🚀 go-pugleaf

Someone noted that before--that they don't want the to follow the path
of the 2600. Why not? In its day, it was the most popular system. Around
500 cartridges were eventually released for it, and some people still
use it (like me!). The Lynx would be doing well do even half as well
as the 2600 did!
 

vcsc1090@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Dionicio Lazo) writes:



>1. Atari does not advertise. When was the last time you saw an
>advertisement for the Lynx or its cartridges (bessides Batman)?
>I am sure you haven't.  Sega and SNES advertise on the radio and
>television all the time and the result-> stores will sell their
>products.

    How true. Although, in Atari's defence, I think it should be said that
they probably can't afford to advertise. Given the success of the Lynx
and the STs, I'm amazed Atari isn't chapter 11 by now. Hopefully the 
Jaguar and Falcon can breathe new life into her.  
 
>2. Atari is living in the past. 99.9% of Atari games are
>translations form its video game. Simply put, if we played joust or
>road blasters at the arcade, why would we want to play them at
>home? You would get tired of them very fast!  This leads to:

   This is only partially true. Yes, Atari does recycle their games
at a notorious rate (Robotron 2084, Joust, Ms.Pac-Man, Road Blasters,
Checkered Flag {read: Pole Position}) but on the other hand, look at
all the new games on the Lynx: Batman Returns, Shadow of the Beast,
Toki, Dracula, Dirty Larry...overall, I think there's far more "new"
games than recycled. 
 
>3. Atari does not make any new or intersting games that people want
>to play! Look at gameboy which has Megaman, Terminator 2, etc.
>Atari does not even have a Role playing game out onthe market.
>What Atari needs to do is to get 3rd party programmers to develop
>new games with imagination.

    I traded my Lynx in for a Game Gear for this exact reason: I didn't
like the games Atari had to offer. But I think this is largely a 
personal preference. As for 3rd party programmers, don't hold your
breath. Most companies don't want to jump on Atari's bandwagon because
they don't see it as being profitable.
   
>4. Atari does not release enough games. Each month, Atari releases
>1 game or 2! Thats it!! Compare that with Lameboy or Game Gear
>which release 6 or more a month.  Atari's first RPG, Guardians,
>Storm Over Doria was given a release date of Nov-December of 1992
>and they still have not finished it!  What are we supposed to do,
>just sit and wait!
 
   Absolutely 100% true. Perhaps Atari, as I said earlier, simply
can't afford it. Sega they aren't.  
  
>5. Lynx does not use it fullest potential as a 16 bit machine. I
>have seen Game Gear games which look and play better that Atari
>games.  If the Lynx is a true 16 bit machine, why can't they
>achieve the clear crisp graphichs like the Genesis or SNES. The
>screen has nothing to do with it because the smaller the screen,
>the better the picture.

    I agree with half of this statement: Yes, there are Game Gear games
(quite a few, really) that look and play better than Lynx games. No,
the Lynx is NOT a true 16 bit machine. It has a 16 bit graphics engine,
and an 8 bit (EIGHT BIT!!) CPU. So it's something like the TG-16, which
can't produce graphics like the Genesis or Super NES either. Another big
limitation on the Lynx is it's low-resolution screen, which makes even
the nicest graphics seem blocky. (In the GameBoy's defence, it should be
said that the GB has a higher res screen than the Lynx, as does the Game
Gear). 
  
>In conclusion, what you should be doing is writing Atari and tell
>them to get their act together. Tell them to advertise more on tv
>and radio, develop more RPG's and shooters, use the 16 bit to its
>fullest potential, and come up with its own magazine! 

    Nah, why bother? Just jump ship and get a Game Gear! ;-)   

>I love my Lynx but if things keep on going as they are, then I fear
>the Lynx will follw the path of the 2600.         
>What do you think?

