It’s okay to like the VCS.

[pacman000]

On 12/20/2020 at 12:47 PM, youxia said:

Amico is on completely different level than VCS, so it does not deserve this kind of scorn

To paraphrase Draco, "these lesser crimes to deserve scorn, and we have no greater punishment for more important ones."

 

To sum up every lawmaker after him, "Gee, that seems kinda harsh..."

[jaybird3rd]

11 minutes ago, zzip said:

I entered threads that were ostensibly about an upcoming product.   Not a debate forum.   Typically such discussions are filled with people who are interested in such products as well.   So it's really bizarre to enter a thread filled with people against the product even existing and challenge anyone who dare say they like the idea.   But yet every thread devolved into this and carried on for years.

For whatever it's worth, the people who were responsible for the most caustic mockery and ridicule are not actively participating here any longer.  Some left by their own choice, and some had to be booted out.  We've already made it clear that we won't put up with that kind of behavior anymore.  Of course, that doesn't mean that anyone should expect to be shielded from legitimate criticisms or opposing points of view, or that constructive input of this kind, dispassionately expressed, should be perceived as an "attack" or as "bullying."  Put simply, everyone involved, pro or con, needs to act like grownups; those who demonstrate that they can't will be promptly escorted out.

[Keatah]

4 hours ago, zzip said:

Of course it is, and nobody is forcing you to buy one.  

 

What's generally cool about Atariage is how it welcomes users of all systems without the hardware flame wars generally.  But for some reason when it comes to the Atari VCS, every thread is dragged down into a hate-fest.  On an Atari site no less.

 

Why?  People who want one are still going to buy one,  people who don't won't.   Let people spend their money as they see fit and discuss it in peace.

 

I have no interest in buying an Amico, so I simply stay out of those threads,  it's easy!  

I'll guess and say it's because "Atari" is a sacred name and was a sacred company long ago. Many haters simply feel betrayed by "new atari". And that's because they're more IP holders than real engineers pioneering a new art.

 

That pioneering is what made Atari Atari. Trying to ride into fame and fortune by controlling someones IP and applying the name to non-game projects like hotels or speakerhats or tokens doesn't sit right. Has nothing to do with being innovators at the forefront of gaming.

[zzip]

35 minutes ago, Keatah said:

I'll guess and say it's because "Atari" is a sacred name and was a sacred company long ago. Many haters simply feel betrayed by "new atari". And that's because they're more IP holders than real engineers pioneering a new art.

 

That pioneering is what made Atari Atari. Trying to ride into fame and fortune by controlling someones IP and applying the name to non-game projects like hotels or speakerhats or tokens doesn't sit right. Has nothing to do with being innovators at the forefront of gaming.

I hear that, but the Atari name has changed hands how many times now?  At least 5, not counting the arcade division.  And since Atari merged with JTS and sold the name in the late 90s,  they've really been nothing more than IP holders.   And now we live in a world where the Atari name and logo has taken on a new retro-coolness, and they can probably sell more Atari-licensed logo T-shirts than they can copies of their latest Roller Coaster Tycoon fiasco.   So what is management supposed to do in such an environment?

 

Infrogrames tried reviving the brand with new development and failed,  so they are stuck with that plus the legacy of bad decisions of every previous era of Atari that led to the current predicament.

 

Yes I wish Atari was still at the forefront of gaming reliving their glory days,  but how do they get there from here?   Where do they get the cash to make that happen?   Are the critics going to put up the money?

 

edit: also remember that the kids who grew up on Atari are now in their peak-earning years, so perhaps that's why the Atari Vegas hotel makes sense to somebody.  Also Nintendo/Universal are working on theme parks, so maybe this idea isn't so crazy as it first seemed?

Edited December 21, 2020 by zzip

[AnakiMana]

4 minutes ago, Keatah said:

I'll guess and say it's because "Atari" is a sacred name and was a sacred company long ago. Many haters simply feel betrayed by "new atari". And that's because they're more IP holders than real engineers pioneering a new art.

