[Coco] The Tri-Annual CoCo 4 Thread

[Bill Loguidice]

While it's true that Jeri did most of the design work for the C64DTV, it
was a commission for a product that was expected to sell several hundred
thousand units and ended up selling much, much more than that (and in fact
the design was used in a few other TV games). In other words, the
difference was that was fully funded by a corporation, just like the Atari
2600 recreation for the Flashback 2 and 2+ (all other Flashbacks were not
Atari 2600's on a chip for cost reasons). As was stated, you can't really
compare something like the Commodore 64, which had a huge user base and
still has good brand recognition to something like the CoCo. Let's face it,
games are a driver for a lot of the enthusiasm for classic systems today,
and the CoCo wasn't a standout games machine. We only need to look at the
types of products that AtGames - the biggest developer of TV games today -
is producing. You have products based on the Atari 2600, Sega Master
System/Game Gear/Genesis, Intellivision, and ColecoVision. I do consulting
for them, and the only other products they've considered on the periphery
are Commodore 64/Amiga, and - even bigger longshot - Atari 8-bit. While
some of that comes down to what's available for licensing, the reality is
they target what people remember, what has a good source of games they can
license, and then what's compelling enough for at least hundreds of
thousands of people to buy it in mass market stores like Dollar General or
Bed, Bath & Beyond.

The reality is, any funding will have to come from the CoCo - and maybe
Dragon - communities. I see no scenario where a corporation will take
interest in producing anything CoCo-related. We also can't necessarily
count on much, if any, support from the general vintage computing
community. I think it's the proverbial if you build it, that group will
come, but I suspect they'll need to be shown why they'll want to come
rather than come on their own uninitiated. Even then, we're probably
looking at support from a few hundred more individuals on top of the few
hundred in the CoCo and Dragon communities.

As was stated before, I probably agree that the best course of action at
this point is at minimum for someone to design something that THEY want,
and then see what kind of response they can drum up and what it would take
to realistically get it done (produce it). That's probably the only way at
this point. It's either that or somehow come up with a compelling, turn key
FPGA solution that doesn't break the bank. Naturally, the pool of such
individuals capable of doing such a thing is quite small.

-Bill

===================================================
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director; Armchair Arcade,
Inc.<http://www.armchairarcade.com>
===================================================
Authored Books<http://www.amazon.com/Bill-Loguidice/e/B001U7W3YS/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_1>and
Film <http://www.armchairarcade.com/film>; About me and other ways to get
in touch <http://about.me/billloguidice>
===================================================


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Brian Blake <random.rodder at gmail.com>wrote:

> On 2/13/2014 8:49 AM, Mark McDougall wrote:
>
>> On 14/02/2014 12:23 AM, iggybeans at comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>  The Coco isn't a wacky computer, just an abandoned one. Need I mention
>>>> that the wildly successful Commodore was designed by one man?
>>>>
>>> Which Commodore?
>>> As far as I know, the components in the C64 requires several designers.
>>>
>> Wildly successful could only be the C64, or perhaps the Amiga.
>>
>> Neither were designed by a single person, at least 3 are attributed to the
>> C64 design, and a sizable team for the Amiga. So again, simply wrong.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
> Maybe he was referring to Jeri Ellsworth designing the C64DTV...? Can that
> device be considered 'wildly successful'? Or maybe he wasn't...
>
>