Retro Gamer - Issue 124

Want to air your opinions on the latest issue of Retro Gamer? Step inside...

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, lcarlson, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed

User avatar
martyg
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:43 am
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Re: Retro Gamer - Issue 124

Post by martyg » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:18 pm

Lost Dragon wrote:Here you go Marty, Time frame as requested:

Feb'87, Bob Gleadow is telling UK press that he's just brought back prototype XE hardware from USA to show UK software houses and it was Atari UK who convinced Atari USA to go with this, not 7800 etc due to very reasons i listed earlier, you also had Bob Katz (Atari UK Software Developer Manager) being quoted in same news article.

Then Aug'88, Bob Gleadow vist's UK Atari magazine offices in Adlington, cheshire and talks about plans for the XE range, how it'd carry the flame etc, how Atari were going to set up 30-40 dedicated Atari Games Centres in the largest towns and cities of the UK, how Atari were encouraging software houses to port ST games to XE (and also 7800 and VCS).

The very reason i use statements from the media from the time, is indeed very fact, that like all of us, key Atari figures memory probably is'nt what it used to be and the old mists of time might cause few facts to go astray.

Any other questions, shout out, happy to answer.
Thanks. The press can often be a good resource, but don't forget the medium: it's usually for promotion. It actually can suffer from the previously mentioned problems as well. There've been "official" statements given to the press that turn out not to be the case upon further review. That goes back to my last post, where you really need to get multiple sources before trying to say anything definitively.

RodimusPrime wrote: People m,ake factual mistakes all the time in forums, correcting them is fine, being condescending and superior is most certainly not.
If that's what you want to read what I wrote to him, that is indeed your opinion. Not fact and not how it was promoted. I'm usually coming from a place of assistance, not ego. People here might forget that I started at Retro Gamer as a fact checker, the process of which is very important to me.
Last edited by martyg on Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Marty

ClassicGaming.Com
Atari Gaming Headquarters - http://www.atarihq.com
Midwest Gaming Classic - http://www.midwestgamingclassic.com
Electronic Entertainment Museum (E2M)
Syzygy Company - http://www.syzygycompany.com/

User avatar
RodimusPrime
Posts: 4141
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 12:16 pm

Re: Retro Gamer - Issue 124

Post by RodimusPrime » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:21 pm

martyg wrote:
RodimusPrime wrote: People m,ake factual mistakes all the time in forums, correcting them is fine, being condescending and superior is most certainly not.
If that's what you want to read what I wrote to him, that is indeed your opinion.
well I really dont see how it can be seen any other way TBH. Its not a personal ataack on you as I have read plenty of your posts in the past and you always come across as a decent guy, But in this one instance it seemed a little much, thats all.

Lost Dragon
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:59 am

Re: Retro Gamer - Issue 124

Post by Lost Dragon » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:41 pm

:D Sorry for multiple posting earlier, multi-tasking at my age on this equipment, shudder...

Anywho:I'm more than happy to give my source material and it'll always be from a UK perspective, from the era in question, using quotes etc from the players involved, rather than some un-named coder or Atari source.Do i have any idea if they were being 100% honest to the UK media?, not a scooby, but, it's all i have to go on from that era.

I must admit, the very idea of a forum poster like myself basically being 'told' what i could or could'nt do, concerning posting on an era i lived through, did make me chuckle.Marty, i love your RG articles and mate when your in the realms of paid-for work, legal contract's with publisher etc, yep, you might need to get multiple sources etc on-board before you commit to anything and i'm honestly only too well aware of how things researchers are told for articles/books can be untrue, if you look through the forum, you'll see i informed JD that when System 3 told him the ST version of Myth was indeed finished and released, just what a crock of sh*t that was.We only saw a demo.on ST thanks to ZERO magazine (UK magazine).

Regarding my XE posts:The 'facts' are, this is the message Atari UK were sending out, that's 100% true, i can fwd you the very articles if you like, ditto the point about the UK TV advert being pulled, it's all there.Time and date stamped, so sorry chap, but these just are not mistakes.

No offence meant, but you really jumped the gun somewhat.you did take the stance of someone who was writing for paid for publication, understandable given your background, but of no relevance to myself and whilst i welcome the advice on how to go about doing such paid for work, as i posted elsewhere when folks very kindly said i should write a 'gritty' PS1 VS Saturn article, it's not my skill-set, nor something i wish to do.

Lairds article was most welcome in RG magazine, all i'm doing is adding few extra layers of background info, as TV advert not mentioned, nor the P.R message Atari Uk were sending out.I've a few more odds n sodds to add, but i'll not be ringing up old publishing houses etc to 'check' anything, just for a forum post.