 

That pioneering is what made Atari Atari. Trying to ride into fame and fortune by controlling someones IP and applying the name to non-game projects like hotels or speakerhats or tokens doesn't sit right. Has nothing to do with being innovators at the forefront of gaming.

I'm not happy to see people using derogatory names for Atari, like "Fauxtari". Going into the Atari VCS section and insulting the company making our product - essentially saying they're fake, an imposter, illegitimate or that they suck - isn't very welcoming.

 

You say Atari is a sacred name. I guess that's why people who like what today's Atari is doing are treated like ignorant heathens needing to be re-educated? 

 

Look, Atari was essentially dead until the current CEO purchased it. He made a decision to resurrect it and do what he could with his investment to recover from debt. As a small business it took a while using the IP to get to a healthy financial place to start getting back into hardware. Now instead of celebrating Atari isn't dead, or the evolution and return to hardware engineering and innovation, people seem to be too biased to see all this and instead mock the company and its supporters.

 

Atari Hotels, by the way, was not Atari's idea. It was a developer who approached Atari and is funding it. Good for everybody I would think.

[+x=usr(1536)]

1 hour ago, zzip said:

I hear that, but the Atari name has changed hands how many times now?  At least 5, not counting the arcade division.  And since Atari merged with JTS and sold the name in the late 90s,  they've really been nothing more than IP holders.

 

Right, and I think we're all in agreement on that.  Since the Jaguar was killed off in 1996, Atari really hasn't done much to move themselves forward as a company, regardless of the ownership.  More:

 

Quote

And now we live in a world where the Atari name and logo has taken on a new retro-coolness, and they can probably sell more Atari-licensed logo T-shirts than they can copies of their latest Roller Coaster Tycoon fiasco.   So what is management supposed to do in such an environment?

 

Evaluate how long the business can sustain that model and respond accordingly.  More:

 

Quote

Infrogrames tried reviving the brand with new development and failed,  so they are stuck with that plus the legacy of bad decisions of every previous era of Atari that led to the current predicament.

 

True, but so did JTS, Hasbro, and various other iterations of the company up to now.  More:

 

Quote

Yes I wish Atari was still at the forefront of gaming reliving their glory days,  but how do they get there from here?

 

1. This may sound heretical to some, but let the classic IP take a backseat to developing new and competitive products, be they hardware or software.  I'm not saying to drop the classic IP altogether, but pull it from being the vanguard offering and make it part of a broad range.
2. Hire management that understands what needs to happen to be competitive in today's marketplace.
3. Don't be cynical towards your audience.  They're what you sink or swim by.
4. Embrace multiplatform releases.  If that's via Steam, individual app store builds for each platform being targetted, or some other method, fine - but don't tie yourself to the ebb and flow of a single platform.  You're not big enough to weather that, at least not initially.

Quote

Where do they get the cash to make that happen?   Are the critics going to put up the money?

 

Short of a sell-off to an investment group that fires all of the management and brings actual useful industry experience to the table, I can't think of another good way to make it happen.

 

As regards the critics: it's not on them to invest.  If one would like to, great, but as critics are generally expected to have no vested interest in a company's success or failure, the responsibility lies with company management to figure out where the money comes from.

Edited December 21, 2020 by x=usr(1536)

[pacman000]

23 minutes ago, zzip said:

I hear that, but the Atari name has changed hands how many times now?  At least 5, not counting the arcade division.  And since Atari merged with JTS and sold the name in the late 90s,  they've really been nothing more than IP holders.   And now we live in a world where the Atari name and logo has taken on a new retro-coolness, and they can probably sell more Atari-licensed logo T-shirts than they can copies of their latest Roller Coaster Tycoon fiasco.   So what is management supposed to do in such an environment?

