The Great Crash
Chris Burger
A common theme that you read all the time in gaming magazines is that the
home gaming scene was a virtual desert after the great videogame crash of
1983/84, and that it took Nintendo to bring people back to the games.
If you remember back however, you will remember the incredible popularity of
home computers like the Commodore 64. When games like Impossible Mission and
Beach Head hit the shelves, they were miles ahead of anything that appeared on
the Colecovision or Atari. Tons of people who previously played Atari and the
other systems opted to buy an Atari or Commodore computer when they seen all
the cool software available. I remember people at my highschool who didn't
even have a home computer going around with disks full of copied software that
they would play on the school's C64.
Despite what the mainstream media would have us believe, the gaming scene did
not vanish in 1984. Many of the people simply switched over to home computers.
Chris.
The humanoid must not escape!!!!! - Berzerk
Roger Earl
>A common theme that you read all the time in gaming magazines is that the
>home gaming scene was a virtual desert after the great videogame crash of
>1983/84, and that it took Nintendo to bring people back to the games.
>
...
>Despite what the mainstream media would have us believe, the gaming scene
>did not vanish in 1984. Many of the people simply switched over to home
>computers.
Aha, you've stumbled upon my pet peeve with this newsgroup and the entire
classic gaming scene. The "Crash" is still IMHO a fallacy. It really refers
to a dead year by Atari and Coleco, not the industry as a whole. Anyone
will tell you that '84 was a banner year for the C=64 and it wasn't bad
for coin-ops either. Even further though, I personally disagree with the
"Crash" concept that is entirely based upon the excuses of Atari and Coleco.
The fact of the matter is that they both did such poor business at the end
of '83 and early '84 because of their own stupidity (IE: paying $21 mil for
the license for ET), not because the consumer stopped buying. The consumer
just decided to buy from someone else.
Robert Worne
chr...@vaxxine.com (Chris Burger) wrote:
[snip]
>If you remember back however, you will remember the incredible popularity of
>home computers like the Commodore 64. When games like Impossible Mission and
>Beach Head hit the shelves, they were miles ahead of anything that appeared
>on the Colecovision or Atari. Tons of people who previously played Atari
>and the other systems opted to buy an Atari or Commodore computer when they
>seen all the cool software available. I remember people at my highschool
>who didn't even have a home computer going around with disks full of copied
>software that they would play on the school's C64.
>did not vanish in 1984. Many of the people simply switched over to home
>computers.
I would tend to agree, it was about this time the Apple II, C-64, TI 99/4
were king of the heap as far as home computers went...
Hmmm... now when I was in high school, *everyone* carried boxes of illicit
AppleII and Atari 800 software (the machines my HS used). In fact, I think
Ultima I, II, III, Choplifter, and Wizardry were the most pirated Apple II
software, and everyone had cart dumps of 800 software.
When I was in my senior year (fall 1983-spring 1984) nobody talked about home
videogame systems, they all wanted home computers (TI and AppleII were at the
top of the list).
--
Robert Worne NeXT-OS/2-MacOS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Starving CS Undergrad: "Sorry, I don't do Windows! I'd rather starve!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my videogame collecting site! http://www.primenet.com/~rworne/
Glenn Saunders
The mortal Chris Burger wrote:
: If you remember back however, you will remember the incredible popularity of
There were home computers back to the TRS-80 and Apple-II, contemporaries
of the 2600, as well as groundbreaking games early on (Star Raiders, 1979,
Flight Simulator I, etc..). The reason home computers suddenly became
popular wasn't so much the quality of the games as it was the changing
technology had allowed home computers to come down so much in price that
parents could justify paying for one as a de-facto glorified game machine
for their kids the way they USED to get game consoles.
: Despite what the mainstream media would have us believe, the gaming scene did
: not vanish in 1984. Many of the people simply switched over to home computers.
Or, you could say, the first wave of home computers were suddenly
considered de-facto game machines and "computer computers" like the brand
spanking new (and deathly boring to see and hear) IBM PC took over the
"adult" market for computers.
Phil Alexander
Funny thing was, a few years after the "Crash" I remember sitting in a
store FULL of C64's and such, and people constantly coming in wanting,
INSISTING to buy an Atari 2600...
Couldn't keep 'em in stock. We actually sent people to the States (We're
in Hamilton, 1hr away) to TRY to find them...
Incredible. We placed blind ads for used ones, everything. It was the
Tickle Me Elmo for us...
The c64's were glued to the shelf...
Phil
Chris Burger
A common theme that you read all the time in gaming magazines is that the
home gaming scene was a virtual desert after the great videogame crash of
1983/84, and that it took Nintendo to bring people back to the games.
home computers like the Commodore 64. When games like Impossible Mission and
the Colecovision or Atari. Tons of people who previously played Atari and the
other systems opted to buy an Atari or Commodore computer when they seen all
the cool software available. I remember people at my highschool who didn't
even have a home computer going around with disks full of copied software that
they would play on the school's C64.
Despite what the mainstream media would have us believe, the gaming scene did
not vanish in 1984. Many of the people simply switched over to home computers.
Chris.
Roger Earl
>A common theme that you read all the time in gaming magazines is that the
>home gaming scene was a virtual desert after the great videogame crash of
>1983/84, and that it took Nintendo to bring people back to the games.
>
...
>Despite what the mainstream media would have us believe, the gaming scene
>did not vanish in 1984. Many of the people simply switched over to home
>computers.
Aha, you've stumbled upon my pet peeve with this newsgroup and the entire
TomHeroes
I remember going away to college in 1984 and a friend of mine had an Apple
II computer down the hall. I didn't have alot of money and bought a
Vectrex for $50 from Children's Palace and eleven games at about $5.00
each. I wanted to play games, but couldn't afford a color tv to play my
coleco on so this was a worthwhile alternative. Anyways, even though his
computer was superior to my Vectrex, everyone would be down at my room
playing it. It used to drive him batty. Well, I still have my Vectrex
and still love it. So the so-called crash helped me when i was away at
college.
-Tom Zjaba
tomh...@aol.com (doing my darndest to prove the anti-AOLers wrong)
Larry Scott Ii
: Despite what the mainstream media would have us believe, the gaming scene did
This guy hit it right on .. that's exactly what I did, except my calling
was Ultima.. I bought an 8-bit *just* to play Ultima 3 .. then Ultima
2.. then 1.. then 4. Then a '64 to play 5. Then a PC to play 6. Console
games couldn't (and still can't) touch Ultima.. :)
William Moeller
In <5a4idt$5...@nr1.vancouver.istar.net>, re...@direct.ca (Roger Earl) wrote:
: >A common theme that you read all the time in gaming magazines is that the
: >home gaming scene was a virtual desert after the great videogame crash of
: >1983/84, and that it took Nintendo to bring people back to the games.
: >
: ...
: >Despite what the mainstream media would have us believe, the gaming scene
: >did not vanish in 1984. Many of the people simply switched over to home
: >computers.
