jaybird3rd

I think those people must store their consoles in concrete boxes underneath a pile of sharp rocks and rusty razor blades, right next to their optical disc collections.

I keep getting it confused with budget-priced sneakers:

I tend to agree that we won't see any massive revolt among the backers—not because I think "Atari" will live up to their promises, mind you, but because the backers' psychology seems to be such that their own determination to never "give us a win" will override all other considerations, even their own disappointment. Late last year, I put it this way:

He's got a name, and he's got a logo ... "and that's half the battle right there!"

As I recall, the last time I had an XEGS which booted to a green screen, it turned out to be a toasted CPU. The previous owner had made the mistake of connecting it to a C64 power supply. (Definitely try replacing the OS ROM first, though; it's the easier of the two to replace, especially if you have an EPROM burner.)

Ah yes, one of Mike Kennedy's classic pearls of wisdom: Some things never change.

Fortnite has been around for years and is already available on just about every game platform you can name. Once again, even if it delivers everything that is being promised—which is a big "if," given the poor track record of everyone involved—"that Ataribox?" offers absolutely nothing that you can't already get elsewhere, more conveniently and for less money.

Another factor that I think is relevant is that the Intellivision continued to enjoy first-party support much longer than most of its contemporaries. INTV Corp. kept the Intellivision going years after the Mattel era, selling new hardware and publishing new games until about 1990. Intellivision games could still be found in retail stores in my area at that time, which is pretty remarkable in itself for a game system from 1979. Then there were the various products by Intellivision Productions, from the "Intellivision Lives!" and "Intellivision Rocks!" collections to the plug-and-play TV games, and even the Intellivision Flashback, which further extended and popularized the Intellivision brand from the late 1990s into the 2010s. The plug-and-plays in particular sold millions of units—more than the number of original Intellivision consoles, in all their iterations—and they picked up endorsements along the way from publications like Parents Magazine and Grandparents Magazine. With such an impressively long and active "afterlife," the Intellivision brand never really went "cold," so it's not surprising that it still has name recognition even among people too young to have experienced the original system during the Mattel era.

I'm watching ...

Very nice indeed! I'd be interested in a few, too!

Agreed. Serguei2 isn't convinced and seems to be taking a wait-and-see attitude, and I think we should leave it at that.

Yes.

I don't understand it. I can understand that someone might objectively have doubts about the viability of the Amico venture, or that Tommy's style might rub them the wrong way, but to allow oneself to get worked up over a video game console to the point of behaving this way and flinging accusations of this kind is just crazy. As much as certain people like to paint the moderators here as power-tripping dictators, we're actually very slow on the draw to issue bans on anyone; we usually resort to that option only after several attempts to address the problem in some other way. At this point, it looks as if I don't have any other choice.

Excuse me, but nobody here "sees to it" that anybody's posts are deleted or hidden, except for the moderating team. If someone refers us to a post that they think should be removed, whether it's a post written by somebody else or one that they wrote themselves but later had second thoughts about, we'll certainly take it under consideration, but any and all moderating decisions are entirely our own. So he's now insinuated that Tommy bribes his critics and has the moderators here in his back pocket. I wonder if he can offer any support for those claims, because if he's just assuming the worst intentions and making unsubstantiated accusations on that basis, that to me is sufficient grounds for being blocked from this thread.

I've just had to clean up another batch of posts which were in danger of dragging this thread back into areas that have already been discussed ad nauseum. If you're tempted to chime in yet again about the Founder's Edition preorder, or about Tommy's style and mode of communication, remember: everybody here is perfectly capable of making their own decisions and dealing with the consequences. If you don't like the idea of the Founder's Edition preorder, you don't have to buy the preorder. If you don't like the way Tommy chooses to answer questions or address critics in this thread, you don't have to read the thread. If anyone feels that any rules are being broken, certainly continue to let us know; otherwise, please don't presume that it is your job to moderate the forums or to protect other peoples' money or feelings.

