Showing 1 to 20 of 43
1. Posted: Sun 10th May 2009 02:07 BST
I've been hoping that Atari would come to VC and support the VC with games from the 2600 and pretty much all of their consoles. I really do like Atari and I was woundering what is keeping Atari from supporting the VC, Atari defines classic. The only reason I think they don't support the VC is with all of the people who made games for the Atari 2600 who probably don't even own the games anymore, but what is keeping them from puttong some of their old games form coming to the VC.
2. Posted: Sun 10th May 2009 02:09 BST
Nothing should be holding Atari back except they are lazy.
Edited on Sun 10th May, 2009 @ 02:09 by Knux
3. Posted: Tue 12th May 2009 21:51 BST
I'd kill for Atari on the VC. Though I think 500 points would be a bit steep for some of those games. 200 or 300 would be more fair.
4. Posted: Tue 12th May 2009 23:57 BST
I hope the Atari never comes out. It would be too painful to see two games come out for it one day, and then never see it updated again.
Come on, friends,
To the bear arcades again.
5. Posted: Wed 13th May 2009 00:02 BST
The atari 2600 will probably not come out for the VC. But if they do, they will give us games like ET and Japan Games like Pitfall.
By the way Adam, thanks for telling me what an NPC is. Greatly Appreciate it.
Brawl FC- 2278-4523-0777
"My, what great connection you have!"
I used to be immature, but then I took a reality to the knee. And by that, I mean that Microsoft banned me for no reason.
6. Posted: Wed 13th May 2009 00:03 BST
NO NO NO NO NO! That's a TERRIBLE idea! Seriously, we aren't getting enough games for the systems that ARE on VC, and you want MORE systems to be ignored? Besides which, if you go far enough back in gaming history, you reach a point where games don't hold enough value to be sold individually, the Atari 2600 included. Even at $1 each, I would feel ripped off. But maybe that's just because I'm an NES/SNES child. Having not grown up playing 2600, I have no love for it whatsoever. Even so, my first point stands.
My Backloggery Updated sporadically. Got my important online ID's on there, anyway. :P
7. Posted: Wed 13th May 2009 02:26 BST
E.T can't be release on the vc.
It is caused by the fact Atari doesn't have the license anymore.
Pitfall was not a Japan game because Activision is an American video game company. You could say it is possible that Jungle King inspired activision to make Pitfall though.
That is the only possible way Pitfall could be Japanese game.
The Only Japan games in the Atari 2600 heyday were arcade game ports like Space Invaders. All the Japanese games that Atari 2600 had were arcade games.
Edited on Wed 13th May, 2009 @ 02:34 by 7th_lutz
8. Posted: Wed 13th May 2009 02:39 BST
Eh, Pitfall is already on the VC (you can play the 2600 version using a code on The Mayan Adventure)
9. Posted: Wed 13th May 2009 02:50 BST
It is a long shot at this time.
My biggest problems are the following:
1.) The 2600 wouldn't be worth the price of $5.00 since it's biggest bankswitched game was 32k in memory. The 32k game was fatal Run and that was released in around 1990. Most games for the system in memory size were the following 2k,4k,8k and 16k. 16k games were lowest amount of memory a C64 game supposedly. The Atari 2600 had mostly 2k and 4k game before 1983.
2.) Most Arcade ports weren't ported by the companies that made the Arcade ports. There were exceptions to the rule like Atari doing their own and Sega Porting Congo Bongo to the system. That means there is some potential problems like Super Cobra was ported by Parker Brothers.
3.) Most 3rd parties from the Atari 2600 time frame died a longtime ago like Imagic did.
4.) The only people that appreciate Atari 2600 games were people that grew up playing with them like myself.
10. Posted: Wed 13th May 2009 03:10 BST
I really think a lot of people would download 2600 games if they were 100 - 300 points. Activision made a lot of great games and they are on board with the VC now.
11. Posted: Wed 13th May 2009 03:16 BST
They'd definitely make money, there's no question. And as far as the "only people who played them when they were young would be interested" concern goes...
