Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mockduck

The Atari VCS Controversies Thread

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, godslabrat said:

Just from a classic gaming perspective, the switch has a library that includes NES, SNES, Atari, Capcom, Sega, and a bunch of Arcade.  
 

It's way more of an "Ultimate Retrobox" than the VCS will ever be.

 

You're also getting not-quite-totally retro titles from the PS2 era, and actual new games as well.

True. And it overheats, the controls lag, there are glitches all over, and the software is laughably incompatible with 3rd party titles. Also, Nintendo has essentially given up on support for it. They are as guilty of what Atari SA are (marketing a flawed device on brand name recognition), the only difference is they had a broader and more mainstream target audience. 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Atarick said:

True. And it overheats, the controls lag, there are glitches all over, and the software is laughably incompatible with 3rd party titles. Also, Nintendo has essentially given up on support for it. They are as guilty of what Atari SA are (marketing a flawed device on brand name recognition), the only difference is they had a broader and more mainstream target audience. 

I am sorry, Nintendo has given up support for the switch? Could you please elaborate on that?I am sorry, Nintendo has given up support for the switch? Could you please elaborate on that?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Atarick said:

True. And it overheats, the controls lag, there are glitches all over, and the software is laughably incompatible with 3rd party titles. Also, Nintendo has essentially given up on support for it. They are as guilty of what Atari SA are (marketing a flawed device on brand name recognition), the only difference is they had a broader and more mainstream target audience. 

What on earth are you on about?

 

It's arguably underpowered, but it's only real hardware problem is controller drift, something my kid's PS4 has also suffers from. And the dock possibly scratching the screen if we're really picking nits, I guess.

 

Ultimately, hardware is just a means of running software, Nintendo's is top notch, and the market reflects it.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Atarick said:

True. And it overheats, the controls lag, there are glitches all over, and the software is laughably incompatible with 3rd party titles. Also, Nintendo has essentially given up on support for it. They are as guilty of what Atari SA are (marketing a flawed device on brand name recognition), the only difference is they had a broader and more mainstream target audience. 

Uh...software is incompatible with 3rd party titles?  What does this even mean?  About the only bad thing I can say about the Switch is the stick drift.  Considering I have to buy a new Xbox One controller every 6 - 8 months for the same reason, this doesn't seem to be a Nintendo specific issue.

 

I get that you like the VCS. Fine, but trying to justify its..."feature gaps" by making the Switch look bad is a terrible strategy. 

 

And while I'm posting, claiming that people make posts bashing the VCS proves there isn't a lack of interest in the system is disingenuous.  The drama and mental gymnastics supporters engaged in was very interesting.  The actual product, not so much.  Now that it's out, it begins its slow march toward obscurity.  People who have it may enjoy it, and will continue to enjoy it.  That's cool.  But as far as hype goes, it peaked when it actually shipped.  That's the reality.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

This is what Stephen was asking about - Where's the Jaguar emulator that's so great that would be worth doing this with? Jag emulators have always been notorious for lacking in their ability to perfectly emulate the system. Atari implied they were working on one once, which is laughable. Anyone who cares about Jaguar games owns a Jag and probably a JagGD now. I am also still perplexed that you treat the Jag like it's the most popular retro game console ever. I like it and I have a complete collection for it, but why would I spend almost $400 on a device to emulate it with, when my gaming PC can already do that better, or I could just connect my Jag to my HDTV using a composite to HDMI convertor. Or just play it on the CRT I still have.

This is a complete misrepresentation of what I've been saying.

 

I personally think the Jaguar is a piece of crap.   I bought one on clearance in the 90s w/ CD and sold it like a year later because it wasn't worth the space it took up.    But I can't help but notice the thing you couldn't give away in the 90s is worth a lot more today and hard to come by at times.   I point to the Jaguar ironically because this board seems to think it's desirable while the VCS is worthless.

 

I also noticed how people in the Jaguar forums beg for one game or another be ported from ST to Jaguar.   All I'm saying is with a retrobox I can just play those games, under a different emulator or natively depending on the game.   No need to beg for a port.

