The case is delicious. I can't tell anything about it from the article or the company website, so it's anyone's guess what this actually is. But, it sure does look pretty.
That said, I worry that at the price point, it'll be a somewhat disappointing gaming experience compared to a general purpose PC with a decent GPU. Having a high-quality retro experience is cool and all (I hope they have arcade versions of the games, rather than the original VCS 2600 versions, as they were kinda awful), but it's been possible to emulate an Atari on modest hardware for a couple decades...I doubt I'd spend $250 for a pretty box that plays classic Atari games, even though I grew up on them.
And an AMD CPU with Radeon graphics. Little more oomph than a Pi3, presumably access to more X86 software and access to the fruits of the labor of the mature dev community around full OpenGL, instead of OpenGL ES2 on the Pi.
RetroPie's fun, and a great piece of software. Something faster than a Pi3 would open up more systems for reliable emulation, and access to x86 software simplifies a lot of things.
Maybe a bit off topic but, how is Kodi on a Pi at decoding high quality MKVs with DTS sound? I have a Retro Pi on a Raspberry Pi 3b, but haven't bothered putting Kodi on it as I have a Zotac Z-Box right next to it with optical outputs and all that jazz. Might be nice to consolidate.
Not sure about DTS (I think passthrough works, at least, if you have a receiver, and I'm pretty sure it'll at least give you stereo from it if you don't) but an RPi2 will do h.264 1080p video no problem. Any Pi, however, will fail to play the newer h.265/hevc codec at anything above maybe SD resolutions, as they lack hardware support for that codec and don't have anywhere near the horsepower to give you anything but an audio-desynced slideshow in software.
Depends on the video codec that the MKV contains. H.264 is handled with hardware decoding. H.265 apparently works in some limited cases, but I wouldn't count on it. VC-1 (WMV9) is supported for hardware decoding, after purchase of a separate license.
The audio is all software-decoded, but I think it can be configured for passthrough directly to HDMI, for at least some formats.
You are not required to have the Pi in a case. It's nice to do though. Fake USB SNES conrollers that work great on RetroPie are about $3 each if you search around.
"That said, I worry that at the price point, it'll be a somewhat disappointing gaming experience compared to a general purpose PC with a decent GPU."
At $200, the Nvidia Shield offers an amazing gaming experience, whether through native games or streamed from my gaming PC. I can definitely see this performing just as well.
I bought a Shield not too long ago and I love it. But the $200 price point didn't make it a simple purchase -- I was reluctant to shell out that cash. I've bought a Chromecast, FireTV, etc, and they all end up being quite a bit of a letdown. So it was risky to dive into another device at a much higher price point. So $250 -- even higher than the shield -- is really pushing that comfort zone further.
And again, I'm so glad I bought the Shield. It's not without it's issues, but I love it. But I'd still be very reluctant buying something even more expensive.
I have a FireTV Stick that I bought during the introductory offer to Prime customers for $19.95. I love it at that price. It does exactly what I wanted it to do, which is provide Netflix/Prime/Hulu/YouTube/Pandora without having to turn on the bigger "smart" Blu Ray player or plug a computer into the TV.
It's when we start talking about hundreds of dollars that I start asking myself, "Do I really need another device when I have a laptop, a desktop, a TV stick thingy, a smart Blu Ray player, a tablet, an Xbox, and a phone?"
I have the Steam Link and love it for streaming games, I just wish it had some official apps like Netflix or Plex - from what I can tell that's the main advantage of the Shield, and I'm not sure it's worth $150 difference compared to what the Link was on sale, with controller included.
Tech websites need to stop giving these projects coverage. This is not Atari... Atari is gone. Slapping licensed games and selling a shiny box with common internals is not novel and will not somehow grow a magical following. Ouya was the best example but there's been dozens if not hundreds since.
I know it's a content driven world but techcrunch, kotaku, polywhatever needs to stop.
From my perspective, its a novel little gaming computer with a neat industrial design and an Atari license. I don't see any reason the tech news shouldn't cover it unless they are inundated with higher interest news for the day.
Because time after time the majority of these have turned out to be bad actors buying up old licenses, putting a few thousand into marketing and deceiving a large audience into buying into a vision of a console supported by hoardes of indie developers.
It's a narrative that has played enough times that it warrants at a minimum skepticism.
