Intellivision Amico - Tommy Tallarico introduction + Q&A

5 hours ago, mr_me said:

I'm assuming you mean the M-network games.  These have been on the Atari Flashback consoles and handhelds for several years as well as the Atari Flashback Classics for XBone, PS4, Switch that came out in 2018.  Were they not licensed by Intellivision Productions?

Licenses expire, or are limited to specific products.  Some companies choose to overlook that, not renew, continue to use them and hope no one notices.

23 hours ago, mr_me said:

I'm not saying it's wrong to call an Amico an intellivision, I'm just explaining why some people say it's not.

If the definition of “Intellivision” is a model 2609 16-bit console made in 1979 (or hardware clones / rebranded versions by INTV, Sears, Radio shack, etc), then yes... Amico is not that, and never will be.

If the definition of “Intellivision” is a brand or lineage of hardware products, then Amico is an Intellivision.

I guess I didn’t realize people were so confused about this.

29 minutes ago, nurmix said:

If the definition of “Intellivision” is a model 2609 16-bit console made in 1979 (or hardware clones / rebranded versions by INTV, Sears, Radio shack, etc), then yes... Amico is not that, and never will be.

 

If the definition of “Intellivision” is a brand or lineage of hardware products, then Amico is an Intellivision.

 

I guess I didn’t realize people were so confused about this.

 

 

 

Seems to me that the brand owner gets to decide how the brand name is used, right?  

If the third Xbox can be called the Xbox One, saying Amico is also an Intellivision doesn't seem like a stretch. 

1 hour ago, nurmix said:

If the definition of “Intellivision” is a model 2609 16-bit console made in 1979 (or hardware clones / rebranded versions by INTV, Sears, Radio shack, etc), then yes... Amico is not that, and never will be.

 

If the definition of “Intellivision” is a brand or lineage of hardware products, then Amico is an Intellivision.

 

I guess I didn’t realize people were so confused about this.

 

 

 

Let's use cars as our examples on this...

Chevy first introduced the "Impala" as a high-end Bel Air... Then spun it off as it's own brand... which left and re-entered the market a few times.  The Impala also included the 'Super Sport' package and Police Interceptor/Highway packages for several years as well.

So saying you have an Impala can mean a few things... What year, what version, what body style...etc..etc... But it's still an Impala.. or even better A Chevy Impala.

The Amico is the same.  It's a modern Version of Intellivision under the brand name of an Intellivision...however with all modern options and features.  Much like if you parked a 2019 Impala next to a 1958 Bel Air Impala.  The Sears is like a '63 Impala SS, the Tandy a '67 Impala Sedan...etc..etc 

I hope that helps a little.  😁

1 hour ago, JeffVav said:

Seems to me that the brand owner gets to decide how the brand name is used, right?  

 

If the third Xbox can be called the Xbox One, saying Amico is also an Intellivision doesn't seem like a stretch. 

I’m not deciding how the brand name is used (although I do work for Intellivision Entertainment), I am just trying to inderstand and clarify what Mr. Me was saying.  To me the whole thing is ‘much ado about nothing’.

21 minutes ago, IMBerzerk said:

Let's use cars as our examples on this...

 

Chevy first introduced the "Impala" as a high-end Bel Air... Then spun it off as it's own brand... which left and re-entered the market a few times.  The Impala also included the 'Super Sport' package and Police Interceptor/Highway packages for several years as well.

So saying you have an Impala can mean a few things... What year, what version, what body style...etc..etc... But it's still an Impala.. or even better A Chevy Impala.

 

The Amico is the same.  It's a modern Version of Intellivision under the brand name of an Intellivision...however with all modern options and features.  Much like if you parked a 2019 Impala next to a 1958 Bel Air Impala.  The Sears is like a '63 Impala SS, the Tandy a '67 Impala Sedan...etc..etc 

 

I hope that helps a little.  😁

Agreed.  I used a similar car example in a previous post.  I am clear on this.  My point was I don’t understand why this is confusing to others.

9 hours ago, mr_me said:

I'm assuming you mean the M-network games.  These have been on the Atari Flashback consoles and handhelds for several years as well as the Atari Flashback Classics for XBone, PS4, Switch that came out in 2018.  Were they not licensed by Intellivision Productions?