 

I also never said that there's a magic Jaguar emulator that runs the entire library.   Between the VJ, MAME and Phoenix, I can run the few Jag games I care about.   My point was that we're probably not ever going to see a Jaguar flashback from Atari.  So the VCS is the only thing they've released capable of playing Jaguar games.   Not ALL Jaguar games for those who want to continually take me out of context,  but many.   Jaguar emulation still improves slowly,  so maybe someday we get that magic Jag emulator for those who want it.

12 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

If they were actually working on a Jaguar or Lynx or ST compilation, that'd possibly pique some interest, but the main reason that's never happening is because Atari doesn't own the rights to a vast, vast majority of the games from those systems.

It would also not be a very marketable product.  Retailers will snap up 2600 flashbacks,  but Jag, Lynx and ST were not super popular back in the day, at least not in the US.

 

12 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

So if you're holding out hope that the VCS will one day be the ultimate Atari system with official "plug-n-play" style support for games from every Atari console, well...who am I to tell you what to do with your time, it's yours to waste. 

I already have my own retro-emulation setup that I would simply drop in place on the box.  I've made it clear that I don't expect Atari to officially support many of these systems.  That doesn't matter to me as I've always rolled-my-own emulation setups.   I expect somebody will create a retro-pi style distribution to help newbies with the task.

 

12 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

How many people are active on this thread? A dozen maybe? Pro-VCS posts have come from 3-4 people maybe, with the rest being against. Not a metric even worth using to judge how "excited" people are about it. I am on a lot of different social media gaming groups and no one is talking about the VCS. Just here, a tiny bit on Reddit, and the diehards in the closed VCS fan groups who think that it's the greatest console in human history.  

So if you don't care, why bother staying active in the thread?  Why check all those sites?   When I don't care about something, I simply skip the threads because who has time to read all that?   If you're convinced it's going to flop, why not let it flop on its own without trying to convince people not to buy it?

 

When people loudly say they don't care, but won't let a subject go, it means they care more than they want to admit.  A lot of what I see is upset because they didn't get the kind of product they wanted or that Atari is a shell of it's former self.   Some people here obviously wanted the product to be a return to greatness.  Sorry but that's simply not going to happen.

 

I've always said this product was going to be niche.   It's not going to sell in huge numbers.   The people who want one know why they want one.   The current Atari doesn't have the resources to do anything else.   They can't take on the Big-3.   They can't produce something like the Amico because they don't have the portfolio of IPs to make it compelling.   The best they could do is make an open system that is still useful even if the company stops supporting it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Atarick said:

There is a ton to unpack across these extensive comments, but I'll simply say this. Given your tone and expectations, it sounds like there was never anything Atari could have done in the modern era, under Chesnais or another person, to earn your business. The people who bought and or like the VCS are a minority on this forum, that's obvious. But let's stop giving the Switch a pass or calling it some great product. I find the Switch to be overpriced junk. Comparing the VCS as inferior to the XBox or PS5 or a superior gaming PC, fine. But the Switch? Woof.

 

Also, how is this less plug and play than a RPi? What are you comparing it to when saying "this isn't the plug and play console you're looking for"? There are now countless videos of people installing updates, a normal expectation for any PC or console, and doing just that. 

 

The problem I have is that in one thread we unanimously concede that Atari is no longer (and probably can never again be) big 3, then in another judge them as if they are. I am not confused about what Atari SA, all 30 of them, are. They are trying to raise brand profile and capital to sell and further diversify their footprint in the cryptocurrency and digital blockchain markets. The VCS tied into that, but whatever. It wasn't shoved down our throats. They had an idea that morphed into a prototype and they limped to deliver it. The people who backed it backed it, and Atari did as many of us expected. I'm genuinely lost half the time on what is actually being argued in this thread. 

I've said it before and I have to say it again - I was interested in the Ataribox when the idea was first floated. Atari could have earned my business with competence and a vision. A collection of all Tempest games in one, some reimagined (but well-designed) classics, interesting new games, an Atari version of Super Mario Maker... fun and innovative ideas could have possibly got me on-board. I'm not so shallow to just throw my money at a logo though - I buy game consoles primarily due to the games. 