 

Infrogrames tried reviving the brand with new development and failed,  so they are stuck with that plus the legacy of bad decisions of every previous era of Atari that led to the current predicament.

 

Yes I wish Atari was still at the forefront of gaming reliving their glory days,  but how do they get there from here?   Where do they get the cash to make that happen?   Are the critics going to put up the money?

 

edit: also remember that the kids who grew up on Atari are now in their peak-earning years, so perhaps that's why the Atari Vegas hotel makes sense to somebody.  Also Nintendo/Universal are working on theme parks, so maybe this idea isn't so crazy as it first seemed?

6 by my count.

 

1) Atari as an Independent Company

2) Atari as a Division of Warner

3) Atari under tghe Tramiels

4) Atari, a division of JTS

5) Atari, a division of Hasbro

6) Atari under Infrogames. 

 

Maybe 7, if Infrogrames bankruptcy resulted in a different group ascending the throne. 

 

Quote

True, but so did JTS, Hasbro, and various other iterations of the company up to now. 

Hasbro & Infrogames tried to make Atari a going concern again, but from what I've read JTS just wanted Atari Corp's money & place on the stock exchange; they were actively trying to convert Atari's other old assets to cast as quickly as possible when Hasbro said they'd buy whatever was left. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by pacman000

[Keatah]

There may be some sophisticated coolness associated with today's atari name. Less campiness than original Atari. Campiness was abundant in early 80's videogame and microcomputer advertising - except for 2-3 micros.

 

[Keatah]

37 minutes ago, zzip said:

Yes I wish Atari was still at the forefront of gaming reliving their glory days,  but how do they get there from here?   Where do they get the cash to make that happen?   Are the critics going to put up the money?

What is the forefront of gaming today? What is expected of a company to be at that forefront? Maybe it isn't possible because there are now 45 years of development behind us. Maybe all that can be done, sans discovery of some unfathomable tech, is to move sideways.

 

37 minutes ago, zzip said:

edit: also remember that the kids who grew up on Atari are now in their peak-earning years, so perhaps that's why the Atari Vegas hotel makes sense to somebody.  Also Nintendo/Universal are working on theme parks, so maybe this idea isn't so crazy as it first seemed?

Maybe if it's done tastefully. Maybe if they recreate and pay homage to the very early games. After all that's what us kids back then grew up on.

 

And to give credit to new atari, imho it seems less campy than Nintendo. I'd rather to a new atari hotel than a fat-head mario themepark.

[zzip]

17 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

This may sound heretical to some, but let the classic IP take a backseat to developing new and competitive products, be they hardware or software.  I'm not saying to drop the classic IP altogether, but pull it from being the vanguard offering and make it part of a broad range.

I agree new IPs would be nice, and Infrogrames was doing that last decade.  They had some pretty good IPs too.  But they had a rough patch and had to sell off many of those IPs.

 

21 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Hire management that understands what needs to happen to be competitive in today's marketplace.

Competitive with who?   They are never going to be competitive with the likes Sony/Nintendo/MS.  And who's going to put up the investment?

 

27 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Don't be cynical towards your audience.  They're what you sink or swim by.

Who is their audience though?   Is it really who you think?  For every one of us who posts on an Atari board, there's probably 50 casual fans who will buy something ridiculous like a speaker hat.

 

31 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Embrace multiplatform releases.  If that's via Steam, individual app store builds for each platform being targetted, or some other method, fine - but don't tie yourself to the ebb and flow of a single platform.  You're not big enough to weather that, at least not initially

They already do this.

 

32 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

As regards the critics: it's not on them to invest.  If one would like to, great, but as critics are generally expected to have no vested interest in a company's success or failure, the responsibility lies with company management to figure out where the money comes from.

But talk is cheap.  Unless you know their financials and their options,  it's hard to say the current management is doing the best they can or not.  My impression is they just squeak by and don't really have the options to do what the critics want them to.

