If there was a new Atari console...

[2600Guru]

If Atari did make a new console, what would be some ideas? Don't talk about an dedicated ones though like the Flashbacks cause those exist. Would it be CD's, Cassettes or Cartridges? Would it be a cheap "Under 50 bucks" console to give you an old feeling? Or... would it be an advanced 500$ console that has internet, blue-ray, etc. to compete more with Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo? (Maybe SEGA soon) What would it's name be?

 

Add: There was an interview from 2009 or 2010, that had the SEGA guy talking about how he wants to make a Dreamcast 2, but lets stay on topic.

[Rex Dart]

If Atari did make a new console, what would be some ideas? Don't talk about an dedicated ones though like the Flashbacks cause those exist.

 

Sorry, but that IS what it would be. Might possibly allow for encrypted ROM downloads on SD card.

[StoneAgeGamer]

Sure Sega WANTS to make the Dreamcast 2. However I just can't see a company releasing a new system without deep pockets. Sega doesn't have deep pockets and they aren't even doing very well as a publisher and 3rd part developer either. Most of what made Sega great during its hardware days is been gutted, closed, and split off. Unless some big company bought Sega for its name to release a new system, I just don't see it happening.

 

Its really hard for me to speculate e on a new Atari system since that's even less likely than a new Sega system. My guess is a new Atari system did come out it would have to be cheap and most likely licensed via a third party like a Hyperkin or Yobo. Similar to what Sega did with AtGames, but hopefully not as terrible.

Edited June 26, 2012 by StoneAgeGamer

[GroovyBee]

This is the closest you'll get :-

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/187314-new-atari-compatible-console-controllers

[Cebus Capucinis]

One thing is for sure, games would definitely be on cassette. Everyone knows the tape cassette is where technology is headed.

[GroovyBee]

Cassettes means type ins too. Any new system has support type ins.

[Cebus Capucinis]

Cassettes means type ins too. Any new system has support type ins.

 

You just killed my joke.....

 

 

[+pboland]

Well, the conventional wisdom is going to be you need deep pockets to make a console. That thought is because many seem to think that you must be cutting edge or it isn't worth it. You know, the next PS4 or XBox 720 type of thing. I don't think that is necessary. I think a new atari console should be a cheaper side set top box that uses something at least good enough to play more modern type games but, not over the top cutting edge. Keep in mind there are still many people out there using PS2 and GameCubes. The new console should have built in emulation of all their pasts computers/game systems. Maybe incorporate wireless controls, maybe Wii type, meaning motion tracking of some kind (not necessarily Wii looking or wand type). Keep the game system under $100.00 with a couple updated classics ( like an update Star Raiders or Major Havoc) included and I think it would work. Maybe they could use the old Jag II hardware? Games would be on SD card or something of that kind. No moving parts to keep costs down.

 

Market it similar to the under $50.00 thing from the 1980's, but a more up to date under $100.00.

 

I always thought it was odd that a video game system is either $50 and under (plug n plays) or $199 and up (standard console). I've never seen a newer type video game device in the middle range. There has to be a market in there.

[DesertJets]

 

I always thought it was odd that a video game system is either $50 and under (plug n plays) or $199 and up (standard console). I've never seen a newer type video game device in the middle range. There has to be a market in there.

 

There was a discussion in the modern gaming section about this. I didn't follow it too closely, but my read is that the market simply isn't there. I recently watched a video that talked about how when the PS2 debuted in Japan it was the least expensive DVD player on the market and that was a huge factor in its rapid adoption by consumers. The fact that with a current generation console I can play games, play DVD/BD (lets not forget the role that the PS3 played in making Blu-Ray the standard for hi-def video) and stream content from Netflix and Hulu on my TV is a huge plus. Somehow I doubt a respectable console that plays decent games and likely has internet connectivity of online multiplayer (I think if a console doesn't have that these days it would be DOA) would be all that much less expensive anyways. My 2 cents at least.

[StoneAgeGamer]

Well, the conventional wisdom is going to be you need deep pockets to make a console. That thought is because many seem to think that you must be cutting edge or it isn't worth it. You know, the next PS4 or XBox 720 type of thing. I don't think that is necessary. I think a new atari console should be a cheaper side set top box that uses something at least good enough to play more modern type games but, not over the top cutting edge. Keep in mind there are still many people out there using PS2 and GameCubes. The new console should have built in emulation of all their pasts computers/game systems. Maybe incorporate wireless controls, maybe Wii type, meaning motion tracking of some kind (not necessarily Wii looking or wand type). Keep the game system under $100.00 with a couple updated classics ( like an update Star Raiders or Major Havoc) included and I think it would work. Maybe they could use the old Jag II hardware? Games would be on SD card or something of that kind. No moving parts to keep costs down.

