as well as the rights to all home use. Atari Games got the rights to any arcade appearance and all coin patents.
How come something like Atari Anthology doesn't reflect anywhere that Midway owned the code for things like arcade Centipede and that it's being used under license? There isn't a single notice anywhere that I can find that references Midway.I think you're confused, I never said they own the code. I said they supplied the ROMs. That was an arcade game, hence they supplied the ROMs. They own the usage of the ROMs in the coin platform, because they own the rights to any of the Atari Inc. coin games in the coin format. That of course includes non-ROM/CPU games as well. (Incidentally the ROMs they supplied had any reference to Atari removed and stated Midway Games instead. Team Play had to change them to Infogrames/Atari Interactive). Atari Anthology is not an arcade game, it's a home game.
And the few instances where Midway has released late 1970's and early 80's Atari coinops (Which I believe is limited to a single collection on the SuperNes, Playstation, and Saturn during the early days of Digital Eclipse back in the mid 1990's), no copyrights were listed as being owned by Midway. Instead all copyrights are shown as being used under license from Atari Corporation.Correct, those were home games. I don't see what the issue is, Curt and I have never stated anything different. When Atari Inc. was split in '84, Atari Corp. got the home rights to all Atari Inc. coin properties as well as any copyright and TM filings (since most of those properties were used in the consumer market as well) and Atari Games got the arcade rights as well as all patents.
-
Again, we apologize for any issues people have had. This was a learning process for us as well and will certainly be corrected for the Atari Corp. book. Thanks everyone for your continued support!
-
I hope a real arcade company gets the rights to Atari's arcade classics like Centipede, Breakout, Missile Command, Asteroids, etc.
Not Warner Brothers... they've done nothing productive with any of Midway's non-MK IPs.
I'd prefer Namco or SEGA, or even Nintendo. Definitely not SquareEnix, who've squandered Taito for the most part.
None of those are video arcade companies anymore with the exception of a handful of games out of the Japanese divisions of SEGA or NAMCO or Square (who outsources for coin work as do the other two sometimes), otherwise both are chiefly redemption game manufacturers. Likewise, any coin titles released are pretty much irrelevant unless they're done in consoles as well, as arcades are just as irrelevant in todays gaming market. Theres anreason most of the arcade companies left survive by doing redemption and slots. Regardless it's moot - Warner owns all rights to the coin appearances of those Atari games via it's purchase of Midway. They just can't use the Atari name or logo, and would have to license the copyrights of the game itself (which are owned by Atari Interactive). That's why the Centipede/Missile Command/Millipede game back in 2001 was done in conjunction with Infogrames and Midway Games. The manufacturer, Team Play, had to work with both - Infogrames for the copyrights and Midway for the ROMs.
-
1
-
-
I see Battlezone listed, does this mean each individual arcade IP could be purchased by a separate company? Asteroids to one company, Centipede to another, etc?
No. Battlezone was in a separate auction from the classic Atari IP and brand name (which has not been auctioned yet) as was Math Grand Prix. And the title of this thread is a little misleading.The IP of the current Atari (Atari SA/Infogrames) has been auctioned off, the newer titles and companies. Not the Atari brand name or original (classic) IP under Atari Inc./Atari Interactive. That'll be happening yet.
-
The information in entertainment should still be accurate don't you think? That it's "entertainment" is a poor excuse IMO.
Of course it's not, that's the point. Entertainment is interested in providing entertainment value for viewers (laugh and shock value), not necessarily accurate or sound facts, nor following any standards or serious research. One has only to look at some of the examples brought up in this thread as perfect examples as to the lack of these types of qualifications. There's nothing wrong with enjoying it for entertainment's sake, but that doesn't make it a strong reference either. Again, that's why it's not used or allowed as an actual reference by writers, publications, etc.
-
They kept referring to the boss as "God" instead of "Gond". I understand this is a bit off the cuff and they certainly aren't Atari fans like they are Nintendo fans but a little research goes a long way in making yourself seem credible when you critique something you don't know much about.
What makes you think credibility is a goal? These are purely for entertainment, which is why the reviews are never even considered as a reliable reference by writers and researchers.
