Atari Jaguar making Nintendo Nervous?
Robert A. Jung
* After months of advance notice, the Atari Jaguar was shown to the video
gaming media and the general press on Wednesday, August 18, 1993.
Reception was generally positive; Andy Eddy calls the machine "comparable
to a 3DO for 1/3rd the price".
* Nintendo of America and Silicon Graphics have announced on Friday, August
20, that they will have a joint press conference next Monday, August 25,
to unveil some innovation in video gaming.
Given the closeness of these two events (Atari on Wednesday, NOA next
Monday), and the abruptness of the Nintendo announcement...
Is it a coincidence? Or is there something more here? Remember, Nintendo
did announce a SNES CD-ROM player (which still hasn't materialized) soon
after Sega announced their CD-ROM drive a few years back...
(I feel like I should host the MacNeil-Lehrer Hour or somesuch:
"Speculations, gentleman! Please!" B-)
--R.J.
B-)
//////////////////////////////////////|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Send whatevers to rj...@netcom.com | If it has pixels, I'm for it.
--------------------------------------+------------------------------Lynx up!
"You weren't chosen because you are the best pilot in the Air Force. You were
chosen because you are the class clown and frankly, you're expendable."
Marc B. Reynolds
>The facts, and only the facts:
>
> * After months of advance notice, the Atari Jaguar was shown to the video
> gaming media and the general press on Wednesday, August 18, 1993.
> Reception was generally positive; Andy Eddy calls the machine "comparable
> to a 3DO for 1/3rd the price".
>
machine forever. Nobody in the industry takes them seriously.
Don't believe me? Take a look at the list of developer that they
have:
Atari
Humm....see my point. I'll start to believe that Atari has something
when some real developers join their bandwagon, cause even if it does
exist...and the hardware's great, it don't matter if there aren't any
(good) games to play on it.
>* Nintendo of America and Silicon Graphics have announced on Friday, August
> 20, that they will have a joint press conference next Monday, August 25,
> to unveil some innovation in video gaming.
Let's see...SGI has wanted to get into consumer products, have some
of the best graphics technology, and own RISC company MIPS. Nintendo
wants their next machine to be cheaper and more powerful than their
competition (i.e. SEGA and maybe 3DO.) A deal between SGI and Nintendo
could give both companies what they want. Nintendo gets a powerful
"off-the-self" processor and existing graphics hardware that both
have existing tools and people experienced with them and SGI greatly
increases it's marketplace.
> Given the closeness of these two events (Atari on Wednesday, NOA next
>Monday), and the abruptness of the Nintendo announcement...
>
> Is it a coincidence? Or is there something more here? Remember, Nintendo
>did announce a SNES CD-ROM player (which still hasn't materialized) soon
>after Sega announced their CD-ROM drive a few years back...
[STUFF DELETE]
Yeah Nintendo did say they were coming out with a CD-ROM player. Why
did they do it? To take away steam from SEGA's announcement of course.
Why haven't they delievered? There's been no need. SEGA-CD has been
a piece...the hardware is flaky and games have been weak. (Please,
no flames, I'm a sucker that's stuck with one.) This way SNES developers
have only one (major) platform to deal with.
Well, that's my two cents......
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc B. Reynolds W: (510) 814-6384
mrey...@netcom.com H: (510) 814-9385
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Jung
>In article <rjungCC...@netcom.com> rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
>> * After months of advance notice, the Atari Jaguar was shown to the video
>> gaming media and the general press on Wednesday, August 18, 1993.
>
> machine forever.
No, I meant the official showing was prepared months in advanced. Who knows
how long the development's been. But it's not fair to call it "vapor" any
more, I think.
> Nobody in the industry takes them seriously.
Trip Hawkins sure seems a bit nervous to me.
> Don't believe me? Take a look at the list of developer that they
> have:
> Atari
> Humm....see my point. I'll start to believe that Atari has something
> when some real developers join their bandwagon, cause even if it does
> exist...and the hardware's great, it don't matter if there aren't any
> (good) games to play on it.
*Smirk* Well, I _do_ have an advanced, tentative list of Jaguar developers
here, and it's not a one-name-on-a-sheet-of-paper affair (sorry, can't
publish it, you know how these NDAs go). While I agree that it'd be more
interesting to see companies like Acclaim, Konami, and Capcom sign on to do
Jaguar titles, let's remember that the lack of third-party developers is not
equivalent to saying "the machine sucks". Or, in other words, there is no
relationship between the hardware and the people doing software for it.