 

Market it similar to the under $50.00 thing from the 1980's, but a more up to date under $100.00.

 

I always thought it was odd that a video game system is either $50 and under (plug n plays) or $199 and up (standard console). I've never seen a newer type video game device in the middle range. There has to be a market in there.

 

We had a discussion about this in modern gaming not long ago.

 

No one makes a cheap system because there currently is not a market there and probably never will be. Technology has changed too much. People are willing to pay $300+ for a system that has good first party and 3rd part support. If someone released a system for $100 or lower it would just not sell well enough to justify the investment most likely. What games would it have? Most 3rd parties won't bother with such a system unless it has a large enough user base. Its basically a catch 22 situation. The only way a company could do this if it had the money to bleed for years and it would have to be pumping out awesome first party titles. Even with all that the chance of success would be very low.

 

I am not saying it wouldn't be cool, but from a business stand point it would probably be suicide.

[Reaperman]

If I were in dreamland, I could probably go for a wifi-enabled system with SD-cards for media (both for game data and saving). 2.4ghz wireless controllers with at least 4 face buttons and start/select. $75-100 price point should afford it enough 3d power to flatten a cell phone and that's all that matters these days. Handheld version would come later.

 

But why Atari? Do we really want to give them money? All we'd get are crappy asteroids reboots, or cups/belt-buckles for our trouble. And they've turned completely evil.

 

If I got *everything* I wanted, Atari would probably just pull the plug on their own life support, and V-tech would step the hell up on their next system and open it up for 3rd party devs. V-tech's last few consoles have been in the realm of 'just about everything this forum is going to want,' but there's no reason that every single game has to have math problems crammed in as core gameplay. It's not educational, it's annoying. Now if they ported Pirates! to their system, that would be educational.

 

Hell, their controllers have generally converted to right-hand drive. If that's not a feature for retro-gamers, I don't know who it's for. Handicapped kids, maybe?

Edited June 26, 2012 by Reaperman

[jaybird3rd]

This idea has come up a few times, but I think it's clear that the modern video game market is very adequately served by the "big three" consoles, along with the iPad/iPhone, Nintendo DS/3DS, PC/Mac, and the many other ancillary platforms for which games are being produced. There is room for products like the Flashbacks or Curt Vendel's new console project to carve out a little niche for themselves, but beyond that, I doubt there's a place for a "new Atari console" in today's market.

[+pboland]

If I got *everything* I wanted, Atari would probably just pull the plug on their own life support, and V-tech would step the hell up on their next system and open it up for 3rd party devs. V-tech's last few consoles have been in the realm of 'just about everything this forum is going to want,' but there's no reason that every single game has to have math problems crammed in as core gameplay. It's not educational, it's annoying. Now if they ported Pirates! to their system, that would be educational.

 

Your right, and just think, V-tech sells hundreds of thousands of units. So why does V-tech exist if the big three consoles are adequately serving the market? Why not just buy education games for the big three systems. Yes, they exist, but I bet you V-tech makes a hell of a lot more money than they do in that market. It is all about how you market your product. And just think V-tech actually makes money on the sale of a system. Other than the big N, the big three typically don't (or very little and normally take a few years).

[sqoon]

I don't see why deep pockets is a necessity for a video game company. Aimed at lower earners, all an enterprising company would need is to get a chain of stores like Family Dollar on board. They blanket so many small towns across most of the USA with their stores, that a system targeted in the right price range would have to be a success.

[Rex Dart]

HAVE to be? Can they sue if (when) they flop?

Seriously, they gonna flop. Your low-earners already have N64s and PS2s. Why buy this?

[sqoon]

Your low-earners already have N64s and PS2s.

 

I have seen this argument before, but it is undocumented. Prove it.

[Rex Dart]

I'll get right on that... as soon as you prove that a new Atari-branded console just HAS to sell.

[Nateo]

I've always wanted to see a disk based console along the lines of a Famicom Disk System. There's absolutely no practicality to that whatsoever but... I dunno, I guess I have some sort of affection towards old tech. Guess that seems kinda weird amongst this crowd?

[StoneAgeGamer]

I don't see why deep pockets is a necessity for a video game company. Aimed at lower earners, all an enterprising company would need is to get a chain of stores like Family Dollar on board. They blanket so many small towns across most of the USA with their stores, that a system targeted in the right price range would have to be a success.