[AlecRob]

if only an rich arabian prince would invest millions of dollars in Atari stock

[Nall3k]

5 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

 

1. This may sound heretical to some, but let the classic IP take a backseat to developing new and competitive products, be they hardware or software.  I'm not saying to drop the classic IP altogether, but pull it from being the vanguard offering and make it part of a broad range.
2. Hire management that understands what needs to happen to be competitive in today's marketplace.
3. Don't be cynical towards your audience.  They're what you sink or swim by.
4. Embrace multiplatform releases.  If that's via Steam, individual app store builds for each platform being targetted, or some other method, fine - but don't tie yourself to the ebb and flow of a single platform.  You're not big enough to weather that, at least not initially.

I believe Atari tried this strategy initially and had some success back in 2008-2011. David Gardner and Phil Harrison had a vision of rebuilding the company as a solid publisher with games like Riddick (critically acclaimed), Ghostbusters (critically acclaimed), Test Drive Unlimited 1&2 (both received generally well), The Witcher 1&2, Neverwinter Nights games, etc. Unfortunately, I think the company's debt was simply too much.

 

I was really rooting for Eden Games and Atari then, especially with Alone in the Dark. That game really did push boundaries and felt "next gen", a lot of its concepts are staples in today's games. I think trying to go into MMO and mobile games was a huge mistake.

 

When Fred took over, it was a mistake to try and develop games like Haunted House: Cryptic Graves (never made it out of beta), Asteroids: Outpost (never made it out of beta), or Alone in the Dark: Illumination (finished, but horrible L4D wannabe). The one game that Atari came out with after bankruptcy was Minimum, which they should have ported to Xbox and PS. Why they shut it down, who knows, but it was a gem.

[Atarick]

25 minutes ago, Nall3k said:

I believe Atari tried this strategy initially and had some success back in 2008-2011. David Gardner and Phil Harrison had a vision of rebuilding the company as a solid publisher with games like Riddick (critically acclaimed), Ghostbusters (critically acclaimed), Test Drive Unlimited 1&2 (both received generally well), The Witcher 1&2, Neverwinter Nights games, etc. Unfortunately, I think the company's debt was simply too much.

 

I was really rooting for Eden Games and Atari then, especially with Alone in the Dark. That game really did push boundaries and felt "next gen", a lot of its concepts are staples in today's games. I think trying to go into MMO and mobile games was a huge mistake.

 

When Fred took over, it was a mistake to try and develop games like Haunted House: Cryptic Graves (never made it out of beta), Asteroids: Outpost (never made it out of beta), or Alone in the Dark: Illumination (finished, but horrible L4D wannabe). The one game that Atari came out with after bankruptcy was Minimum, which they should have ported to Xbox and PS. Why they shut it down, who knows, but it was a gem.

Were they the team behind the Yars Revenge reboot? Yeah some hidden gold there. 

 

I will give the current crew in charge this- they are laser focused on identifying revenue streams come hell or high water. It's as if they're working outside the circle to go inside. Monetize a brand, use the revenue off licensing to try and fund new ventures and then, if you can, develop new games. I have no clue if it will work, or honestly if any other company besides Nintendo or Sega could pull such a thing off. The press release Atari dropped today about public option trading on the French exchange was also interesting. Basically confirmed that they were going to use future revenue for game design. Surely this is designed to counter some of the fears possibly dogging the VCS out of the gate.

[+x=usr(1536)]

4 hours ago, zzip said:

I agree new IPs would be nice, and Infrogrames was doing that last decade.  They had some pretty good IPs too.  But they had a rough patch and had to sell off many of those IPs.

 

True.  And in fairness to Infogrames, they also had some good IP back in the ST days.  However, the transition from Infogrames to Atari in the 2009 bankruptcy proceedings is where I feel the real problem set in: consecutive sets of executive leadership bringing a lack of vision for both the company and its properties into the C-level.  This is what ultimately turned Atari in its various post-2009 iterations into an IP holding company; selling off some of those properties was really just a symptom of the infection, not the illness itself.

