New Atari Console that Ataribox?

[seastalker]

I never pre-ordered this and feel for those that did. I only check this thread periodically.

 

Regardless of the prototype PCB's legitimacy or not, I wonder if people at "Neo"-Atari are just hoping people don't ask the following: Even if the board is to be believed, a bigger question is how can ANY game [Tempest variant of otherwise] have been developed over the past months or years if the first prototype's creation date is pretty much now and backers are supposed to get the thing before Christmas? The short 2600 production schedule of E.T. comes to mind.

 

One could argue Atari had hypothetical dev kits to work on and I could be wrongly assuming a prototype is the precursor to dev kits. If this prototype board is just an attempt to finalize a layout or something pre-existing, how much QA time should be expected for a game console, then allowing more QA to ensure hypothetical launch titles function, or so it doesn't get hacked in a day? Maybe they'd WANT it to get hacked right away to at least drum up some Playstation Classic level of hope for added functionality?

 

Before people say Atari has nothing, bluffing, or otherwise, know that I share the same thoughts.  I'm merely wondering with the above questioning what the current Atari company's thought process is about what backers and potential buyers are thinking or supposed to think about a prototype board NOT dated a year or so prior.

 

 

[+frankodragon]

12 hours ago, Flojomojo said:

Found this on Reddit, a whole other game to play. Atari SA should use this as a marketing poster. 

 

Did you say ze booz is sound proof?

 

 

 

[JBerel]

2 hours ago, seastalker said:

 

If this prototype board is just an attempt to finalize a layout or something pre-existing, how much QA time should be expected for a game console, then allowing more QA to ensure hypothetical launch titles function, or so it doesn't get hacked in a day? Maybe they'd WANT it to get hacked right away to at least drum up some Playstation Classic level of hope for added functionality?

 

 

If you've been paying attention at all, you'd know they aren't making anything but a garden variety x86 Linux board. One has to wonder why they're even pretending to have a PCB designed to fit into their box, if in fact they do that. There are plenty of form factor boards already capable of going in there. There is nothing unique anyone has to program for other than Linux. Regardless, until they show a working AMD Radeon computer running inside their plastic box, they have nothing.

[+frankodragon]

13 hours ago, racerx said:

The irony of Atari's ban policy: the biggest offenders of the "hate speech, abuse, and personal attacks" excuse are usually Atari's biggest cheerleaders.

 

 

The Werner Bros. especially the one that has a "non-trolling" rule is really just a troll himself.

 

[JasperAK]

I have to say you guys are awesome. I was trying to be cheeky and you all come up with solutions to my taco problem.

[Lodmot]

5 hours ago, Spriggy said:

 

 

Tidus, if I may make an observation and ask some questions?  Just honestly shooting the shit, as I'm genuinely curious to hear from certain backers perspectives (such as your own).   I'm obviously covering ground that has been flogged to death on our thread, but it's needed to answer my simple queries.

 

Your stating you want the VCS for retro gaming and to be more powerfull that a Pi.  Great.  Do you own a laptop?  If not, then my answer won't be as relevant as what I'm enquiring, however still could be.  If you do, why don't you just HDMI plug your lappy into your TV, set it up with any OS you like, then set-up all your retro emulators to your hearts content.  By a USB to DB9 adapater (as an adapter example.  Not expensive) and use original controllers for an original feel.  Or, buy a good quality retro styled bluetooth gamepad, like the awesome 8bitdo N30 or F30 pro's.  More powerfull and a completely open ended (sandbox) set-up, without spending $300 on the VCS.

If you don't have a laptop, again you can get some kickass little lappys for $300 and under, which again would be better than what Atari SA are stating, at this time.  Oh, and upgradeable.

I could maybe understand getting the "unconsole", if it was a console competing with the other big boys and had exclusives, including the other niceties and niches of the big consoles, but for a use to play retro games is just so confusing.  Did you expect more from the Atacobox VCS, but have now resigned to the fact that it's not, so you'll just use it for retro fillanderings?

 

With that in mind, surely you can understand why this thread is 850+ pages.  If the VCS was real (after 2 years), running , showing huge potential, with exclusives and something different to other systems or at least on par or more ... this thread may still be 850+ pages, likely praising Freddy and the teams efforts, definately throwing around innocent memes and jabs at others and ourselves, people getting pulled into line (Dah.  It is the interwebs ) definately throwing up debate, indepth chat on the company itself and its finances .. yadda yadda.  What's your answer on why so many pigeons backers are defending Atari SA so vehemently, after all this time?