 

But saying that the Switch is not a great product? LOL...are you kidding me? Please explain to the class how a system that is "junk" has become Nintendo's 2nd best selling home system ever? Here's additional evidence as to how the Switch actually is an "ultimate retro box" that you guys are now claiming the VCS to be. But then you proffer this nonsense:

 

Quote

overheats[Every modern console gets hot, but I've never heard mass complaints of Switch overheating - I did notice that the VCS fan cranks way up the moment you try and push 30fps on most games though!], the controls lag[you must be confusing this with JoyCon Drift - which is a problem but not the same - also, I love how the VCS can't even get standard button presses right, something Nintendo's never had a problem with], there are glitches all over[uhhh, wut?], and the software is laughably incompatible with 3rd party titles[I don't even know what this means - the Switch has more 3rd party support for it than even the Wii did] . Also, Nintendo has essentially given up on support for it[Is there some kind of mind-altering drug you VCS fans are passing around to each other? This isn't even remotely true.] They are as guilty of what Atari SA are (marketing a flawed device on brand name recognition), the only difference is they had a broader and more mainstream target audience [Not even close]

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. 

Edited by Shaggy the Atarian
added a thing
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, zzip said:

  The current Atari doesn't have the resources to do anything else.   They can't take on the Big-3.   They can't produce something like the Amico because they don't have the portfolio of IPs to make it compelling.   The best they could do is make an open system that is still useful even if the company stops supporting it. 

I'm actually going to agree with you here: they can't compete, they shouldn't, and the Box as it stands is the best l'Atari can expect to do.  Then why is their messaging running completely counter to that?  This wasn't branded as a novelty PC (where it achieves some base-level success), it was branded as a game console and streaming box (where it fails at both).  Atari's approach to this could charitably be called "hubris" and I'd strongly prefer words like "disingenuous" or "sleazy."

 

Truth be told, I'm betting if they put

you in charge of making this thing, I bet the end result would be more focused and practical.  I know I've had some ideas for how this COULD have gone, that would have resulted in it not being total clownshoes.  If this was the best Atari could do, why did they do it?  I'm sure it was a quick buck, but it doesn't speak well of the long-term value of the brand or company.  One day you're making a George Foreman Grill computer, the next you're slapping your logo on a foot bath.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, godslabrat said:

I'm actually going to agree with you here: they can't compete, they shouldn't, and the Box as it stands is the best l'Atari can expect to do.  Then why is their messaging running completely counter to that?  This wasn't branded as a novelty PC (where it achieves some base-level success), it was branded as a game console and streaming box (where it fails at both).  Atari's approach to this could charitably be called "hubris" and I'd strongly prefer words like "disingenuous" or "sleazy."

 

Truth be told, I'm betting if they put

you in charge of making this thing, I bet the end result would be more focused and practical.  I know I've had some ideas for how this COULD have gone, that would have resulted in it not being total clownshoes.  If this was the best Atari could do, why did they do it?  I'm sure it was a quick buck, but it doesn't speak well of the long-term value of the brand or company.  One day you're making a George Foreman Grill computer, the next you're slapping your logo on a foot bath.

I think there would have been far less of a disconnect if Atari had clear messaging from the beginning about what the machine actually was. The reality is - and this has been stated a few times - they almost certainly didn't REALLY know what they were going to end up with. If they were in the ballpark with the messaging of what they were going to end up with - relatively overpriced or not - the discussions would have been quite different for the most part.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, zzip said:

I personally think the Jaguar is a piece of crap.   I bought one on clearance in the 90s w/ CD and sold it like a year later because it wasn't worth the space it took up.    But I can't help but notice the thing you couldn't give away in the 90s is worth a lot more today and hard to come by at times.   I point to the Jaguar ironically because this board seems to think it's desirable while the VCS is worthless.

The only person who has brought up the Jaguar here is you, and after multiple times, it was perplexing given how many other systems are out there that have a bigger fanbase. Yeah, a "Jaguar Flashback" wouldn't sell, but again, that's also because Atari would have to license almost all of the games (the AvP license alone would probably make it a loss, unless they charged VCS prices for it) since they don't own most of them. The primary amusing thing to me in comparing the Jag to the VCS is that the Jaguar will have sold several orders of magnitude more than the VCS will.