 

4 hours ago, zzip said:

Competitive with who?   They are never going to be competitive with the likes Sony/Nintendo/MS.

 

Which is correct, but there are plenty of companies who compete on a software-only basis, and those are the ones I was thinking of.  Sega, Konami, Capcom, etc.  Granted, those are heavy hitters, but that's the end of the market Atari SA could conceivably move into and be competitive in over time.

 

However, this is where Atari SA's executive management needs to stop viewing the company as a means to make a fast buck through licensing IP and actually get their portfolio in order, develop strategy, come up with a business plan, and find investment (not from crowdfunding - it needs to come from people and / or firms that they have a responsibility towards beyond a terms of service statement on a website) to move forward.  Unfortunately, I don't see the current management as being capable of that.  They don't have the will to do it, IMHO, and their reputation precedes them to the point where no potential investor would give the company a dime as it sits today.

 

4 hours ago, zzip said:

And who's going to put up the investment?

 

That's Atari SA's problem to solve.  Not saying that to be glib or flippant, but it's really not up to anyone other than them to figure it out.

 

4 hours ago, zzip said:

Who is their audience though?

 

That's actually a very good question, and one that I don't know whether Atari SA has tried to answer in any depth.  However, any iteration of the company would need to identify their audience(s) and significantly base their business plan around those findings.  Floundering without clear direction isn't a formula for success.

 

4 hours ago, zzip said:

Is it really who you think?

 

Let me ask a you question: who do I think their audience is?  I am genuinely interested to hear your ideas on that, and will happily give my answer in response to yours.

 

4 hours ago, zzip said:

For every one of us who posts on an Atari board, there's probably 50 casual fans who will buy something ridiculous like a speaker hat.

 

Maybe.  There're no metrics by which that can really be measured, though, so anything either one of us may have to say in that regards isn't really anything more than speculation.

 

4 hours ago, zzip said:

They already do this.

 

Yes, but only in a limited (and rather disjointed) way.  They're also heavily dependent on recycling IP, and the new IP that they try to develop doesn't really seem to get any traction.  At some point they really need to step back and stop trying the same things over and over and expecting a different result.

 

4 hours ago, zzip said:

 

But talk is cheap.  Unless you know their financials and their options,  it's hard to say the current management is doing the best they can or not.  My impression is they just squeak by and don't really have the options to do what the critics want them to.

 

What can be viewed as an indicator of their performance (and measure of public confidence in the company) is their stock.  It doesn't point to a company that is progressing healthily: if anything, the market cap and volume indicate that they're basically stagnant.  Having said that, I will be interested to see the details of their 2020 financial report surface after the first board meeting of 2021.  It should give a more complete picture than just the stock performance alone, but based on the stock performance I'm not expecting to hear anything that can't already be surmised from watching the stock.

[Nall3k]

1 minute ago, Atarick said:

Were they the team behind the Yars Revenge reboot? Yeah some hidden gold there. 

 

I will give the current crew in charge this- they are laser focused on identifying revenue streams come hell or high water. It's as if they're working outside the circle to go inside. Monetize a brand, use the revenue off licensing to try and fund new ventures and then, if you can, develop new games. I have no clue if it will work, or honestly if any other company besides Nintendo or Sega could pull such a thing off. The press release Atari dropped today about public option trading on the French exchange was also interesting. Basically confirmed that they were going to use future revenue for game design. Surely this is designed to counter some of the fears possibly dogging the VCS out of the gate.

It's not fair to focus on a few bad games at the time. Not every game released is going to be golden, we can spend eternity looking at examples from any publisher during any set of years and find rotten apples. Especially, if you're going to just dismiss the critically acclaimed games I pointed out.