Like it or not when you do writeups based solely on the press release it lends credibility to the project. Personally I think a little diligence and curation would go a long way. Most these projects end up being funded when these sites all run to be first to publish... nobody actually spends time investigating whether the people involved have track record or whether claims are even reasonable... all of a sudden overnight it's funded... that sucks.
I don't think its really the news sites job to care about a products viability for longterm success. Almost all software/hardware is pretty short lived when you think about it. They'd be pretty hard up for articles if they only covered the stuff that was going to be around for the next decade. It looks interesting, their readers enjoy reading about it. It probably will ultimately fail, like most products.
"I don't think its really the news sites job to care about a products viability for longterm success"
Viability and credibility should not be confused.
Under your definition if I buy the Coleco name tomorrow and send a press release with a high res image of a console then it's perfectly fine for news sites to just republish my press release without knowing who I am, what I have done or whether what I have claimed is true. This by the way is the primary means of funding on crowdfunding sites... I just disagree with you.
How much research have you done on the Ataribox? I decided to indulge, its been a while since I brushed up on the history of Atari. Ataribox is apparently being driven by the people that own the Atari brand and assets. Despite many years of turmoil and failed business surely owning all of Atari's assets puts this company at a slight advantage over the ones that have come before it with console offshoots. If all it is, is a legal Atari emulator with "a large back-catalog of Atari classic games"[1] then I can't see how you can reasonably compare it to other brand new console startups without a rich history in the game industry and highly valuable assets.
So this company that bought up a failing and abused brand has produced many other types of consumer devices and has a track record of delivering quality products to people based on promise alone such as the kickstarter model...
At the end of the article: The Atari we’re left with owns the rights to more than 200 games. The bet it's making is simple: people will be willing to fork out money to play them again on a suitably Atari-looking console.
This is the value proposition in my opinion, that makes it newsworthy.
Yeah nah it's going to bomb. Ouya 2.0 but with a nostalgic brand attached. To actually sell in any worthwile amount a console NEEDS to have a proper developer support. And I mean BIG developer, not a bunch of indie studios porting their preexisting products to linux.
As someone who got caught up in the OUYA craze, nah that's not why it bombed. A console will probably do fine with just indies. What will kill it is a company that continues to not fix problems, act like everything is "rock star awesome" all the time, and pretend like they're some buddy of yours instead of be responsible.
OUYA just continued to piss me off by not even bothering to make sure their experience was good and brushing it off by doubling down on marketing on how cool they were. They slapped android on a Tegra and called it "good." At no point did they try to unify the controller api, yet they claimed to support multiple brands/types of controller. It was on the dev to map each one when they can't even predict every brand. I had controllers work in one game but not the next! That's unforgivable. Either handle an SDL2_Gamepad style mapping at the ENV/system level or just say you only support OUYA controllers.
When they were getting complaints about overscan (ugh, why do we still need to deal with this (aside: holy crap iPhone X, not you too!)), they elected to just force-scale the UI down by an inch (memories of PS2) and again tell the devs to just deal with overscan themselves on a game-by-game basis. A good solution would have been to make overscan a system setting that the games could query ("oh, btw, your display area is actually 1900x1000, offset by 9px left, 25px down").
This pattern of "slap a fix on it, and then plug your ears and yell 'LALALA'" was what killed it, and probably all other attempts at an indie console for a while. Hopefully the world has forgotten the OUYA enough that this has a chance.
I mean OUYA didn't even have a useful recovery partition COME ON.
Following the world of individual developers for years, I would have to disagree with you. If they can cover the basic users, i.e. get it shipping at profit, there's definitely a way to make this product work. Just look at the GP2X, GPH, GPD Pocket, Pyra Handheld, Open Pandora, Caanoo handhelds, for example .. the users are there.
Depends what "it" really is, since information is still pretty scant. If this is really just an underpowered Linux box it'll fail like the Ouya, but there's more opportunity than just running cheapo indie games. 1/3rd of the Steam game library can run on Linux, so if the box is powerful enough to run games like L4D2, and/or can stream content from a real computer/run streaming applications ala the shield it could succeed. The shield can cost $200+ depending on configuration, the market is definitely there.
It depends on what you mean by "console" - this isn't going to be an equivalent to one of the big systems or become a "platform", no, but that doesn't seem to be what they are aiming for. Will people pick them up and use them? I don't see why not. It's an attractive alternative to a steam link or whatever.
Traditional consoles had fixed hardware which could be exploited through vendor specific APIs. If this is just going to run games programmed with OpenGL, this is not different from any other Linux PC.
