You can now pre-order the Linux-powered Atari VCS games console, a lot more details revealed

Quoting: slaapliedjeI agree, but the console needs to be standardized in it's hardware. Otherwise it's just a bunch of parts in a box. Developers like a target for performance, etc.

Not really. Mobile and PC markets work fine with variety of hardware available. They are essentially "parts in a box". That doesn't stop developers and users. I don't see why consoles need to be any different in that regard. What's useful are common APIs and system stack. That's where above things I mentioned come in.

Quoting: slaapliedjeI know I'm already annoyed that a lot of games I have that I can't see in their full potential because I don't have an HDR TV or a Pro.

That's why well designed games adapt to different resolutions and hardware capabilities. That's more work, sure, but it's the right thing to do. If you can't see something in full potential because of your hardware, you'll get better hardware. Wasn't it always the case?


Last edited by Shmerl on 31 May 2018 at 2:33 am UTC

I would be interested in Atari VCS coverage please do it.

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: slaapliedjeI agree, but the console needs to be standardized in it's hardware. Otherwise it's just a bunch of parts in a box. Developers like a target for performance, etc.

Not really. Mobile and PC markets work fine with variety of hardware available. They are essentially "parts in a box". That doesn't stop developers and users. I don't see why consoles need to be any different in that regard. What's useful are common APIs and system stack. That's where above things I mentioned come in.

Quoting: slaapliedjeI know I'm already annoyed that a lot of games I have that I can't see in their full potential because I don't have an HDR TV or a Pro.

That's why well designed games adapt to different resolutions and hardware capabilities. That's more work, sure, but it's the right thing to do. If you can't see something in full potential because of your hardware, you'll get better hardware. Wasn't it always the case?

Well I guess it depends. Back in the 8bit era of computing, pretty much there werne't outlandish upgrades for the computers being made, you pretty much had memory differences and that was it, but soon there were games that required 48k or 64k.. then eventually 128k. Then the 16bit era came where developers would end up mostly developing for the lowest common denominator, like the ST instead of the STe, or the OCS instead of ECS and then AGA in Amiga land.

Now there are APIs that help with a lot of this and detect the hardware you're running on, though a lot of times you still have to tweak graphic settings when you first start something up for computer games. Consoles are nice because you don't have to do that ever. You pop the game into your system (or download it digitally) and it works. You don't have to mess with drivers, configurations, etc.

Something like the Steam Machine, which was mostly geared toward being a console and not a computer, didn't have that 'turn it on, it works, all your controls are configured, and you just sit down to play' feel that something like a PS4 has. Hell, even this box is going to support different controllers, keyboards, mice, etc. Wonder if it'll support the Steam Controller?

That's the thing, with Console games, you can't just go buy better hardware, it's more like a laptop, where you have to get a whole new laptop. There's a reason why it's referred to as 'The PC master race' because a lot of console gamers just stay away from it because in a lot of ways it's too hard to keep a game library running (with ever evolving operating systems and hardware).

The funny thing is, we all cry for an open platform in a console, but when it comes down to it, that's from a 'PC user's point of view. Console users are of a different mentality usually and just want a box they can press power on to play a game (though that's evolved too into streaming media as well.)

At least with this Atari VCS there will be standard APIs like OpenGL and Vulkan supported, rather than having to use some weird devkit.

Quoting: slaapliedjeBut from what I understand VR is doing surprisingly well for being 'niche'. A lot of sales boosted from Ready Player One as well (not that I have seen that, I've given up on seeing anything by Spielberg).

I wasn't all that impressed by the book, if I'm honest. I enjoyed it, don't get me wrong, but I don't really understand all the breathless excitement over it.

Yes, it is underpowered. However, the primary purpose of this console is emulation. Emulating a 40 year old console.

You are talking about an era when the 6502 microprocessor was king. It was an 8bit processor running at 1mHz and could at most address 64k of RAM. (Note: 64k of RAM, not M, not G, less than 1 millionth of a modern processor.) The 6502 was in some old arcade cabinets, the Apple II, Commodore Pet, Commodore Vic20 a few Atari home computers, and some others. Some variants were around too, like the 6510 in the hugely popular Commodore 64 or the 8502 (which could run at 2mhz) in the commodore 128. The point is that this wimp of a processor (by modern standards) ran many popular computers(including Atari computers) and arcade machines until the very early 90's. I forget what was in it, but the Atari 2600, did not have a 6502, but something significantly weaker. (History lesson: The relatively powerful IBM PC was using the 8088 and 8086 processors from Intel back then; they never used the 6502 series and variants) Ok, I did a little research/verification... the Atari 2600/VCS was using a 6507 chip. It was a wimpy version of the 6502 that could only address 8k of RAM total.

Twenty years ago, I was using Stella, an Atari 2600/VCS emulator. (I was using it on OS/2... 20 years ago, I only just started using linux, but was unhappy with windows even earlier.) This was a few years before processors hit the 1ghz mark, and the games ran fine and stutter free even on a mere 100mHz processor. (with idle clock time to spare as well.)

Why did I write all this history (other than to prove that I am an old fart Simple... For the purpose of emulating Atari games... (whether they plan to emulate the old console, computer, or arcade games,) Even a modern day low-end processor will have a lot more power than what is actually necessary. While it will not play the most recent CPU or GPU limited linux titles, it can play a significant amount of older linux titles and still be more than able to tackle the main task of Atari emulation.

One other thing... the 32gb of eMMC... while slow and limiting is also fine for the purpose of Atari emulation. The 6507 limited memory to 8k... many original atari cartridges had a max of 4k ROM (though later some cartridges used some tricks to double that, but only a limited number of later cartridges due to the expense of memory chips back then.) Assuming you can use all the memory... that means about 8 million cartridge games can fit on the flash ram. Even the 64k RAM limit of the full 6502 processor can fit 500,000 ROM images on the memory card. Having used Stella... many of the old Atari 2600 classics only used 2k ROMs, let alone the normal limit of 4k. (admittedly, for linux titles, you will probably need to expand with a SD card or external drive.)

So, yes, it is underpowered by modern standards. However, it is far more beefy than necessary in order to provide the function of emulating old Atari games. One other thing... look at that thing... and its size... I don't even see a fan on the pictures. Its tiny and small and obviously not meant to replace a full fledged computer with a high-end processor and/or a dedicated GPU. Even if you could fit all that in the tiny form factor, there is not a snowballs chance in hell that it would not overheat with high end gear.

Quoting: stretch611Yes, it is underpowered. However, the primary purpose of this console is emulation. Emulating a 40 year old console.

Except they've consistently protested that it isn't.

If that was the idea, I'd agree. In fact, it's probably over-powered for that purpose; an ARM device would be more than adequate. But no: in their original announcement, they mentioned “modern” games. It's supposed to be able to play stuff from Steam. In fairness, it may never have been the intention to have current big-name AAA games on it (although I'd argue the marketing so far has been somewhat misleading on that), but it has clearly never been “just” an emulation machine.

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: slaapliedjeI agree, but the console needs to be standardized in it's hardware. Otherwise it's just a bunch of parts in a box. Developers like a target for performance, etc.

Not really. Mobile and PC markets work fine with variety of hardware available. They are essentially "parts in a box". That doesn't stop developers and users. I don't see why consoles need to be any different in that regard. What's useful are common APIs and system stack. That's where above things I mentioned come in.

Quoting: slaapliedjeI know I'm already annoyed that a lot of games I have that I can't see in their full potential because I don't have an HDR TV or a Pro.

That's why well designed games adapt to different resolutions and hardware capabilities. That's more work, sure, but it's the right thing to do. If you can't see something in full potential because of your hardware, you'll get better hardware. Wasn't it always the case?

Well I guess it depends. Back in the 8bit era of computing, pretty much there werne't outlandish upgrades for the computers being made, you pretty much had memory differences and that was it, but soon there were games that required 48k or 64k.. then eventually 128k. Then the 16bit era came where developers would end up mostly developing for the lowest common denominator, like the ST instead of the STe, or the OCS instead of ECS and then AGA in Amiga land.

Now there are APIs that help with a lot of this and detect the hardware you're running on, though a lot of times you still have to tweak graphic settings when you first start something up for computer games. Consoles are nice because you don't have to do that ever. You pop the game into your system (or download it digitally) and it works. You don't have to mess with drivers, configurations, etc.

Something like the Steam Machine, which was mostly geared toward being a console and not a computer, didn't have that 'turn it on, it works, all your controls are configured, and you just sit down to play' feel that something like a PS4 has. Hell, even this box is going to support different controllers, keyboards, mice, etc. Wonder if it'll support the Steam Controller?

That's the thing, with Console games, you can't just go buy better hardware, it's more like a laptop, where you have to get a whole new laptop. There's a reason why it's referred to as 'The PC master race' because a lot of console gamers just stay away from it because in a lot of ways it's too hard to keep a game library running (with ever evolving operating systems and hardware).