My 'beef' if any is basically this:

Had i posted blah Blah Blah Atari said this, Atari said that and not named sources, then yep, i'd expect folks to question just where i was getting my claims from, but if you check my posts in say the Jaguar/3DO/PS1/Saturn threads, you'll see i give industry quotes from the key people, from the era's involved.

People can then make their own minds up, i'm not saying what Joe Blogs, P.R manager said was true then, but using your logic Marty, people writing for RG articles should'nt interview coders, P.R people, M.D's etc for the article, let alone quote them, as too much time has passed and they need to speak to at least 3 sources.For what? a 4-page article that a % are going to go..WAHHHH too much Atari/Sony/Nintendo...at anyway?


:lol:

Look, you guys do great work for RG magazine, if you did'nt, i would'nt be a subscriber, but you know it's fine if we mere ex-Atari gamers, have a crack at adding stuff your articles did'nt bring up, another angle on things etc, anything that adds to the coverage is a good thing, right?, but sometimes, you need to realise that your on a paid-for platform, we're just looking back at times gone by and sometimes, just sometimes seem to have resources (flawed as they potentially may be) that you guys don't and we're happy to share with the community and have zero interest in getting paid for it or using it to bolster a C.V etc, that's all i'm saying.

User avatar
HalcyonDaze00
Posts: 4621
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:20 pm

Re: Retro Gamer - Issue 124

Post by HalcyonDaze00 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:54 pm

RodimusPrime wrote:
martyg wrote:
Lost Dragon wrote:There are a few key points the Atari XE Games system article does'nt point out, in terms of the UK and why we got it and why it failed to really take off over here.Thought they might be worth mentioning seeing as the look at the XE console has gone down well:

First is that Atari originally planned to replace the aging 2600 with the 7800 over here, but officials from Atari UK convinced Atari US that the UK would benifit much more from a machine that could run tape based games (and disk) as well as just cartridges, with Atari UK spokesman saying the XE system offered the user the best of both worlds.
For some of the laymen reading this thread, let's be clear the Atari we're talking about is Atari Corp. (Atari Inc. of course was not planning on replacing the 2600 with the 7800). Secondly, what's the source and time frame for this, as it's highly unlikely that it occurred that way in '87? Atari Corp. was making too much in sales of the 2600 Jr. world wide since it's launch in late '85. If the source is a single person (the mentioned Bob Gleadlow), for vetting purposes it's immediately suspect on those grounds. He's not automatically a reliable source and everything he says is not automatically reliable. Why? You can't make claims based on the remembrances of a single past employee because you run in to problems. They can misremember details because of how far in the past it was, they can be jaded and remember things how they want to, they can be going by things they heard, and in some cases (as we found) they fabricate things to fill in the blanks. For claims of this nature you need multiple sources, i.e. corroboration from other former employees (who present the info blindly and aren't lead to corroborate), internal documents, etc. That's something we ran into time again when writing the first book:

http://ataribook.com/book/example-vetted-info/

He may very well be right, but that has to be vetted and proved, not assumed.

Sorry but WTF, as Lost Dragon said, this is a bloody forum. most opinions statements etc are just what, and how we remember them. telling people they can't post certain things in forums unless they get multiple sources, then have the info vetted and proved. What utter tripe and nonsense.

If a former employee said those things then of course we can say " so and so said this "

People m,ake factual mistakes all the time in forums, correcting them is fine, being condescending and superior is most certainly not.
indeed, I thought I had logged into the High Court website by mistake!

User avatar
martyg
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:43 am
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Re: Retro Gamer - Issue 124

Post by martyg » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:56 pm

Lost Dragon wrote:but using your logic Marty, people writing for RG articles should'nt interview coders, P.R people, M.D's etc for the article, let alone quote them, as too much time has passed and they need to speak to at least 3 sources.
Nope, I did not say that at all. Not in any way, shape, or form what I was saying. In fact quite the opposite: everyone needs to be interviewed across the board, no matter what the role and as much information needs to be gathered as possible. I don't appreciate having my logic misrepresented.