Given the introduction of APIs like Vulkan which bings the programmability of PCs even closer to consoles, I don't see a use case.
The only market I can think of the niche of Atari fans.
> What is the point of the console being Linux-based?
Reduction of brand-new OS development costs; potentially zero need for writing drivers depending on hardware setup; very extensive presence of compilers / interpreters / libraries that can be freely usable out of the box.
Roughly 1/3 of the steam library runs on Linux. Valve continues to update SteamOS, and they are still heavily involved in creating Linux drivers and middleware. Every week new games are ported, new frameworks are released with Linux support and new Linux dev game tools are created.
SteamOS succeeded in forcing Microsoft to clear up its act, and this is the main reason for Valve's investment. Their continued investment is to continue to make sure that they have a plan B. They are doing a lot of behind-the-scenes work to make the Linux gaming stack amazing. This looks "failed" from the outside because they aren't pushing the platform heavily, but it is actually a lot more beneficial that doing a big marketing push before the platform is ready.
The interesting thing with a platform like Linux is that it's not dependent on one big revenue stream to survive. Because of this, it doesn't matter if it takes years to get massive adoption because it's not burning a hole in the pocket of a company. If xbox was in the same position linux was in, you would be correct in saying that it failed, because anything less than 30% market share means gigantic losses for Microsoft which would lead to axing xbox.
PS: Atari's games run fine on Linux. Their retro emulator runs on Linux. They seem to know what they're doing.
Valve doesn't really care how many users are running Linux right now —they still have their Windows revenue. What they do care about is how many users would switch to Linux if Valve was for some reason forced to drop Windows support altogether (like, Microsoft goes Apple on their users and mandates an app store). That number may be much higher.
You'd also have to keep in mind what's keeping users to Windows. From where I stand, exclusive titles play a big role. Linux has no exclusive title to speak of. Why would it, that market is way too small for such madness. Windows, understandably has loads. My only reason for still using Windows is a couple titles I can't bring myself to renounce.
Then there are drivers and tooling, but that's just the same kind of network effects, really.
Valve's announcement that games ran faster on SteamOS had an almost immediate response:
> “A few weeks after this post went out, some very senior developers from Microsoft came by for a discrete visit. They loved our post, because it lit a fire underneath Microsoft's executives to get their act together and keep supporting Direct3D development. (Remember, at this point it was years since the last DirectX SDK release. The DirectX team was on life support.) Linux is obviously extremely influential." [1]
And again, market relevance was not required for SteamOS to succeed. Gabe Newell has been very open about the fact that SteamOS' goal was to keep Microsoft in check and have a plan B for when things go south..
I thought and posted something similar in another Steam/Linux thread. I was corrected by a passionate Linux user, so I'll return the favor. The Steam hardware survey will not appear for Big Picture users, which is what SteamOS will launch into by default, so it gets undercounted.
Are you implying people wouldn't jump to SteamOS if it met the needs of gamers? If 95% of Steam games ran on it that would be a huge thing. Lots of people don't want to run Windows 10 because of privacy issues (maybe not a huge number, but it's likely a larger portion of gaming enthusiasts fit into that group than the population at large). And is there a better value proposition than free? If it meets your needs and costs nothing, why would you pay for an equivalent product?
Well, i guess you do have a point there - one iteration was worse in terms of privacy than the other, yet the adoption of alternative OSs was very weak.
But they've gone a little too far with Windows 10 - for me at least, of course everyone will have their own "measure" where too much will be too much.
SteamOS is a "fleet in being", or nuclear deterrent. Its purpose is to make sure that Valve can survive if Windows decided they wanted to "Windows Store" their platform and force every game to pay Microsoft a 30% cut.
Until Microsoft do that, it's not actually very necessary. But it might become necessary at short notice.
One thins is that Linux users often have suboptimal graphics drivers installed (probably cause the open source drivers tend to be incomplete/buggy and the official drivers from AMD/nvidia aren't installed by default on most linux distros).
Another is that it's just generally a lot more heterogeneous than windows and mac (lots of different distros with variously up to date libraries, drivers, etc).
> One thing is that Linux users often have suboptimal graphics drivers installed
The same is true on a new install of Windows, though. First stop when the OS is running: Non-Microsoft browser. Second stop: Graphics card vendor site, to replace whichever outdated driver Windows shipped it for the hardware.