 

So now the VCS gets to take the crown away as "Atari's biggest flop."

 

Quote

 They can't take on the Big-3.

Nope, but they're LARPing on to give it a try.

 

Quote

Some people here obviously wanted the product to be a return to greatness.  Sorry but that's simply not going to happen.

We can agree on that! Have you seen the YouTuber A Tosh? They're probably the worst - claiming that the VCS is superior to the PS5 and a bunch of other nonsense. 

 

Quote

They can't produce something like the Amico because they don't have the portfolio of IPs to make it compelling. 

There I don't agree. Amico doesn't own a ton of the IP that they've brought to the system, including the Atari games. While I don't think that Amico is perfect either, they've done a much better job at bringing developers to the table than Atari has. Had Atari not massively fumbled on the VCS, they could have launched it with a similar library. Instead they gave the world another way to play the Atari Vault and given a spotlight to a game about farts. Coincidence? Probably not.

Quote

So if you don't care, why bother staying active in the thread?  Why check all those sites?   When I don't care about something, I simply skip the threads because who has time to read all that?   If you're convinced it's going to flop, why not let it flop on its own without trying to convince people not to buy it?

Well for one, I didn't say "I don't care." If I had Jeff Bezos money, I'd buy Atari in a heartbeat and turn it into the "innovative leisure" company that it used to be. Obviously being on these forums at all shows I have some interest in Atari. I was responding to your multiple assertions that a wide audience was salivating at the chance to get their hands on the last retro emulation box they'd ever need. On one hand you go: "it's nothing more than a niche product," but then you turn around and assert "look at all this thread interest and eBay bids! It's hot!" Very few people outside of this forum are really giving it the time of day.

 

Otherwise most of my time spent here lately has been arguing with you. ;) Sure, there are much better things I should do with my time other than continuing to chase tails, but since I've professionally done product market research over the years, I find the VCS to be an amusing case study of the last laughable attempt of a brand that was once loved to be relevant again.  

Edited by Shaggy the Atarian
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So if you don't care, why bother staying active in the thread?  Why check all those sites?   When I don't care about something, I simply skip the threads because who has time to read all that?   If you're convinced it's going to flop, why not let it flop on its own without trying to convince people not to buy it?

Speaking for myself, I comment and follow the saga because I'm interested in the mess, and erratic behavior of certain backers.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, godslabrat said:

Then why is their messaging running completely counter to that?  This wasn't branded as a novelty PC (where it achieves some base-level success), it was branded as a game console and streaming box (where it fails at both).

When is marketing/messaging ever completely honest and transparent?   There's a reason I skip straight to the specs and ignore that fluff.   In the beginning they said it was going to be an open PC.  It was designed to play Minecraft.  I have not followed every messaging change since,  but for some background about why they might have changed.   A year or two back, Google was making a lot of noise about entering the games market with Stadia.   Suddenly the whole gaming industry including Sony and Microsoft was talking about their games streaming strategy as a countermeasure

 

.   Atari likely pivoted its messaging for this reason.  Something like VCS could be a good solution for that- so it would make sense to marketing people to position the product that way.

 

In the end, consumers have never been particularly hot for games streaming,  Stadia didn't exactly set the world on fire,  and PS5/XBsX are selling like hotcakes,  so gaming on real hardware is the cool thing again.

 

54 minutes ago, godslabrat said:

Truth be told, I'm betting if they put

you in charge of making this thing, I bet the end result would be more focused and practical.  I know I've had some ideas for how this COULD have gone, that would have resulted in it not being total clownshoes

If I was in charge, I could maybe make the people on this board want one,  but I'm not sure my messaging would have resulted in a more successful crowdfunding campaign because the people here aren't representative of the general public.  I know the people here hate the viral 21st century marketing tactics, but they work.  The VCS generated a lot of media buzz ahead of it's crowdfunding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not as much about the messaging but their track record. Atari SA is known for being a bunch of hucksters milikng the license in any way possible. VCS is just one of these ways, launched on the me-too wave of nostalgia driven retro-boxes. For that reason it was always known it's just a quick cash grab, not a serious operation, and  that was reflected in its shambolic development and dearth of any software or serious support now. Even though I'm not a great fan of Amico myself, that machine and its campaign is in stark contrast to VCS when it comes to design, dedication and some sort of plan for the future.