    I think the Lynx will keep going along as it is now, surviving without
too much trouble but never threatening the Game Boy or Game Gear for sales
or number of units. Why? I think the bottom line is that Atari is either
(a) too stupid to properly support and promote their machine or (b) too broke
to properly support and promote their machine. It's probably (b), but frankly,
sometimes I wonder.


-- 
Richard J. Rauser        "You have no idea what you're doing."
rauser@sfu.ca            "Oh, don't worry about that. We're professional
WNI                          outlaws - we do this for a living."
-----------------
"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are." -Dr.Banzai

While reading article <1993Jan12.023356.18929@csus.edu>, I noticed that
vcsc1090@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Dionicio Lazo) said the following:
 >2. Atari is living in the past. 99.9% of Atari games are
 >translations form its video game. Simply put, if we played joust or
 >road blasters at the arcade, why would we want to play them at
 >home? You would get tired of them very fast!  This leads to:

Hmmm... This is the reason I bought a Lynx.  Not for Batman or Chop Socky XII,
but for decent home versions of Robotron: 2084, Klax, Qix, and (soon to be
coming) Joust.  Since I don't have the floor space for the arcade versions,
I want the best translation I can get, thus the Lynx versions.  Silly me.
(Where the hell is Asteroids for the NES, SNES, Genesis or Lynx for that
matter?  How about Gorf?  Blaster?  Most any classic 1979-1983 game?)

Talk to me about mastering moves in Street Fighter II or Mortal Kombat all you
want, but it all pales (at least to me) to learning to effectively use the
controls in Stargate...
-- 
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.     | Opinions expressed herein
| Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com   Ham: N0OKQ   | are MINE alone, NOT those
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO  80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club        | "Dittos from Longmont, CO"

In a previous article, vcsc1090@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Dionicio Lazo) says:

>
>
>
>
>To begin, I own a Lynx and am throughly satisfied with it. From
>reading what others have posted in this news group, I find that
>people are amazed stores do not carry Lynx or will discontinue to
>sell Lynx cartridges. The fault is not with Toys R Us but with
>Atari itself. Let me make my case :
>
>1. Atari does not advertise. When was the last time you saw an
>advertisement for the Lynx or its cartridges (bessides Batman)?
>I am sure you haven't.  Sega and SNES advertise on the radio and
>television all the time and the result-> stores will sell their
>products.

In response to Atari not advertising, I want you to consider this.

Each Toys'R'Us in my area WAS either sold-out of the Lynx or only carried
four systems in stock.

Let's say that Atari spends $50,000 in my area on advertisements for the
Lynx.

Since each Toys'R'Us store only carries at most four Lynx systems,
Atari may sell thirty-two systems total.  They would make around $1,600.

Let's say that other retailers are taken into account.  One-hundred
Lynx systems are sold.  Atari would make around $5,000.

Atari LOSES money by advertising.

And what happens when Atari sells out of the Lynx, the stores for one
reason or another reorders the same amount tha they had before.

Meanwhile, Toys'R'Us has around one-hundred GameBoys in stock.

All of this seems REAL FISHY to me folks.  And that is why I recommend
everyone to write Toys'R'Us.

If we write and Toys'R'Us decides to order 16 Lynx systems for each store,
and Atari advertised, they would make money.

>
>2. Atari is living in the past. 99.9% of Atari games are
>translations form its video game. Simply put, if we played joust or
>road blasters at the arcade, why would we want to play them at
>home? You would get tired of them very fast!  This leads to:

I like old arcade games.  I also like new games too!

But, Atari has been producing some originals, more than I can say for
the GameGear.  Every game on the GameGear is either on the Genesis or you
can find it in the arcade under the Sega name.

>3. Atari does not make any new or intersting games that people want
>to play! Look at gameboy which has Megaman, Terminator 2, etc.
>Atari does not even have a Role playing game out onthe market.
>What Atari needs to do is to get 3rd party programmers to develop
>new games with imagination.
>

THIS is what I don't understand either.  I am sure that game companies
will develop
at least ONE game for the Lynx.  But I honestly believe that Atari
wants to sell the games that they OWN so they can enjoy the sales of
Lynx games alone.