 

Cheers.

 

In fairness to @Tidus79001, I've connected my gaming laptop to my TV on a few different occasions-- it's still remarkable how awkward it actually is trying to find room for the laptop to comfortably sit on an entertainment unit without hanging over the edge, since a laptop often is a bit wide in its length and width. Also, the HDMI port and power adapter are almost always on the side, making things even more awkward in terms of cable management... And then mucking about with the power settings in Windows so the laptop screen doesn't take over as the primary screen, or the thing doesn't suspend on you, and so on... The Atari VCS, while still going to be a spectacular failure and deserves all the ridiculing it's getting, is at least an interesting piece of hardware and is also purposefully designed as a device for your TV. 

 

I actually like the idea of a gaming PC in a console form-factor (and I've said this before). It's just that a more competent company needs to do it and actually market the damn thing better. I personally think it would've been cool to see Sega try this, especially since in recent years Sega have been focusing more on PC anyway.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Lodmot

[+x=usr(1536)]

20 hours ago, Flojomojo said:

It's different, though.

 

True, and I'll admit that I way oversimplified the ins & outs of cord-cutting.  FWIW, we have an antenna with distribution amp, Amazon Fire TV, and built-in streaming apps on two TVs.  Those plus fibre Internet connectivity pretty much comprise how we handle getting external video content to places where we sit down and watch it (and have since about 2008 or so).

 

The part I did a really horrible job of making clear, though, was that cord-cutting is a fairly easy way to snowball the cost of subscriptions into something that gradually approaches the cost of traditional cable service.  Granted, that's a consumer problem - if one is oblivious to the cost of one's subscriptions, too bad.  But what interests me is the uptick in the number of people I've run across over the last couple of years who can't figure out why they have as many subscriptions as they do (wanting to watch Twin Peaks, Game of Thrones, or similar and then forgetting to cancel usually factors in).  Much like cable, they aren't used 95% of the time, yet are kept on monthly automatic charges.

 

So far, the best explanation I've run across is that people view the subscriptions as a form of cloud-based DVR rental (well, NVR, really, but that's splitting hairs) without realising that that's actually what they're paying for.  We're not at the point (yet) where we can tell, say, Hulu to turn the service on for a particular binge-watching holiday weekend and bill accordingly rather than by the month; everyone is still accustomed to monthly subscriptions because that's just how things work.

 

And, to be fair, it would likely cost considerably more to deliver content on the back of 72-hour passes or similar than by monthly subscriptions with broader cashflow for the company streaming the content.  But a lot of this comes down to consumer perception and expectations, and it's interesting (to me) to watch it in action.

 

Quote

With the cable bundle, you're coerced into buying more than you need, because the "skinny bundle" drops stuff you probably want and doesn't save much money. The cable companies are subsidizing less popular channels by giving them a slice of the pie.

 

True.  However, channel packaging is being seen on some streaming services (Sling comes to mind).  Granted, it's not the most common way of doing things and typically applies in cases where the parent company owns multiple related channels - but they are doing it for reasons similar to the ones that cable companies used it for: subsidising the channels that have much lower viewership.  It'll be interesting to see how Disney handles this over the next 90 days or so as their service launches; I'm expecting some shuffling as they try to work it out.

 

Quote

With a la carte subscriptions, it makes for a much more competitive landscape, because it's winner take all. Even if you could afford to subscribe to everything, there's no way you could see it all. So you end up choosing those you like most, and ignoring the rest. It's still early and shakeouts are going to happen. 

 

Agreed on both counts.  My concern is that we're starting to see the tide turn back somewhat towards the package model.

 

Quote

Putting stuff into an exclusive but unpopular silo isn't a strategy that's going to succeed in a market with a lot of choices. Antstream and Atari VCS are like CDi and Atari Jaguar in a world dominated by Sony Playstation. There will be a few very vocal nyuks who pledge their loyalty to them for some reason, but that's not enough to sustain a business.

