Bill Loguidice

Good news, I already got the reply back and it is mirrored on the Numskull. I assumed at the time it was based on the photos (which is why I pre-ordered), but it's certainly good to check:

This is the response I got back: I sent a reply back clarifying my query because I think they *may* have misunderstood when I asked them about the mirrored display.

I'm thinking control will be less of an issue on the Space Invaders. I guess I'll see. I'm waiting to hear back from them about the mirrored screen.

That seems silly. They emphasize game accuracy, so it's clearly for people to play.

Hmm, I purposely pre-ordered the Numskull one because I thought it had the mirror. I guess I'll have to double-check. No mirror, no interest.

I'd say it really depends on the game and how it's written. The requirements for Minecraft, which are more CPU heavy, are different from those of Fortnite, which is more GPU heavy, although both obviously benefit with better parts in all areas in general. Generally speaking, the most important factor for game performance is GPU, followed by CPU. You'll also want a minimum of 8GB for RAM. I think where the VCS will suffer the most with modern games will be with its GPU performance. You might be able to mitigate some of those issues by keeping resolution down to 1280x720 to get a decent frame rate, but that's REALLY low from a modern gaming standpoint. Again, even a current gen Xbox One X and PS4 Pro can run some games at a native 3840 x 2160 resolution with HDR and 60FPS. With that said, the Switch does just fine with a native 720p screen as its portable display, and will often, but not always, hit 1080p when docked. What's important to keep in mind there is that those are fair trade-offs for a hybrid device, as well as the fact that these are all Switch-optimized releases. The VCS will be running native PC content, which will not be specifically optimized for its hardware, so there will be little chance every last ounce of power will be utilized. I'll say again that that would be much less of an issue if the VCS was priced $100 lower, but it's not. You're paying a premium for not enough power or to do much beyond, if anything, that you can with lower priced options, be they mini PCs, consoles, or other devices.

Sure, but I was just making the point that I think the pink trim is much better looking in this case.

I have to disagree here. I've written about this before and it's easy to overlook now, but at the time, the PS1 WAS a gamble. Sony gambled on 3D polygonal gaming being the future, and of course they were 100% right. They were the first such and best situated console to take advantage of the desire for textured mapped polygons. Every system before it, even the Saturn, was not designed with a 3D-first mindset. The 3DO had all of the tools to succeed and I'd argue it was a great system with the right type of hardware. If it had come out when it was originally supposed to and they changed up their licensing model where the price for the console would have come in initially at at least $300 less, then I think they would have gotten a lot more traction faster. They still wouldn't have been able to compete with the PS1 after the first year, but then the M2 could have been ready for the PS1's second year. Of course would have/could have/should have is the story of a LOT of past platforms. It's just rare that I think with something like the VCS it seems so obvious what the shortcomings are even before release.

I don't know where you get your info about the 3DO, but you're way off base about both its capabilities and reliability. In any case, I was merely making the point that the Jaguar wasn't necessarily the most powerful hardware out at the time despite how hard the marketing tried to make it seem to be. And the reality is, being the most powerful today doesn't mean much. You already have PC and the Xbox One X and PS5 coming, and there's no way anyone else has the resources to beat those, let alone come close to matching them. There's nothing inherently wrong with putting out something like the VCS - the market is large enough to support all kinds of niche products - but the point has always been Atari has done a poor job of defining what their niche is. Trying to sell it as a set top box or TV PC at the price they're selling it at and with the power they have packed in at said price is just not going to cut it. They came up with the product before they came up with the justification for said product. At least with the Amico it's easy to get the impression that they defined their product goals before designing the product. It still might not succeed in their targeted niche, but they're set up to do that so much better than the VCS, it's crazy.

Why would you condone fraud?

The 3DO would like a word.

They technically hit that price point at QVC. If you want the extra two games, it looks it's the extra $50 at Walmart (and less nice looking trim in my opinion).

The Magnavox Odyssey, released in 1972, was the first home videogame system, period. Whether you want to argue if it was the first programmable videogame system is another story. It really wasn't. Its cartridges were nothing more than fancy dip switch selectors to turn built-in features on or off. Still damned impressive and it got so many firsts right it's crazy, like removable controllers, peripherals, ability to buy more games, etc. Now, putting aside the home Pong consoles, including Atari's, obviously, since they don't count and weren't even first since the Odyssey released years earlier, the first truly programmable videogame system was the Fairchild Video Entertainment System (VES, later known as the Channel F), released in late 1976. The second to market was the still-born RCA Studio II, released in early 1977. The third was the Atari VCS, released in the latter part of 1977. Being third is not too shabby for the VCS, considering its crazy long commercial lifespan and remarkable post-commercial community support. The engineers obviously got a lot right for such an early product. It's the reason this AtariAge forum exists and it's also a big reason why even the current iteration of Atari still lives on (and obviously a big reason why they chose the VCS as their system name, albeit an unfortunate use of the legacy thus far). What's interesting is that when the Amico was first revealed, the people behind the product made some false claims related to the Intellivision legacy. It's happened with Atari-related stuff too. I find that strange, because there's so much good stuff to mine that you really don't have to focus so much on who was "first" to do something. Being first often has much less baring than impact or legacy, which is why so few people give much thought to the Odyssey or Fairchild.

Does anyone know if there are long box replacements, even if they're generic? My searches have not turned up anything.

I like your whole tongue-in-cheek vibe, but this part I found the funniest. People always cared about eye candy and always will until we achieve the videogame singularity. I actually liked several of the games, but was off-put by the visuals in several others. I don't personally care for that overly clean and clinical look, especially ones that give off that rendered 90s vibe. Still, I can't resist overhead tank games like the one shown, and certainly Earthworm Jim looked extremely promising and avoids that whole aforementioned sterile look.