 

Of course, it did generate a lot of buzz because Atari is still a recognizable brand and nostalgia a powerful emotion. And that is another reason to condemn this lot, for squandering such an opportunity and preying on people's feelings. As I said from the beginning, the idea itself (a branded, custom mini-PC with reasonable capabilities and open system) is not bad at all. But it takes a lot of work and expertise to maintain an ecosystem around such device (building it is the easiest part) and it's not something Chesnais & Co are interested in. It's much easier to pull some crypto stunt or open a casino in Africa.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zzip said:

When is marketing/messaging ever completely honest and transparent?   There's a reason I skip straight to the specs and ignore that fluff.   In the beginning they said it was going to be an open PC. 

Negative.  L'Atari did not get specific about what the device would exactly be until very late in the process.  A huge amount of the buzz they did generate centered around the complete lack of definition of the project.  Again, even Atari themselves didn't know.  

 

9 minutes ago, zzip said:

In the end, consumers have never been particularly hot for games streaming,  Stadia didn't exactly set the world on fire,  and PS5/XBsX are selling like hotcakes,  so gaming on real hardware is the cool thing again.

Stadia is a red herring.  Streaming was never going to take the gaming world by storm, and anyone who could look at a map and do basic calculations about bandwidth could tell you that.  It's irrelevant to the conversation.

 

11 minutes ago, zzip said:

If I was in charge, I could maybe make the people on this board want one,  but I'm not sure my messaging would have resulted in a more successful crowdfunding campaign because the people here aren't representative of the general public.  I know the people here hate the viral 21st century marketing tactics, but they work.  The VCS generated a lot of media buzz ahead of it's crowdfunding.

 

I'm going to take a bit of a leap (not much of one) and suggest that, beyond the logo, the single most compelling thing about the VCS was always its case design, and it's for a combination of those two things that most people made their crowdfunding pledges.  Those are also the two things that require the least amount of technology, so really, they could have been included in any device.  If the logo and case were the same regardless, I doubt I could have done *worse*.

 

Personally, I say the first change that needed to be made was the price.  That $400 needs to take a flying leap.  $100-$200 was the range here.  And Atari really should have embraced the product that actually sold well-- the flashbacks.  People like them well enough to keep buying them, even if there seems to be a slowdown as of late.   Ideally, they should have taken a FB, given it a beefier architecture, something that could have supported Netflix, Hulu, and Disney+, and that likely wouldn't cost a whole lot more than what an existing FB cost.  If you could add an app store for semi-modern games, you'd have something that would not only appeal to the people in this forum, but maybe a modest number of people on the street as well.

 

Remember, Atari got less than 11,000 people to support the VCS.  Outdoing that is not really a high bar to set.  I think it's safe to say that, if you could sell the same logo and the same case, but with filling that actually provides real value to people, at half the price, there's no way you don't sell more.  A lot more.  

 

You and I can disagree on the value of the "Open" aspect all day long, as well as how much the world at large is asking for a PC in an Atari shell.  There's room for discussion there.  But I think it's clear that Atari had the chance to provide more value for a lower price, and had they done that, the product would have been more popular.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that the switch is both a handheld and a console it's far from being nintendo's second best selling system.  Doesn't mean it's not successful and it doesn't matter what the fans or critics think, it's a matter of meeting Nintendo's expectations.  And no closed system with commercial collections can be the ultimate retro system because, for one, they can never have all the titles people are looking for due to licensing.  That can only happen with an open system.  

 

Atari SA used to be a software developer and publisher; never hardware.  They went bankrupt a few years ago; shut it all down and liquidated all IP assets.  Nobody bought the atari brand at liquidation but it still has value for licensing, so Atari SA didn't die.  What do you think their expectations were for the atari vcs?  Doesn't matter what the fans or critics think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, mr_me said:

What do you think their expectations were for the atari vcs?  Doesn't matter what the fans or critics think.

