Saying the 3DO is better than the Jaguar or CD32 isn't saying much.

. They all three bombed hard. In the grand scheme of things, the 3DO library isn't that impressive. The library mainly consisted of PC ports and the cool next gen Electronic Arts games were quickly ported to the Saturn and Playstation.
Lol?
3DO is a failed console but comparing it to the CD32 or Jaguar is a bit crazy. Also many games not playable anywhere else the system has hundreds of games, unlike the other two.
Though iirc I think CD32 had more games than the Jaguar which is pretty funny given CD32 didn't even last 8 months.
For what it's worth, the Sega Saturn also contained one of those old Motorola processors.
It was used in arcades until the 2000s.
It was a major breakthrough CPU that was utilized in so many electronics gaming or non. Some computers ran primarily on it. Too bad Motorola messed up later on and ruined their chance to be competitive in the processor space. Now they make underpowered phones for Lenovo.
The irony is though, where Jag had Tom and Jerry but next to no developers interested in them
More like it was very hard to even get to them, or use them.
The irony is though, wherI mean if you are Atari R and D at least think about ok,
R&D?? Atari didn't even make the console lol. They had the design and plans with prototyping, and then due to funds outsourced it to third party UK company with no finished products that had internal problems with developer consistency for both the Jaguar and the Panther. Granted, the Jaguar was in prototype for incredibly impressive until they actually started working on the insides, and then IBM was contracted to manufacture the units which ended up making things worse.
Now that I think about it, Atari hadn't made a console since the Lynx 2 which they were involved with. Before that the Xegs in 87, they only really made (some) Computers after 1987, outside the Lynx 2.
That's what happens when you outsource the entirety of your hardware to a third-party, maybe half at most but the whole thing?
.that console proclaimed to be the first 32 bit system on the market,
Actually they claimed 64-bit, and they were right technically. Console marketed ruined how devices were determined by bits, it was by the Bus, which is why many said the N64 was 32-bit despite the claim of being 64-bit. Whether a "part" in the console was a certain bit was some silly console marketing nonense.
Technically, Atari was the first console to have a 64-bit bus despite that being pointless because of the poor internal design. Actually, not entirely pintless because the console would be incredibly crippled with a 32-bit bus. Technically though they were right, it was the first "64-bit" console, and iirc the ONLY one as I don't recall another console with a 64-bit bus (PS2/DC were 128 iirc, and Xbox original was 32-bit.)
Of course it didn't rally matter. But like I said, if Atari wanted to outsource their hardware they should have done it with someone with a brand name and at least one finished product under their belt.