Same with the Vectrex. I was very close to getting one for 300 dollars until I realized the games often go for 100 in good condition. I'm a cart only collector but for Vectrex you need the box because the overlay is in it.
You don't need the box just to get the overlay, there's sources for reproduction overlays as well. Most of that stuff was released into the public domain by the original company.
-
Given that the Amiga was developed by Atari engineers could the 6402 be maybe not an actual 16 bit computer or Amiga, but some kind of A8 computer with a seperate keyboard in slim desktop case?
The people who later did the Amiga left Atari by 1979. Long before the XL series was even created.
-
Um. I know. I didn't realise PONG was based on the Odyssey's Tennis game so I looked it up. You were right. Tennis was copied/reverse engineered/ported to Arcade as PONG then PONG ported to PONG clones as home console. Lighten up.
No, I think you're the one that needs to lighten up or at least read what you wrote. You stated "ported to the arcade from the arcade." That statement is incorrect and does not denote you knowing the Odyssey is a home console or you would have stated "from the home to the arcade." Hence my followup comment trying to explain things further. Your attitude is exactly why I debated coming back here while I'm healing from my car accident. Just not worth it.
-
Then maybe PONG was the first game ported to the arcade and from the arcade.
The Odyssey is a home console. The very first.
-
Adventure (2600) first game with easter egg
No. There were earlier games for the Channel F that had Easter eggs in them.
First console with Arcade perfect ports: Neo Geo AES
No, it would be the 2600. Most of the early titles were arcade perfect ports of early through mid-70s Atari arcade games.
First ported from an arcade was Pong I would guess.
Technically PONG was an improved port of the Odyssey's Tennis game.
-
I think Atari may not have had a good idea of what gamers wanted and/or needed back in the early 80's, as if there was zero market research.
It was actually the opposite, they had lots of focus groups.
They new they had competition but by the time they figured out what to release, it was too late... a lot of scrambling to release anything that would appear to be a better product rather than focus on practicality.Not what happened at all, there was never any scrambling. Where did you get that idea?
I'm not trying to knock Atari, but they were a business and like all businesses they are out to maximize profits, etc. So, I think the main focus was on cutting costs rather than trying to make a true revolutionary game system. Otherwise the 5200 would have been more than just a 400/800 in drag.Again, not what happened at all. The issues with the 5200 had more to do with internal politics (oh, and there were focus groups for it as well). We have the whole story of the development, including the in development systems before it, in the book.
-
That should be a bit of a clue, though. I think a lot of the internal people in Atari didn't want to tell their higher-ups that 'yeah, our console is going to look pretty dated and bad and please don't add me to the personnel cuts you're doing'.
Not at all. A) there were no cuts in engineering or those types of places until '84, and that wasn't on any of these people's minds. B) the comparisons went on for months and were very serious, including having a group of engineers fly out to Japan. The impetus for all this was because Yamauchi wanted Atari to carry the Famicom world wide. It ultimately fell apart because of his unrealistic demands and timeframe.
The 7800 would have been a strong contender in 1983 and probably would have taken Atari through to 1990 with good support in that scenario, but it was ultimate passed over as a 'new' machine in 1986. The market, and even the nature of console gaming, really had changed, and Atari simply didn't keep up. They blew their window.What Atari? You're talking about two different companies. Atari Corp. didn't have the ability or anyone with experience to design game consoles. Likewise, you're confusing games released vs. capabilities. (Which seems to be a common problem with people comparing consoles). Hardware wise, the 7800 was very capable of being competitive on the market, and later homebrewers have shown that. The problem was lack of third-party developers for the console releasing anything of note, let alone Atari Corp. not having any game developers of its own. Atari Corp. tried to keep on some of the developers in contract positions, but as it became clear the 7800 wasn't going to come out any time soon, it wasn't economically feasible to do so as the financial problems of the company were actually getting worse through the Fall of '84. Had they been able to keep on some of the creative game developers from Atari Inc., there would've been no reason why they couldn't have come out just as competitive a game as Mario or Zelda. Back in the Atari Inc. days, most of the creativity came from the coin developers and then the second tier where the consumer developers, which is why Atari's own games dominated. Atari Corp. was nothing like that, having to rely on outside third-party developers, and even then only the ones that weren't locked into the exclusive agreement with Nintendo. But to say it wasn't competitive anymore is just completely silly. There's a reason it came in second over the master system in the US, not dead last.