I also don't get this distinction between paid magazine or discussion forum. Talking about and presenting history is talking about and presenting history, regardless of the platform. Nobody was telling you what you can or can't do, rather stating the perils of research and the faults that can occur and how such a process should be approached. Telling you what you can and can't do would be "Lost Dragon (no idea what your actual name is), that's terrible and you shouldn't be posting that garbage here. Stop now or at least do it right." That's not at all what I wrote.
Marty

ClassicGaming.Com
Atari Gaming Headquarters - http://www.atarihq.com
Midwest Gaming Classic - http://www.midwestgamingclassic.com
Electronic Entertainment Museum (E2M)
Syzygy Company - http://www.syzygycompany.com/

Lost Dragon
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:59 am

Re: Retro Gamer - Issue 124

Post by Lost Dragon » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:58 pm

martyg wrote:
Lost Dragon wrote:Here you go Marty, Time frame as requested:

Feb'87, Bob Gleadow is telling UK press that he's just brought back prototype XE hardware from USA to show UK software houses and it was Atari UK who convinced Atari USA to go with this, not 7800 etc due to very reasons i listed earlier, you also had Bob Katz (Atari UK Software Developer Manager) being quoted in same news article.

Then Aug'88, Bob Gleadow vist's UK Atari magazine offices in Adlington, cheshire and talks about plans for the XE range, how it'd carry the flame etc, how Atari were going to set up 30-40 dedicated Atari Games Centres in the largest towns and cities of the UK, how Atari were encouraging software houses to port ST games to XE (and also 7800 and VCS).

The very reason i use statements from the media from the time, is indeed very fact, that like all of us, key Atari figures memory probably is'nt what it used to be and the old mists of time might cause few facts to go astray.

Any other questions, shout out, happy to answer.
Thanks. The press can often be a good resource, but don't forget the medium: it's usually for promotion. It actually can suffer from the previously mentioned problems as well. There've been "official" statements given to the press that turn out not to be the case upon further review. That goes back to my last post, where you really need to get multiple sources before trying to say anything definitively.

RodimusPrime wrote: People m,ake factual mistakes all the time in forums, correcting them is fine, being condescending and superior is most certainly not.
If that's what you want to read what I wrote to him, that is indeed your opinion. Not fact and not how it was promoted. I'm usually coming from a place of assistance, not ego. People here might forget that I started at Retro Gamer as a fact checker, the process of which is very important to me.
Marty:During the Jaguar years, i was in personal contact with Atari UK P.R department, so trust me chap, i know only too well how much B.S these poor bas8ards get feed and then throw themselves into the lions pit, if you ever get chance, read Atari OK's letter to C+VG regarding the Jaguar being as capable as PS1 in some areas, equal to our more powerful than, the Saturn, seriousily, it's a bloodfest...esp.month after.... :lol:

Look, you could have started at RG as a cleaner for all i care, all i know is i've read/enjoyed all your articles in there and that's all that matters.Do you know my employment history? course not..well i (was) an engineer for 10 years, so if i'd welded say a roof support beam, i needed to get that checked out before roof went up, or lives were at risk, my current job also has risks, so i follow strict checks etc before anything is released to the public.

Posting some snippets from Atari UK and Atari related press that can add to (possible) reasons XE failed way it did, on a forum, in my spare time? err, no, seriousily chap, i honest to god do not need to check, if i'm 'wrong', well i'll happily stand corrected and folks will have known my source, so it's not like i'm pulling 'facts' out of some dream world i'm living in.

The forum is just somewhere to chill, i've just come off 4 bloody long night shifts, not in mood to unwind as body clock is like..ohhh now you want to sleep...we'll see about that...I'm not defending an article i wrote for I.P or hoping my posts will get me noticed and i can start writing for IGN or Eurogamer or Edge or anything like that, so chill chap, it's all good.

Lost Dragon
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:59 am

Re: Retro Gamer - Issue 124

Post by Lost Dragon » Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:10 pm

martyg wrote:
Lost Dragon wrote:but using your logic Marty, people writing for RG articles should'nt interview coders, P.R people, M.D's etc for the article, let alone quote them, as too much time has passed and they need to speak to at least 3 sources.
Nope, I did not say that at all. Not in any way, shape, or form what I was saying. In fact quite the opposite: everyone needs to be interviewed across the board, no matter what the role and as much information needs to be gathered as possible. I don't appreciate having my logic misrepresented.

I also don't get this distinction between paid magazine or discussion forum. Talking about and presenting history is talking about and presenting history, regardless of the platform. Nobody was telling you what you can or can't do, rather stating the perils of research and the faults that can occur and how such a process should be approached. Telling you what you can and can't do would be "Lost Dragon (no idea what your actual name is), that's terrible and you shouldn't be posting that garbage here. Stop now or at least do it right." That's not at all what I wrote.
Bloody helll, this might be more difficult to get across than i 1st thought....