 

No, it wouldn't. Most people are not going to buy a system just because its cheap. Games? I don't see any developer making games for a dollar store system. I agree with Rex Dart, if you can't afford a current generation system then you would just get an older generation system. They have great games and most hardware and games are cheap.

 

Some people seem to be overlooking the fact that is this system doesn't have good games, no one will buy it no matter how cheap it is.

 

This is why you need deep pockets, even for a budget system. You need good games to sell a system, however no one will make games for your system without an install base or a good reputation. So you need to get your own 1st party studios making games to draw people to your new system or subsidize other development studios to make some good original games for you.

[+wood_jl]

Rather than speculate on a new Atari console (why does this pipe dream come up so much?), concentrate on where you're going to get the $10 billion (or however much) required to get going. THEN you can chime in on console specs and desires.

This will shorten the babble about something that's never going to happen.

 

It cost Microsoft more than $4 billion in 2005 just to enter the market and they didn't make any money until next-gen with the 360. So $10 billion would be a nice start in 2012, eh?

 

http://www.joystiq.com/2005/09/26/forbes-xbox-lost-microsoft-4-billion-and-counting/

[sqoon]

Whoever shouts loudest in the shoutdown is somehow automatically correct? Yeah....

 

Thanks, Debbie Downer.

[StoneAgeGamer]

Whoever shouts loudest in the shoutdown is somehow automatically correct? Yeah....

 

Thanks, Debbie Downer.

 

I don't know who you are talking to, but I don't see anyone getting mad or "shouting" in any post on this thread.

[RevEng]

But why Atari? Do we really want to give them money? All we'd get are crappy asteroids reboots, or cups/belt-buckles for our trouble. And they've turned completely evil.

 

If there was a new Atari console... I wouldn't spend a nickel on it.

 

Its an entirely different company than the one we grew up with. The new folks who are using the Atari name have proven that they'll attack those that keep the torch burning, if there's a buck to be made.

 

I don't buy anything new with the Atari name on it anymore, despite wanting to for nostalgia reasons.

[82-T/A]

I'd have to agree with the deep pockets comment. A new system by Atari would need to be vastly superior to everything else that's out there already... and for that matter, anything else that's probably going to come out in the next year too, otherwise it'll be a flop. It would have to be a balance of something that's still relatively affordable, but still top of the line technology.

 

It would have to have everything you mentioned, and probably a very high-end graphics card too. I'm not sure exactly... but it would need something that really beats the competition, probably 3D support, among other things (7.1 surround support).

 

In any case though... I've read in a few places that a lot of people think there's going to be a new video game crash in the next couple of years... we might even be seeing it happen now (as a lul in sales). The really good games end up on all consoles anyway, so what would be the point?

 

Sure Sega WANTS to make the Dreamcast 2. However I just can't see a company releasing a new system without deep pockets. Sega doesn't have deep pockets and they aren't even doing very well as a publisher and 3rd part developer either. Most of what made Sega great during its hardware days is been gutted, closed, and split off. Unless some big company bought Sega for its name to release a new system, I just don't see it happening.

 

Its really hard for me to speculate e on a new Atari system since that's even less likely than a new Sega system. My guess is a new Atari system did come out it would have to be cheap and most likely licensed via a third party like a Hyperkin or Yobo. Similar to what Sega did with AtGames, but hopefully not as terrible.

 

It's pretty crazy that Sega doesn't make a platform anymore. Atari has been out of it for a while, but Sega really pushed hard with the Saturn, and then the Dreamcast. These were both really decent systems and it was just somewhat of a shock to see Sega just pretty much dissapear off the map.

[Cynicaster]

As retro gamers who constantly hang out in online communities filled with like-minded retro gamers, it’s kind of humorous sometimes how easy it is to forget just how much of a “niche” hobby this really is. We talk freely amongst ourselves about Asteroids and E.T. like it’s a completely normal and common thing to do, oblivious to the fact that 99% of society would think we’re complete weirdos for doing so.

 

The point I’m making is, the market already has close to the limit of what it can sustain in terms of number of different platforms. A “simple” game system, while cool in principle to us weirdos, would be completely uninteresting to the vast majority of consumers, who expect everything to get more and more advanced, not less so. And don’t kid yourself into thinking the name “Atari” would make the slightest difference in such a system’s chances. Again, we love Atari, but the vast majority of people—many of whom grew up with it themselves—could not care less.