And last I heard, third-party developers don't have a lock on producing
good games for any console. I've seen lots of clunkers from the software
houses, and I'm sure you have as well...
>>* Nintendo of America and Silicon Graphics have announced on Friday, August
>> 20, that they will have a joint press conference next Monday, August 25,
>> to unveil some innovation in video gaming.
>
> Let's see...SGI has wanted to get into consumer products, have some
> of the best graphics technology, and own RISC company MIPS. Nintendo
> wants their next machine to be cheaper and more powerful than their
> competition (i.e. SEGA and maybe 3DO.) A deal between SGI and Nintendo
> could give both companies what they want. Nintendo gets a powerful
> "off-the-self" processor and existing graphics hardware that both
> have existing tools and people experienced with them and SGI greatly
> increases it's marketplace.
Yes, yes, and yes. But why this Monday, of all the possible times to make
such a deal known? Why a big bruhaha on Friday to tell everyone to show up on
Monday for the announcement?
Personal guess is that Nintendo and SGI have been working on a deal for
quite some time, perhaps even have something penned. But it was only the
showing of the Jaguar that forced Nintendo's hand, to make them to announce
something now rather than later. Nintendo of America has a history of
delaying releases of new systems, if they are afraid it will cut into their
existing sales base. The SNES was delayed in its US release largely so it
would not hurt NES sales as much, for instance.
>> Is it a coincidence? Or is there something more here? Remember, Nintendo
>>did announce a SNES CD-ROM player (which still hasn't materialized) soon
>>after Sega announced their CD-ROM drive a few years back...
>
> Yeah Nintendo did say they were coming out with a CD-ROM player. Why
> did they do it? To take away steam from SEGA's announcement of course.
Yep. And I speculate that the Nintendo/SGI conference on Monday will be an
attempt to do something similar with the Jaguar. Considering how "nobody
takes Atari seriously" (as you said so yourself), for Nintendo to act this
way must mean they're very worried about something.
> Why haven't they delievered? There's been no need.
I'll let the Sega CD advocatesargue this point. Though I agree; I haven't
seen a Sega CD title that makes me want to run out and buy one, either.
Brian Green
> [STUFF DELETE]
> Yeah Nintendo did say they were coming out with a CD-ROM player. Why
> did they do it? To take away steam from SEGA's announcement of course.
> Why haven't they delievered? There's been no need. SEGA-CD has been
> a piece...the hardware is flaky and games have been weak. (Please,
> no flames, I'm a sucker that's stuck with one.) This way SNES developers
> have only one (major) platform to deal with.
Hey, sometimes people forget the whole picture. Sure TTI isn't the
wave of the future, but "Lords of Thunder" has my vote for one of the
best shooter games, and it's on the Duo by TTI. Remember Sega and
the big "N" aren't the only players here.
> Well, that's my two cents......
Mine, too.
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Marc B. Reynolds W: (510) 814-638
> mrey...@netcom.com H: (510) 814-938
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Green, bgr...@iastate.edu
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
>But it's not fair to call it "vapor" any more, I think.
I'd have to disagree with that notion. Until it's on the shelves
where real customers can purchase I think it's vapor. Anything could
happen between now and the release date.
>*Smirk* Well, I _do_ have an advanced, tentative list of Jaguar developers
>here, and it's not a one-name-on-a-sheet-of-paper affair (sorry, can't
>publish it, you know how these NDAs go).
Other than Atari and IBM, is there anyone that is affiliated with the
Jaguar that can be known? I believe I recall seeing some other names
mentioned with 3DO, why must Atari be so secretive? Are there any
known games being made for the Jaguar, perhaps a "classics" cartridge
or something?
--
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
Davin Swanson
> machine forever. Nobody in the industry takes them seriously.
> Don't believe me? Take a look at the list of developer that they
> have:
> Atari
How about IBM? IBM will be producing the unit for Atari. Yeah, I know some
bird-brain came up with a great argument like "Well, IBMs only producing it!
They won't support it! They don't care!"