Right, soooo, at no point did you say i could'nt make claims...i needed multiple sources etc? it was'nt you who asked for my sources a time frame etc? (knew i was tired but bloody hell, must be worse than i thought)and your not know saying everyone needs to be interviewed...and all this for a forum who has what? 40-100 regulars, if that?..ok that's cool..Lost Dragon needs sleep...BADLY!

:lol:

Point 2 (sounds like a BBC series i'm doing here).IF (and it's like the Towering Inferno of IF's) i ever set about doing paid for articles, i'd pour hours into tracking down as many sources as i could, just to ensure article that went to print (clue is right there) was as factual as possible , or, i might just think, feck it, Goggle time... and have a brew....joking... as i know it'd be reaching mass market, reflect on publisher etc etc as well as my self.

With a forum, i'm just sat here tapping away to kill some time (my coffees gone cold as well whilst typing this) and if a small % like my rantings? job's a good'un.I'm not 'presenting history'.Think maybe your taking things a little too seriousily...

I was happy to say here you go Marty, here's where that info.came from, make of old Bob Gleadow and mates what you like, they said it back in...87/88 and not far more recently as you presumed, but other than that, i cannot take this too seriousily, it's just a forum!.

Nurse! The Screens!!!!!

User avatar
crusto
Posts: 5586
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:18 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Retro Gamer - Issue 124

Post by crusto » Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:16 pm

HalcyonDaze00 wrote: indeed, I thought I had logged into the High Court website by mistake!
Crazy times at RG forums!

Can someone proof read my post?
Image

Eat your nans pants

User avatar
RodimusPrime
Posts: 4141
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 12:16 pm

Re: Retro Gamer - Issue 124

Post by RodimusPrime » Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:20 pm

Lost Dragon wrote:
martyg wrote:
Lost Dragon wrote:but using your logic Marty, people writing for RG articles should'nt interview coders, P.R people, M.D's etc for the article, let alone quote them, as too much time has passed and they need to speak to at least 3 sources.
Nope, I did not say that at all. Not in any way, shape, or form what I was saying. In fact quite the opposite: everyone needs to be interviewed across the board, no matter what the role and as much information needs to be gathered as possible. I don't appreciate having my logic misrepresented.

I also don't get this distinction between paid magazine or discussion forum. Talking about and presenting history is talking about and presenting history, regardless of the platform. Nobody was telling you what you can or can't do, rather stating the perils of research and the faults that can occur and how such a process should be approached. Telling you what you can and can't do would be "Lost Dragon (no idea what your actual name is), that's terrible and you shouldn't be posting that garbage here. Stop now or at least do it right." That's not at all what I wrote.
Bloody helll, this might be more difficult to get across than i 1st thought....

Right, soooo, at no point did you say i could'nt make claims...i needed multiple sources etc? it was'nt you who asked for my sources a time frame etc? (knew i was tired but bloody hell, must be worse than i thought)and your not know saying everyone needs to be interviewed...and all this for a forum who has what? 40-100 regulars, if that?..ok that's cool..Lost Dragon needs sleep...BADLY!

:lol:

Point 2 (sounds like a BBC series i'm doing here).IF (and it's like the Towering Inferno of IF's) i ever set about doing paid for articles, i'd pour hours into tracking down as many sources as i could, just to ensure article that went to print (clue is right there) was as factual as possible , or, i might just think, feck it, Goggle time... and have a brew....joking... as i know it'd be reaching mass market, reflect on publisher etc etc as well as my self.

With a forum, i'm just sat here tapping away to kill some time (my coffees gone cold as well whilst typing this) and if a small % like my rantings? job's a good'un.I'm not 'presenting history'.Think maybe your taking things a little too seriousily...

I was happy to say here you go Marty, here's where that info.came from, make of old Bob Gleadow and mates what you like, they said it back in...87/88 and not far more recently as you presumed, but other than that, i cannot take this too seriousily, it's just a forum!.
Its all good I suppose, Next time I mention something like the Snes has better sound than the MD i will make sure to reference quotes from several sound coders and cross reference each interview with colleagues of the time, then ask their doctors if they have a habit of remembering things correctly. I will then ask for several tech spec comparisions. of course I will then run this by an independent investigation commision to verify all information.

because god forbid I make a claim on an internet forum without the necessary data to back up a throwaway statement on a public forum.

User avatar
HalcyonDaze00
Posts: 4621
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:20 pm

Re: Retro Gamer - Issue 124

Post by HalcyonDaze00 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:23 pm

crusto wrote:
HalcyonDaze00 wrote: indeed, I thought I had logged into the High Court website by mistake!
Crazy times at RG forums!