ATARI'S FAULT.  I agree.
>4. Atari does not release enough games. Each month, Atari releases
>1 game or 2! Thats it!! Compare that with Lameboy or Game Gear
>which release 6 or more a month.  Atari's first RPG, Guardians,
>Storm Over Doria was given a release date of Nov-December of 1992
>and they still have not finished it!  What are we supposed to do,
>just sit and wait!

I agree as well.  Atari could get more third-party developers to
make games for the Lynx, but they don't.

I don't know why.
>
>In conclusion, what you should be doing is writing Atari and tell
>them to get their act together. Tell them to advertise more on tv
>and radio, develop more RPG's and shooters, use the 16 bit to its
>fullest potential, and come up with its own magazine! 
>I love my Lynx but if things keep on going as they are, then I fear
>the Lynx will follw the path of the 2600.         
>What do you think?

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that capitalism is solely at work here.

I think major retailers are being FORCED to carry only a couple Lynx systems
in stock by Nintendo and Sega.

The Lynx is a threat in the portable video game market and these companies
know it.

If you want to see Atari advertising more, you have to help get these
retailers to carry more Lynx systems.

I believe ATARI is party at fault, but not completely.

Len
>
>

-- 
 

This discussion is still fairly reasonable now, but having witnessed
the mess that's currently comp.sys.atari.st, I guess I'm getting a
little cautious.

In article <1993Jan12.023356.18929@csus.edu> vcsc1090@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Dionicio Lazo) writes:
>The fault is not with Toys R Us but with
>Atari itself.

I doubt many people would disagree with you.

 Let me make my case :
>
>1. Atari does not advertise. When was the last time you saw an
>advertisement for the Lynx or its cartridges (bessides Batman)?

A couple of weeks ago on MTV. I can't tell you how surprised I was. Of
course, this was just an isolated incident. Atari does not advertise
at anywhere near the frequency of Sega. I don't think there is
necessarily a one to one correlation between the amount of advertising
and the success of a product, but in Atari's case, more advertising
would certainly help. The Lynx is a good product. If people knew about
it, and thought Atari would last, people might actually buy one. (The
opinion of the 10 year old kid who lives in the apartment below me is
that "Atari is dead." :-()

I would agree with the "Atari doesn't have the money" argument.

>2. Atari is living in the past. 99.9% of Atari games are
>translations form its video game.

This is an exaggeration. Exaggerations typically serve to weaken a
case, not strengthen it.

> Simply put, if we played joust or
>road blasters at the arcade, why would we want to play them at
>home?

I haven't done the arcade scene in years, but do arcades still have
Joust in them? (This is not an attack on your argument. I'm just
curious if Joust is such a good game that being 10 years old is not a
disadvantage for it. I like it a lot.) In any case, I suppose its the
same reason why Street Fighter 2 is all the rage. (It's an arcade game
and an SNES game, right?)

> You would get tired of them very fast!

However, there are people (like me) who don't go to arcades and find
it more cost effective (and convenient) to buy a Lynx and get the good
arcade translations.

>3. Atari does not make any new or intersting games that people want
>to play!

One of the selling points that Robert Jung *always* makes whenever
someone posts a "Should I get a Lynx or GameGear" message here is that
Lynx has quite a diverse selection (even though it doesn't have a very
deep selection). Looking at the games available, I'd have to agree
with him.

> Look at gameboy which has Megaman, Terminator 2, etc.

This is good if you want those games...

>Atari does not even have a Role playing game out onthe market.

This, of course, is the Lynx game library's regretable weakness.

>What Atari needs to do is to get 3rd party programmers to develop
>new games with imagination.

I'm thinking of an old game, but Midi-Maze for the ST (a.k.a. Kill a
Happy Face(?)) would be *perfect* for the Lynx. I doubt that anyone
would disagree with you about the need for 3rd party programmers. The
interesting question is how to get them to develop and support the Lynx.