They were for a little time a long time ago (over 7 years ago).  After that... No.  They were not.

2 hours ago, nurmix said:

I’m not deciding how the brand name is used (although I do work for Intellivision Entertainment), I am just trying to inderstand and clarify what Mr. Me was saying.  To me the whole thing is ‘much ado about nothing’.

 

Ha, indeed. No I was just agreeing with you basically. 

I too found it an odd concern and only quoted you to add a thought to yours. It wasn't meant to challenge what you wrote. 

3 hours ago, nurmix said:

Agreed.  I used a similar car example in a previous post.  I am clear on this.  My point was I don’t understand why this is confusing to others.

 

I'm with you... me either... 

8 hours ago, atarifan88 said:

I know this was a typo, but the thought of them being sued, they may need a keg to drown their sorrows!😂

Lol

2 hours ago, Tommy Tallarico said:

 

They were for a little time a long time ago (over 7 years ago).  After that... No.  They were not.

 

Well they finally removed them from last year's edition of the atari flashbacks, except for burgertime and bumpnjump.  Although, they might have substituted versions other than the 2600 version for those two.  They've been known to do that.  That might also explain how they have imagic games on the flashbacks.

Edit:

Why wouldn't Intellivision Productions file a claim; seems pretty straighforward and atari flashback sales aren't insignificant.

6 hours ago, nurmix said:

If the definition of “Intellivision” is a model 2609 16-bit console made in 1979 (or hardware clones / rebranded versions by INTV, Sears, Radio shack, etc), then yes... Amico is not that, and never will be.

 

If the definition of “Intellivision” is a brand or lineage of hardware products, then Amico is an Intellivision.

 

I guess I didn’t realize people were so confused about this.

 

As a video game platform, here are some examples.

People consider the Collectorvision Phoenix a colecovision because it's hardware based.  Same for the Atari Flashback 2; some even say Atari Flashback 2 sales should count in the total sales of the Atari 2600.  The Analogue Super NT is a clone of a SNES and the Analogue Mega SG is a clone of the Genesis.  However, people may not say the same about the Retron 5 because it's software based, while others don't see the difference.  Similarly, as a video game platform, some will say Amico is not an Intellivision while others will be happy with it's emulation and use it as an Intellivision; especially if it has a cartridge dumper add-on.

On 10/18/2019 at 12:23 PM, nurmix said:

In the 1960s, Dodge had a car model called the Dart.  It went away for a couple decades, but returned a few years ago, reviving the model name Dodge Dart.  It was a completely different car, but Dodge chose to use the name Dart, since they felt it was carrying on in the tradition of the original.  Would you say the new Dart wasn't actually a Dodge Dart?

It's a Dodge Dart because it's a Dodge Dart.  It's not a "Dart Amico"(i.e., model Amico made by indy manufacturer Dart, inc.).  

You're right that it's a pedantic argument.  @mr_me is right that it's not technically an updated Intellivision model, even if it essentially is. @Tommy Tallarico is right that the genealogy is there.  I'm right that you'll have your work cut out for you, public-perception wise. 

Well, I may or may not be right on any of that but I'll pretend I am.  😎

7 hours ago, nurmix said:

I guess I didn’t realize people were so confused about this.

 

 

 

Sorry, I may have inadvertently sparked this debate when I expressed a personal opinion a few posts back

6 hours ago, mr_me said:

Well they finally removed them from last year's edition of the atari flashbacks, except for burgertime and bumpnjump.  Although, they might have substituted versions other than the 2600 version for those two.  They've been known to do that.  That might also explain how they have imagic games on the flashbacks.

 

Edit:

Why wouldn't Intellivision Productions file a claim; seems pretty straighforward and atari flashback sales aren't insignificant.

 

As a video game platform, here are some examples.

 

People consider the Collectorvision Phoenix a colecovision because it's hardware based.  Same for the Atari Flashback 2; some even say Atari Flashback 2 sales should count in the total sales of the Atari 2600.  The Analogue Super NT is a clone of a SNES and the Analogue Mega SG is a clone of the Genesis.  However, people may not say the same about the Retron 5 because it's software based, while others don't see the difference.  Similarly, as a video game platform, some will say Amico is not an Intellivision while others will be happy with it's emulation and use it as an Intellivision; especially if it has a cartridge dumper add-on.