I mean, not as bad, usually (outdated official drivers on Windows, versus often-inferior unofficial/Open drivers on Linux).
Lack of GUI tooling at the same level as it is available on Windows, macOS, PS4, XBox and Nintendo.
The game developers culture is based on making money of IP, outsourcing game development tasks, not about sharing the code and making the world a better place.
On commercial platforms, the GPU and OS vendors even fly tech support to AAA studios to work around driver issues.
> Too bad Linux still doesn't play nice with most games. SteamOS was a failure.
It depends heavily on the engine being used or if custom engine on how much the devs have relied on stuff designed to wall your product into windows.
There's like a couple of games out of ~100 I got on Steam that I've had big problems with in Ubuntu. A couple others just needed launch options to prevent the game from guessing settings so wrong I can't even fix those in-game and launch a launcher program where I can tweak those before starting the game.
Well, throw steamOS on it and you have a cheap (cheapest?) steam machine. $249 is much more palatable than $400+, and it would likely play quite a few of the hundreds of Humble Bundle games I have in my library.
My main workstation is powerful enough to play Steam games, and a Steam Link would allow me to stream them to my living room TV. Where that fails is when I have work to do on my desktop and my kids want to play games.
To solve that, I had to build a dedicated living room PC. I didn't go nuts, so it ended up being about $500.
If I could replace that with an handsome Linux powered gaming system for less than $300, then I think it's a no-brainer... especially if it can run third-party marketplaces and apps like Steam or Plex.
If just games/movies/music then what was the logic for getting that over a console? (PS4, XBox1, Switch are around the same price point or below) Just curious, not suggesting that a console would have been better.
Why would you build a living room PC instead of building each child their own Personal Computer? Then they could hook it up to the Link if they wanted as it is their PC.
Because the child's personal computer resides in their room. This means less room (no pun intended) for control over active times, more costs involved because of computers not being shared, and also enforces the child to be excluded from social environment. It is a double edged sword. Both options have their pros and cons, and none is ideal.
This seems like a hard problem, esp. since OP is so emphatic that $300 is preferrable to $500. Let me see if I can figgure this out for us both.
1 child x $500 = $500
1-or-more x $500 = $500-or-more
Oh! That must be it! This solution would be more expensive to implement, and therefore, since cost is a factor, this solution would be less preferable!
Glad I took the time to work this one out, I certainly was very confused as well.
I bought Steam Link. To my slight surprise the hardware worked fine and graphics were smooth (in wired LAN).
Where it fell short was the overall experience. Most games are of course not designed for this. In PC you always have the keyboard, there are things that are tweaked through Windows. Also it felt that I had to regularly run to the PC to sort out some issue.
Disclaimer: I tested just with few games and at least 6 months ago.
I still haven't seen anything showing the Switch is using a FreeBSD kernel, just that the Switch ships with the licence from the kernel. That's all that any of the English Wikipedia references show, and a copy of that license doesn't prove much.
The Socket service on the switch is called bsd:u. That's a bit of a giveaway. IIRC if you use nmap's fingerprinting feature, it thinks the switch is running FreeBSD (i.e. the switch is definitely using the FreeBSD network stack)
Thanks, I've brought this up elsewhere and never gotten a reply more substantial than mentioning the licence. Do you have any reason to think that is all they used?
Oh, hush. Linux is perfectly capable of providing a full desktop PC experience. It's a great idea to land hackable Linux PCs in living rooms - most people are going to get everything they need from their web browser and the kids who dig a little further are introduced to the world of open source.
Why not make it Linux based? Developing a new OS isn't something they want to do I assume. Leveraging Linux and established APIs (Vulkan / OpenGL) and etc. sounds like a pragmatic solution.
"Traditional" consoles used lock-in not because it was good to do, but because they were either too weak and required very close to the hardware APIs (and no portable APIs like that existed), or because vendors were just lock-in inclined.
Not only that but if they partner with Steam they stand half of a chance at attracting more than Atari nerds who remember the 2600 fondly to purchase these.
A quick Google search shows that the few surviving shops that still try to sell Steam Machines, do it at the comparable price or higher as Windows gaming rigs.
So not sure if it would generate any considerable profit.
It's not about steam machines, it's about the game catalogue. Steam has 3000+ titles on Linux and the Steam runtime takes away a lot of the pain of developing for Linux.
Depends. What can you PS4 do? Do you have to pay to make it a plex client? Chromecast to? Can you run vlc on it?