>4. Atari does not release enough games. Each month, Atari releases
>1 game or 2! Thats it!!

Again, I would agree that this is a money issue.

>Atari's first RPG, Guardians,
>Storm Over Doria was given a release date of Nov-December of 1992
>and they still have not finished it!

To be fair, this is not an Atari product. I forget which 3rd party had
developed it (and then dropped it when they saw Eye of the Beholder).

>5. Lynx does not use it fullest potential as a 16 bit machine.

I guess it has a 16-bit graphics subsystem (I don't have the FAQ
anymore so I'm going from memory), but the main processor is a 6502,
which is definitely an 8-bit (and fun to program on too!)

>If the Lynx is a true 16 bit machine, why can't they
>achieve the clear crisp graphichs like the Genesis or SNES. The
>screen has nothing to do with it because the smaller the screen,
>the better the picture.

The screen has everything to do with it. "The smaller the screen, the
better the picture" is true if you're comparing CRT to CRT (or LCD to
LCD) at comparable resolutions. Neither is the case here. The Lynx
does not have a CRT screen, it has a passive-matrix LCD display. That
is necessarily going to look worse than a CRT (e.g.  colors will not
be as vivid, the refresh rate is lower and there is more "smearing").
Also, the Lynx has a much lower resolution screen than a Genesis or
SNES. A portable with graphics that looked as good as a console would
be quite expensive. (I figure the predominant cost would be for the
large active-matrix lcd display.)

>
>In conclusion, what you should be doing is writing Atari and tell
>them to get their act together.

If you feel this way, join Len Stys's letter writing campaign.

>and come up with its own magazine! 

I thought they had their own magazine... Was Grey Matters just a
one-shot deal? (If so, why did it have a volume and issue number? I
believe, I have vol. 3(!) Issue 1. This is not an attack of any sort.
I'm really curious about this.)

>I love my Lynx but if things keep on going as they are, then I fear
>the Lynx will follw the path of the 2600.         
>What do you think?

If it became as popular as the 2600 was in its prime, that would be
great! :-)

Yes, I know that's not how you meant for that statement to be taken.
Just for perspective, keep in mind the state of Atari Inc. as a whole.
Compared to how they are handling their computers, they are absolutely
brilliant with the Lynx. At least they advertise occasionally and
support it somewhat actively. Whether or not Atari still has the money
to do it right (they used to be a Fortune 500 company), I'm not sure
they will with the current management team as they tend to be somewhat
stingy.

However, I think the Lynx will survive (I'm not so certain about their
computers) because ultimately, they do release games (although I
wonder about their timing, 2 days before Christmas?) and ultimately,
there is some 3rd party support. Hopefully, Batman Returns has gotten
the Lynx into more hands than has ever had the Lynx before and maybe
good word of mouth will make up for lack of advertising muscle.
However, I wouldn't count on it. They need to advertise.  Although it
could be doing better, it's not doing too badly. Around here, I don't
see support dropping. It might be my imagination, but the video game
stores around might have actually increased their Lynx support in the
past couple of months (this includes Toys R Us).

Historically, Atari has always been better at selling video games than
computers and they are doing the right things to push the Lynx. They
just aren't doing them enough. (i.e., I have seen non-Batman Lynx
commericials, but they need to do more. They do release games, but
they need more and the releases should be better timed etc.) Whether
they are fiscally able to do it is beyond me. I think the know-how is
there though.

					john
				chu@acsu.buffalo.edu

Well, Atari treats its developers like crap...  Plain and simple...  They
drove away all the original Epyx lynx programmers first.  Now they have
alienated most of the ST developers (just tune into to comp.sys.atari.st
to listen to the Dave Bagget/Darek Mihocka "who was treated the worst
by atari?" tag-team flameflest).  I considered Lynx development.  However,
at $5000 for the development system alone and then no choice but to
pay Atari to produce the cartridges for you, it's just not practical...
Mind you it's no better with the gameboy or the game gear I expect, but
beggars like Atari can't be choosers...