The funny thing is, we all cry for an open platform in a console, but when it comes down to it, that's from a 'PC user's point of view. Console users are of a different mentality usually and just want a box they can press power on to play a game (though that's evolved too into streaming media as well.)

At least with this Atari VCS there will be standard APIs like OpenGL and Vulkan supported, rather than having to use some weird devkit.

In this particular case (and really the Steam Machine case) it's a bit different from normal consoles when it comes to hardware though. Your original point was about developers preferring a fixed target--but nobody's going to be developing games for this thing or Steam Machines, they're going to be running PC games which are already developed to run on very variable hardware. From a developer's point of view, these things are just a few specific PC configurations--they don't really change the target at all. Actually with this thing for the most part there are no developers at all--they're intended to run old games mainly.
The important thing, then, is not that they all be the same, or that they be impossible to modify or attach different controllers to. The important thing is that whatever configurations are sold, are good to go out of the box, with sane defaults and solid integration. Technically, an individual purchaser can't even tell if other purchasers have the same hardware and an identical experience--they can only tell if their purchase works. It is no doubt slightly easier to ensure that smooth experience with just one hardware configuration--but it shouldn't be a huge deal to effectively support a few variants.

I don't think the problem with Steam Machines had anything to do with them coming in multiple configurations as such. Most of the problems weren't even related to that, although one or two were about them coming from multiple vendors, none of whom were even the central one. I think maybe Valve wanted to imitate the success of the old IBM PC itself, with its relative openness and tolerance of clones which arguably led to its dominance over competitors like pre-Mac Apple computers and so on. But if the IBM PC itself had just been a reference design, not a real thing sold relentlessly to businesses by the massive marketing muscle and supergargantuan sales channel that was International Business Machines, the clones on their own would not have been able to dominate the market--mostly wouldn't have come into existence because there would have been no ecosystem for them to join. Valve and Steam Machines was like IBM launching the PC without making any PCs. They were probably doomed even without the various user experience gaps compared to the competition, or the generally lousy price points.

I sometimes think that Valve already realized the things were doomed (or at least would need years to be truly ready) by the time they launched, but they'd kind of promised they would and already put it off a year from the announcement so they just didn't put much energy in, minimized losses and chalked it up to experience. Hopefully one of these days when the graphics stack is all ready and MS app stores start breathing down their necks they will polish the software, team up with some content providers (eg Netflix), put their experience gained from past mistakes to use, mount a big push this time and hit Steam Machines out of the park.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 31 May 2018 at 4:27 pm UTC

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: slaapliedjeI agree, but the console needs to be standardized in it's hardware. Otherwise it's just a bunch of parts in a box. Developers like a target for performance, etc.

Not really. Mobile and PC markets work fine with variety of hardware available. They are essentially "parts in a box". That doesn't stop developers and users. I don't see why consoles need to be any different in that regard. What's useful are common APIs and system stack. That's where above things I mentioned come in.

Quoting: slaapliedjeI know I'm already annoyed that a lot of games I have that I can't see in their full potential because I don't have an HDR TV or a Pro.

That's why well designed games adapt to different resolutions and hardware capabilities. That's more work, sure, but it's the right thing to do. If you can't see something in full potential because of your hardware, you'll get better hardware. Wasn't it always the case?

Ha, my point keeps getting glossed over here. I have a younger brother that sort of was in the era where he sort of started with the Genesis and he HATES playing games on a computer because of all the updates you constantly have to do. These are the typical console player, which none of us really are.

I actually hate mobile gaming myself for various reasons.

Quoting: Dunc

Quoting: slaapliedjeBut from what I understand VR is doing surprisingly well for being 'niche'. A lot of sales boosted from Ready Player One as well (not that I have seen that, I've given up on seeing anything by Spielberg).

I wasn't all that impressed by the book, if I'm honest. I enjoyed it, don't get me wrong, but I don't really understand all the breathless excitement over it.

Yeah, oddly enough my favorite part of the book is the only part where he's actually spending time in the real world.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: slaapliedjeI agree, but the console needs to be standardized in it's hardware. Otherwise it's just a bunch of parts in a box. Developers like a target for performance, etc.

Not really. Mobile and PC markets work fine with variety of hardware available. They are essentially "parts in a box". That doesn't stop developers and users. I don't see why consoles need to be any different in that regard. What's useful are common APIs and system stack. That's where above things I mentioned come in.

Quoting: slaapliedjeI know I'm already annoyed that a lot of games I have that I can't see in their full potential because I don't have an HDR TV or a Pro.