 

All of which is valid.  Frankly, the Antstream idea is terrible for a number of reasons, the biggest one being that it's highly unlikely that anyone at Atari SA asked the simple question, "do people want to shell out $8 to $10 per month to play 25-plus-year-old games?"  They likely saw an opportunity to pick up an extra 79¢ per unit per month and went with it without a second thought.  But in the grand scheme of things, it's chump change: even if every single person who signed up for an Ataribollocks^(tm) sprang for the subscription, there'd be less than $10K in revenue from it each month.

 

Then again, given that this is a company that probably looked for change down the back of the sofas in the E3 suite in order to settle their bar tab, it's not particularly surprising.

 

Quote

[personal situation: I'm gonna pay for Amazon Prime regardless of video, Netflix comes free with my mobile phone lines, I cheerfully pre-paid $140 for 3 years of Disney+ sight unseen, and my ISP has given me HBO for free for as long as I can remember. When there are free weekends for EPIX or Showtime, I don't have time to check it out. If you gave me a free Hulu or CBS subscription, I don't know when I would watch either. If we move, I'll drop the cable TV subscription outright -- unless they make it cheaper to keep her]

 

We're in pretty much the same boat, though don't get bundled Netflix so pay for that one directly - and the traditional DVD-by-mail service from them is actually more useful for us, since we don't really tend to sit down and watch TV shows.  There are exceptions (Stranger Things, Grand Tour, Man in the High Castle), but the last two are also there by default because of our Amazon Prime subscription.  And given that my second monitor is also a TV, a lot of the time I just have something like CHiPS or old Japanese monster movies coming in off the air in the background while I'm working.

Edited October 2, 2019 by x=usr(1536)

[Agillig]

5 hours ago, Spriggy said:

 

What's your answer on why so many pigeons backers are defending Atari SA so vehemently, after all this time?

 

Cheers.

The question wasn't aimed at me, but I'll give my opinion where it wasn't asked for.

 

They're supporting it because they've already spent so much time, money, and emotional energy to walk away.   Also, I suspect, to admit they were wrong would be to admit we were right, and some of those guys really hate tacos.

 

I think irrational, blind fanboyism is involved also.  

[Flojomojo]

44 minutes ago, Agillig said:

They're supporting it because they've already spent so much time, money, and emotional energy to walk away.   Also, I suspect, to admit they were wrong would be to admit we were right, and some of those guys really hate tacos.

 

I think irrational, blind fanboyism is involved also.  

Yes, all that. Also tribalism, an us versus them mindset that is immune to facts, evidence, and reason. Recent example:

1. One of the frequent posters in the private "Atari VCS Supports Group" boys' club recently went on a completely unhinged rant about coming to "the dark side" (this forum), accused a member of working for Intellivision carrying out a "coordinated attack" against the company wearing the skin of Atari.
2. Then another cultist said that "Atari" should "press charges" against that person.
3. The leader of the sad little tribe said "Atari should assert their trademark rights, and shut down 'Atari Age.'" 

Way to go, "Atari," you've split your former fan base into factions. 

[Osgeld]

5 minutes ago, Flojomojo said:

Yes, all that. Also tribalism, an us versus them mindset that is immune to facts, evidence, and reason. Recent example:

1. One of the frequent posters in the private "Atari VCS Supports Group" boys' club recently went on a completely unhinged rant about coming to "the dark side" (this forum), accused a member of working for Intellivision carrying out a "coordinated attack" against the company wearing the skin of Atari.
2. Then another cultist said that "Atari" should "press charges" against that person.
3. The leader of the sad little tribe said "Atari should assert their trademark rights, and shut down 'Atari Age.'" 

Way to go, "Atari," you've split your former fan base into factions. 

 

They are aware that Atari is a word and not just a name right? For all they know were all playing board games 

[PlaysWithWolves]

1 hour ago, Agillig said:

The question wasn't aimed at me, but I'll give my opinion where it wasn't asked for.

 

They're supporting it because they've already spent so much time, money, and emotional energy to walk away.   Also, I suspect, to admit they were wrong would be to admit we were right, and some of those guys really hate tacos.

 

I think irrational, blind fanboyism is involved also.  

 

24 minutes ago, Flojomojo said:

Yes, all that. Also tribalism, an us versus them mindset that is immune to facts, evidence, and reason.

 

They also take both facts and attacks toward Atari or Ataribox personally.

Same type of thing goes on over in the Intellivision thread and those fans don't even have any money involved.  

