Atari VCS is fake, Tempest 4000 developers call out Atari for lying about their game running on the system

[Guest]

On 6/10/2018 at 5:03 AM, Jito463 said:

Well, this does not bode well for Atari.  I foresee this crashing & burning faster than the Hindenburg.

I thought it did 20 years ago 

[dalekphalm]

49 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

I thought it did 20 years ago 

To be fair, Modern Atari has little to do with the original company. IIRC some company bought the licenses/IP/logos needed to call a new company Atari.

[Okjoek]

I like what some of these companies are doing trying to return consoles to the offline 1-4 players era, but that's no excuse for what Atari is apparently doing.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

To be fair, Modern Atari has little to do with the original company. IIRC some company bought the licenses/IP/logos needed to call a new company Atari.

First line on Atari's Wikipedia entry:

Quote

Atari is a corporate and brand name owned by several entities since its inception in 1972... 

 

[dalekphalm]

9 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

First line on Atari's Wikipedia entry:

 

As stated in that same Wiki entry, the licensing and IP of Atari is a mess. At one point, the parent company created a new sub-company named Atari Inc and licensed the IP and logo from the other sub-company, Atari Interactive (which, confusingly, seems to also be the name of the other Atari company, which was the electronics division of the original Atari, after the '84 crash split).

 

I think to get the full picture you'd have to devote an hour or two deep diving into the various wiki articles and reading the history of the various companies, sub-companies, divisions, buyouts, etc.

[Derangel]

6 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

As stated in that same Wiki entry, the licensing and IP of Atari is a mess. At one point, the parent company created a new sub-company named Atari Inc and licensed the IP and logo from the other sub-company, Atari Interactive (which, confusingly, seems to also be the name of the other Atari company, which was the electronics division of the original Atari, after the '84 crash split).

 

I think to get the full picture you'd have to devote an hour or two deep diving into the various wiki articles and reading the history of the various companies, sub-companies, divisions, buyouts, etc.

Yes and no. The history is a freaking mess, but the main Atari name is still part of the company formerly called Infogrames. Atari Inc, Atari Interactive, and Atari Game Partners all exist as child companies of Atari SA. During a bought of bankruptcy they sold off some IPs in order to make some cash and crawl out of the hole they created for themselves. The Atari SA Wiki page is a bit easier to follow as it does list things Infogrames/Atari has sold over the years. A lot of the weirdness with Atari Inc and Atari Interactive comes from how the company used to be organized.

 

A lot of this is from the Wiki, but some is also from memory so it might be a bit fuzzy:

 

In 2001 Infogrames SA purchased Hasbo Interactive from Hasbro. They renamed his company Infogrames Interactive. Hasbro had purchased Atari Interactive, the PC publishing arm of the original Atari, some years prior. This company handled a lot of development and publishing duties for Infogrames IPs.

 

At this time, Infogrames had a controlling stake in the developer/publisher formerly known as GT Interactive. Infogrames had renamed this company to Infogrames Inc. Infogrames Inc primarily acts as a publishing house for 3rd party developed titles.

 

A couple years after buying Hasbro Interactive, Infogrames reorganized itself and started renaming things. The parent, Infogrames SA, became Atari SA. Infogrames Interactive became Atari Interactive once again. Infogrames Inc became Atari Inc.

 

Infogrames still did not fully own Atari Inc, so they had to license IPs, logos, etc to them for use. Several years later they finally decided to fully purchase Atari Inc, removing the need for those licenses. Before that, Atari Inc operated kind of independently from it's not-quite-owner. Atari Inc are the ones the published the Neverwinter Nights games (and fucked over Obsidian) as well as the first Witcher (and fucked over CDP). Prior to BandaiNamco, Atari Inc were also the ones that published most of the licensed anime titles in the west.

[Space Reptile]

so what about that custom hw contract w/ amd? 

[Stefan Payne]

On 9.6.2018 at 9:09 PM, GoodBytes said:

Meh not surprised. I honestly expected quick ports of the games, and another OUYA. Despite the specs and OS, I expect, like the OUYA, and hence the comparison I am mentioning, where the console is not well designed, where the software isn't great and the controller, the main thing for the console, to be really bad (OUYA faced with sticky button issues even after being "fixed" still has issues sticking and not  a good "click" sound, and featured cheap analogue sticks system, low-end parts used basically. In addition, the controller was not not comfortable to hold for many.

Agreeed

 

Especially since they only used 2600 games, not 5200, not 7800, not Lynx, not Jaguar, not Home Computer, no nothing. Only the worst, oldest (well, not quite) shit they had that nobody really wants to play. 

Those olden games were quite simple and short. To strech the playtime they had to make them difficult.

 

 

So I really don't understand the hype of those things.

And that's someone saying who has seen VCS2600 games live and in color and also played on one of those Pong Machines. 

 

I really don't understand the hype over those old, simple games...

 

IMO the market really started with the NES, Master System and C64 and it really started to shine when Amiga and SNES/Mega Drive came out.