3 ms·

Yeah. Many of the most popular games released in recent years have contained an ARM chip. As it happens Atari Age have removed many of those games from distribu

Yeah. Many of the most popular games released in recent years have contained an ARM chip. As it happens Atari Age have removed many of those games from distribution (in readiness for this takeover by Atari) because they weren't properly licenced. A good exception to this rule is LodeRunner which has been licenced and uses an onboard ARM. If the market for this product is people who only want to play the older ROMs on a HDTV then I'm sure the 2600+ is a fine product.

MenhirMike 3y ago
I am not sure what the real market is then, though. If it's for people that want to re-live their memories, then a system with built-in games (of which plenty exist) makes much more sense, or one with a digital store (so, the VCS, or digital collections like Atari 50). Whereas people that still held on to their cartridges and want to play them seem to be more the crowd that kept up with newer and homebrew games as well? Maybe I'm projecting from myself, but if I'm that kind of enthusiast that held on and wants to play their actual cartridges, I'd expect compatibility with any cartridges I might still buy in the future. (Then again, both the RetroN and Polymega seem to do well enough, so what do I know, apart from not liking the idea of these systems as half-baked in-between solutions.)
- JetSetIlly 3y ago
  I agree with you. I don't begrudge the 2600+ but it's not one for me. It seems to me that compatibility with any cartridge would require a recreation of the actual VCS hardware. That sounds expensive to me and is probably why Atari haven't gone down this route. But as you say, that leads to a half-baked solution. The other option is an emulator that can communicate with the cartridge in real time - but that doesn't exist and I doubt Atari have gone to the trouble of making one (we're all assuming they're using Stella at this point, but I don't think that's been confirmed).

MenhirMike 3y ago

I am not sure what the real market is then, though. If it's for people that want to re-live their memories, then a system with built-in games (of which plenty exist) makes much more sense, or one with a digital store (so, the VCS, or digital collections like Atari 50). Whereas people that still held on to their cartridges and want to play them seem to be more the crowd that kept up with newer and homebrew games as well? Maybe I'm projecting from myself, but if I'm that kind of enthusiast that held on and wants to play their actual cartridges, I'd expect compatibility with any cartridges I might still buy in the future. (Then again, both the RetroN and Polymega seem to do well enough, so what do I know, apart from not liking the idea of these systems as half-baked in-between solutions.)

JetSetIlly 3y ago
I agree with you. I don't begrudge the 2600+ but it's not one for me. It seems to me that compatibility with any cartridge would require a recreation of the actual VCS hardware. That sounds expensive to me and is probably why Atari haven't gone down this route. But as you say, that leads to a half-baked solution. The other option is an emulator that can communicate with the cartridge in real time - but that doesn't exist and I doubt Atari have gone to the trouble of making one (we're all assuming they're using Stella at this point, but I don't think that's been confirmed).