I somehow missed this one the first time, but as someone who remembers the old Spinnaker ads, this is my favorite Photoshop of all.

That's a perfectly sensible approach, and I don't see it as extending the argument at all; they made their statements, and you responded. Thank YOU for rising above the noise and continuing to engage with the community!

I haven't found it necessary to ban anyone new from this thread ... yet. Contrary to what some people insist on saying about us, we're not power-tripping dictators, and we aren't out to "kiss up to," "protect," or "make excuses for" anyone. It's preferable to allow diversions like the whole "Founders Edition" argument to die down on their own once everyone has had their say. I think that's finally happened, but those few individuals you refer to (and they know who they are) are on notice: if they insist on perpetuating the argument further, and if they continue to post snarky or passive-aggressive remarks, I'm going to have to start kicking them out.

Unnecessary.

Perhaps, and I'm sure that the first time these complaints were voiced, it was useful feedback for him. But we've long since belabored the point. Time to move on.

Yes. This whole issue seems very simple to me: if you don't like the idea of the Founders Edition console, or how much it costs, or how it's being offered, or that they're collecting preorders for it ... how about you just don't preorder the Founders Edition console and wait for the regular Amico to be released instead like everyone else? That could have saved about twenty pages of posts.

Define "nailed down." The RetroVGS and "that Ataribox?" went to crowdfunding before any hardware design whatsoever had been done (as evidenced by the ludicrous John Carlsen "kitchen table lab" video); their approach was to get other peoples' money first, and then figure out what to design—and, in the case of "that Ataribox?", redesign multiple times—later. Intellivision Entertainment has kept the Amico hardware specs close to the vest, and as I've said before, they've been wise to do so ... but that's hardly the same thing as claiming that the hardware isn't "nailed down." They clearly have enough of a working prototype to begin building the games; to get to that point, the most important design decisions have already been locked in, and they're past the point where they should have to make any show-stopping changes. There's no good reason they should have to wait for the final production hardware to offer a special edition as a preorder. As for the price ... if you're not comfortable paying that much for a "Founder's Edition" preorder, there's no obligation to do so; it's clearly not for you, so just wait for the regular Amico to come out. The difference between the Amico and "that Ataribox?" in this regard is that, if everyone holds on to their money until after it's released, "that Ataribox?" (and other similarly crowdfunded consoles) won't be released at all, while the Amico will be released regardless. What do you mean by "one of the same things"? Is it the idea of accepting money up front for something that hasn't been released yet? Just about every preorder offered by everybody would fall into that category. I'm not aware that anyone has ever said that "some people aren't the right people for your product"; they've said that the (totally optional) "Founder's Edition" isn't a product intended for every customer, which is very different. I also wouldn't consider responding to unfair criticisms and inaccurate reporting as "attacking." As for sharing information and listening to feedback, that's what this thread is supposed to be all about. If there is any "division" in the audience, it's because some seem to persist in drawing analogies between things and situations which are almost completely different.

The bumbling company currently masquerading as Atari crowdfunded "that Ataribox?", thereby offloading all the risk onto their backers, because they did not—and, arguably, still do not—have the talent or resources to release it on their own. Intellivision Entertainment is accepting preorders for a "Founder's Edition" Amico console, a project that they already initiated and secured funding for and were already on track to develop and release, without resorting to crowdfunding. As far as I can tell, the only thing that the two have in common is the superficial resemblance of paying money up front to support a product that is not yet available, so to conflate them seems to me to be a serious stretch. Having been here through the RetroVGS and Chameleon trainwrecks, and having followed the VCS since it was known as "that Ataribox?", I think I'm as alert as anyone to the dangers of "asking for money based on assured success and guaranteed refunds." I don't see the Amico as belonging to the same category at all, and I'm surprised that so many people seem to be having so much trouble distinguishing the difference.