It may have been a big deal in 1983, which is already an arguable point. (Parents cared more about it than the gamers, who likely ALREADY HAD the 2600 anyway.) But in 1986 it was a bit more of a 'so what?' move. "Johnny, can you play your older brother's (or even possibly your dad's) seven-year-old ASTEROIDS game on it?" wasn't all that important by the time the NES was coming out, and it certainly wasn't worth gutting the quality of your machine in the face of impressive competition.Cutting the quality of what machine, it's the same machine. Or are you operating under the assumption that they could've gone back and redone the 7800? See above. It would've been an incredible waste of money either way to redo an already finished console. Let alone for the cash-strapped company that Atari Corp. was at the time. And never mind the fact that Warner was pressuring Atari Corp. to get the 7800 out as well.
What they could've done was introduced a small expansion to increase the RAM and sound chip like what we're doing with the XM expansion, but that would've required working with GCC some more to expand it and that wasn't gonna happen without paying even more development money which they didn't have - Not to mention that GCC didn't have any of the same people anymore, it had already been downsized because of the crash.
-
3
-
-
Considering Warner owned the 7800 and how badly the Atari Games folks wanted in on the home market, I'm surprised the 7800 didn't go to Atari Games Corp.
They didn't want on the homemarket to begin with, they were purely an arcade company. At the time of the split in '84, they certainly didn't want anything to do with consumer. In fact they blamed consumer for taking the whole company down. There was no one there with any consumer experience either. The desire to get into the homemarket came later after the NES was proving a success.
As for the people claiming that the 7800 in no way compares to the NES, we have the internal emails with Atari engineers discussing the pros and cons between the Maria Chip and the then yet to be released Famicom, with the engineers split in their decision. Half felt the MARIA was superior because it could handle far more sprites via software, and sound was never an issue. Regarding the backwards capability for the 2600 it was indeed very important at that time in 1983. The 5200 was originally lambasted the year before because it didn't launch with the 2600 backwards compatibility, And they didn't want to make that mistake again.
-
3. Why release the XEGS?
Change in ownership I believe happened, and the release of the NES. Tramiel took over Atari, and shelved the 7800 in favor of computers. Nintendo came along and showed video games weren't a fad. So Atari dusted off the 7800 and (again) repackaged the 8-bit computer tech into a game console that could be touted as a computer. You also had the 2600 jr. come out to try to get some money out of the revived market.
No, that's not what happened at all. First off, Tramiel didn't shelve the 7800, and this has been covered a plethora of times here already as well as in my 7800 article in Retro Gamer Magazine. The 7800 didn't come as part of the purchase (which was a purchase of the Consumer Division and the Atari brand name, not a purchase of Atari Inc.) Warner still owned it because GCC's contract was directly with Warner, not with Atari Inc. Jack wanted it and felt it should have come with the purchase, but the development of MARIA and the launch titles still had to be paid to GCC, so Warner wanted Jack to pay it in order to get the ownership. Jack refused, there were on-again and off-again negotiations until Spring '85 when Jack paid for MARIA development, and then set about negotiating for the launch titles which was completed over the Summer of '85. At that point Jack began looking for someone to start up the consumer video game division again and began wooing Mike Katz at Epyx in late August. Katz agreed to come on board in late September and was starting up the 7800 for relaunch at that point (including looking for more titles to license for development) as well as prepping the Jr. for a Christmas '85 release (it was not released during a "revived market").
The re-release of the 7800 in January '86 had zero to do with the NES's test marketing in New York in '85 (which was actually viewed as a poorly received test marketing).
Lastly, the XEGS was purely done because they wanted a "higher end" console on the market (so they'd have products in the low, mid, and high end market) and they wanted to do the "5200 done right." Katz was against the XEGS purely because he didn't feel it had any "hot" launch titles, but Jack insisted on it.
-
Are you assuming that it's trademarked, or do you have some reference to that?
