233 replies to this topic

[AtariLeaf]

Curt are you going to try to get one to take a closer look at it?

[Dreamwriter]

batari, on Wed Jun 8, 2011 4:22 PM, said:

Dreamwriter, on Wed Jun 8, 2011 4:35 AM, said:

It was more than just a box, I played the device at E3. The game menu was shifted halfway offscreen, but it did have a lot of games and I played Yars Revenge on it. The main thing that seemed suspicious to me was the entire menu system was different - no more categorizing games, just a number of pages of game titles in alphabetical order.

Since E3 is still running, why don't you go back and snap some pics of the console itself and this menu in action?

Unfortunately, I couldn't find it at all today. I couldn't remember where I saw it, so it's possible they were only there for one day, or I just kept missing them today. And I'm not going tomorrow.

[batari]

Dreamwriter, on Wed Jun 8, 2011 10:46 PM, said:

batari, on Wed Jun 8, 2011 4:22 PM, said:

Dreamwriter, on Wed Jun 8, 2011 4:35 AM, said:

It was more than just a box, I played the device at E3. The game menu was shifted halfway offscreen, but it did have a lot of games and I played Yars Revenge on it. The main thing that seemed suspicious to me was the entire menu system was different - no more categorizing games, just a number of pages of game titles in alphabetical order.

Since E3 is still running, why don't you go back and snap some pics of the console itself and this menu in action?

Unfortunately, I couldn't find it at all today. I couldn't remember where I saw it, so it's possible they were only there for one day, or I just kept missing them today. And I'm not going tomorrow.

Too bad. Can you tell us what the menu looked like - did it look like 2600/7800 sort of display or something that an emulator might produce?

[toptenmaterial]

FB1 has issues emulating the 7800 (with all due respect to Mr. Vendel). If the hardware isn't legit I would expect color pallette and control issues... we'll see though.

It seems that Atari is very de-centralized, as this new project has caught some veteran engineers on AA off-gaurd. I would presume there was a total lack of communication behind the scenes?

[8bitjeff]

This was most definitely there today. When we mentioned that Legacy Engineering was not anywhere on the box, the guys in the booth started to look nervous. We didn't think much of it but now that I see this thread it makes sense. They are in the South Hall.

[Phredreeke]

toptenmaterial, on Thu Jun 9, 2011 12:01 AM, said:

FB1 has issues emulating the 7800 (with all due respect to Mr. Vendel). If the hardware isn't legit I would expect color pallette and control issues... we'll see though.

FB1 is not emulating 2600 or 7800. The games are rewritten to run on NES hardware.

[yell0w_lantern]

Color me intrigued. I may have to get one just to see how it works. True, with my modified original hardware + Harmony Cart I don't NEED one.

Edited by yell0w_lantern, Thu Jun 9, 2011 11:14 AM.

[toptenmaterial]

Phredreeke, on Thu Jun 9, 2011 6:48 AM, said:

toptenmaterial, on Thu Jun 9, 2011 12:01 AM, said:

FB1 has issues emulating the 7800 (with all due respect to Mr. Vendel). If the hardware isn't legit I would expect color pallette and control issues... we'll see though.

FB1 is not emulating 2600 or 7800. The games are rewritten to run on NES hardware.

Hense the odd color pallette in Desert Falcon? I have read on some programming threads here that translating 7800 code to NES is very difficult.

[Guitarman]

The thing we have to remember is that Atari as a company has the choice to use whatever development company they want to create their branded products. It looks like that is what they've done.
Don't get me wrong. I will have to think twice myself about getting the FB3 knowing it is not produced by Legacy and it is too bad as Legacy has always been synonymous with the Flashback systems and great quality.

[mimo]

It is sad that the new console does not have L.E.G's input, but it looks like it is being offered in PAL flavour, something that the FB2 never was, so I will be getting one, living in PAL land as I do.
But it will probably just sit in a box with my FB2 and FB2+

[dwane413]

Guitarman, on Thu Jun 9, 2011 3:50 PM, said:

The thing we have to remember is that Atari as a company has the choice to use whatever development company they want to create their branded products. It looks like that is what they've done.

I agree with you. When I implied that it would be best to not buy these, I thought that they were not authorized by Atari.

Guitarman, on Thu Jun 9, 2011 3:50 PM, said:

Don't get me wrong. I will have to think twice myself about getting the FB3 knowing it is not produced by Legacy and it is too bad as Legacy has always been synonymous with the Flashback systems and great quality.

I hope these turn out to be good quality for those who get them. It will be nice to hear more about how they work.

EDIT: Spelling.

Edited by dwane413, Thu Jun 9, 2011 7:32 PM.

[nathanallan]

So these ARE authorized systems? Please, someone clarify.

Edited by nathanallan, Thu Jun 9, 2011 10:00 PM.

[Retro Rogue]

nathanallan, on Thu Jun 9, 2011 9:59 PM, said:

So these ARE authorized systems? Please, someone clarify.

Someone approached Atari's licensing department with these, the licensing guys went with it. Some of the people at Atari proper were in the dark because of how it was handled, and the end result is you have a plug and play with very iffy specs that has nothing to do with the original Flashback line we did nor the direction we'd been trying to move it towards for 5 years now to no avail (money was the continual issue, and their financial problems). I.E. it's a licensed product, but not the actual Flashback 3. It just has the Flashback 3 name slapped on it (and on a very very poorly designed box at that).

[nathanallan]

wgungfu, on Thu Jun 9, 2011 10:22 PM, said:

nathanallan, on Thu Jun 9, 2011 9:59 PM, said:

So these ARE authorized systems? Please, someone clarify.

Someone approached Atari's licensing department with these, the licensing guys went with it. Some of the people at Atari proper were in the dark because of how it was handled, and the end result is you have a plug and play with very iffy specs that has nothing to do with the original Flashback line we did nor the direction we'd been trying to move it towards for 5 years now to no avail (money was the continual issue, and their financial problems). I.E. it's a licensed product, but not the actual Flashback 3. It just has the Flashback 3 name slapped on it (and on a very very poorly designed box at that).

Got it, now I understand. So, any plans to get and pick apart this thing to review? Would it be worth doing IF you were to get one, make some changes and possibly get Atari to go with a redesign based on your and Curt's recommendations?

I'll be honest, I am intrigued by what I see, crappy box and all.

[Algus]

Yeah that alleged flash drive slot is very interesting and hard to resist, knowing that the machine isn't a bootleg. Then again, if it is a piece of junk and falls apart in six months...

[S1500]

wgungfu, on Thu Jun 9, 2011 10:22 PM, said:

Someone approached Atari's licensing department with these, the licensing guys went with it. Some of the people at Atari proper were in the dark because of how it was handled, a....... It just has the Flashback 3 name slapped on it (and on a very very poorly designed box at that).

That's the Atari we know and love! The loveable drunk uncle who "just needs a couple bucks to get by" every Thanksgiving.

[Retro Rogue]

Algus, on Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:10 AM, said:

Yeah that alleged flash drive slot is very interesting and hard to resist, knowing that the machine isn't a bootleg. Then again, if it is a piece of junk and falls apart in six months...

It's not a bootleg, but it's not a 2600-on-a-chip either as stated (since that was our tech). Most likely just an emulator as previously stated.

[svenski]

Well that sucks, you've got Curt and Marty that could bring out another fantastic product and Atari choose to make a few quick bucks.

[Coleco]

S1500, on Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:48 AM, said:

wgungfu, on Thu Jun 9, 2011 10:22 PM, said:

Someone approached Atari's licensing department with these, the licensing guys went with it. Some of the people at Atari proper were in the dark because of how it was handled, a....... It just has the Flashback 3 name slapped on it (and on a very very poorly designed box at that).

That's the Atari we know and love! The loveable drunk uncle who "just needs a couple bucks to get by" every Thanksgiving.

That's exactly what I was thinking. It's a shame there's such poor brand management at Atari. Maybe this is a great product, but the packaging sucks and they didn't even offer a trusted past partner the opportunity to bid or counter or whatever before signing this licensing deal.

I'd like to hope for the best, but I'm counting on this sucking about as much as the LED keychain games Atari licensed a few years back when it was desperate for cash and would slap its name and game titles on just about any POS that would generate $$$.

[Draikar]

wgungfu, on Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:58 AM, said:

It's not a bootleg, but it's not a 2600-on-a-chip either as stated (since that was our tech). Most likely just an emulator as previously stated.

So they used your idea's and cheapened them, that would make me upset.

[Retro Rogue]

Draikar, on Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:26 AM, said:

wgungfu, on Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:58 AM, said:

It's not a bootleg, but it's not a 2600-on-a-chip either as stated (since that was our tech). Most likely just an emulator as previously stated.

So they used your idea's and cheapened them, that would make me upset.

I look at it this way.....


We had pride in being the people responsible for the creation, development, and execution of the Flashback concept and series. Curt came up with the concept, the name, the tech, etc. We developed them in conjunction with input from the rotating management at Atari where the 1, 2 and 2+ represent completely different people over there and different input.

We wanted to do the FB2's tech to begin with, they told Legacy they wanted something right away for that Christmas 2004 or there would be no 2600-on-a-chip version ever. So they got their NOAC based FB1. When it came time for FB2 we wanted a cartridge port or an SD card, we had planned for a PAL version as well, and we wanted to do a presentation more like what came out for the 2+. They said no on the SD card because of piracy issues and cost at the time, and no to the cartridge port because of the tech support issues. We added cartridge support as a hack anyways. Then a member of management no longer there screwed some things that put a kibosh on the PAL version. Then we started proposing the Flashback3 to them (them being multiple management changing over again and again) back in 2006. And the portable. And multiple others.... Then they contact us not about that, but about bringing out a limited run of new 2's that we decided to call the 2+ because it of course was not a 3. Then there's veiled promises of finally letting us release a PAL version and moving on to the portable or FB3. Then suddenly this slap in the face.

Maybe this just shows that rather than fight to still release ours as the FB4, the whole Flashback concept is dated and irrelevant and its time for Legacy to move on to bigger and better things.

[onmode-ky]

Draikar, on Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:26 AM, said:

wgungfu, on Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:58 AM, said:

It's not a bootleg, but it's not a 2600-on-a-chip either as stated (since that was our tech). Most likely just an emulator as previously stated.

So they used your idea's and cheapened them, that would make me upset.

If I'm understanding everything all correctly, it's more like someone else cheapened them and asked Atari if it was okay to slap the Atari name on the box. Atari's response was "Sure, whatever!"

I don't know if Atari realizes that this reflects much worse on them than the typical licensed product (I mean in terms of the build and packaging looking as atrocious as they do). The "Flashback" name previously applied to actual Atari product; with this licensed product using it, too, it makes both the Flashback series and Atari itself look bad thanks to consumer confusion. It would be like allowing a third party to call something "Atari Puma" or "Atari 10400."

onmode-ky

[tep392]

wgungfu, on Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:12 AM, said:

Draikar, on Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:26 AM, said:

wgungfu, on Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:58 AM, said:

It's not a bootleg, but it's not a 2600-on-a-chip either as stated (since that was our tech). Most likely just an emulator as previously stated.

So they used your idea's and cheapened them, that would make me upset.

I look at it this way.....


We had pride in being the people responsible for the creation, development, and execution of the Flashback concept and series. Curt came up with the concept, the name, the tech, etc. We developed them in conjunction with input from the rotating management at Atari where the 1, 2 and 2+ represent completely different people over there and different input.

We wanted to do the FB2's tech to begin with, they told Legacy they wanted something right away for that Christmas 2004 or there would be no 2600-on-a-chip version ever. So they got their NOAC based FB1. When it came time for FB2 we wanted a cartridge port or an SD card, we had planned for a PAL version as well, and we wanted to do a presentation more like what came out for the 2+. They said no on the SD card because of piracy issues and cost at the time, and no to the cartridge port because of the tech support issues. We added cartridge support as a hack anyways. Then a member of management no longer there screwed some things that put a kibosh on the PAL version. Then we started proposing the Flashback3 to them (them being multiple management changing over again and again) back in 2006. And the portable. And multiple others.... Then they contact us not about that, but about bringing out a limited run of new 2's that we decided to call the 2+ because it of course was not a 3. Then there's veiled promises of finally letting us release a PAL version and moving on to the portable or FB3. Then suddenly this slap in the face.

Maybe this just shows that rather than fight to still release ours as the FB4, the whole Flashback concept is dated and irrelevant and its time for Legacy to move on to bigger and better things.

I think the portable would have been a great next step. I'd buy that in a minute. But any new FB consoles would be a big yawn for me, even with SD support. If I'm going to be tied to a television I'll just go with the Harmony cart and a real 2600. The portable would be an awsome way to get my 8-bit gaming fix while on the road.

[S1500]

wgungfu, on Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:12 AM, said:

They said no on the SD card because of piracy issues and cost at the time, just shows that rather than fight to still release ours as the FB4, the whole Flashback concept is dated and irrelevant and its time for Legacy to move on to bigger and better things.

Piracy issues...on 30+ year old games. That is hilarious. What do they think this is, an Atari Jaguar?

(sorry, couldn't resist).

Well, if the big bad Atari doesn't want to make what the niche public wants(us), maybe it's time to look towards homebrewrs & Chinese pirates.

Atari man, you used to be cool.

[wood_jl]

wgungfu, on Thu Jun 9, 2011 10:22 PM, said:

Someone approached Atari's licensing department with these, the licensing guys went with it. Some of the people at Atari proper were in the dark because of how it was handled, and the end result is you have a plug and play with very iffy specs that has nothing to do with the original Flashback line we did nor the direction we'd been trying to move it towards for 5 years now to no avail (money was the continual issue, and their financial problems). I.E. it's a licensed product, but not the actual Flashback 3. It just has the Flashback 3 name slapped on it (and on a very very poorly designed box at that).

With all the lame-ass "remakes" (not really remakes - rather, a classic name pasted on a new crap game), the Flashback series were the ONLY thing "Atari" seemed to be getting right. Now they've screwed that up, too. Anybody *really* surprised here?