That's why well designed games adapt to different resolutions and hardware capabilities. That's more work, sure, but it's the right thing to do. If you can't see something in full potential because of your hardware, you'll get better hardware. Wasn't it always the case?

Well I guess it depends. Back in the 8bit era of computing, pretty much there werne't outlandish upgrades for the computers being made, you pretty much had memory differences and that was it, but soon there were games that required 48k or 64k.. then eventually 128k. Then the 16bit era came where developers would end up mostly developing for the lowest common denominator, like the ST instead of the STe, or the OCS instead of ECS and then AGA in Amiga land.

Now there are APIs that help with a lot of this and detect the hardware you're running on, though a lot of times you still have to tweak graphic settings when you first start something up for computer games. Consoles are nice because you don't have to do that ever. You pop the game into your system (or download it digitally) and it works. You don't have to mess with drivers, configurations, etc.

Something like the Steam Machine, which was mostly geared toward being a console and not a computer, didn't have that 'turn it on, it works, all your controls are configured, and you just sit down to play' feel that something like a PS4 has. Hell, even this box is going to support different controllers, keyboards, mice, etc. Wonder if it'll support the Steam Controller?

That's the thing, with Console games, you can't just go buy better hardware, it's more like a laptop, where you have to get a whole new laptop. There's a reason why it's referred to as 'The PC master race' because a lot of console gamers just stay away from it because in a lot of ways it's too hard to keep a game library running (with ever evolving operating systems and hardware).

The funny thing is, we all cry for an open platform in a console, but when it comes down to it, that's from a 'PC user's point of view. Console users are of a different mentality usually and just want a box they can press power on to play a game (though that's evolved too into streaming media as well.)

At least with this Atari VCS there will be standard APIs like OpenGL and Vulkan supported, rather than having to use some weird devkit.

In this particular case (and really the Steam Machine case) it's a bit different from normal consoles when it comes to hardware though. Your original point was about developers preferring a fixed target--but nobody's going to be developing games for this thing or Steam Machines, they're going to be running PC games which are already developed to run on very variable hardware. From a developer's point of view, these things are just a few specific PC configurations--they don't really change the target at all. Actually with this thing for the most part there are no developers at all--they're intended to run old games mainly.
The important thing, then, is not that they all be the same, or that they be impossible to modify or attach different controllers to. The important thing is that whatever configurations are sold, are good to go out of the box, with sane defaults and solid integration. Technically, an individual purchaser can't even tell if other purchasers have the same hardware and an identical experience--they can only tell if their purchase works. It is no doubt slightly easier to ensure that smooth experience with just one hardware configuration--but it shouldn't be a huge deal to effectively support a few variants.

I don't think the problem with Steam Machines had anything to do with them coming in multiple configurations as such. Most of the problems weren't even related to that, although one or two were about them coming from multiple vendors, none of whom were even the central one. I think maybe Valve wanted to imitate the success of the old IBM PC itself, with its relative openness and tolerance of clones which arguably led to its dominance over competitors like pre-Mac Apple computers and so on. But if the IBM PC itself had just been a reference design, not a real thing sold relentlessly to businesses by the massive marketing muscle and supergargantuan sales channel that was International Business Machines, the clones on their own would not have been able to dominate the market--mostly wouldn't have come into existence because there would have been no ecosystem for them to join. Valve and Steam Machines was like IBM launching the PC without making any PCs. They were probably doomed even without the various user experience gaps compared to the competition, or the generally lousy price points.

I sometimes think that Valve already realized the things were doomed (or at least would need years to be truly ready) by the time they launched, but they'd kind of promised they would and already put it off a year from the announcement so they just didn't put much energy in, minimized losses and chalked it up to experience. Hopefully one of these days when the graphics stack is all ready and MS app stores start breathing down their necks they will polish the software, team up with some content providers (eg Netflix), put their experience gained from past mistakes to use, mount a big push this time and hit Steam Machines out of the park.

The Steam Machine was/is an attempt to get 'Console Gamers' to become 'PC Gamers'. That's pretty much what it breaks down to. And I don't want to be mean, and say 'Console Gamers' are dumb, they just want different things. 'PC Gamers' usually are the ones who like to brag about how beefy their systems are and optimize for max details, max FPS so they can kick ass at the latest multiplayer game. 'Console Gamers' don't want to deal with all that, and just want to be able to hook up to a TV and play. The Steam Machines (and this Atari thing) are meant to be a sort of in-between.

Real question is, who ordered one?