First off, why the hell would a company agree to produce something for pure
profit, and not support it? "Well, Jim. All we have to do is build these
things and we get money? Well, let's just let it take a nose dive in the
market..."
Second, I doubt that IBM would agree to put the time and effort into making a
agreement with Atari and produce its product if it thought it was designed
badly or would crash and burn in the marketplace...
--
Davin K. Swanson gt6...@prism.gatech.edu
"I can't think of anything creative or witty right now."
- Me
Sean Eric Fagan
>I believe I recall seeing some other names
>mentioned with 3DO, why must Atari be so secretive?
Because Atari and their third-party developers can be bullied more easily
than the 3DO people. And presenting a fait acompli is much better than
being dragged into court before release, if someone wants to cause you
problems.
Teh Kao Yang
think that the Jaguar or 3D0 is going to be able to steal a large portion of
the video game market share away from Sega or Nintendo? It's very unlikely.
Sure, a few die hard video game players, people who like Atari products, and
maybe some people who just have a lot of money to spend may buy a Jaguar or
3D0, but that's about it. It won't matter if the machines are 64 bit or have
24 million colors and cost only $100. It's the software + advertising that
sells systems, and I don't see either the 3D0 or Jaguar being able to beat
or even come close to Nintendo and Sega in those categories.
The 3D0... I predict it's going to fail like the CD-I unless they bring price
down... a lot. I think anything over $300 is too much for the average gamer.
As for the Jaguar, it may seem like a good deal at only $200 but looking at
its games and list of 3rd party developers, I think it's going to end up like
the console version of the Lynx. Does anyone think that the average kid will
get excited by updated versions of old Atari games?? Come on, it's only old
geezers like us who've played these games in their heyday who will be able to
appreciated them and there's not many of us. Unless the 3D0 and Jaguar can
get some big name games like SF2, Final Fight, Jurassic, or just put any other
familiar and famous name on their games, they're not going to sell that many
systems...
Well, just what I think of these new 64-bit systems coming out... I am ready
for the flames... *gulp*.
-TK
Grue
>In article <rjungCC...@netcom.com> rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
>>The facts, and only the facts:
>>
>> * After months of advance notice, the Atari Jaguar was shown to the video
>> gaming media and the general press on Wednesday, August 18, 1993.
>> Reception was generally positive; Andy Eddy calls the machine "comparable
>> to a 3DO for 1/3rd the price".
>>
> Months? Atari has been going on and on about their vapor console
> machine forever. Nobody in the industry takes them seriously.
Atari has NOT been "going on and on" about the Jaguar "forever". When are you
people going to understand this? The first word from Atari was their press
release a little while back.
> Don't believe me? Take a look at the list of developer that they
> have:
>
> Atari
Atari has not released a list of third-party developers, and won't until the
middle of September. Use your brains, and stick to facts. The fact is, neither
your not I know what companies are developing for the Jaguar, although I have
heard from programmers of a few companies (via Compuserve in a public forum)
that they are writing games for the Jaguar. That's all they will say. But
Atari, the company, has said nothing. Get that through your head.
Tom
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Tom Pschar - A smile, two bangs, and a religion | land (n.) - see snatch. |
|Goodbye Benny. Thanks for making me laugh.| Atari Jaguar: Soon...very soon.|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mike Farren
>How about IBM? IBM will be producing the unit for Atari. Yeah, I know some
>bird-brain came up with a great argument like "Well, IBMs only producing it!
>They won't support it! They don't care!"
>First off, why the hell would a company agree to produce something for pure
>profit, and not support it? "Well, Jim. All we have to do is build these
>things and we get money? Well, let's just let it take a nose dive in the
>market..."
Because that's what they do. Why would they? Because it makes money,
why else? Why do you think IBM is going to be any different than the
thousands of other companies that are doing exactly the same thing -
Borg Warner, TRW, Ford, General Motors, and on and on...
If IBM builds 1000 Jaguars, and then Atari goes belly-up, IBM has made
1000 units worth of profit on the deal. And then they'd go off and find
another thing to build - that's the way it goes. If Atari sells 100,000,000
Jaguars, IBM will be very happy - because they'll have the money Atari
has paid them to build 100,000,000 Jaguars, and for no other reason.
Sure, they'd be ecstatic if the Atari contract turned out to be a real
money-maker - who wouldn't? But they don't have any stake in it, they've
got nothing on the line. They're just an assembly shop with a name
that's considerably better known than most.