: Aha, you've stumbled upon my pet peeve with this newsgroup and the entire
: classic gaming scene. The "Crash" is still IMHO a fallacy. It really refers
: to a dead year by Atari and Coleco, not the industry as a whole. Any one
: will tell you that '84 was a banner year for the C=64 and it wasn't bad
: for coin-ops either. Even further though, I personally disagree with the
: "Crash" concept that is entirely based upon the excuses of Atari and Coleco.
: The fact of the matter is that they both did such poor business at the end
: of '83 and early '84 because of their own stupidity (IE: paying $21 mil for
: the license for ET), not because the consumer stopped buying. The consumer
: just decided to buy from someone else.
The "Video Game Crash" was NOT a fallacy! "The consumer just decided to
buy from someone else" is more like "The consumeer just decided to buy
SOMETHING else", namely computers.
Not only did Coleco and Atari bite it, but it put Mattel Electronics
out of business! (Remember them?),....also, Magnavox went out of the biz,
along with Astrocade, Vectrex, LeisureVision....
The Atari 7800 was cancelled due to the fact there was a perception there
was going to be no video game market in the future....ever....they would
be replaced with computers. And, with the way the Vic 20 and C64 and
Apple and Atari 800's were selling, it sure looked like it. Nintendo filled
a market vacuum in 1985, a full year after everyone cleared out of the video
game market. Who would have thought that parents would not want to lay
out big bucks for a computer system for junior, thereby maintaining the
video game market?
The fact is, people wanted to be able to plug in a game, and have it go.
They did not want to worry about disk commands, or waiting for tape loads.
Sure, 1984 was a bad year. Everyone who wanted a video game had one.
Prospective video game owners were purchasing computers. The kids who would
get Nintendos for Christmas were still too young to play video games.
You make it sound as if Nintendo captured the market in 1984 and Atari
and Coleco (not to mention Mattel) were just "making excuses".....well,
Nintendo wasn't even sold in 1984.
--
William M. Moeller
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca or wi...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Matt Pritchard
Larry Scott Ii (meta...@iglou.com) wrote:
: : Despite what the mainstream media would have us believe, the gaming scene did
: This guy hit it right on .. that's exactly what I did, except my calling
: was Ultima.. I bought an 8-bit *just* to play Ultima 3 .. then Ultima
: 2.. then 1.. then 4. Then a '64 to play 5. Then a PC to play 6. Console
: games couldn't (and still can't) touch Ultima.. :)
Ultima 6 was, belive it or not, released for the C-64. I didn't belive
it until an Office mate of mine brought it in.
(Glad I was rejected for the Ultima 9 team)
--
-Matt P
_______________________________________________________________________________
Matt Pritchard | Antique Computer & Game System Collector
matt...@netcom.com | Assembly Language Programming Guru
via Dallas, Tx dialup | Article Writer/Game Programmer/Developer
Roger Earl
William M. Moeller wrote:
>The "Video Game Crash" was NOT a fallacy! "The consumer just decided to
>buy from someone else" is more like "The consumeer just decided to buy
>SOMETHING else", namely computers.
Yes, it is a fallacy. Video games are video games and whether played on
a C=64 or an Atari 2600 makes no difference. Some of the C=64 games
could be classified as "Computer Games" (IMO this distinction is silly),
but not the majority of them, especially since they were often the exact
same games ported later to the NES.
The consumer did not stop buying video games. The consumer did not even
stop buying video games for the 2600, but with so many cheap third-party
carts out there, people weren't exactly keen on shelling out $50+ for
Pac-Man and ET from Atari.
>Not only did Coleco and Atari bite it, but it put Mattel Electronics
>out of business! (Remember them?),....also, Magnavox went out of the biz,
>along with Astrocade, Vectrex, LeisureVision....
By 1983, the Intellivision and Odyssey^2 were already dead in the market,
the ColecoVision had targetted and gotten most of their business (and to
some extent a bit of Atari's business as well). Pick up any game magazines
from that year and count the Intellivision ads compared to the years
previously. Coleco's losses were due to the Cabbage Patch fiasco, although
the Adam was equally a waste of time. Astrocade, Vectrex, & LeisureVision
never had a decent share of the market to begin with (which is a shame,
the Vec is a great machine).
>Nintendo filled a market vacuum in 1985, a full year after everyone cleared
>out of the video game market. Who would have thought that parents would not
>want to lay out big bucks for a computer system for junior, thereby
>maintaining the video game market?
Nintendo certainly did fill a vacuum, which only empasizes that the
consumers didn't dry up and go away. It wasn't a brilliant or amazing move,
Nintendo didn't even want to do it originally, they just wanted to continue
the success they had with selling carts for the ColecoVision. They spent a
year trying to find a replacement niche machine before settling on selling
their own in North America.
>Sure, 1984 was a bad year. Everyone who wanted a video game had one.
>Prospective video game owners were purchasing computers.
The computers were a better buy. They had the better games and the
companies weren't wasting all of their money making dolls or licensing
Spielberg movies. Atari's computers didn't exactly make them huge bucks
in 1984, so it wasn't just any computer. Specifically the C=64 sold well
because of a low price and the Apple II sold well because it was in the
schools.
>The kids who would get Nintendos for Christmas were still too young to
>play video games.
Huh? Are you suggesting that there was a lack of children in 1984 and
then suddenly a miraculous boom that culminated in the approriate age of
children for 1985???
>You make it sound as if Nintendo captured the market in 1984 and Atari
>and Coleco (not to mention Mattel) were just "making excuses".....well,
>Nintendo wasn't even sold in 1984.
No, what I am saying is that Atari and Coleco dropped the ball in
1983-1984. No market crash, just the two dominating companies failing at
their business. This is why I call it a fallacy.
Roger Earl
Phil Alexander wrote:
>Funny thing was, a few years after the "Crash" I remember sitting in a
>store FULL of C64's and such, and people constantly coming in wanting,
>INSISTING to buy an Atari 2600...
...
>The c64's were glued to the shelf...
This is what happened in shops that got burned by Commodore when the
price of the units dropped drastically. Stores got stuck with stock at the
old prices that they couldn't afford. This is why so many shops refused
to carry the Amiga when it arrived, they expected the same sort of product
dumping from Commodore. -Sigh- Great machines killed by lame companies.
Chris Cracknell
> Aha, you've stumbled upon my pet peeve with this newsgroup and the entire
>classic gaming scene. The "Crash" is still IMHO a fallacy. It really refers
>to a dead year by Atari and Coleco, not the industry as a whole. Anyone
>will tell you that '84 was a banner year for the C=64 and it wasn't bad
>for coin-ops either. Even further though, I personally disagree with the
>"Crash" concept that is entirely based upon the excuses of Atari and Coleco.
>The fact of the matter is that they both did such poor business at the end
>of '83 and early '84 because of their own stupidity (IE: paying $21 mil for
>the license for ET), not because the consumer stopped buying. The consumer
>just decided to buy from someone else.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
The Crash was not the end of video games, but the death of home video game
consoles (Atari 2600, Intellivision, Colecovision, etc.) which were, to a
large extent, killed off by home computers such as the C-64 and Atari 800 etc.