Atari should but never will seek out some undiscovered talent and sell
development systems to them with the agreement that they will refund their
money upon the completion of an acceptable game and then market the game
themselves and give say 15% of retail to the developer...

I think this would cause a huge influx of lynx games in six months or so, the
initial $5,000 investment would keep out the parasites, and games like
midi-maze and other networking wonders would finally be made and exploit the
lynx to its fullest potential...

So much for that pipedream...

Scott

"What would be your reaction if we sued you for copyright infringement for
HacMan II?" - Leonard Tramiel, Head of Atari Jaguar development, to Dave
              Bagget, one of the STs last developers, on a self-financed
              visit to Atari headquarters, get the picture?

In article <wiley.727393874@wiley> wiley@wiley.b11.ingr.com (Dave Wiley) writes:
>From: wiley@wiley.b11.ingr.com (Dave Wiley)
>Subject: Developing for Lynx (was Re: lets face it)
>Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 21:51:14 GMT
>>In article <93012.123521SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> <SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:35:21 EST
>>>From: <SML108@psuvm.psu.edu>
>>>Subject: Re: lets face it
>>>
>>>Well, Atari treats its developers like crap...  Plain and simple...  They
>>>drove away all the original Epyx lynx programmers first.
>
>runehy@dhhalden.no (RUNE HYLDMO) writes:
>
>>ATARI DOES give 15 % royalty to the developer for each game. They licence 
>>the game from the developer and they have never licensed less than 50 000 
>>units of a game so far. Lets sum up and say that 15 % wil be about 3 dollars 
>>per game and that an underestimated sum. 50 000 multiplied with 3 is 
>>  	
>>	$ 150 000
>
>>That should pay for the puney $ 5 000 and a little party afterwards don't 
>>you think????
>
>I'm a little confused.  If this $150,000 figure were even ball-park
>accurate, why aren't there more games?   Okay, so many many people don't
>want to pony up $5000 on a lark, but what about the people who have
>written successful games?  If one project netted over $100,000 there
>should be strong motivation to bust a brain writing as more as possible --
>sequels, new games, whatever.  But this just doesn't seem to happen. 
>So what's the catch?
>
>--
>david wiley               "If God did not exist, it would be necessary
>Intergraph Corporation     to invent him."
>205-730-6390                                                - Voltaire
>wiley@wiley.b11.ingr.com


Atari has three policies on marketing the lynx games. 

1. The developer buys the cartridges only and make the packing and 
advertise plus distribute it themselves. This is for the greedy firms, or 
the big firms who can do it properly and want ALL the money. Very risky...

2. The developer buys the cartridges and packing, and distribute it 
   themselves. This is not for the small firms. To make it you must have 
   a good sum of money.

3. The developer licence their game to Atari corp. and receives 15 % royalty.
   Atari stands for marketing and distribution etc. This is the safe-route, 
   but also the one who gives you least profit. 

The reason for many of the developers to not make a second game is that it 
may have used the option 1 or 2 and haven't made enough money cos they have 
not sold enough games. Maybe the game was to lousy. Remember nobody has 
used even half the Lynx capability. I mean zoom and rotate...where is it. 
If you make a good game people buy it. Another reason is that the developer 
has used the money from the profit to buy dev.kits for Nintendo where there 
is even more money to earn. Greed is a que word here. To be a registrated 
nintendo developer one must pay between $ 15 000 and $ 30 000. A Lynx 
devkit isn't too expencive is it? One last thing. If you got $ 150 000 
wouldn't you have relaxed for a while?

This is catches I can think of. Besides the fact that you must posess a LOT 
of patience when you are dealing with Atari.

Can someone please tell me if Storms over Doria will be released?

Thanks in advance.

Greetings 

Rune Hyldmo