>Second, I doubt that IBM would agree to put the time and effort into making a
>agreement with Atari and produce its product if it thought it was designed
>badly or would crash and burn in the marketplace...
Don't you understand how this stuff works? IBM doesn't give the slightest
damn if it's badly designed or unsellable. They get paid, they build it.
Strictly commercial transaction, and no more. It's not their responsibility
if it's a piece of shit or if it's the greatest thing in the world - and
it's not their ass on the line, either way. They *don't* care - and there's
no reason why they should.
Christ, folks, PLEASE get real. Go out and work in the real world for a
while, learn how real-world product production actually works, instead
of how you think it works. I've been involved in this stuff for two
decades and more now, and I promise you that it doesn't work the way
you think it does. It really, truly doesn't.
--
Michael J. Farren far...@netcom.com
Unconnected with Commodore for almost two years, now!
Hrivnak
->Unless the 3D0 and Jaguar can
->get some big name games like SF2, Final Fight, Jurassic, or just put any other
->familiar and famous name on their games, they're not going to sell that many
->systems...
->
->Well, just what I think of these new 64-bit systems coming out... I am ready
->for the flames... *gulp*.
I'd have to agree with you, to a point. However, 3DO seems to have
some good support. After all, it has become EA's pet project, and EA makes
some of the best games on the market. The pics I've seen for Madden on the
3DO are surperb. The 3DO should worry about price though, which is the main
reason the Neo-Geo didn't catch.
--
GO BLUES! ||Mike Friedman (Hrivnak fan!) / E-Mail: gtd...@prism.gatech.edu
GO BRAVES! ||
GO HORNETS! ||"Soylent Green is made out of people! PEOPLE!!" - Phil Hartman
GO REDSKINS! ||"Indecision clouds my vision, no one listens" - Michael Patton ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The above statements are not in agreement with roger maynard. Please disregard
Hans Holmberg
[stuff deleted]
>>Second, I doubt that IBM would agree to put the time and effort into making a
>>agreement with Atari and produce its product if it thought it was designed
>>badly or would crash and burn in the marketplace...
>Don't you understand how this stuff works? IBM doesn't give the slightest
>damn if it's badly designed or unsellable. They get paid, they build it.
>Strictly commercial transaction, and no more. It's not their responsibility
>if it's a piece of shit or if it's the greatest thing in the world - and
>it's not their ass on the line, either way. They *don't* care - and there's
>no reason why they should.
I would find it very strange if IBM didn't care about the quality of the
products they manufacture since their contracts in most cases state that
they are responsible for the quality (ie. the units should work before
delivery) of the product. I don't think IBM would agree to manufacture
something that won't work.
>Christ, folks, PLEASE get real. Go out and work in the real world for a
>while, learn how real-world product production actually works, instead
>of how you think it works. I've been involved in this stuff for two
>decades and more now, and I promise you that it doesn't work the way
>you think it does. It really, truly doesn't.
Sounds like you should do the same.....
>Michael J. Farren far...@netcom.com
>Unconnected with Commodore for almost two years, now!
--
/ email: ha...@solace.hsh.se, irc: Knightman, mud: Kniggit@VikingMud \
\ snail-mail: Hans Holmberg, Sommarvagen 5, 854 67 Sundsvall, Sweden /
/ phone: +46 60 569169, fax: +46 60 569266 \
\ "In a crazy world a sane person would appear to be crazy." /
Len Stys
In a previous article, t...@cbnews.cb.att.com (Grue) says:
>In article <mreynoldC...@netcom.com> mrey...@netcom.com (Marc B. Reynolds) writes:
>>In article <rjungCC...@netcom.com> rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
>>>The facts, and only the facts:
>>>
>>> * After months of advance notice, the Atari Jaguar was shown to the video
>>> gaming media and the general press on Wednesday, August 18, 1993.
>>> Reception was generally positive; Andy Eddy calls the machine "comparable
>>> to a 3DO for 1/3rd the price".
>>>
>> Months? Atari has been going on and on about their vapor console
>> machine forever. Nobody in the industry takes them seriously.
>
>Atari has NOT been "going on and on" about the Jaguar "forever". When are you
>people going to understand this? The first word from Atari was their press
>release a little while back.
I've known that Atari has been working on a 32-bit or 64-bit video game
system since September, 1991.
I've known that it was codenamed "Jaguar" since early 1992.
The 1991 Annual Report stated a video game system codename "Jaguar" was being
worked on by Atari.
Nobody was aware that it would be a 64-bit video game system until Bob Brodie
and other Atari employees hinted at this fact since early 1993.
When are you going to understand that this is no secret. If you open your
eyes, open your ears, you'll find out some amazing stuff!
>
>> Don't believe me? Take a look at the list of developer that they
>> have:
>>
>> Atari
>
>Atari has not released a list of third-party developers, and won't until the
>middle of September. Use your brains, and stick to facts. The fact is, neither
>your not I know what companies are developing for the Jaguar, although I have
>heard from programmers of a few companies (via Compuserve in a public forum)
>that they are writing games for the Jaguar. That's all they will say. But
>Atari, the company, has said nothing. Get that through your head.
Get this through your head. Just because ATARI hasn't released an official
developer list doesn't mean that developers cannot say that they are
developing for the system.
You try to make others look bad, but when you don't know what you are talking
about, you are the only one that looks bad.
>
>Tom
>
>--
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>|Tom Pschar - A smile, two bangs, and a religion | land (n.) - see snatch. |
>|Goodbye Benny. Thanks for making me laugh.| Atari Jaguar: Soon...very soon.|
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
--
Andy Eddy
> Other than Atari and IBM, is there anyone that is affiliated with the
> Jaguar that can be known? I believe I recall seeing some other names
> mentioned with 3DO, why must Atari be so secretive? Are there any
> known games being made for the Jaguar, perhaps a "classics" cartridge
> or something?
Atari will be making an announcement of licensees in mid-September and
won't talk about it until then. They claim to be talking to a lot of Sega,
Nintendo and 3DO licensees, which makes a ton of sense. If, say, someone
is doing a 3DO game and is putting mega manhours into it, they would be
stupid not to try to find another platform to port all that work onto to
defray their costs. I would guess that they Jaguar would be a desirable
platform, even if it's an Atari product, because of the lower cost in
comparison to 3DO. However, developers need to spread the GIANT cost of
making a game, so surely there will be a lot of them talking to Atari.
A E
--
Andy Eddy, Freelance Writer (specializing in electronic games)
*finger VIDG...@NETCOM.COM for recent magazine credits*
VIDG...@NETCOM.COM / VIDG...@DELPHI.COM / VIDEO...@AOL.COM
(818) 246-6550 fax/voice/answering machine
MeatHead
computer games. I have refused to buy a sega or nintendo because I thought
the machines sucked. I could get better games on my personal computer. The
3DO will most likely be the first machine that I can not legitimately say this
about. Given a wide array of games (which NeoGeo always lacked) I'll probably
buy it.
I assume that 3DO is going after the market I represent. I have enough cash
to put down some money for a good game machine. Its still 1/3 the price of
a PC. I and most older adults tire quickly from the stupid sidescrolling
beat and smash games evident on the other machines. They're made for kids.
Well the kids are starting to grow up and need more sophisticated machines.
Besides, price will become a moot point with multiple manufacturers. With
competition and economies of scale I'd say a base 3DO will be selling for $300
withing a year of release.
Until then, I'll start socking away some money...
--> MeatHead <--
Mike Farren
>I would find it very strange if IBM didn't care about the quality of the
>products they manufacture since their contracts in most cases state that
>they are responsible for the quality (ie. the units should work before
>delivery) of the product. I don't think IBM would agree to manufacture
>something that won't work.
Have you seen the IBM/Atari contract? Have you seen *any* real contracts
for assembly of a product by an outside contractor? If IBM is responsible
for testing of a product they're assembling, then that means that they
are responsible for just one thing: ensuring that the product they've
assembled works - but only in the sense that the components function,
that there aren't any flaws introduced in the assembly process, and
that the systems work as well as they would in a "perfect" example of
the assembly they're testing. They have *no* stake in the design of
the product - they'd be just as happy to assemble a Jaguar in which
the DSP and graphics chips aren't even connected to anything. They
don't care - they're not *allowed* to care, they're just assemblers.
They do care about the quality of the units they manufacture - but
they care about the quality of the *assembly*, not the quality of
the *system*. I have little doubt that if IBM manufactures the Jaguar,
it will be a well-built system. Whether it works as well as it's
built is another matter entirely, and one which IBM will have nothing
to do with.
Like I said:
>>Christ, folks, PLEASE get real.
>Sounds like you should do the same.....
Funny, that. I've been responsible for subcontracting the assembly and
testing of a video game, and for supervising the quality of the work
done. I've had to sit down and review the contract signed, and I've
had to do the work necessary to make a product that was testable by the
firm we subcontracted to. I think I know how this process works, by
direct experience. Have you got that same experience, or are you just
talking out of your hat? Like I said - this doesn't work the way you
think it works.
--
Gert Niewahr
>J.B. Nicholson-Owens (je...@uiuc.edu) wrote:
>> Other than Atari and IBM, is there anyone that is affiliated with the
>> Jaguar that can be known? I believe I recall seeing some other names
>> mentioned with 3DO, why must Atari be so secretive? Are there any
>> known games being made for the Jaguar, perhaps a "classics" cartridge
>> or something?
>
>Atari will be making an announcement of licensees in mid-September and
>won't talk about it until then. They claim to be talking to a lot of Sega,
>Nintendo and 3DO licensees, which makes a ton of sense. If, say, someone
>is doing a 3DO game and is putting mega manhours into it, they would be
>stupid not to try to find another platform to port all that work onto to
>defray their costs. I would guess that they Jaguar would be a desirable
>platform, even if it's an Atari product, because of the lower cost in
>comparison to 3DO. However, developers need to spread the GIANT cost of
>making a game, so surely there will be a lot of them talking to Atari.
>
> A E
>
This *sounds* right, but it's totally bogus:
The two architectures use, apparently, highly idiosyncratic
rendering hardware (the 3DO certainly does). Based on the facts
and rumors, the 3DO is a DMA-VRAM swapping system with lots of
cel rendering support, and the Jag is a hardware blitting system
with the horsepower for real polygon rendering.
The two use very different CPUs, ARM 60 and 68000. Even if
there wasn't a CISC vs. RISC issue, the instructions sets would
still be dissimilar, making porting assembler code a big chore.
Most 3DO games are being written in assembler, except for their
in-house ones (3DO engineers apparently trust their compilers
more than their licensees do).
3DO artwork must be specially rendered to look right on the
machine; if 3rd party developers weren't careful about how they
did their art, they may have to substantially rework it for
ports.
Yeah, there will be ports of preexisting games to both systems, but
it'll be a while before a game initially designed for one is ported to
the other.
Grue
>
>In a previous article, t...@cbnews.cb.att.com (Grue) says:
>
>I've known that Atari has been working on a 32-bit or 64-bit video game
>system since September, 1991.
And that was the Panther. And you DIDN'T HEAR IT FROM ATARI. You heard it
from rumors in game magazines.
>
>I've known that it was codenamed "Jaguar" since early 1992.
Yes, me too.
>
>The 1991 Annual Report stated a video game system codename "Jaguar" was being
>worked on by Atari.
I doubt that, since it was still the Panther back then.
>When are you going to understand that this is no secret. If you open your
>eyes, open your ears, you'll find out some amazing stuff!
Blah blah blah.
>Get this through your head. Just because ATARI hasn't released an official
>developer list doesn't mean that developers cannot say that they are
>developing for the system.
>
Guess what? It does. It's part of the NDA. Atari will release the names
of developers when they are ready.
>You try to make others look bad, but when you don't know what you are talking
>about, you are the only one that looks bad.
Oh, really?
Hans Holmberg
>Have you seen the IBM/Atari contract? Have you seen *any* real contracts
>for assembly of a product by an outside contractor? If IBM is responsible
No, I haven't seen the contract. And yes, I have seen real contracts, since
I have designed & constructed customer-adapted electronics.
[stuff deleted]
>They do care about the quality of the units they manufacture - but
>they care about the quality of the *assembly*, not the quality of
>the *system*. I have little doubt that if IBM manufactures the Jaguar,
>it will be a well-built system. Whether it works as well as it's
>built is another matter entirely, and one which IBM will have nothing
>to do with.
Right!
[stuff deleted]
>Funny, that. I've been responsible for subcontracting the assembly and
>testing of a video game, and for supervising the quality of the work
>done. I've had to sit down and review the contract signed, and I've
>had to do the work necessary to make a product that was testable by the
>firm we subcontracted to. I think I know how this process works, by
>direct experience. Have you got that same experience, or are you just
>talking out of your hat? Like I said - this doesn't work the way you
>think it works.
What I meant was that I don't think IBM would sign a contract for assembling
a product that was so badly designed or had other flaws that would make it
unreliable in it's operation. I doubt anyone would.
You are quite right that IBM doesn't care if they manufacture a product that
the consumers doesn't buy for one reason or other, as long as they get paid
for their job.
But, I think IBM cares a little bit for the Jaguar, because this is the first
time IBM will produce "a higly cost-competive, mass consumer-electronics
product" (quote from Herbert Watkinson, director of application solutions
manufacturing at IBM Charlotte). If the Atari Jaguar becomes a success,
IBM will have something to point at saying that they can produce high-volume
mass consumer-electronics, and in that way attract more contracts for products
targeted at that market.
Enough said, you were right in the beginning, it was only that you expressed
yourself a bit "fuzzy", and so did I.
>Michael J. Farren far...@netcom.com
>Unconnected with Commodore for almost two years, now!
/hasse
Chad Gowin
> How about IBM? IBM will be producing the unit for Atari.
I might believe that if IBM had ever produced a software product own their own.
*smirk*
E. Kontei
> In article <2579pc$j...@aludra.usc.edu> teh...@aludra.usc.edu (Teh Kao Yang) writes:
> ->Final Fight, Jurassic, or just put any other familiar and famous
> ->name on their games, they're not going to sell that many systems...
1) If the list of developers and the software are any indication, the
3DO group is not aiming towards the Nintendo/Sega kids, but towards
the adults who have the disposable income to buy a computer to play
games. For those people, the 3DO is a cheap and attractive alternative.
BTW, There are a few licensed games for the 3DO, but most of them are
computer games or film/TV licenses (Jurassic Park/ST:TNG/etc.)
2) Nintendo and Sega will eventually vanish into the darkness, just like
countless companies before them. Maybe it won't be the 3DO or the
Jaguar which does it, but it will happen. Deal.
--
E n r i q u e C o n t y
"He's a playful fellow who draws attention just by walking down the street"
co...@cbnewsl.att.com jes...@ihlpm.att.com
Disclaimer: You're not dealing with AT&T
E. Kontei
>
> 1) If the list of developers and the software are any indication, the
OOPS.
This, along with several other things I posted, was supposed to be e-mail.
Must have been sleep-posting again... ^_^;;
The other article looking similar to this one is the one that was supposed
to be posted.
Ricardo Hernandez Muchado
|> Nintendo? Worried about.... the Jaguar?
Yes.
|> Don't be silly. Does anybody seriously
|> think that the Jaguar or 3D0 is going to be able to steal a large portion of
|> the video game market share away from Sega or Nintendo? It's very unlikely.
Really?
|> Sure, a few die hard video game players, people who like Atari products, and
|> maybe some people who just have a lot of money to spend may buy a Jaguar
Jaguar will reatail for $200. This is how the Super-Nintendo started.
|> or
|> 3D0, but that's about it. It won't matter if the machines are 64 bit or have
|> 24 million colors and cost only $100. It's the software + advertising that
|> sells systems,
Well, you scored a point on that one.
|> and I don't see either the 3D0 or Jaguar being able to beat
|> or even come close to Nintendo and Sega in those categories.
I don't see ATARI there, but surely 3DO is there. 3DO is backed
by AT&T and Panasonic-Matsushita. BOTH $SUPER-HUGE$ companies.
But 3DO has to drop the price, I agree.
|>
|> The 3D0... I predict it's going to fail like the CD-I unless they bring price
|> down... a lot. I think anything over $300 is too much for the average gamer.
|> As for the Jaguar, it may seem like a good deal at only $200 but looking at
|> its games and list of 3rd party developers,
Remember how S-NES started in the US: Super Mario World, Pilot Wings, Super R-Type and F-Zero.
|> I think it's going to end up like
|> the console version of the Lynx.
I doubt it, although it could happen. At least ATARI got Time Warner behind them.
|> Does anyone think that the average kid will
|> get excited by updated versions of old Atari games?? Come on, it's only old
|> geezers like us who've played these games in their heyday who will be able to
|> appreciated them and there's not many of us. Unless the 3D0 and Jaguar can
|> get some big name games like SF2, Final Fight, Jurassic, or just put any other
|> familiar and famous name on their games, they're not going to sell that many
|> systems...
'
Or if they make a totally new game that KICKS BUTT and LOOKS RADICALLY DIFFERENT
FROM WHAT AN S-NES OR GENESIS CAN DO, AND BOTH UNITS CAN..... Then they'll sell
*big time*.
|> Well, just what I think of these new 64-bit systems coming out... I am ready
|> for the flames... *gulp*.
Yep :-)
|>
|> -TK
|>
|>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raist A1200/CSA '12 Gauge' 030/882 @ 50Mhz, 16 megs Fast Ram, 200 meg HD
// >>> I LOVE IT <<<< My comments are my own, not of my employer
\X/ 256,000 + colors, 24-bit palette Real 3D V2, Image FX, Scala MM210
>>> New internet address: ra...@vnet.ibm.com <<<<
Ricardo Hernandez Muchado
|> In article <rjungCC...@netcom.com> rj...@netcom.com (Robert A. Jung) writes:
|> >The facts, and only the facts:
|> >
|> > * After months of advance notice, the Atari Jaguar was shown to the video
|> > gaming media and the general press on Wednesday, August 18, 1993.
|> > Reception was generally positive; Andy Eddy calls the machine "comparable
|> > to a 3DO for 1/3rd the price".
|> >
|> Months? Atari has been going on and on about their vapor console
|> machine forever. Nobody in the industry takes them seriously.
|> Don't believe me? Take a look at the list of developer that they
|> have:
|>
|> Atari
|>
|> Humm....see my point. I'll start to believe that Atari has something
|> when some real developers join their bandwagon, cause even if it does
|> exist...and the hardware's great, it don't matter if there aren't any
|> (good) games to play on it.
It exists, believe me. IBM is gonna do it.
|>
|> >* Nintendo of America and Silicon Graphics have announced on Friday, August
|> > 20, that they will have a joint press conference next Monday, August 25,
|> > to unveil some innovation in video gaming.
|>
|> Let's see...SGI has wanted to get into consumer products, have some
|> of the best graphics technology, and own RISC company MIPS. Nintendo
|> wants their next machine to be cheaper and more powerful than their
|> competition (i.e. SEGA and maybe 3DO.) A deal between SGI and Nintendo
|> could give both companies what they want. Nintendo gets a powerful
|> "off-the-self" processor and existing graphics hardware that both
|> have existing tools and people experienced with them and SGI greatly
|> increases it's marketplace.
True.
[stuff deleted]
|>
|>
|> Well, that's my two cents......
|> --
|> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Marc B. Reynolds W: (510) 814-6384
|> mrey...@netcom.com H: (510) 814-9385
|> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Ricardo Hernandez Muchado
|> In <mreynoldC...@netcom.com> mrey...@netcom.com (Marc B. Reynolds) writes:
|> > Months? Atari has been going on and on about their vapor console
|> > machine forever. Nobody in the industry takes them seriously.
|> > Don't believe me? Take a look at the list of developer that they
|> > have:
|>
|> > Atari
|>
|> How about IBM? IBM will be producing the unit for Atari. Yeah, I know some
|> bird-brain came up with a great argument like "Well, IBMs only producing it!
|> They won't support it! They don't care!"
They don't have to support it. Only to make it. The only kind of support they'll
get from IBM is 1. Manufacture, 2. Quality Assurance (of the Jaguar Hardware,
not the Software!), 3. To a certain extent, distribution.
THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE MARKETTING, SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, ETC.
|>
|> First off, why the hell would a company agree to produce something for pure
|> profit, and not support it? "Well, Jim. All we have to do is build these
|> things and we get money? Well, let's just let it take a nose dive in the
|> market..."
|>
|> Second, I doubt that IBM would agree to put the time and effort into making a
|> agreement with Atari and produce its product if it thought it was designed
|> badly or would crash and burn in the marketplace...
That one is most likely true :-)
|>
|>
|> --
|> Davin K. Swanson gt6...@prism.gatech.edu
|> "I can't think of anything creative or witty right now."
|> - Me
--