[Flojomojo]

[ColecoJoe]

It's true guys. I've been exposed by the sleuths in the AtariVCS Supporters Group and I would like to reveal my true identity to my AA fam. My real name is Thomas Tolorocko, I enjoy driving crazy YouTubers around in my cherry red 1971 Ford Pinto where I evangelize the up and coming Intellivision AMIGO in preparation for the upcoming console wars!!!!!!

 

Viva la revolución!

 

I better get Intellivision legal ready for the onslaught! 

[Clint Thompson]

46 minutes ago, Flojomojo said:

The leader of the sad little tribe said "Atari should assert their trademark rights, and shut down 'Atari Age.'" 

Way to go, "Atari," you've split your former fan base into factions. 

If they ever go as far as trying to shut down Atari Age (which is still more Atari than Atari could hope to be) then there simply will no longer be Atari at all. It will be the ultimate self destruct for their brand. I mean, you see how suing Jeff Minter over TXK worked out so well for them. 

Edited October 2, 2019 by Clint Thompson

[TACODON]

I finally left the cultist group the other day. At first it was funny then it just got sad. I did turn them into the Facebook police a few times with emphasis on the Werner Bros. Facebook said they saw no issues on how they talked to anyone or how they talked about them. So my take away from that is never bother alerting Facebook about those things again.

[Lodmot]

8 minutes ago, Clint Thompson said:

If they ever go as far as trying to shut down Atari Age (which is still more Atari than Atari could hope to be) then there simply will no longer be Atari at all. It will be the ultimate self destruct for their brand. I mean, you see how suing Jeff Minter over TXK worked out so well for them. 

Yeah... 

I'm still baffled that they just simply don't even care, lol. 

It's like their actual mission statement WAS to destroy the Atari brand in the first place. It's pretty ridiculous...

[+x=usr(1536)]

@TACODON Just remember: when the Werner Bros. do it, it's not being totalitarian thought police.  It's being a brand ambassador!

 

The best thing about the Facebook supporters group: it provides an easily-identifiable corral for the more rabid self-deluding pigeons.

[TACODON]

@x=usr(1536) I recall someone wondering if the Werner Bros. are on the payroll with Atari. I have to say I wonder that also at this point.

 

Either way they can't count me among the zealots anymore.

[+frankodragon]

How I hate to think if the Werner brothers trolls have pics of Fred posted all over their bedrooms.   

[+x=usr(1536)]

10 minutes ago, TACODON said:

@x=usr(1536) I recall someone wondering if the Werner Bros. are on the payroll with Atari. I have to say I wonder that also at this point.

 

Anything's possible, but if I were in charge of Atari SA's marketing / PR, I'd be seeking to have them rein themselves in.  With friends like that, you don't need taco shitposting or The Register to make your product (and, by association, company) look even worse than it already does.

 

Quote

Either way they can't count me among the zealots anymore.

 

Come to the dark side.  We have tacos.

Edited October 2, 2019 by x=usr(1536)

[Flojomojo]

Erm

 

There are no "sides." There's the brand holder of Atari, keeper of secrets, seller of boxes. There's everyone else, all of whom are entitled to their opinions, so long as they do so in a place that isn't heavily censored. 

 

If there were sides, "we" would not be the "dark side."

 

We do have tacos, though. Mmmmmm

[Clint Thompson]

It’s only dark here because all the light is being directed at revealing the train wreck that managed to raise $3 million dollars and is 3 months away from a second delayed launch with zero exclusive games and still no proven working hardware shown to exist, just a “hot of the press” board that was merely a cliff note on a subscription based announcement. 

 

We have to eat tacos because the only thing Atari has been able to feed us are delays and recycled controller renders. 

[TACODON]

I might miss their logic on how Atari and the Red Cross are both the same when it comes to donating money... wait... no I won't...

[+x=usr(1536)]

1 hour ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Come to the dark side.  We have tacos.

 

Just to be clear: the above was a play on the following bumper sticker aphorism:

 

 

 

There's no implication of sides - light, dark, or otherwise - being taken in my comment.

 

?

Edited October 2, 2019 by x=usr(1536)

[Flojomojo]

Bumper stickers, is there anything they can't do? I might send some of these to members the Super Secret Supporters Society. 

 

 

Spoiler