What the fans and critics think means a lot.  They're the ones with the money.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

We can agree on that! Have you seen the YouTuber A Tosh? They're probably the worst - claiming that the VCS is superior to the PS5 and a bunch of other nonsense.

No I haven't seen that channel, but I have known people like that BITD who even in the days of Falcon and Jaguar thought they were the most innovative and special computers and consoles ever made, and Microsoft ripped off GEM to make Windows 95.  😏   I should check out the channel, but I'm a little afraid to..

 

1 hour ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

There I don't agree. Amico doesn't own a ton of the IP that they've brought to the system, including the Atari games. While I don't think that Amico is perfect either, they've done a much better job at bringing developers to the table than Atari has. Had Atari not massively fumbled on the VCS, they could have launched it with a similar library. Instead they gave the world another way to play the Atari Vault and given a spotlight to a game about farts. Coincidence? Probably not.

That kind of approach has its fans, but signing up developers and producing compelling games is two different things.   Most "modern remakes" are a let down in my experience.   Now maybe my skepticism is misplaced they will produce some compelling games that make that console worth owning, but we won't know that until after release.  If Atari had taken that approach, I wouldn't have much interest either.

 

1 hour ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

Well for one, I didn't say "I don't care." If I had Jeff Bezos money, I'd buy Atari in a heartbeat and turn it into the "innovative leisure" company that it used to be. Obviously being on these forums at all shows I have some interest in Atari.

I too would love if someone with Bezos money made a project to revive Atari to its glory days, but I just don't see that happening.

 

Atari SA is a victim of the Atari legacy.  They are in a situation where the company brand is worth more than the portfolio of IPs they own.  That explains why they focus so much on licensing the name.  It's the rational thing to do in that situation.  I know many on the board hate that,  but let's remember how they got into that situation...   Back in the 90s, Atari merged with JTS, a disk drive company that had nothing to do with games.   They in turn sold the Atari brand to Hasbro, making it an IP licensing company without R&D to speak of.   Infogrames did make an attempt to revive the brand last decade as a relevant publisher of new IPs and classics,  but ultimately failed and went bankrupt.   I know a lot of people want to blame Atari SA for that situation,  but I'm more inclined to blame the Tramiels, and Kassar to some extent.

 

1 hour ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

I was responding to your multiple assertions that a wide audience was salivating at the chance to get their hands on the last retro emulation box they'd ever need. On one hand you go: "it's nothing more than a niche product," but then you turn around and assert "look at all this thread interest and eBay bids! It's hot!" Very few people outside of this forum are really giving it the time of day.

It is a niche product.  I'm only responding to the people who claim that "nobody wants one" or "everybody who wanted one preordered" with posts about ebay sales.  I realize it sells well on ebay because it hasn't been produced in quantity (yet).   Maybe Atari goes crazy and produces so many units that the price crashes like my $50 Jaguar (oops mentioned Jaguar again 😜)  IDK.   I think they know how many they can realistically sell though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only regret so far is that I wish in hindsight I'd purchased a second Classic controller, and picked up the modern controller. I totally didn't need the modern as I could literally fill a closet full of game controllers and intend to probably just use a PS4 dualshock for the VCS, but I am curious about it since the Classic Controller turned out so incredibly well. 

 

Seriously, though, the Classic Controller rocks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, godslabrat said:

What the fans and critics think means a lot.  They're the ones with the money.

Sure but I'm talking about sales expectations.  As far as what people think of the product, thousands of people spoke with their wallets while I only see a handful of people here complaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, godslabrat said:

Stadia is a red herring.  Streaming was never going to take the gaming world by storm, and anyone who could look at a map and do basic calculations about bandwidth could tell you that.  It's irrelevant to the conversation.

You know that, and I know that, but that didn't stop Sony and MS from making a big deal about their cloud streaming strategies, but marketing goes where the buzz is and tries to send a message that "we can do that too".   Sony in particular should have known better after spending so much purchasing Gaikai the first time game streaming became a hot topic, rebrand it as Playstation Now, only to have it flounder for years with consumer disinterest.   But when Stadia showed up, the message was going around that "this time it will be different!"  And everybody's marketing crew felt the need to jump on the "streaming" train, even though the techies knew better.