Can it transcode? Can you run an opensource game on it? Run a decent browser on it? Steam? How about the collection of Classic Atari games?
I've only have public knowledge of the Atari, but X86, cheap, and linux does open some rather interesting possibilities.
I've yet to see a media player that does it better than Roku. If the Atari could be the roku of gaming it could be quite interesting, even if it doesn't have the latest/greatest $50-$100 game that the PS4 of Xbox has.
> Do you have to pay to make it a plex client? Chromecast to? Can you run vlc on it? Can it transcode? Can you run an opensource game on it? Run a decent browser on it? Steam? How about the collection of Classic Atari games?
I am totally not interested in what PS4 or Xbox has to offer and will probably get one only when the prospect of porting one of my games to those consoles will be good enough to justify it (and that'll need them in some devkit form probably anyway).
On the other hand, I'm eagerly looking for more details about Ataribox. I only have a laptop(s) with Intel GPUs and I'm more and more in need of some device with stronger GPU with dedicated VRAM (mostly for testing, but occasional gaming with higher FPS would be nice too). I'm not keen on updating the laptop, as GPU is pretty much the only thing that would need to be replaced (and with Intel's worry-free open drivers stack, I actually like to have it on my main computer). I thought about building some cheap desktop just for those needs, but if Ataribox keeps on its promise of being so open, it might be just right (and cheaper) option for me.
The SNES Classic is locked down and only supports the games it ships with. That's not really comparable to an open console/computer that ships with a selection of old Atari games.
The games that come with SNES Classic offer hundreds of hours of high-quality entertainment. I mean, have you seen the games? $80 is a steal. The problem is that you may not be able to get it for $80 due to scalpers and/or greedy retailers.
Games that are 20-30 years old and can be had for free online with a modicum of effort. This isn't the 90s. Rom sites aren't virus-laden scams anymore.
Yeah, yeah, piracy boogeyman, but considering I've bought most of these more than once already, my conscience is clear when I don't pay Nintendo $5+ for emulated games. In my mind, it's equivalent to format shifting.
According to Nintendo they will have plenty (and they’re more worried about having enough Switches to keep up with demand). Time will tell if they’ve learned their lesson.
They never show the back panel with all the connectors, but on this blurry image https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/2194981... it looks like the device is powered by an external power brick, which is a no go for me. Using external PSU for a stationary device is just lazy engineering.
This will crash and burn. You need a massive marketing budget to even begin to compete with Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft. And professional game developers will not support a platform without a large customer base.
This isn't the same company as the one that made the 2600. In fact the Atari trademark has been held by so many different companies over the years that it probably makes more sense at this point to class new hardware as "Atari branded" rather than "Atari".
The thing with Infogrames is a lot of their catalogue is down to publishing and buyouts (like the Unreal Tournament franchise) rather than developed in house. But one of their own games I do own and still occasionally enjoy is Wacky Races on the Dreamcast.
At risk of splitting hairs, Atari Inc and Atari Corp were different companies as well. The 2600 was released by Atari Inc and the Jaguar by Atari Corp.
Now, I feel foolish - I thought both those consoles ran on RISC chips. (I know that Xbox used to be an x86, but thought that had changed). Admittedly not a gamer or HW gamer buff, my kids are.
The PS3 used the Cell, that was a PowerPC accompanies with 8(?) more specialized cores (in hindsight i dare say they were used like oversized DSPs) on a single die.
The hope was that the PS3 would be a test bed, and that the Cell would be popular in supercomputers. I am not sure if that panned out beyond some images of PS3s being piled into racks.
And the Xbox 360 i think was a 3 core PowerPC design.
Looking back at it i wonder if the reason both Sony and Microsoft went with AMD APUs this time round is that AMD brought ATI. And ATI has a history of building graphics hardware for games consoles.
Offering up both parts as a single die would greatly simplify the board design of the new consoles. Never mind that by using x86 for the CPU there would be no cross-complication complications to deal with.
That said, I worry that at the price point, it'll be a somewhat disappointing gaming experience compared to a general purpose PC with a decent GPU. Having a high-quality retro experience is cool and all (I hope they have arcade versions of the games, rather than the original VCS 2600 versions, as they were kinda awful), but it's been possible to emulate an Atari on modest hardware for a couple decades...I doubt I'd spend $250 for a pretty box that plays classic Atari games, even though I grew up on them.