Video games went on, they just moved from cartridge to floppy disk until the
NES hit the scene and brought cartridge based, video game only, machines
back into the north american market.
I worked in a computer store when the NES came out and I thought it was a
gonner. I couldn't beleive people would spend that much money for a machine
that would only play video games.
Computers and Video Game machines are two entirely different sets of beasties.
The Crash isn't reffering to the Computer market, but the Home Video Game
Machine market.
CRACKERS
(Who knew from hell!!!!!!)
--
Accordionist - Wethifl Musician - Atari 2600 Collector | /\/\
http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ad329/Profile.html | \^^/
Bira Bira Devotee - FES Member - Samurai Pizza Cats Fan| =\/=
Shane Shaffer
Roger Earl (re...@direct.ca) wrote:
: Yes, it is a fallacy. Video games are video games and whether played on
: a C=64 or an Atari 2600 makes no difference.
In my book, that is a HUGE difference. There are games that
appear on multiple gaming platforms - arcade, consoles, and computers.
Those are the exceptions though, not the rule. I have always considered
"video games" and "computer games" to be two entirely distinct entities.
In the days of the crash, when I was 8 or 9, I saw computer games on the
average being much slower and more thought provoking than console games.
There were plenty of arcade type games on the computer, but there were
also strategy, role playing, adventure, sims, etc., that just didn't exist
for the consoles.
Today we do see some games of these genres on consoles, but the
bulk of console games are still action games, and the bulk of computer
games involve more thinking. I then thought, and still do now, that games
appearing on computers are generally boring compared to console games.
The target demographic has always been different, and the product reflects
the desires of the target. "Video games" means consoles and arcades. If
you want to include computer games, call them "electronic games"
: The consumer did not stop buying video games. The consumer did not even
: stop buying video games for the 2600, but with so many cheap third-party
: carts out there, people weren't exactly keen on shelling out $50+ for
: Pac-Man and ET from Atari.
By my definition, they did stop buying video games. Generally,
video and computer games are considered separate classes. People stopped
buying video games. They started buying computer games (even though many
would qualify as video games)
: Coleco's losses were due to the Cabbage Patch fiasco,
Huh? That's like saying Tyco is losing money on Tickle Me Elmo.
Coleco sold more than half a billion Cabbage Patch Kids. They kept the
company alive. The ADAM was a tremendous flop.
: Nintendo certainly did fill a vacuum, which only empasizes that the
: consumers didn't dry up and go away. It wasn't a brilliant or amazing move,
: Nintendo didn't even want to do it originally, they just wanted to continue
: the success they had with selling carts for the ColecoVision. They spent a
: year trying to find a replacement niche machine before settling on selling
: their own in North America.
If the "video game" buying consumers were still there, and video
games were still a viable product, then why did the Nintendo propaganda
say so much about having game "paks", not cartridges, and other things to
distinguish their system from video games? From the business side there
were obvious advantages to have the product sold as an electronics item,
not a toy (like previous video games had), but the main idea was to erase
everyone's bad memories of video games. Remember when they first had a
keyboard, a piano keyboard, remote controllers, and a tape storage drive?
Back when it was called the Advanced Video System - "advanced" so it
sounds like something different from video games. Nintendo tried to
distance its product from previous game consoles, but even in that form
nobody wanted anything to do with it. Consumers and retailers alike did
not want video games.
: The computers were a better buy. They had the better games and the
: companies weren't wasting all of their money making dolls or licensing
: Spielberg movies.
Well, Warner did screw up immensely with putrid games based on
putrid movies (E.T.), but it was those dolls that kept Coleco alive. As
for computers being a better buy, I didn't see it as so at the time.
Consoles were very cheap, games just a few bucks. Great time to build up
the library. Computers cost more initially, and the software cost more
than console software. Admittedly, 83-84 was a much better time to get
into computer games than any time before it, but I still see consoles as
the better short term deal.
: Huh? Are you suggesting that there was a lack of children in 1984 and
: then suddenly a miraculous boom that culminated in the approriate age of
: children for 1985???
I didn't quite follow that argument either. But to say there was
a miraculous boom in 1985 is certainly overstating things. Only 500-600
stores wre selling the NES in 1985, and those were in the New York area.
Early 1986 they went to L.A., and later a few more cities, but it was
almost the end of 1986 before they went national. They sold around a
million units the first year (late 85-end of 86), then 3 million the next.
So 4 million units by the start of 1988. Then the boom hit (7 million
units). The numbers back up my memories of the release - I remember
seeing it when it was new, but only a few people I knew bought it. Took
about a year or a little more before it became something mainstream.
: No, what I am saying is that Atari and Coleco dropped the ball in
: 1983-1984. No market crash, just the two dominating companies failing at
: their business. This is why I call it a fallacy.
I just don't see it that way. Atari had been fouling up ever
since they missed much of the Christmas buying season when the 5200 was
released (and then the controllers...), and Coleco killed their bottom
line with the ADAM, but they didn't kill the industry. It was all the
cruddy companies with all the shovelware that did it. Too many games
doing the same thing for anyone to make any money. The little guys died,
the big boys hung around for a while, but the consumer was turned off by
the glut of lame games, so they didn't buy from the big boys either. Look
at 1983 - then I thought it was the peak year for games, as there was tons
of stuff. Now I know that sales went from $3 billion the year before to
$100 million in 1983. Ouch. Somehow the companies didn't see these
figures and continued to produce millions of games few people wanted.
Sure, some of the people went over to computer games, but I know I didn't,
and nobody I knew at the time did either.
Bottom line, the video game industry, as traditionally defined as
console games, crashed. The electronic games industry shrunk somewhat and
shifted from video games to computer games.
- Shane Shaffer
king...@wam.umd.edu
J.D. Forinash
In article <5a63t5$3...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
William Moeller <af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote:
>Not only did Coleco and Atari bite it, but it put Mattel Electronics
>out of business! (Remember them?),....also, Magnavox went out of the biz,
>along with Astrocade, Vectrex, LeisureVision....
I dunno, Mattel Electronics did a good job of putting itself out of business.
First, by losing a few million in the lawsuit from Magnavox. Then they went
and bought production rights from numerous folks on video games they never
released (84 Winter Olympics, Bullwinkle, just to name a few...)
Mattel Electronics probably would have died, anyhow.
-F
--
. J.D. Forinash: geek, speed demon, sysadmin, Vogon poet, smeghead
/o\ You're not cleared for that. <IMG SRC = "stardestroyer.asc">
'---` http://www.cc.gatech.edu/people/home/foxtrot fox...@cc.gatech.edu
The more you learn, the better your luck gets. Phoenix:GFW O- <*>
Roger Earl
Chris Cracknell wrote:
>Computers and Video Game machines are two entirely different sets of
>beasties. The Crash isn't reffering to the Computer market, but the Home
>Video Game Machine market.
