AussieBear
Guest
the art of squirt.
The real Atari company is Nolan Bushnell and Allan Alcorn.
No Nolan Bushnell and Allan Alcorn, no fucks should be given. It's just naming rights sold through a series of holding firms and divisions licensed to used the name for certain publishing. Good odds this is going to be a shit product that the company knows would NOT sell without having some kind of recognizable name to attract sales.
Anyone here can build some kind of throwback Atari, and if done right, would be equally as authentic. Kind of like buying tickets to see Elvis Presley, but you failed to read the fine print and it's just 90 minutes of John Stamos singing all the hits.
People give Steve Jobs all this credit for innovations. But he didn't innovate shit. He saw how Bushnell did it and basically cloned his methods. He was a poser and Bushnell is the real genius that innovated the fake and bake tech method that pushed style over substance. That's how brilliant Bushnell was, and they want to claim the company is "back"? Yeah, lulz. My ass it is.
well as long as its not a emulator box i may look at it.. they may be successful if they beat xb and ps 4 to that full pc rig transition.. the xb1x is basically a low clock 8 core rig with a 1070 riight... now if the atari box came with win 10 or some other consumer grade os, , and gaming keyboard/mouse... id think about it at 500 dollars..
im just wondering who they are partnered with...
My point is that Bushnell SHOULD be remembered. IDGAF about who created/built a ton of brands, but if I had to make a list of influential persons that people forgot, then I would put Bushnell and Alcorn #1a #1b. Gary Kildall #3(more important than Bill Gates, but people know Gate's name.) More important and influential than Jobs and Woz, because Jobs emulated Bushnell and Woz was in Alcorns role. No Bushnell, no Apple. No Kildall, then we would be 5 years behind and tech would look completely different today with no Microsoft. Remembering a brand before the person IMO is just the wrong way to do it anyways, then a person is susceptible to a lot of shenanigans with lowering product quality.
I don't know what Nintendo has anything to do with this, but for whatever reason I feel like there are some myths here.
There was a two year period where Nintendo told congress they wouldn't allow publishing of games like Mortal Kombat without meeting a certain requirement that got Congress off their back. It's the same how when people talk about fast food being unhealthy, they attack McDonalds for everything, despite worse offenders that manage to stay out of the spotlight. Nintendo was the main target and had a different role than Sega, who had little to lose at the time. This image stuck with Nintendo for some time, but if you look at the library, there are tons of M rated games that come out on Nintendo consoles since that pressure from congress dropped. So this is now a myth or fanboy argument to continue referring them to the kid-friendly system. The ESRB has basically become the standard for determining what is kid-safe now.
Also, the quality of the systems are fantastic, and have been the most reliable hardware wise. Not the most powerful, not the most versatile from a software perspective. Although with the Switch, being a handheld hybrid, it is the most powerful of its kind. The least reliable aspects of a Nintendo system today have been the thumbsticks, and aside from the N64 which was the worst, they haven't been far off other analog sticks.
Also, Nintendo is always in the game of the year class for first party software. That, more than anything else is what makes people buy Nintendo hardware. People KNOW who Miyamoto is, they want Miyamoto created and blessed games. He's one of the few producers and creators of games that don't just release yet-another-FPS or PC-game-for-console, which is enough to sell consoles.
I know this makes me seem like a Nintendo fanboy in a world where even stating basic facts puts a person on Team (insert shorthand name here). I have all the systems. I have every major system that came out in my collection and many obscure ones just from repairing electronics for however many decades. Heck, I even have a Pippin and CD32 :lol:. PC is my favorite by far and away, and I even have PCs that run old games that don't run correctly on modern hardware using anything(DOSbox anybuild*, VMs, Wine anybuild*, Windows compatibility layer, graphic/sound accelerator wrappers). So yeah, not a fanboy, I just understand why people are loyal to certain brands that do things differently.
There are certain segments of the market and strategies to go after and stay loyal to the people you know WILL buy your hardware. It's silly to screw over a loyal fanbase by doing something different, because even if people want higher performance parts, they don't want to be disappointed by other aspects. Like an SUV owner complaining that a touring car has small trunk space. Well duh.
<3 <3 <3
Why do people waste $$ on buying re-release of the original systems? Especially if you still own it or else you can go to most second hand places and buy it for alot cheaper. Just saying.
Why do people waste $$ on buying re-release of the original systems? Especially if you still own it or else you can go to most second hand places and buy it for alot cheaper. Just saying.
If this is like a throwback system with a library of classic games built into it then they could have a money maker for them. People spent a lot of money on those stupid little Nintendo NES Classic systems. No reason Atari can't do the same.