Andrew, I'm not in the habit of giving assumptions as advice. I said it was trademarked because it is. When I did the manual for the Flashback 2 and the later 2+, I worked directly with Atari legal (Kristen Keller specifically) on making sure everything that was trademarked or copyrighted was labeled properly as such. Atari 2600 was one of those, and in fact you can open a Flashback 2 manual and see it with the ® (such as in the Asteroids game description). I can't guarantee the ® is included in every single product and press release usage afterwords (because I know their PR people were rather sloppy and I used to call them on things all the time), but I know specifically from directly talking and working with her that it had been filed for again and was trademarked at the time. Both Hasbro and then Kristen under Infogrames/Atari Interactive refiled for a plethora of trademarks as well as copyrights during the late 90s and early 2000s.
So it would make total sense that the trademark is up as part of the sale. All I can tell you is wait and see, the new owners (at least who Curt and I are hoping the new owner will be) will probably be more lenient for fan sites as long as they're not obviously using it in a commercial manner.
I looked it up. The trademark is DEAD (i.e., it isn't trademarked).No, that particular Tramiel era trademark is dead. Jack wasn't big on trademarks and copyrights. That by no means covers later filings, and the online TESS system is not a complete trademark database. Not everything gets put into it.
-
http://news.yahoo.co...-152154833.html
Hadn't ever seen it in this configuration before, really resembeles an early Atari game board IMO.
Just neat to see the influence of the time Jobs and Woz spent working in the arcades division of Atari.
CN
Woz never worked at Atari.
-
"atari 2600" was cancelled as a trademark on July 24, 1995
My domain "atari2600.org" is IMHO not trademarked. However, use of "Atari" is problematic
Fair use, I'd say... but I'm hardly in the position to fight. Seems Atari claim "atari2600.org" as their domain (which I have never agreed to) and it's a part of the fire-sale.
Cheers
A
Atari 2600 is trademarked, and I think that's where the issue came from.
-
Cool, I'd like to hear more of Howard's perspective (try to see if you can get more than a single quote).
Here you go:
Me: There seems to be this idea being promoted that with ET you just "ran off on your own" like off the reservation with no oversite or input from anyone, and it's coming from a previous comment you made that in retrospect you would do it over with Spielberg's initial idea of a pac-man type game. My understanding from all of our talks and interviews is that you came up with the concept in two days and presented it in a meeting with Spielberg, Ray, etc. and that Spielberg gave his approval, and then you proceeded to code and debug it over the next 5 1/2 weeks. Was there any additional input or oversite by Spielberg or anyone else during that period? Also, did Spielberg see the final game at the end of the 5 1/2 weeks?Howard: During the presentation to Spielberg originally, after I presented the game idea he said "Could you do something like pac man?" and I told him, no, this was the idea for the game and he said fine. That was it until he came up to look at it 5 and a half weeks later. I have said in interviews that in retrospect it might not have been a bad idea, but there was never any serious consideration of doing a pac man like version. There are a lot of rumors over 30 years, and now they seem to be in overdrive.
Me: What did he say when he came to look at it five and a half weeks later? Also, did you check in with George or anyone else during the five and a half weeks? Or did everyone else just see it when you were done?Howard: People around the department saw it now and then, in only 5.5 weeks there isn't a lot of time for a running prototype to be available for view, but people played it. I didn't just disappear for 5.5 weeks then show up with a rom. Spielberg liked the game and approved it. In fact, he gave an interview a while later in which he called me a certifiable genius.So as I said, he did not "go off on his own." He came up with the concept in two days, presented it to Spielberg and company, they approved it, and Spielberg also gave his final approval at the completion. Howard also had people playing it during the interim. The whole pac-man statement is being given way to much weight, as even he just stated.
BTW, another funny statement from Howard regarding all the hoopla in the media surrounding the dump and new stories popping up:
"Given the choice, people nearly always choose the more titillating alternative. Naturally. Given two choices, neither of which has any impact on your life, why would anyone choose the less stimulating one? "
As far as Spielberg approving the game...this would have been more to review content, not game play. A game pitch can't show game play, so it's not something at that stage that can be judged. Unless of course Spielberg really did want a Pac Man type game.
At that time very few people had any idea what a VCS could do, and I doubt Spielberg would have felt comfortable asking for any design to be tossed. He would have only been making a decision based on the brand. He'd probably veto ET being killed in the game or if an image looked too much like a swastika. Game play I assume he would have had to leave to Atari.