Can someone proof read my post?
will do, but will have to wait until I get my free barristers wig from the cover of the next issue

User avatar
crusto
Posts: 5586
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:18 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Retro Gamer - Issue 124

Post by crusto » Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:25 pm

HalcyonDaze00 wrote:
crusto wrote:
HalcyonDaze00 wrote: indeed, I thought I had logged into the High Court website by mistake!
Crazy times at RG forums!

Can someone proof read my post?
will do, but will have to wait until I get my free barristers wig from the cover of the next issue
Now I'm seriously :lol: ing as I type this
Image

Eat your nans pants

Lost Dragon
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:59 am

Re: Retro Gamer - Issue 124

Post by Lost Dragon » Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:51 pm

Best be sensible, ahem, clears throat and...


Marty.You have your way of doing things, i have mine, nothings the changed fact i like your RG articles ,tonight, but if you cannot understand my point of view that there's a massive gulf between writing a forum post and that of writing for a professional publication, be it book or magazine, we are polar extremes apart in terms of thinking.I've no beef with you or any other writer of Atari related material, anywhere, but soon as things get to absurd levels like this, i will speak out.
I'm aware of your work, but here, i'm treating you as i would any other poster on the forum, taking your points on board, answering questions put, best i can and explaining myside of things, but i should'nt feel i have to go running off and dig through files just to put a time/date stamp on anything chap.



Forum posts=disposable, put up for a bit of banter, a trade, a bit of industry triva, an odd correction to something in an article, a suggestion for what you'd like to see in the magazine, a different look at a subject, etc etc.I've never viewed it as presenting history, if i wanted to go via that path, i'd be pitching articles to Darran etc.

What i will say, and this is just an observation, people can at times, seem very defensive when ever Atari is brought up and then likes of myself are put under questioning:what time frame? who told you? did you double check it etc etc? or, that's how it often comes across.

Fact is Marty, likes of myself (well parents if your talking A8 era) spent lot of money on Atari hardware+software and publications, i just put the hours in gaming, so of course it's a subject i'm going to be posting on and using resources from that time i have.If it gets debate going on here, great.what i've never understood is why the Atari based Retro-community, is way it is.Tendancy to mock, jump down the works of others (seen so many homebrew projects killed dead), rather than share resources and in terms of posting throw away comments, i dunno, it just seems to lead to you must explain how and where you got these findings (this incident just latest in long line, so it's not aimed at you personally) and i'm like..no, just no.If people cannot take a named quote at face value and start asking for sources etc, plug me back into the Matrix now.

It's hardly like Atari treated their customer base with the respect this sort of 'loyalty' seems to warrant, is it? they f**ked us all over time and time again with false promises, maybe you guys who've the resources i could only dream of, can help explain why we were treated as such by Atari, as i'm still trying to piece it all together, years later.

User avatar
crusto
Posts: 5586
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:18 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Retro Gamer - Issue 124

Post by crusto » Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:03 pm

Good point there lost dragon, a very good point. Just why do they receive god like status from certain quarters? It's baffling.
Image

Eat your nans pants

Lost Dragon
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:59 am

Re: Retro Gamer - Issue 124

Post by Lost Dragon » Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:10 pm

crusto wrote:Good point there lost dragon, a very good point. Just why do they receive god like status from certain quarters? It's baffling.
Looking at your user pic, i could have saved meself a lot of typing earlier, i should have looked to the great man for inspiration and just spat a bloody load of saliva onto my keyboard and put in...'Just give me my fuc*ing phone call' (in response to Marty's ED-209 style post). Joking Marty, just joking...

:lol:

User avatar
Mayhem
Posts: 4741
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:05 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Retro Gamer - Issue 124

Post by Mayhem » Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:38 pm

Lost Dragon wrote:but if you cannot understand my point of view that there's a massive gulf between writing a forum post and that of writing for a professional publication
There is, and I agree. Where I see Marty coming from, and I do see his PoV, is that people can and will read what people post on forums, and take that as fact, when there may actually be a degree of uncertainty about it. Propagation of incorrect information. Dress a lie up convincingly, and people think it's real, even if it's later proven to be false. They've forgotten by that point, and don't care. It's how many tabloids get their sales, and the later retractions are in a small box that nobody reads or recalls in the future.

Yes, I know that's definitely not what you're doing here, but having tried to cut through enough misinformation in pursuit of the Atari book, Marty still has his cautious hat on, it appears to me. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here Marty.
Lie with passion and be forever damned...

Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests