Atari Box?

Yeah, it's the complete lack of a prototype that got me too. It makes me wonder if the RetroVGS ever had even a functional, casing free prototype.

 

As I recall (which admittedly might be wrong) I spent over $300 thought it was nearly $400 for the lowest priced unit... the black one. That could be wrong though. But they had some selling much higher like $600 or more per console. It does seem like it was supposed to be less than $300 but came out more and is another thing that ticked people off.

I do agree though for what it was I didn't mind spending the money on it. Ended up getting it all back when it was canceled anyway so I figured had nothing to lose.

EDIT: I searched my email and it was $339. So yeah cheaper than I had remembered but it was nearly 2 years ago and again that was the lowest priced option to actually get a console.

I think Atari should target $199 or less to move a decent number of these. If they do a $299 plus s&h for one of them and $399 + s & h for the other style they will likely reach only a small segment of the market. There were a lot of people disappointed at the price of the RetroVGS who said they would order (back) it if it was $100 cheaper.

 

If they want to shift product on this thing, they need to price it low, and sell it for only slightly above cost. Depending on the internals, this may be feasible. What they are proposing from those renders is a relatively simple device with no moving parts and no major external input source. (such as a cartridge slot) All of the basics that are going into it are the kind of things you see all the time from systems-on-a-chip. (standard SD card slot, USB ports, HDMI, possibly a CAT 5 network port, nothing out of the ordinary) They don't even seem interested in having proprietary controller ports.

With all that, they should be able to sell such a device for relatively cheap per unit. $100 would not be unreasonable if the specs are kept within a realistic range. But the circuit board is more important than the exterior case. They need a working prototype pronto, and they need to be shopping it around to software developers. Software support will be far more important than the physical device.

 

The problem is that without some manner of unique hook, it will be "just another box." The market has shown that they aren't really interested in "just another box." It's become difficult for the major console pushers to get people to buy and keep just one video game system. Many console consumers just want one system, and aren't interested in acquiring multiple systems in order to gain access to all the games. A lot less people are buying an XBone and a PS4, more often they just get one and stick with it. Most of them won't shift over to being multi-platform until the price on the individual units go low enough. And the strategy that these console manufacturers are taking is specifically designed to keep the price on their systems relatively high. (new bundles with games and larger hard drives, and new models like the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X)

With minimalist options like the Fire TV, smart-TVs, and various media devices littering the market, there is much less of an argument in favor of a small-scale console. In order to persuade consumers, it needs to offer them something more that they would want. And that's the big question mark. Right now we aren't really seeing that hook. Nostalgia can serve as that hook, but it isn't going to be persuasive enough to draw a wider audience. There just isn't enough nostalgia for the Atari brand. Exclusive games is the other usual hook, but Atari hasn't been a solid software developer for a long time, and even in their heyday they weren't all that great. And Atari is already cannibalizing their own potential market by licensing Atari games and retro-boxes that already serve that nostalgia market.

This is why so many people are dubious.

 

It looks like

• USB (3 - 4, one might be DP)
• HDMI (1)
• SD?? (1)
• CAT5 (1)
• DC (1)

Power input looks too lightweight to be running anything significant. It looks like it has an SD slot - but why? I started wondering if it might be a mobile battery powered thing maybe for vr stuff, but with no vents i doubt it would have the horsepower.

Four lights on the front are usually controller indicators, and they match the 4 usb's on back and probably support the idea that there is no DP slot.

It kinda just seems like a puny game console and that really doesn't make much sense right now, it doesn't really fill any interests of consumers today.

 

Modern take on "cartridges", probably. SD cards are dirt cheap, and small. You could put a spinner rack in GameStop full of games on mini carts.

 

True, but it's on the rear, that seems like a weird place for 'cartridge' IO.

 

It seems odd to put the controller ports back there too.

 

Huh, good point. I wonder if it's more of a cloud media device or something.

Whole thing seems weird. Hard to even speculate.

 

Dude, can you imagine Missile Command in 4K?

 

Definitely. My suspicion is that there isn't much of plan (or a well thought out one). The folks running Atari today are no relation to those who made Atari what it was. They are doing casino and other random crap. I suspect that they are just your run of the mill business folks who bought the company/trademark and are trying to spin the name into money without actually having a clue. In fact... a quick look at the key players in the company show that they are mostly all money folks, the ceo was a financial lawyer before heading the current incarnation of "Atari". Not a lot of cred to expect any real innovation. It also appears that it is(or was) going to be originally crowdfunded. yea...

 

Sure, it's possible. I mean, SD cards just store data, and "encryption" is just a thing you do to data to make sure it can only be understood by the intended recipient. If they did that there'd be nothing unusual going on there.

I'm pretty sure it's exactly how DVDs and Blurays work. The data on them is (optionally) encrypted, and the decryption keys are a closely guarded trade secret only shared with people who purchase licenses.

 

The SD acronym stands for "Secure Digital". One of the main features of the SD standard is a form of DRM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Protection_for_Recordable_Media

For that matter SD cards are not restricted to data. You can have custom circuitry in there to bring additional features to a device that may not already have them. Just as an example you can buy WiFi SD cards.

https://www.amazon.com/Memory-Class-New-Generation-Share/dp/B00BN2AJOQ/

Of course it goes without saying that at some point the data will need to be decrypted. Zelda Breath of the Wild was downloadable on the Internet almost immediately after release despite using a custom cartridge. Nintendo is known for having encryption chips in their cartridges so it was likely protected too.

Yes, but you might be overestimating the performance necessary for a game. Nintendo's game cartridges for the Nintendo Switch, for example, are actually slower than budget SD cards. For that matter the Switch's internal storage is only slightly faster than the same budget SD cards.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...rosd-cards-for-switch-loading-time-comparison
https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Class-UHS-I-Memory-SDSDUNC-016G-GN6IN/dp/B0143RTB1E/

 

It's not going to be anything fancy, even if they do use sd cards as "carts". It'll all be off the shelf tech, including the operating system/software and hardware. Custom (unique) hardware is large/hardware company type thing (like.. ugh... sony likes to do). That kind of stuff is simply way beyond their resources, they are a very small software company. It's a sure bet whatever they do will largely focused on ip/brand and/or business model.

 

Reminds me of this and this.

 

Oh wow I just remembered how full of experimental consoles the 2000s were. Wasn't there even something that promised full serverside rendering?

 

Do you mean OnLive? That was available for a while, it's owned by Sony now I think. We had one at work when it came out. Honestly, it wasn't bad, or at least way better than I would have expected.

 

I meant exactly that! I didn't expect it to take off.
But I also couldn't get it anyway becaus of my sub-optimal internet speed (1Mbps).
Updating Unity is FUN. Trust me!

 

Well it sort of did take off, it turned into Playstation Now.
It's a bit expensive for my liking, but it does actually work well (used it for a month or so when it started up, it has improved on the OnLive implementation a lot), and means you can play (some) Playstation exclusives on the PC, which is pretty great.

 

Vaporware from a company called Phantom. Who would have thought?

 

One example out of many which makes it the exception rather than the rule. Additionally, unlike Atari which is barely scraping by at this point, Sony had significant value and revenue back then. Here is the annual report for the year the PlayStation was released.

https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/library/ar/8ido18000005flqz-att/1994-E.pdf

I'll upload a picture of the relevant information for people who don't want to bother reading the PDF.

 

I had the 520 ST, I'm devestated I sold it at a car boot sale to make a quick buck as a kid



[Edit: correcting my naming mistake]

 

I meant this, so the 520ST

 

I'm pretty sure the demographic for that hat is actually haters.

 

Their logo is in Blade Runner 2049 because it's a throwback to the first movie. You know, the movie that came out in 1982? It doesn't mean they're making a huge comeback or anything, it just means they're doing what Atari has primarily done for the last couple decades: license out properties and iconography.

 

Granted, it is good product-placement. But that is still all it is. Promotion to improve the visibility of the Atari brand. Strengthening their brand is a good strategy. But it is only going to marginally improve the chances for a video game hardware product. Everyone here has ample reason to be skeptical of a new Atari console, no matter how humble its plans. Atari left the video game hardware business for a good reason, they couldn't cope with the competition flooding in on them. And the competition they are facing today is several times larger, and several times better prepared.

 

Holy crap, where to start with this one.

No, if Atari did something that made any sense at all or showed an actual promise of a decent product, I'd be fine with that. Instead, I'm looking at everything they've done since Infogrames bought the name in 2008, which has been serviceable at best and garbage the rest of the time.

Stop trying to drag politics into this, you know it's against the forum rules.

You don't actually know that. There are loads of situations where product placement isn't actually paid, or in some cases is even paid in reverse. It's very likely Atari was approached by the Blade Runner 2039 production house to have this in there as a throwback to the first movie.

And here's the thing, even if they did pay for the promotion, that doesn't mean much. As I've pointed out repeatedly, the Atari brand carries no clout. At best it's "oh hey, yeah, them" and at worst it's "weren't they partly responsible for the near death of videogame production in the west?"

 

This is very true. The presence in the film does not necessarily represent some big marketing spend. It's entirely possible that no money changed hands, or that the film studio paid Atari for the right. Product placement is sometimes used for its aesthetics, and not solely for commercial promotion. The Atari logo is still recognizable. It's always been a good logo. But Atari's reputation in the video games industry has been quite poor for quite a long time. Even in their own day they were often associated with some fairly negative industry trends. The formation of 3rd-party publishers like Activision and EA was the direct result of disgruntled Atari employees leaving the company and directly competing against their former employer.

Nostalgia from some fairly old fans is the only thing Atari can bank on at this point. No one younger than 30 is going to have any real memory or appreciation of Atari as a video game publisher/developer/platform. There is a potential market for those over 30, but even that is risky, given the number of options available. (which is why I think they should definitely keep their Atari Box in the impulse-buy pricing window)

 

The same way no-one younger enjoys retro music or fashion? please.

 

Honestly, yeah. I'm pretty sure the majority of fans of Atari are fans of their older work across various age groups, largely because that's how Atari kinda sells themselves. They're big on publishing (typically third party developed) remakes, remasters, and sequels to their old major properties.

 

I happen to know firsthand of a 10 year old big into it, and all his mates are too. Why? it's very cool for them. Do you know actual kids because I'm not making stuff up, I'm actually seeing a clued in generation of kids acutely aware of all things electrical.

Atari is huge in public consciousness. Most Americans actually know clearly what Atari is. It's a much... much bigger brand than Unity for example.

Even if not as valuable.

 

Not really. Maybe if you're deep into gaming culture, but there are probably more people who still refer to "the Nintendo" than there are people who would remember was Atari was (much less what Atari is today).

 

First and last warning: enough with the name calling. Calling people people haters is not civil or intelligent discourse. If you can't play nice, you won't be allowed to keep playing.

 

The Atari logo will also be seen in Ready Player One, as well as be most likely heavily referenced in it. The book, conceptually, was inspired by Adventure.

 

Oddly, a lot of people associate Atari with space invaders and PAC man, neither of which they own.

 

Yes, Atari in general, and Adventure in particular, are a very large influence in that novel. (just read it recently) However, that novel is very much focused on late 70s and 80s pop-culture. It is, in many ways, the primary focus of the entire book. Atari nostalgia makes a lot of sense in that context.

However, the vast majority of gamers today didn't grow up during that time period. I myself was a child of the 80s, not the 70s. By the time I was old enough to be aware of video games, the crash of '82 had already happened, and Atari was considered dead. I grew up with Nintendo as my primary frame of reference for console video games, and only knew about Atari through friends who had a 2600. (very few of them)

I picked up a 2600 for my personal collection, and it does not hold up well. While there are some decent games for it, the titles in general are way, WAY more limited than the systems that came after it. Without that nostalgic lens, it is not easy to just sit down and play a 2600. If you want to resurrect Atari as more than just a logo and brand, you need more than just ports of their retro titles. And a new Atari console would have to be more than just a place to play their old games.

 

Agreed. For me the 2600 was my second console growing up. I loved it. And once in a blue moon, some friends and I will play a little Combat for nostalgia. Loved Atari growing up, and have fond memories. And in terms of game development, Atari played a big role in defining the culture of professional game development (good and bad). That Atari is long gone.

Indeed, and not just for reasons of nostalgia. Retro Atari games are available on every platform under the sun already. If you want to play classic Centipede or Missile Command today, you just need a computer or any console or even a phone. They have released all the classics already on every platform. (not even counting the all in box thingys). It'll be interesting to see what they try to pull off.

 

Financial people are always serious about making more money. Whether they have the necessary clout to actually pull it off is another matter. They need exclusive titles. A company with a history of over a decade of failures is not likely to attract too many exclusives because at the end of the day the game makers want to make money too.

It wouldn't surprise me if a large part of the reason for it were the presence of the demoscene which is primarily focused around Europe. According to Wikipedia there are about fifty parties per year in Europe but only two per year in the US which is the second highest in activity for the demoscene.

 

You make a really good point with this. That movie is expected to be huge.

The guy that owns Atari now does not have deep pockets to invest in risky products. He bought the Atari name and remaining IP because he had a plan to immediately capitalize on them through social casino games.

Lots of people who are too young to have played the 2600 games will see them in the film and this new Atari console must be an attempt to further capitalize on the name in that regard.

Ironically, in the book, the characters play classic games through emulators (on Notebook PCs and in VR), not console hardware.

 

In parts of Europe such as the UK the story is a bit different because the Atari ST & STE 16 bit home computers did quite well for a number of years (at the same time as the Commodore Amiga) in the late 80's and very early 90's, especially for games. So the Jack Tramiel version of Atari is fondly remembered by some here, even if Jack & his business practices did not earn him many fans in the press and industry.

 

The press and industry opinion don't matter, and never will matter. They're not the guys paying for products. Buyers matter. Insider squabbles? save it, nobody is interested in drama unless they want to work with drama and not real things that make money.

IMHO and in this context ofc

I wonder how many companies we buy products from today would exist if buyers really cared about how they became successful?

 

Don't think you understood what I said, but OK

Press and industry opinion != advertising or exposure. I'm talking about the messy guts behind the scenes.

The context in this thread is Atari and public perception. The conversation, if you followed it, was about why people should care about Atari. Arguments were put forward that the company history was bad, and had insider issues. They had run ins with the press. All things that I argue... do not matter to the public-facing brand.

Public only see the good side, the fun side, the commercial side.

Did I make myself clearer?

 

I agree in some sense but not in others. Loads of people are interested in drama and squabbles and insider info, but where I would agree is that there can be a complete disconnect between this and their actual purchasing choices.

I only brought up this sort of thing because its sorta hard to mention the era of Atari I referenced without mentioning Jack, and also because of the state of the UK home computer magazine business during much of the 1980's. A lot of the magazines were written with a lot of focus on humour, pop culture, wanna-be NME (or later uk lads mags) or Viz writers. They loved to indulge in all sorts of things that were often based on industry news and platform sectarianism - they loved to whip up love for whatever computer that particular magazine focussed on, and poke fun at the machines rivals. This was done for many reasons but certainly did take account of one aspect of buyers/owners psychology, especially back then - they knew they were preaching to the converted, and that the bulk of their readers had committed to owning that particular computer, and apps, games and accessories that were only compatible with it, for as long as that generation of computers lasted. And as a result of that there was at least some appetite for consumers to continually have their choice of platform reconfirmed as being right, which includes reading people in magazines expressing love for that computer and criticising or mocking the competition. The classic examples of this from my childhood in the UK were the ZX Spectrum vs the Commodore 64 and then in the next era, the Atari ST vs the Commodore Amiga.

 

All shared opinions can be exposure. But not all shared opinions are necessarily advertising. Advertising actively attempts to promote a given product in a certain light, usually a positive light. It is very focused, pre-meditated exposure. Casual conversations between individuals aren't necessarily advertising, even if they are discussing a particular product. They can be, but they aren't by default. Assuming that all popular culture is in one form or another advertising is a dangerous mindset to adopt, and the kind of thing people get taught in marketing classes. It's neither true nor healthy to look at the world in this light. Assuming that everything is advertising also assumes an agenda behind everything that you are exposed to. That's called paranoia.

The industry perception of Atari is not particularly favorable. And while some have pointed out that industry perceptions are not the same as consumers perceptions, it is a mistake to dismiss the viewpoint of video game companies. Whatever this Atari Box ends up being, it is becoming increasingly clear that at some point it is intended to run software. I seriously doubt that Atari intends to develop all the software for the Atari Box themselves. To my knowledge, they don't have an abundance of in-house developers. They may have some, I'm not sure. But if they had been staffing up for a major development push, we would have heard about it before now. So they likely aren't planning on producing all of the games for this device on their lonesome.

Who does that leave us with? Other video game developers, naturally. So, if the Atari Box is going to be at least partially dependent on third-party development, it is going to need some level of industry support. Given that most of present-day Atari has little to nothing to do with the Atari of yore, their past history and policies aren't that big of a deal. While the failure of the Jaguar has tainted the Atari legacy, modern developers know enough not to take that too seriously in regards to this new box. No, current developers are going to be skeptical because of all the reasons that we've been voicing in this thread. Flooded markets, rampant competition, lack of unique selling points, numerous inexpensive alternatives (quite a few of which are being officially licensed by the same company), the list goes on and on.

Even with all this, there would likely still be some developers who are interested. More platforms frequently means more potential revenue. The big issue is the install base, and whether or not Atari can move enough of these things, and sell enough software on them. If this thing can shift a few million units in its first year, and demonstrate a healthy digital storefront, the developers will show up no matter what. If there is a profit to be made, you better believe they'll show up. But right now, all of that is just idle speculation. For the moment, there is very little reason for anyone to be particularly excited about this thing.

 

Got a new email and it's a trip and a half.

So they're going to crowdfund and waffle on about community, but it's clear that the crowdfunding thing is just another attempt at exposure as they've got a planned 6 month turnaround from campaign to actual launch, which is ridiculous. This entire thing is ridiculous.

 

Wow.

Very early on, I think it was in one of thier annual reports, the initially said they were going to do it via crowdfunding. Then they dropped all mention of that since the initial announcement. Now they are going back to it?

Yea... pretty safe to say at this point it ain't gonna happen.

 

Maybe they're hoping their new handheld will fund the project...

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/atari-2600-is-returning-as-a-handheld-console.html