They removed it because I took over and refused to let them get away with it.  Atari wasn't even aware this was happening..  Can't say more than that because of the way our new contract with Atari was written.  But if you look at the Flashback timeline... I think you'll notice that my story lines up. 

AT Games were 100% illegally putting Imagic games on their as well.  Long story on that one that is probably best I don't get into here.

Bugertime and Bump & Jump were never owned by Intellivision and my understanding is that they did acquire those licenses through the proper channels. 
 

Atari Flashback sales ARE actually signficant.  Enough that proper royalty payments would have easily been in the tens of thousands... and with me negotiating... maybe even close to $100K. 

Intellivision Productions never filed a claim because I was the one who found out they were doing it and they didn't start doing it until after Keith died.  Bad move trying to take me for a fool.   As Paul mentioned... he was in a few of the in person meetings we had at AT Games.  Although cordial for the most part... there were very uncomfortable moments as they made the mistake of not being honest on a number of occassions and I don't think they realized I had the knowledge, power, industry friends and experience to call them out.  They even tried going around my back a few times and getting to others who worked for me.  As if my own folks weren't going to let me know.  Seriously?  Yes... that's how insane the situation was.

In regards to the talk that Amico isn't really an Intellivision....  every example you gave absolutely 100% proves my point.  NONE of those companies you mentioned were the company who owned those products.  Those are companies who licensed the products from the owners to create something totally new.  We ARE Intellivision... we don't need to license or need permission to do Amico or it's games.  Those games and the name and trademarks and patents are us. 

 

6 hours ago, Tommy Tallarico said:

Bugertime and Bump & Jump were never owned by Intellivision and my understanding is that they did acquire those licenses through the proper channels. 

The Atari 2600 Burgertime and Bumpnjump game code copyrights would have belonged to Mattel.  Someone (e.g. INTV Corp, Intellivision Productions) would have to have sold those off.

----------

One thing that is true, unlike the other systems mentioned, you couldn't make and market an Intellivision system today without the permission of Intellivision Entertainment because of the embedded "exec" software that's required.

18 hours ago, JeffVav said:

Seems to me that the brand owner gets to decide how the brand name is used, right?  

 

If the third Xbox can be called the Xbox One, saying Amico is also an Intellivision doesn't seem like a stretch. 

If the owner calls the third xbox an xbox one, then I think said owner needs to go back to elementary school and re-learn numerical order! 😄

Enough of this nomenclature argument. Let's move on to something more important to world peace and nuclear disarmament!

'Country Music' is an oxymoron.🤔

14 minutes ago, Blarneo said:

'Country Music' is an oxymoron.🤔

Reported for hate speech.

Breaking news: Death Stranding will break the Amico commandment number 2, so even a 2D version will not be possible on the system:

2 minutes ago, PlaysWithWolves said:

 

Reported for hate speech.

Oh' Wolfie. 🤣

44 minutes ago, IntelliMission said:

Breaking news: Death Stranding will break the Amico commandment number 2, so even a 2D version will not be possible on the system:

 

Don't think UFC qualifies either

GrudgeQ, your pictures are not visible.

4 hours ago, mr_me said:

The Atari 2600 Burgertime and Bumpnjump game code copyrights would have belonged to Mattel.  Someone (e.g. INTV Corp, Intellivision Productions) would have to have sold those off.

 

----------

One thing that is true, unlike the other systems mentioned, you couldn't make and market an Intellivision system today without the permission of Intellivision Entertainment because of the embedded "exec" software that's required.

That was never the case.  Just because Mattel licensed the rights doesnt mean they own the code or owned the game ever.  Data East was always the owner. It was a simple licensing deal.  Similar to Colecovision making Donkey Kong games.  They didnt own Donkey Kong or the code. 

5 hours ago, GrudgeQ said:

Don't think UFC qualifies either

...and folks say I'm the crazy one. 

23 hours ago, JeffVav said:

Ha, indeed. No I was just agreeing with you basically. 

I too found it an odd concern and only quoted you to add a thought to yours. It wasn't meant to challenge what you wrote. 

Oops, guess I misread that a bit!

22 hours ago, IMBerzerk said:

I'm with you... me either... 

Copy that!