That's not accurate. There were two approvals by Spielberg. First was the concept presentation, which Spielberg approved after his suggestion of possibly doing a pac-man style game was shot down. Second was after the game was finished, where he came in to literally play it and try it out, giving his approval. He did the same thing for Raiders as well.
-
Yes that's what Warshaw said too, that he was going off on his own:
In retrospect maybe I should have done a pacman type game like Spielberg wanted instead of coming up with something creative and new.
Did you have a different interpretation?
Once again, he did not "go off on his own." He came up with the concept in two days, presented it to Spielberg and company, they approved it, and Spielberg also gave his final approval at the completion. Going off on your own means completely going on your own, with no continued input or checks. That did not occur (though certainly once actual coding started he was immersed in a room full of pizza boxes with the graphics coder as we recounted). You're reading waaaay to much into a single statement which simply says if he had to do it over he would have taken Spielberg up on his initial suggestion. This is going directly by Howard himself and far more involved conversations and interviews than a single quote on Wikipedia. As with your "Howard related to Warner execs" rumor, I'm happy to ask Howard directly again and post the answer here.
The reason time-frame is a red-herring is because Washaw already established that he had decided to run off on his own to come up with something creative and new; it's unlikely that more time would have led him to return to Atari's mass appeal formula (pacman, Tank and Pong games) but more likely to have resulted in creative and new control schemes like using a Joystick and two paddles to control the character
Again, he didn't run off on his own and that creation was less than a week - which was then shared and approved and then development debugging was started in a five and a half week period - which Spielberg and company also checked in on and then again gave final approval. With having to code and debug an entire 2600 game in assembly, a process that normally took 9 months (Raiders' design and coding and debugging and test took 9 months), in 5 1/2 weeks, the normal things you talked about (control schemes, changes based on playtesting input, etc.) just wasn't available. He had to get it in for ROM mask generation by the end of the 5 1/2 weeks. If it would have been available, yes, more time would have lead to those sorts of improvements. However, one game was not going to save Atari at that point. The problems were already far too rooted and complex for that, and already far in motion.
-
Retro Rogue,
you had said Howard wasn't given creative license to design something other than what Spielberg wanted - now you agree with Howard and say the opposite; there's no disagreement because you've changed your mind
I said no such thing and I have not changed my mind. Your comment about "creative license" made it seem like Howard was off on his own (which is what creative license usually means), and I simply clarified that Spielberg was in on the whole process and gave approval. Here's an exact clip and paste on what I stated: "Spielberg was in on the whole process, he handpicked Howard, and he was shown the game several times and loved it, enough to give it final approval. Howard was not given "creative license," He was given about a week to try and design an entire game and in the process was able to do some innovative console firsts like a full title screen and cut scenes."
If you took that a different way, I can't help that. But there's no mind changing here.
The argument you would actually need to support here is that releasing a fun and easy to play version of their highest-profile game yet (perhaps a pacman type game like Washaw might have done if he could do it over again) would not have had the opposite effect and revitalised sales of other hit games thus in the process, marshalling the sales of many more pacmen.
I already stated if there had been more time allotted they could have better planned things out. What that would have done and what ET's importance would have become for sales of all the other games has zero impact on our discussion. Pac-Man sales had already severely dropped, enough that manufacturing was stopped and they wanted to stop packing it in with the consoles as well - which shows little reliance on whatever warehouse stock there was as well since again - they wanted to stop it as a pack in. If they wanted to use up warehouse stock, they wouldn't have stopped that. Likewise, sales overall had dropped significantly to the fact that there were large amounts of overstock - which was a sign of the changing industry as insiders had already been warning. ET had nothing to do with any of that as you claimed, this was all before ET.
-
No reflection on you or other archivists excellent work, but I see all history, including what I had for lunch, more as fiction based on actual events than any kind of fact when it gets into emotion, frame of mind, circumstances. Timelines and documentation of course stand up much better.
I have to ask - your icon, is that Larry from Three's Company?
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Rare puppy pong?
in Dedicated Systems
Posted
Yes, clearly spelt out in the first paragraph of the link you said you already read.