 

1 hour ago, godslabrat said:

I'm going to take a bit of a leap (not much of one) and suggest that, beyond the logo, the single most compelling thing about the VCS was always its case design, and it's for a combination of those two things that most people made their crowdfunding pledges.  Those are also the two things that require the least amount of technology, so really, they could have been included in any device.  If the logo and case were the same regardless, I doubt I could have done *worse*.

Don't discount the power of that.   Apple's entire comeback in the 2000s and beyond was built off sleek design and technology that others were doing better.   Not saying Atari is going to pull an Apple with this, but design is as important to people as the tech inside.

 

1 hour ago, godslabrat said:

Personally, I say the first change that needed to be made was the price.  That $400 needs to take a flying leap.  $100-$200 was the range here.  And Atari really should have embraced the product that actually sold well-- the flashbacks.  People like them well enough to keep buying them, even if there seems to be a slowdown as of late. 

Atari is at the mercy of AMD here.   Sony and Microsoft get big volume discounts from AMD because they will sell millions of units.  When your production run is in the tens of thousands you aren't going to get those kinds of discounts, and you aren't going to be able to compete on features and price.   It's one of many reasons Atari can't possibly take on the big-3.  As for Flashbacks,  they will hit saturation at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree on price. $400 is very bad. $299 with an included Classic Controller is both good and good value overall IMO. They NEED to hit that. Bring it in at the same price as the Switch.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mr_me said:

Sure but I'm talking about sales expectations.  As far as what people think of the product, thousands of people spoke with their wallets while I only see a handful of people here complaining.

"Thousands".  Lol.  What they sold was insignificant.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zzip said:

That kind of approach has its fans, but signing up developers and producing compelling games is two different things.   Most "modern remakes" are a let down in my experience.   Now maybe my skepticism is misplaced they will produce some compelling games that make that console worth owning, but we won't know that until after release.  If Atari had taken that approach, I wouldn't have much interest either.

 

I too would love if someone with Bezos money made a project to revive Atari to its glory days, but I just don't see that happening.

 

 

If someone very creative took the reigns on an Atari IP, it could be done. That's why I keep mentioning Nintendo - no one has done as good a job on renewing old ideas and keeping franchises alive as they have (if you disagree because you don't like the games, that's fine but sales numbers don't lie). Swordquest or Adventure could easily become something like Atari's Zelda or even Assassin's Creed (more Swordquest if you use the comic book story there) with their own twists; Yars Revenge could be expanded on a bit, especially if you added Metroid exploration elements to the world with the Qutile and other enemies as bosses; heck, you could even make Video Chess interesting by using Atari characters then throwing in Battle Chess elements to it or do an Atari version of Smash Bros with a Combat-style game. I haven't played it but was surprised that they managed to do something different with Pong on Pong Quest. But it is easier to screw up on that stuff, for sure - Atari's multiple failed reboots of Haunted House; the 2013 reboot of Star Raiders and the recent Night Driver are testaments to that.

 

That's also just a small part of it though, you need a great original IP to drive hardware sales on something like this - which is far more difficult and expensive to do. Atari just seems interested in the quickest cash grabs possible, so I don't expect them to ever wake up one day and suddenly get it right. 

 

Yeah, glory days Atari isn't coming back, not under these guys. That A. Tosh YouTuber and certain people on the VCS FB pages think otherwise though

Edited by Shaggy the Atarian
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, godslabrat said:

"Thousands".  Lol.  What they sold was insignificant.

Insignificant? perhaps.  Atari SA knew what to expect through the igg campaign.  They could have cancelled and returned everyone's money.  They chose to go ahead with it knowing the numbers.  If that's not good enough for some of the people here, that's your problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mr_me said:

Insignificant? perhaps.  Atari SA knew what to expect through the igg campaign.  They could have cancelled and returned everyone's money.  They chose to go ahead with it knowing the numbers.  If that's not good enough for some of the people here, that's your problem.

I don't even know what you mean by that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...