1) I disagree; there are plenty of gamers here (my girlfriend included) whose first system was a SNES or N64, and they're excited to download NES games. It's a part of our shared gaming heritage, whether we owned the system or not.
2) Even if it WAS true, a good deal of Wii owners DO remember these games from their youth. The Wii has increased the target age of gamers successfully. It's no longer for kids and teens...it's for adults, too. And adults today remember those games fondly.
12. Posted: Wed 13th May 2009 03:19 BST
@Chicken Brutus: You just made my point, y'know. People who started with SNES or N64 are excited to download NES games, sure, I'll buy that. But Atari 2600? I'm not convinced. I believe that there's a point where gaming gets TOO primitive to have significant retro value, and I believe that point is right before the release of the NES.
13. Posted: Wed 13th May 2009 03:24 BST
There's been plenty of times when I've had 100 - 300 Wii points left over after making a purchase, if there were 2600 games at that price range I would get some just as an impulse buy. I'm sure I'm not alone.
14. Posted: Wed 13th May 2009 03:27 BST
@brooks83: I'm sure you're not. In my experience, however, those kinds of impulse buys tend to be the most regrettable ones. We're still faced with the fact that next to nothing would be made available, though, not to mention the fact that there's no modern equivalent to the 2600's joystick (might make controlling the games awkward, as if they weren't already). I'm just still not convinced it's a good idea.
15. Posted: Wed 13th May 2009 03:36 BST
I don't think the controller would be a big deal. Activision Anthology worked pretty well with modern controllers. Really though, the only way I would be ok with 2600 games coming on board is if they step up the amount of releases per week. If we get one 2600 game a week, that would be unacceptable.
16. Posted: Wed 13th May 2009 03:38 BST
@brooks83: Yes, it'd be HORRIBLY unacceptable. But we all know that's exactly what would happen (last week's VC update proves THAT), so it's best to do without 2600 games entirely.
17. Posted: Wed 13th May 2009 04:24 BST
You may not be convinced, but the comparison is pretty irrelevant. The NES is the earliest console available on the VC. We can't go back any further at present, so you can't say that the NES is anybody's cutoff point for interest. There's no way to know because the option isn't there.
It's pretty arbitrary to say "Okay, so your first gaming system was the N64. You'd still be interested in NES, but not Atari." Why would you make that call for anybody? If somebody's interested in their gaming heritage, and the means are there for them to explore it, they will.
Sell it at a lower price point (I agree that none of those games are worth 500) and you'll see sales. We could go 'round and 'round on this all day, but when push comes to shove, it's sales that do the talking. Who's downloading the games? How old are they? What's their prior experience? It doesn't matter, as long as it sells. And if the VC has proven anything, it's that classic console games do indeed sell.
Edited on Wed 13th May, 2009 @ 04:25 by Philip_J_Reed
18. Posted: Wed 13th May 2009 04:31 BST
If Nintendo we're to launch the 2600, they would launch it with 4 games and not support it. That's what they're doing with the arcade and Commodore 64.
19. Posted: Wed 13th May 2009 19:48 BST
@Chicken Brutus: Okay, I concede, mostly because I have a coworker a year younger than me who for some inexplicable reason loves "Centipede" (a game I've always hated, right along with pretty much everything else from that period). My assertion was based on the theory that there reaches a point where many (maybe most) people lose interest in games because they seem TOO archaic (my personal feelings about the 2600). There are plenty of people who think NES is TOO archaic, so obviously THEY won't want Atari. It's just hard to see Atari as having much that would hold the interest of modern gamers, that's all. So maybe it would, I dunno. Hardly matters, since the point made by JTCPingas09 and others before him still stands. No point adding a system for that reason alone.
20. Posted: Wed 13th May 2009 22:33 BST
They would make great 200 point games, but with a 1 game release a week I don't think it will happen
"Practice hospitality. bless and do not curse." Romans 12:13-14