Okay, perhaps this is turning into a different arguement of Computers
vs. Consoles, which it shouldn't be. The point I am making is that there
was no market crash. Atari and Coleco did very poorly because of their
own mistakes, something that most everyone freely admits. The 2600 was
getting dated and it was dying off. The point that I was making was that
the consumers didn't stop playing, nor did they stop spending. A market
shift is not a market crash.
It is convenient to use the "Crash" when it comes to nostalgia and
collecting. It's also convenient to seperate computers from consoles more
than a current consumer might. Carts are robust and can still be found in
reasonable quantities in good condition. Working floppies from that era
are rare, and actual purchased (rather than pirated) copies are even more
scarce. So if one discounts the computers, the only logical move is to
assume that Atari's excuses of a crash are true.
Roger Earl
Shane Shaffer wrote:
>
> In my book, that is a HUGE difference. There are games that
>appear on multiple gaming platforms - arcade, consoles, and computers.
>Those are the exceptions though, not the rule.
Well, as I said in an earlier message, the distinction is one of
convenience for both collecting and nostalgia. The sales of C=64
software, especially in 1984 were mostly on arcade-action style games.
Perhaps that wasn't true for the Apple, nore the PC later, but for the
C=64 then Amiga and Atari ST, most of the games that sold were action
oriented and very, very often ported to the consoles later (I'd say about
40% of the NES games and 70% of the Genesis and SNES games were ported
from these computers). At one time I had an NES and was so disappointed
that so many of the games were the same ones I already had, and the
remainder seemed to be either direct Nintendo product or bad licenses
(tho I will definitely say the NES had some gems). I made the same
mistake later with the Genesis.
>There were plenty of arcade type games on the computer, but there were
>also strategy, role playing, adventure, sims, etc., that just didn't exist
>for the consoles.
It's true that the C=64 had its share of role playing and adventure games.
Not many sims and very little strategy. And none of these sold as well as
games like Raid On Bungling Bay or BallBlazer.
> "Video games" means consoles and arcades. If you want to include
> computer games, call them "electronic games"
Nope, I'd disagree until I go blue in the face. I'm tired of console
owners who constantly assert this rule when so many of the games they
play were on the computers first. If you do discount the strategy, etc.
games, then of the remainder the only difference is a matter of load times.
So should the PSX and Saturn now be discounted from the label of having
"video games"?
>: Coleco's losses were due to the Cabbage Patch fiasco,
> Huh? That's like saying Tyco is losing money on Tickle Me Elmo.
>Coleco sold more than half a billion Cabbage Patch Kids. They kept the
>company alive. The ADAM was a tremendous flop.
Coleco made $600 Million (that isn't units, that's gross sales not
even profits) on the Cabbage Patch Kids in the first run. They sunk all of
their liquid cash into the dolls, which explains why almost 30 promised
Coleco carts were never made. They were too busy with the enterprise they
felt was more lucrative, especially since the Adam bombed. But after that
first Christmas, no one wanted a Cabbage Patch Kid and Coleco got stuck
with stock and lost more than three times the initial profit. They also
took huge losses with a similiar incident with Trivial Pursuit. In
comparison, the loss they took with the Adam was $80 Million. This is the
biggest mistake in all of the "crash" and Coleco documentation. The
Cabbage Patch Kids were what killed the company, NOT the Adam.
> If the "video game" buying consumers were still there, and video
>games were still a viable product, then why did the Nintendo propaganda
>say so much about having game "paks", not cartridges, and other things to
>distinguish their system from video games?
It fits with Nintendo's strategy which has made them so successful. Don't
make the money on the machine, make it on the games (licenses). Made sense
to them considering how many Donkey Kong carts were sold for the Coleco.
>From the business side there were obvious advantages to have the product
>sold as an electronics item, not a toy (like previous video games had),
>but the main idea was to erase everyone's bad memories of video games.
>Remember when they first had a keyboard, a piano keyboard, remote
>controllers, and a tape storage drive? Back when it was called the
>Advanced Video System - "advanced" so it sounds like something different
>from video games.
Yes, but just as you pointed out, the NES didn't really sell all that
well until they did away with that nonsense.
>Nintendo tried to distance its product from previous game consoles, but
>even in that form nobody wanted anything to do with it. Consumers and
>retailers alike did not want video games.
This makes the most sense from everything you've said. Except substitute
"Atari" for "video games". Retailers got stuck with Atari 2600 units on
the shelf. The Atari name was synonymous with video games, much in the
way that the Nintendo name became a few years later. What I mean is so
many people called a game system an "Atari", regardless of whether it was
one or not. Retailers already had Atari systems for sale, which explains
much of why the 5200 didn't go far (having the same damn games didn't
help either). Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, at most the
so-called crash was just the death-throes of the 2600.
> Well, Warner did screw up immensely with putrid games based on
>putrid movies (E.T.), but it was those dolls that kept Coleco alive. As
Blaming Warner as if it was a seperate entity from Atari sounds like a
Tramiel quote. Warner Communications purchased Atari in 1976, before
most people knew the name.
>It was all the cruddy companies with all the shovelware that did it.
>Too many games doing the same thing for anyone to make any money.
Well no kidding, but what was Atari's alternative? Did they offer better
quality at cheaper prices? Nah, they'd spoon-fed people for this already
by allowing the Sears licenses, etc. Try and sell the same games under
different names (not unlike them, remember Kee Games?). And the followup
machines just re-used the same game licenses. Yes, the 5200 had a much
better Pac-Man than the 2600, but try asking your mother to buy the same
game twice, especially when it sucked so much the first time around.
> Bottom line, the video game industry, as traditionally defined as
>console games, crashed. The electronic games industry shrunk somewhat and
>shifted from video games to computer games.
"Traditionally"?? The console market was only 5-6 years old at the time,
not enough for tradition. This is the problem I have with the whole
"crash" theory. It's made almost entirely from retrospect nostalgia.
OJSimpson
Someone wrote:
>
> >Nintendo filled a market vacuum in 1985, a full year after everyone cleared
> >out of the video game market. Who would have thought that parents would not
> >want to lay out big bucks for a computer system for junior, thereby
> >maintaining the video game market?
>
around the so called crash I had a few options but ultimately bought in
the C-64. Man was I ever glad I did too. I spent $200 for the C-64
unit and another $200 for the disk drive. I felt it was a great deal
considering that the 5200 system was going for $200+(not to mention the
$ for games), the ADAM didn't look too promising and it was kinda
pricey at the time, etc...
However, the extra money I spent was well worth it b/c the C-64 had
killer games and most of which you could find for free. :) Compare the
C-64 games with the 5200 games. There is no contest. (Ever play
Kangaroo for the 5200?) It's capitalism at its best. The C-64 had a
much better product therefor they were rewarded.
OJ
Kirk Israel
You know, I can say in one word why i wanted a Nintendo besides
my C=64: Metroid. I just couldn't find any C=64 games that excited
me as much as the reviews i read for that game.
As to the Crash debate, I think it is a fairly significant event,
a move from consles to computers to consoles has two major facets:
you can't learn programming or other generally useful skills from
a console, and you usually can't pirate software for a console either.
it's pretty surprising how strong the computer game markets were,
considering how much copying was going on.
