Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Sep 2017 10:16 UTC

Ars Technica:

The spec sheet, as announced, is still pretty vague, but Atari has confirmed a few notable things, starting with a price point between $250 and $300. In exchange for costing roughly as much as a Nintendo Switch, Xbox One S, or PlayStation 4, the Ataribox will come packed with an "AMD customized processor with Radeon graphics technology." Additionally, this will not be an Android system. Instead, the Ataribox will run Linux "with a customized, easy-to-use user interface."

Open, hackable Linux-based consoles don't exactly have a great track record, so colour me skeptical.

Wouldn't be the first time my skepticism turns out to be spot-on. I don't think the Ataribox is the next Commodore USA, but I'm afraid its fate will be the same, regardless.

Thread beginning with comment 649324
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Adurbe on Thu 28th Sep 2017 12:28 UTC
Member since:

This is trying to compete in the same space as XBox and PlayStation. The nostalgia of the old form factor and brand can only take it so far.

There is scope to have nostalgic brands like AvP or Pitfall remade as T1 games as exclusive launch titles. Pitfall 2017 could easily be a Lara croft style game.

If they really want to resurrect the system in this price bracket they need T1 game developer exclusives. Without that, it's a poor PC that can play games we can already.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Competition
by ahferroin7 on Fri 29th Sep 2017 12:29 in reply to "Competition "
ahferroin7 Member since:

I would argue that it's not exactly the same space. If anything, I'd say it's more of a competitor for the Switch given the price point and the fact that most older games aren't nearly as violent or graphic as many modern ones, but even that is a bit of a stretch given the different development ecosystem the open platform is liable to encourage.

There's also something to be said for tight integration without need for manual setup. Most people don't want to deal with getting an emulator set up properly, but are perfectly fine if the setup is done for them.

Based on that, an even better comparison would be a Steam Box, which mostly died because a large majority of the big-name games people play on Steam other than Valve titles weren't supported (mostly because developers are lazy and don't get that using OpenGL instead of Direct3D will get you cross platform graphics support with near zero effort), but that problem isn't exactly an issue with the AtariBox.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Competition
by leech on Sat 30th Sep 2017 00:15 in reply to "RE: Competition "
leech Member since:

The Steam Box didn't really fail... since it really wasn't marketed. I mean if they'd spent a ton of money on marketing it so that people knew what one was...

It was kind of more like 'hey buddy, I got this cool thing to show you.'

Actually if they'd done a campaign like Ataribox, it probably would have sold like hell! In it's various flavors, though especially if Valve had put their name on it.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Competition
by Adurbe on Mon 2nd Oct 2017 12:41 in reply to "RE: Competition "
Adurbe Member since:

The switch is a portable/handheld console. So that comparison just doesn't work.

Yes, it's a steam box.. they died as a concept mainly because most of the steam games catalogue simply didn't work well with its controller setup, but also because they didn't offer anything above a PC running Windows. There was no compelling "GAME X, ONLY ON SteamBox".

Reply Parent Score: 2