At Games Colecovision, Intellivision, 2600 Flashbacks Pre-order

[dgdgagdae]

I had to hit 3 Dollar General stores in my area before I was able to find the Intellivision Flashback, although the second one I hit had the Coloecovision one. At the third store, both the CV and Inty Flashbacks were on a clearance table with 50% off post-it style notes on them. They didn't ring up at 50% off, and the store didn't want to honor it. They called the Store Manager at home, and she told them to honor it but to remove them from the half-off table. I really wasn't interested in the ColecoVision after watching David's review, but for $20, why not?

I've ordered the 50 sets of missing overlays from Intellivision Productions.

[Greg2600]

I had to hit 3 Dollar General stores in my area before I was able to find the Intellivision Flashback, although the second one I hit had the Coloecovision one. At the third store, both the CV and Inty Flashbacks were on a clearance table with 50% off post-it style notes on them. They didn't ring up at 50% off, and the store didn't want to honor it. They called the Store Manager at home, and she told them to honor it but to remove them from the half-off table. I really wasn't interested in the ColecoVision after watching David's review, but for $20, why not?

I've ordered the 50 sets of missing overlays from Intellivision Productions.

Yeah they were all down to $20 last week. Odds are the stores missing them probably had them in the back. DG aren't exactly the most attentive stockers.

[sloan]

I have yet to understand what keeps an unofficial NES Flashback from happening. Yes, Nintendo would not allow its IP onto this, but there were so many 3rd parties for NES that the game line-up would still be pretty good.

[Greg2600]

I have yet to understand what keeps an unofficial NES Flashback from happening. Yes, Nintendo would not allow its IP onto this, but there were so many 3rd parties for NES that the game line-up would still be pretty good.

There have been plenty NOAC (NES on a chip) units sold, but without licensed titles. I don't believe you can sell a unit with NES roms without Nintendo's permission, and they will never give it. Majesco released a NOAC based plug n play using Konami games, the Arcade Advanced. The same games were part of the like-titled game on the Gameboy Advance. Probably the same roms. I just don't think Konami or Capcom wish to face Nintendo's ire for putting out a plug n play. In addition, I can't imagine the license fees on their games are cheap. Same for Nintendo published games. The plug n play would wind up being $80 or more!

There are those in the retail business who believe you shouldn't stretch/tarnish your brand. A Flashback would be "confusing" to the market, and detract from the Wii U and 3DS. Atari, Intellivision, Coleco, and Sega are essentially dead brands.

[sloan]

I can't see Konami, Capcom, Pony/Canyon, Bandai, Taito, HAL Labratories, Tecmo, etc. having any IP's from that era that they are too protective at the moment, and what ire from Nintendo? In fact, they would stand to profit from licensing their 8-bit games to a company like AtGames.

[PreZZ]

Nintendo is still in the hardware business no need to license to ATgames, they still make mini wii for 100$ with a controller, nunchuk and mariokart and still make a profit. Now imagine if they released a mini nes with real chips, a bunch of games included AND a modified wii OS to access the virtual console and buy new games. This would be huge and probably be so much profitable for nintendo.

[sloan]

I never said Nintendo would license anything to AtGames. It would be Pony/Canyon, Tecmo, Taito, Konami, etc. So many good games from those companies, leaving Nintendo IP out wouldn't hurt sales in the slightest.

[Greg2600]

I can't see Konami, Capcom, Pony/Canyon, Bandai, Taito, HAL Labratories, Tecmo, etc. having any IP's from that era that they are too protective at the moment, and what ire from Nintendo? In fact, they would stand to profit from licensing their 8-bit games to a company like AtGames.

I never said Nintendo would license anything to AtGames. It would be Pony/Canyon, Tecmo, Taito, Konami, etc. So many good games from those companies, leaving Nintendo IP out wouldn't hurt sales in the slightest.

I say again, I do not believe any NES rom can be "sold" without Nintendo's permission. i.e. I don't think they could sell NES Tecmo Bowl without Nintendo's agreement. When they produced these games on the NES, they signed agreements with Nintendo on licensing issues like this. Of course, that game would never be added because you'd have to pay the NFL licenses too! It's a mine field. Remember the Goldeneye/Rare fiasco? Microsoft was prevented from releasing an upgraded GE007 game on XBLA by Nintendo's lawyers. Even though they (Nintendo) did not have the Bond rights, or Rare rights, they still prevented it for exactly the same reason, it was an N64 game.

Even if Nintendo gave consent, games like Castlevania, Contra, Mega Man, Ninja Gaiden, etc., you know, the 3rd party games that would sell the unit, are going to be costly for the manufacturer. I would LOVE to see it, officially licensed by Nintendo. This is the 30th anniversary year of the NES. It's not going to happen, Nintendo just has zero interest in that route.

[sloan]

I say again, I do not believe any NES rom can be "sold" without Nintendo's permission.

That is ludicrous at best. Like saying EA needs permission from Sony to license any of its properties on other systems, just because they ported games to PS4. Wouldn't hold water in a court of law.

Nintendo had a 10NES lockout chip on their cartridges, but that in no ways is a lock from Taito releasing Legend of Kage to AtGames after 30 years.

[Greg2600]

Actually, duh, I forgot that Goldeneye was published by Nintendo, hence further rights issues. So maybe they don't need Nintendo's approval, but I still don't see it happening.

[Leo_A]

I say again, I do not believe any NES rom can be "sold" without Nintendo's permission.

Nintendo has no such rights to 3rd party content.

Actually, duh, I forgot that Goldeneye was published by Nintendo, hence further rights issues. So maybe they don't need Nintendo's approval, but I still don't see it happening.

They also published a variety of other projects like the Banjo games and Perfect Dark. So merely being the publisher doesn't mean that they hold any rights.

The most common and believable story that I've seen with Goldeneye basically goes as follows. Rare wanted to remaster this for XBLA and was in the early stages of the project with the sticking point before proceeding past a proof of concept demo being securing permission to utilize the James Bond license. Rare pursued this and contacted the videogame rights holder at the time, which as I recall was Activision.

Activision agreed to assist in getting this back out there with the condition, in order to protect their relationship with Nintendo, that Nintendo unofficially agree to this since Activision didn't want to ruffle any feathers with their relationship with Nintendo by assisting in getting a classic so closely associated with Nintendo onto the competitor's platform. But sadly, Nintendo told them that they'd prefer if it didn't happen.

Rare supposedly even offered to allow the N64 classic to appear on the Wii's Virtual Console service if they agreed, to no avail. So silently it sits while other original Rare creations from the N64 that were published by Nintendo have been remastered (Conker on the Xbox and both Banjo games and Perfect Dark on the 360).

[calgon]

I know that the chances of this are very slim, but It would be amazing if atgames could fix the sound on their genesis clones and throw in s-video

[Tanooki]

The only right of a Nintendo license is to have their name on the screen saying Licensed to Nintendo, and allowing that game to work on their hardware, use their logos, boxes, and so on, the physical aspect. They don't own a damn thing with any of the games and all one would have to do is remove the 'licensed by nintendo' blip on the title/pre-title screens and you'd be good to go if your 'emulator' was made honestly not using legal old Nintendo docs to make the emulator. It's just developer laziness and disinterest keeping such games off Steam, android, or whatever else. If someone decided it was in their interest to license to ATGames their library and use one of those shitty sub-par buggy emulators of theirs to make another console or handheld they have every right to do so.

[Leo_A]

They don't own a damn thing with any of the games and all one would have to do is remove the 'licensed by nintendo' blip on the title/pre-title screens and you'd be good to go if your 'emulator' was made honestly not using legal old Nintendo docs to make the emulator.

All NES and SuperNES patents are now expired and are in the public domain. So it doesn't matter if they have access to official Nintendo documentation on the inner-workings of said consoles.

[Tanooki]

Good point. But Nintendo still is fairly sue happy about anything and egotistically take the stance that emulation is illegal while hypocritically running their virtual console. Perhaps people are just afraid to try and sell a legal device that runs NES games from third parties due to one kind of threat or another. It seems highly suspect no one would want to take a stab at it.

[sloan]

This did just hit me regarding Nintendo having to give permission for ROM's to release to other systems. Wasn't the big thing back in the 80's that in order to release a game on NES, companies had to sign an agreement not to release it on any other platform? Its what killed Master System and 7800, correct? Could Nintendo use those agreements to keep Taito, Capcom, etc, from releasing to AtGames in present times?

What is the statute of limitations on those non-compete agreements?

[Greg2600]

sloan, as the others have said, Nintendo probably cannot prevent the games from being included. As I said though, the licensing costs for Castlevania, Contra, Mega Man, etc. are probably too high for AtGames or anyone else.

On topic, these have been out there for awhile, but AtGames does sell standalone Atari controllers and paddles. They are 11.99 and 19.99 respectively.

http://www.atgames.us/Accessories_c3.htm

[Leo_A]

Good point. But Nintendo still is fairly sue happy about anything and egotistically take the stance that emulation is illegal while hypocritically running their virtual console.

When was the last time they sued any company or individual that programmed an emulator, or created and produced a hardware replica like a NOAC chip? I don't even recall much in the way of that back 15 years ago or so when there still was some patent protection in place.

The only lawsuits I've ever seen revolved around copyrighted software, such as Nintendo games being bundled with a cheap NOAC device. I don't even think they target rom sites anymore, realizing that at this point, it's like trying to put a genie back in its bottle. But try to rip them off at retail with your cheap NOAC clone with bundled NES roms and they still will come down hard on you.

We've even seen commercial NES/SNES emulation on competing platforms. Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts on Capcom Classics Collection: Volume 1 leaps to mind as utilizing a Digital Eclipse SuperNes emulation core.

[Akito01]

I think if ATGames is looking for another Flashback idea, it would be fun to see a Commodore 64 one. There's already been a C64 joystick plug-n-play, but a Flashback could be more fun, especially if included a built-in keyboard. The ColecoVision Flashback has many of the titles you'd expect in a C64 Flashback, so I feel like they have the licensing contacts in place to get the games you'd want, and I think there is enough C64 nostalgia to make it worth producing.

[Jorpho]

Since the current era of plug-n-plays began, has there ever been any plug-n-play in the form of a keyboard? It strikes me that it would be needlessly expensive, and the extra bulkiness might make it more difficult to ship or keep stocked. It would also look much less like a toy and thus less appealing to the casual consumer.