Kirk "remember that old ECA cube, sphere,
pyramid covering some *really*
tough copy protection..." Israel
--
_____
-O\O Kirk Is The Arts of Romance at The Blender of Love:
( = ) kis...@tufts.edu http://www.alienbill.com/romance
"The desires of the heart are as crooked as corkscrews." --Auden
Glenn Saunders
The mortal OJSimpson wrote:
: However, the extra money I spent was well worth it b/c the C-64 had
: killer games and most of which you could find for free. :) Compare the
: C-64 games with the 5200 games. There is no contest. (Ever play
: Kangaroo for the 5200?) It's capitalism at its best. The C-64 had a
: much better product therefor they were rewarded.
Comparing a C=64 to a 5200 is unfair, since the 5200 is a stripped down
Atari 8-bit with shitty controllers and no keyboard. Compare a C=64 to a
fully fledged Atari 8-bit instead.
David Patrick Watts
> It is convenient to use the "Crash" when it comes to nostalgia and
> collecting.
But there was a "void" (pre-nintendo) and how do you create a "void"
without a crash?
I remember the first time I played Super Mario Bros. on a Nintendo one
weekend on a junior high church retreat. I was mesmerized. Luckily,
my little brother was still of severe game playing age so he got one for
Christmas and I got to play it too. I can remember initially hating the
thing because it was so...well...so packaged. My Atari was cool...heck,
even the 5200 was like some alien craft that had landed in the living
room. But this...box. This Volvo of video games with "Pak"s instead of
"Cartridges" and little boxy controllers that made your hands fall off.
The Atari had style, the Nintendo had flash...in a box. And the games
were designed for Japan, not America. Defender is an American concept.
Pooyan is quite Japanese.
What does it say about society? That we have departed from our
Americentric ideals? That we are more global in our expectations of
entertainment? Don't get me wrong...I like Japanese culture and ideals
and such, but why the big swing that way?
I collect Atari now...I have no intention of collecting Nintendo. :)
Roger Earl
David Patrick Watts wrote:
>What does it say about society? That we have departed from our
>Americentric ideals? That we are more global in our expectations of
>entertainment? Don't get me wrong...I like Japanese culture and ideals
>and such, but why the big swing that way?
Well you are debating with the wrong person if you want to use Nostalgia
Americana as an arguement. I'm Canadian. =)
Larry Scott Ii
: Ultima 6 was, belive it or not, released for the C-64. I didn't belive
I know.. I bought it. I *knew* deep down inside when I bought it that
there was no way it would be playable... but I got it anyway on some
insane hope. I think I played it for around 2 hours before giving up
on it. That thing used the 1541 like it was a hard drive! :)
I still give the programmers much credit for just making the translation..
that in itself was pretty amazing.
I got a 386 a couple years later and played it then in all it's glory..
of course, I had to buy the damn game *again* to do that :)
Nick S Bensema
In article <32C886...@worldnet.att.net>,
David Patrick Watts <d.w...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> It is convenient to use the "Crash" when it comes to nostalgia and
>> collecting.
>
>But there was a "void" (pre-nintendo) and how do you create a "void"
>without a crash?
>
>I remember the first time I played Super Mario Bros. on a Nintendo one
>weekend on a junior high church retreat. I was mesmerized. Luckily,
>my little brother was still of severe game playing age so he got one for
>Christmas and I got to play it too. I can remember initially hating the
>thing because it was so...well...so packaged. My Atari was cool...heck,
>even the 5200 was like some alien craft that had landed in the living
>room. But this...box. This Volvo of video games with "Pak"s instead of
>"Cartridges" and little boxy controllers that made your hands fall off.
> The Atari had style, the Nintendo had flash...in a box. And the games
>were designed for Japan, not America. Defender is an American concept.
> Pooyan is quite Japanese.
You know, if you would have come to me in 1988 and asked me if Legend of
Zelda were American or Japanese, I would have said British.
>What does it say about society? That we have departed from our
>Americentric ideals? That we are more global in our expectations of
>entertainment? Don't get me wrong...I like Japanese culture and ideals
>and such, but why the big swing that way?
It says that the Japanese own the planet. Yes, the same country that
brought us fuel-efficient cars and digital watches that will tell me which
Love Boat episode will be rerun in Paraguay tonight.
Sure, some video games may seem un-American. Certainly, though, Doom and
Duke Nukem 3D are 100% red-white-and-blue-blooded USA, and certainly what
the video game industry would have evolved into without Japan's influence.
Though if Japan had completely taken over the video game industry, we
would be seeing those anime "H-games" in English.
>I collect Atari now...I have no intention of collecting Nintendo. :)
You will when there are stacks of them at thrifts.
--
N i c k B e n s e m a < n i c k b @ p r i m e n e t . c o m >
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
98-KUPD Red Card Holder #710563 WedSpc License #71.0563
William Moeller
In <3376.6937...@direct.ca>, re...@direct.ca (Roger Earl) wrote:
: William M. Moeller wrote:
: >The "Video Game Crash" was NOT a fallacy! "The consumer just decided to
: >buy from someone else" is more like "The consumeer just decided to buy
: >SOMETHING else", namely computers.
: Yes, it is a fallacy. Video games are video games and whether played on
: a C=64 or an Atari 2600 makes no difference. Some of the C=64 games
: could be classified as "Computer Games" (IMO this distinction is silly),
: but not the majority of them, especially since they were often the exact
: same games ported later to the NES.
Video Games are NOT computers! Obviously, you seem to have confused
console systems which have plug in carts with computers which have disk
drives and keyboards. An Atari 2600 or Intellivision is a video game,
and a C64 and Atari 800 is a computer. I thought it was clear we were
speaking of the same thing.
If one wants to lump these two types of products together, sure, there was
no crash.....people went on happily buying "Video Games" which may or may
not have had "keyboards". (The "Keyboard" variety "video game" was FAR
more expensive by the way!)
: The consumer did not stop buying video games. The consumer did not even
: stop buying video games for the 2600, but with so many cheap third-party
: carts out there, people weren't exactly keen on shelling out $50+ for
: Pac-Man and ET from Atari.
No, the consumer did not "STOP" buying video games (for use with the
console variety), they DID stop buying video game consoles however, and
switched to machines like the Vic 20, C64, Apple etc.
In the early days, a system with 50 games was considered to have a HUGE
library of games. Now a days, the Jaguar got slammed for having "no games".
In the early 80's, I remember paying around $40 Cnd for an Intellivision
game. In 1980 dollars, that was a large chunk of money. The crash happened
because supply far outstripped demand, and companies were stuck with huge
amounts of unsold inventory. You state people weren't exactly "keen" on
shelling out $50 for Pac-Man"?? I don't know where you get your information,
but "Pac-Man" was one of the best selling 2600 carts EVER.
Sure, it is putrid, but it SOLD, and how! I get the impression you look at
Pac Man and E.T. and think "Hmmm, both are bad games, they must not have
sold " I also get the impression you were not around then...otherwise, you
would have known Pac Man for the VCS was a best seller.