[Atarick]

7 minutes ago, Nall3k said:

It's not fair to focus on a few bad games at the time. Not every game released is going to be golden, we can spend eternity looking at examples from any publisher during any set of years and find rotten apples. Especially, if you're going to just dismiss the critically acclaimed games I pointed out.

I actually wasn't being facetious, I genuinely liked that game. 

[+x=usr(1536)]

32 minutes ago, Nall3k said:

David Gardner and Phil Harrison had a vision of rebuilding the company as a solid publisher

 

Pulling this heavily out of context, but I feel that it's the crux of the matter: they at least had a vision for the company where the current management does not.

 

32 minutes ago, Nall3k said:

I was really rooting for Eden Games and Atari then, especially with Alone in the Dark. That game really did push boundaries and felt "next gen", a lot of its concepts are staples in today's games.

 

Alone in the Dark was pretty nifty in a lot of ways.  Then again, that was an Infogrames property that stretched back to the early '90s.  I'm not railing against franchised titles, but it can be seen as a way to not handle them if you want them to be successful.  Then again, it was one that went through releases under many changes of ownership of the company, with each one having a different approach to trotting out the latest installment.  No clear vision or lineage, though that's not the series' fault.

 

32 minutes ago, Nall3k said:

I think trying to go into MMO and mobile games was a huge mistake.

 

Absolutely.  It's an oversaturated market, and one where form factor dictates limited gameplay experiences.  It's best left to everyone else trying publish an isometric RPG that'll stand out amongst the 10,000 other isometric RPGs available for <insert platform here>.

 

32 minutes ago, Nall3k said:

When Fred took over, it was a mistake to try and develop games like Haunted House: Cryptic Graves (never made it out of beta), Asteroids: Outpost (never made it out of beta), or Alone in the Dark: Illumination (finished, but horrible L4D wannabe). The one game that Atari came out with after bankruptcy was Minimum, which they should have ported to Xbox and PS. Why they shut it down, who knows, but it was a gem.

 

IIRC, Asteroids: Outpost was supposed to be a tie-in with the Asteroids movie that hasn't happened yet and was more or less abandoned when the film stalled.  Realistically, I can't argue too much with that decision: there's not really much of a point releasing a game where your main source of advertising has ceased production.

 

Never played Minimum, I have to admit.  From what I know of it, it seems like the sort of thing that could be appealing, but seemed to split players opinions pretty much right down the middle as to whether they liked or disliked it.

[digdugnate]

talking about the Hasbro stuff kind of jogged my memory in a way- even though only one of these is from Hasbro, i played a handful of 'remakes' in the 90s that I liked quite a bit: Frogger, Battlezone, Lode Runner, and PitfallL The Mayan Adventure.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frogger_(1997_video_game)  (Hasbro)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlezone_(1998_video_game) (Activision)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lode_Runner:_The_Legend_Returns (Sierra)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitfall:_The_Mayan_Adventure (Activision) - this one I actually owned two copies, Jaguar and PC

 

I'm not sure where I was going with this, now that I think about it, lol.  Tying this back into this thread, I'm good with remakes of games that are fun to me, and I wish that Atari were in a position to do SOMETHING other than appear like they're just trying to shovel the properties they own to the highest bidder. 

 

It's okay to like the VCS, but I think it's equally okay to wish that the whole thing had been handled better.

[zzip]

11 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Which is correct, but there are plenty of companies who compete on a software-only basis, and those are the ones I was thinking of.  Sega, Konami, Capcom, etc.  Granted, those are heavy hitters, but that's the end of the market Atari SA could conceivably move into and be competitive in over time.

Here's where I think Jack screwed them.   The companies you mentioned all had a rich arcade legacy.   So did Atari, before Jack split off the arcade division.   The arcade was a rich source of new IPs, but the current company only got the pre-1984 arcade IPs,  and some of those were sold off since, like Battlezone.    Post-1984 Atari Games still had several arcade hits that could have been drawn from.  The Jack T years of Atari Corp were not a great source of new gaming IPs, although they did have a couple.