E.T. was the game which was "supposed" to be a big hit, so they made tons.
: >Not only did Coleco and Atari bite it, but it put Mattel Electronics
: >out of business! (Remember them?),....also, Magnavox went out of the biz,
: >along with Astrocade, Vectrex, LeisureVision....
: By 1983, the Intellivision and Odyssey^2 were already dead in the market,
: the ColecoVision had targetted and gotten most of their business (and to
: some extent a bit of Atari's business as well). Pick up any game magazines
: from that year and count the Intellivision ads compared to the years
: previously. Coleco's losses were due to the Cabbage Patch fiasco, although
: the Adam was equally a waste of time. Astrocade, Vectrex, & LeisureVision
: never had a decent share of the market to begin with (which is a shame,
: the Vec is a great machine).
The ColecoVision was an instant success. However, by 1983, all the systems
were "dead in the market" (Assuming we are talking about "VIDEO GAMES")
Coleco's losses were due to the ADAM fiasco.....trying to turn a Video game
into a COMPUTER.....the "Cabbage Patch fiasco" did nothing but make Coleco
money.....am I the only one who remembers people lining up for them
much more than the Ticle Me Elmos? They were the hottest toy out there.
: >Nintendo filled a market vacuum in 1985, a full year after everyone cleared
: >out of the video game market. Who would have thought that parents would not
: >want to lay out big bucks for a computer system for junior, thereby
: >maintaining the video game market?
: Nintendo certainly did fill a vacuum, which only empasizes that the
: consumers didn't dry up and go away. It wasn't a brilliant or amazing move,
: Nintendo didn't even want to do it originally, they just wanted to continue
: the success they had with selling carts for the ColecoVision. They spent a
: year trying to find a replacement niche machine before settling on selling
: their own in North America.
Nintendo sold NO carts for the ColecoVision....they LICENSED them,....
BIG DIFFERENCE! The only "brilliant" move Nintendo made was to enter a
market which was not dead, and had no competitors.
: >Sure, 1984 was a bad year. Everyone who wanted a video game had one.
: >Prospective video game owners were purchasing computers.
: The computers were a better buy. They had the better games and the
: companies weren't wasting all of their money making dolls or licensing
: Spielberg movies. Atari's computers didn't exactly make them huge bucks
: in 1984, so it wasn't just any computer. Specifically the C=64 sold well
: because of a low price and the Apple II sold well because it was in the
: schools.
Ah, so you agree Computers are NOT Video Games?
You make it sound as if people stopped buying Video Games because Atari
licensed a Spielberg movie, and Coleco made dolls. Heck, Coleco was a
TOY company! As said, Coleco made money from those dolls.
Atari's computers didn't actually make them huge bucks, but they did not
lose money on 'em.....1984 saw the Atari 800XL and 600XL released....
why there are a ton of those around. I know, I have a room full of em.
However, compared to Apple and Commodore, Atari was 3rd in my opinion.
Families who DID purchase these computers (in droves) did NOT buy new
video game consoles, such as the Atari, Mattel, or Coleco, or Magnavox.
Hence, a CRASH ocurred. (Are you starting to believe?) :-)
: >The kids who would get Nintendos for Christmas were still too young to
: >play video games.
: Huh? Are you suggesting that there was a lack of children in 1984 and
: then suddenly a miraculous boom that culminated in the approriate age of
: children for 1985???
I am suggesting that the "Nintendo Generation" of which you seem to belong,
were not old enough to buy Video Games for. My niece is 5. I did not
buy one for her this year.....next year, I will buy her a video game.
In my opinion, she is TOO YOUNG this year to appreciate one.
Everyone who wanted a Video Game (NOT COMPUTER) probably had one by 1984.
We had our Intellivision in 1980.....in 1982, I did NOT buy a ColecoVision,
(Before ADAM) but purchased an Atari 400. (Hey Atari Computers CAN'T LOSE
I thought :-) Video Game Consoles as a genre were coming to a close, it
was thought by EVERYONE.
: >You make it sound as if Nintendo captured the market in 1984 and Atari
: >and Coleco (not to mention Mattel) were just "making excuses".....well,
: >Nintendo wasn't even sold in 1984.
: No, what I am saying is that Atari and Coleco dropped the ball in
: 1983-1984. No market crash, just the two dominating companies failing at
: their business. This is why I call it a fallacy.
What I am saying is that when people stop buying an entire product genre it
IS a market crash!
You should also get your facts straight...Coleco was not a dominating
company in 1983-1984. Mattel was never eclipsed by Coleco despite Coleco
becoming an instant contender. The facts are that unless for Atari's
Computer division, they would have been out of business. Coleco was forced
out of business despite trying to make the Colecovision a computer. Mattel
was forced out of business, and all the minor companies such as GCE,
Astrocade, Magnavox etc went out of business. In 1985, Nintendo walked into
an OPEN video game market.
How can you seriously say there was no Video Game crash?
Roger Earl
Nick S Bensema:
>You know, if you would have come to me in 1988 and asked me if Legend of
>Zelda were American or Japanese, I would have said British.
Just as so many people think Pac-Man, Pole Position, & Galaga were all
American.
>>I collect Atari now...I have no intention of collecting Nintendo. :)
>
>You will when there are stacks of them at thrifts.
No kidding. Face it folks, a good game is a good game is a good game.
And when good games get dirt cheap, they are worth collecting en masse.
Roger Earl
William M. Moeller wrote:
>Video Games are NOT computers! Obviously, you seem to have confused
>console systems which have plug in carts with computers which have disk
>drives and keyboards.
Ahh, your mistake is making video game console systems equivelant to
video games, they are not. If that were true, then discount arcade
coin-ops as well. As I said before, these are distinctions made much more
by the collectors than the consumers at the time and certainly more than
the industry which sees them as all the same.
>An Atari 2600 or Intellivision is a video game, and a C64 and Atari 800
>is a computer. I thought it was clear we were speaking of the same thing.
Hmm, so my Robotron cart for my Atari 800 isn't a video game?
>In the early days, a system with 50 games was considered to have a HUGE
>library of games. Now a days, the Jaguar got slammed for having "no games".
The Jaguar is slammed for having "no good games", although I'd argue it
has three or four. No selection doesn't equal no games.
>In the early 80's, I remember paying around $40 Cnd for an Intellivision
>game. In 1980 dollars, that was a large chunk of money. The crash happened
>because supply far outstripped demand, and companies were stuck with huge
>amounts of unsold inventory.
What I say is that the demand didn't change and the two key companies
had shot themselves in the foot.
>You state people weren't exactly "keen" on shelling out $50 for Pac-Man"??
>I don't know where you get your information, but "Pac-Man" was one of the
>best selling 2600 carts EVER.
Not by 1984 they didn't. My facts are sound, yours appear to be based on
pure nostalgia.
>E.T. was the game which was "supposed" to be a big hit, so they made tons.
They didn't come close to making back the $21 Million they paid for the
license, it was disasterous for Atari.
>Coleco's losses were due to the ADAM fiasco.....trying to turn a Video game
>into a COMPUTER.....the "Cabbage Patch fiasco" did nothing but make Coleco
>money.....am I the only one who remembers people lining up for them
>much more than the Ticle Me Elmos? They were the hottest toy out there.
Again, read my other posting for the facts, you are still only following
what you remember. I don't blame you, without knowing Coleco's history, most
people on the planet would assume they did well with the Cabbage Patch Kids.
>The only "brilliant" move Nintendo made was to enter a market which was
>not dead, and had no competitors.
So you agree with me then? The market was not dead, just the key players
were.
>Ah, so you agree Computers are NOT Video Games?
I agree Computers are not Consoles.
>You make it sound as if people stopped buying Video Games because Atari
>licensed a Spielberg movie, and Coleco made dolls. Heck, Coleco was a
>TOY company! As said, Coleco made money from those dolls.
Again, in the end the Cabbage Patch Kids killed Coleco, they didn't
walk away with a dime. Atari's poor money management was their problem,
the ET cart is just the biggest example.
>Atari's computers didn't actually make them huge bucks, but they did not
>lose money on 'em.....1984 saw the Atari 800XL and 600XL released....
>why there are a ton of those around. I know, I have a room full of em.
>However, compared to Apple and Commodore, Atari was 3rd in my opinion.
Yep. Which just emphasizes what I am saying. It wasn't a crash, it was
just a matter of other companies (mainly CBM) taking over Atari's market.
If Atari's name wasn't so synonymous with video games at the time, no one
would have considered calling it a crash.
>I am suggesting that the "Nintendo Generation" of which you seem to belong,
Um, hello?!? I'm 28 years old and have a Joust coin-op in my living room,
a Vectrex on my desk and a Computer Space (Yes, from before Pong) at my
workplace.
>Video Game Consoles as a genre were coming to a close, it was thought by
>EVERYONE.
At the time most of the computers had cart slots because they thought
they couldn't sell without them. The genre lines were very blurred and
frankly still are (CD-Roms are the best example, consoles with loading
times).
>You should also get your facts straight...Coleco was not a dominating
>company in 1983-1984. Mattel was never eclipsed by Coleco despite Coleco
>becoming an instant contender.
Stop asking me to get my facts straight when the roles are reversed.
Here are some relevant numbers: The ColecoVision sold 6 million units in
its two years. The Intellivision had sold less than 4 million units up to
that point with several years headstart. Sounds like more than an eclipse
to me.
>The facts are that unless for Atari's Computer division, they would have
>been out of business.
I won't put it down to one decision on their part, but the facts were that
Atari did not make enough profit to cover their spending. They just assumed
they were bulletproof. Don't even get me started on the Atari Games vs Atari
Corp. debate. =)
>How can you seriously say there was no Video Game crash?
I'll say it again, the market may have shifted to other companies, but
it did not crash.
Larry Scott Ii
: Again, in the end the Cabbage Patch Kids killed Coleco, they didn't
Howzat? (Cabbage patch kids) .. Please elaborate a bit.. I'd like to
know *how* they didn't make any money on those things...
Rolenta
: Again, in the end the Cabbage Patch Kids killed Coleco, they didn't
: walk away with a dime. Atari's poor money management was their problem,
Actually the Cabbage Patch Dolls saved Coleco for a few years. Coleco had
stopped all production of its Colecovisions in order to churn out the
Adams which were plagued with problems and most were returned. If it
wasn't for the Cabbage Patch Dolls which came out a year later, Coleco
would have went under sooner than it did.
Leonard Herman
Phoenix: The Fall & Rise of Home Videogames
PatMan
Roger Earl (re...@direct.ca) wrote:
: Well no kidding, but what was Atari's alternative? Did they offer better
: by allowing the Sears licenses, etc.
Have to make one comment here... Atari had *no choice* about the Sears
"licenses" as you call them if they wanted to sell the 2600 through them.
Remember -- at the time, Sears wouldn't sell *anything* that did not carry
the Sears name, so *every* company that sold anything in a Sears store had
to produce the item with a Sears name on it. This applied to
refrigerators, washing machines, stoves, etc. -- *everything* had to say
Sears on it (or a "Sears" brand name like Kenmore or the like)
To sell their games there, Atari had to put out Sears versions of the
games. Now, I'll admit the ones that they changed the names on were a
little confusing (intentionally, perhaps), but if it wasn't for Sears'
policy at the time, Atari (and Mattel with the Intellivision) would have
sold their consoles as they were sold everywhere else -- under the
respective companies' name. I don't think either company was particularly
happy about having to produce two sets of packaging/labelling -- one for
Sears' releases and one for everywhere else.
Sam.
cha...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Charles E. "Rick" Taylor, IV) wrote:
>"Video games" are electronic games played by means of images on a video screen,
>according to the dictionary. Whether cartridge or disk-based doesn't enter
>into the definition at all. Of all the silly things we've argued about on this
>group, we're debating what a *video game* is???
Yes but the computers had games like Ultima and the SSI games,
adventure games and strategy games. 2600 adventure is very nice but
it's not particularly absorbing. There are a few 2600 games I can play
a few times over, but I've never spent all night playing a 2600 game
like I did with my ST and still do with the PC.
Console games were just too shallow and limited. They still are. With
a computer you can plug a joystick in and play Llamatron or whatever,
then put some hours in on Ultima or Elite, but with a console you're
stuck with arcade games and nothing but.
Maybe the people who bought the consoles grew up, and got sick of the
same variations on a basic few games, but still liked computers and
wanted something more stimulating, so they bought computers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Where am I" - Charlie Chuck. s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk
http://www.greenaum.demon.co.uk/
mrma...@prolog.net
> From: ad...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Chris Cracknell)
>
>In article [6]<1142.693...@direct.ca>, re...@direct.ca (Roger Earl) wrote
>:
>
>> Aha, you've stumbled upon my pet peeve with this newsgroup and the entire
>>classic gaming scene. The "Crash" is still IMHO a fallacy. It really refers
>>to a dead year by Atari and Coleco, not the industry as a whole. Anyone
>>will tell you that '84 was a banner year for the C=64 and it wasn't bad
>>for coin-ops either. Even further though, I personally disagree with the
>>"Crash" concept that is entirely based upon the excuses of Atari and Coleco.
>>The fact of the matter is that they both did such poor business at the end
>>of '83 and early '84 because of their own stupidity (IE: paying $21 mil for
>>just decided to buy from someone else.
>~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
>
>The Crash was not the end of video games, but the death of home video game
>consoles (Atari 2600, Intellivision, Colecovision, etc.) which were, to a
>large extent, killed off by home computers such as the C-64 and Atari 800 etc.
>
>Video games went on, they just moved from cartridge to floppy disk until the
>NES hit the scene and brought cartridge based, video game only, machines
>back into the north american market.
>
>I worked in a computer store when the NES came out and I thought it was a
>that would only play video games.
I was looking through some old Video magazines in early '83 and '84
finding out what exactly happened with the "Crash". There was this one
article that was talking about the popular rise of computer games.