 

11 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

That's actually a very good question, and one that I don't know whether Atari SA has tried to answer in any depth.  However, any iteration of the company would need to identify their audience(s) and significantly base their business plan around those findings.  Floundering without clear direction isn't a formula for success.

I think this board thinks their market is Atari die-hards.   I think Atari SA sees two markets, a market for their games and a market for their brand.   I think they see the market for their brand is Gen-Xer's with nostalgia.   I'm not exactly sure who the market for their games is-  it's a mixed bag.

11 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Yes, but only in a limited (and rather disjointed) way.  They're also heavily dependent on recycling IP, and the new IP that they try to develop doesn't really seem to get any traction.  At some point they really need to step back and stop trying the same things over and over and expecting a different result

But the question is where are those new IPs going to come from?   If they develop in-house,  are they going to be able to recruit top talent in their current state?   If they become a publisher of Indie games looking for the next hit, why would the hot Indie studios strike a deal with them if they have better options?   In either case they end up with B-list games.   That's a hole that's hard to climb out of without some investment money, and even then it will take time to restore the reputation.

[eobet]

Is it okay to like the VCS but really dislike the current iteration of Atari?

 

The casino stuff they're probably planning to stuff down the throats of VCS consumers soon feel like a huge betrayal (already), and I wouldn't be surprised if they snuck in crypto currency mining into the VCS as well in the future... that "strategy", together with not paying the original designer of the VCS is so tone deaf that I don't see any redemption for them currently.

 

I haven't received mine yet, but I'm praying that the classic controller is well built, because if all else fails, I'm hoping that at least that controller will be the silver lining to this cloud. It looks super neat!

[+Random Terrain]

Atari has always been associated with gambling to me. Every time I'd buy a new marked down cartridge at Kay Bee or other places, I had high hopes that it would be the one game that would 'complete me.' Of course, I'd usually be disappointed when I played it, then I'd try again the next time I had money with the same high hopes. I never gave up hope that I would 'win' the ultimate game. Atari and gambling go together like a horse and carriage.

[Atarick]

8 hours ago, eobet said:

Is it okay to like the VCS but really dislike the current iteration of Atari?

 

The casino stuff they're probably planning to stuff down the throats of VCS consumers soon feel like a huge betrayal (already), and I wouldn't be surprised if they snuck in crypto currency mining into the VCS as well in the future... that "strategy", together with not paying the original designer of the VCS is so tone deaf that I don't see any redemption for them currently.

 

I haven't received mine yet, but I'm praying that the classic controller is well built, because if all else fails, I'm hoping that at least that controller will be the silver lining to this cloud. It looks super neat!

It's of course easier to say you disagree with something outright and boycott an inferior product because you take exception with the strategic direction of said company and how they treat their patrons. I'm in the camp of "the VCS on paper does some things I'd love to root for, but I want these French fools to wake up and realize how much better it could be, and the community they could tap in to". The controller is cool. The VCS itself looks great. The GUI is basic but slick looking. The embrace of indie titles is nice. The specs are decent. But it's missing the "oomph" to get it over the top and really help it transcend the market. Games and an IP-rich library could have done that. But it is an open architecture so it's tough for me to form a verdict beyond the company selling it and the look of it at this point. 

[JeffVav]

14 hours ago, eobet said:

I wouldn't be surprised if they snuck in crypto currency mining into the VCS as well in the future...

I've seen this notion mentioned a few times. Hard to tell if it's a joke, so forgive me if I'm being too serious, but this seems unlikely. First, you'd have to leave the thing on. Then the fans would spin up since it would have to run hot, and that'd be a dead giveaway. 

[Matt_B]

If they really wanted to mine crypto with it, they'd have put a better GPU in there. ?

[+Random Terrain]

Just now, Matt_B said:

If they really wanted to mine crypto with it, they'd have put a better GPU in there. ?

 

Greasy Primate Umbilical?