Apperently, what happen in '83 with the ET disaster was refered to as
the "Great Shakedown". It was a cold hard slap of ice water in the
face of the game industry. They soon realized that you can NOT put
out third-rate quality games just because Atari gamers will
automatically snap them up without question, including Atari.
But, they were still selling console games. The passing of the guard
however was home computers. They not only also play video games, but
better ones because of more memory and better graphics compaired to
the 2600.
Also throughout the Video mags, I noticed a complete transition of
console games to home computer games in their video game section.
Now I will even explain why everyone bought Nintendos in a time where
only computers and arcades are ways to play games. The NES plays
better games than the computers. The system with the better games
gets people's attention and "that's" what shapes the industr2600 => Home
computer => NES => 16-bit systems => ?
The question mark is the crossroads where we are; do we buy consoles
like Playstations or PC computers? Both have major pros and cons yet
they are nearly the same type of gaming experence.
Eric Noss
a.k.a
Mr. Maddog
*!* Opinions expressed herein are those of the writer only *!*
Unsolicited Email of a commercial nature delivered to this address
is subject to a $500 charge. Emailing such items, whether manually
or automatically, constitutes acceptance of these terms and
conditions.
Roger Earl
V-X (v...@wolfenet.com) wrote:
>Bringing up home computers and coin-ops is pointless, anyway, as the
>"crash" refers to the home console market.
-Sigh- I am not debating computers vs. consoles. This is about Video
Games. I believe the so-called "crash" is a fallacy because it ISN'T about
Video Games. Call it the great computers vs. consoles year of 1984 if you
like, but it still isn't a market crash.
>I have no idea how old you were during that time, but I don't get the
>impression that you remember it at all. I was in high school, an avid gamer,
>and I do. There was a two or three year period, before the introduction of
>the 8-bit Nintendo when just about *nobody* played home games anymore--any
>games.
I'm gonna be sighing all day reading posts like this. No offense, but
please go back and read what has already been posted.
Roger Earl
Rolenta (rol...@alo.com) wrote:
>Actually the Cabbage Patch Dolls saved Coleco for a few years. Coleco had
>stopped all production of its Colecovisions in order to churn out the
>Adams which were plagued with problems and most were returned. If it
>wasn't for the Cabbage Patch Dolls which came out a year later, Coleco
>would have went under sooner than it did.
>Leonard Herman
>Phoenix: The Fall & Rise of Home Videogames
This assumumption that the Cabbage Patch Kids kept Coleco afloat doesn't
match with Coleco's figures when they filed for bankruptcy. It would if
they had only produced the first run of CPKs, but after that first Christmas
they only registered losses. Losses worse than the Adam. And it wasn't
exactly like Coleco kept afloat and was making video games the whole time.
They were (as in their entire history) only paying attention to what was
"hot" at the time. Coleco just didn't know when to stop, if they did they
would have survived.
As far as the so-called "crash" is concerned, the only things that can
be said about Coleco's participation (or lack of) are opinions and
assumptions. Please at least base them on fact. I was surprised in
discovering that Coleco's most popular items were where they took their
greatest losses, but do I supplant those facts with my memories?
Roger Earl
PatMan (dge...@cybercomm.net) wrote:
>Remember -- at the time, Sears wouldn't sell *anything* that did not carry
>the Sears name, so *every* company that sold anything in a Sears store had
>to produce the item with a Sears name on it.
A good point.
>To sell their games there, Atari had to put out Sears versions of the
>games. Now, I'll admit the ones that they changed the names on were a
>little confusing (intentionally, perhaps), but if it wasn't for Sears'
>policy at the time, Atari (and Mattel with the Intellivision) would have
>sold their consoles as they were sold everywhere else -- under the
>respective companies' name.
I don't think Atari was complaining too much about using the Sears name.
They already had a history of re-selling games under different names to
grab a larger market share (remember Kee Games?).
Bruce Tomlin
Roger Earl <re...@direct.ca> wrote in rec.games.video.classic:
>vs. Consoles, which it shouldn't be. The point I am making is that there
>was no market crash. Atari and Coleco did very poorly because of their
>own mistakes, something that most everyone freely admits. The 2600 was
I don't know why you think the blame can *only* be put on Atari and
Coleco, when there are also Data Age, US Games, and Mythicon to blame for
their shovelware.
On the other hand, if the 7800 had been released when it was supposed to
(apparently it didn't because Warner dumped Atari on the Tramiels a
couple of months *before* Christmas 84, giving them the chance to kill
it), things might have been different. Including the digital signature
algorithm to ensure that shovelware crap wouldn't be released, at least
not without the cooperation of Atari. But what happened happened.
William Moeller
: William M. Moeller wrote:
: >Video Games are NOT computers! Obviously, you seem to have confused
: >console systems which have plug in carts with computers which have disk
: >drives and keyboards.
: Ahh, your mistake is making video game console systems equivelant to
: video games, they are not. If that were true, then discount arcade
: coin-ops as well. As I said before, these are distinctions made much more
: by the collectors than the consumers at the time and certainly more than
: the industry which sees them as all the same.
I am not the one making a mistake here. "Video Games" when speaking of the
home market implies a Video Game CONSOLE. It always has. I distinctly remember
calling my Intellivision and the Atari 2600, and the ColecoVision and
Odyssey 2 a "Video Game". Video Games play Video Game (carts), or
"video games". The terms are interchangable. I am not odd in calling
consoles "Video Games". You were obviously around then.
"Coin ops" are also referred to as "Video Games"....hence "HOME"
Video Games, and "Commercial" Video Games.
When we speak of "The crash" we refer to "Home" Video Game(s) (CONSOLES).
Arcades were not affected, and Home Computers were not affected. When
Nintendo entered the "VIDEO GAME" market in 1985, they did not release
a Home computer, nor a Coin Op, but a "Video Game" System, along with
carts which worked with the video game system.
These distinctions are not made by collectors. They WERE made by consumers
at the time. The industry did NOT see them as "all the same". This is
obvious. Why was Atari organized into a "Coin op" and a "Home Video Game"
and "Home Computer" divisions?
It is quite ridiculous that this is even being discussed. You are obviously
the one who is confused in this discussion. Hence, your claim "The Video
Game Crash didn't occur". This absolutely WRONG statement is what made
me reply if the first place.
: >An Atari 2600 or Intellivision is a video game, and a C64 and Atari 800
: >is a computer. I thought it was clear we were speaking of the same thing.
: Hmm, so my Robotron cart for my Atari 800 isn't a video game?
Sure, the game is a "Video Game", but the Atari 800 is a "HOME COMPUTER".
This is just a smoke screen in your arguments. Mattel did not manufacture
(for long) a Home Computer, nor did they write software for them. Magnavox
didn't write Home Computer software, nor did they market a computer.
Coleco attempted to turn their Video Game (Console) into a computer, but
never wrote for other computers.
So, when these companies all exited the Video Game (Console) market in 1984,
it was considered the "Great Video Game Crash of 1994". Nintendo, entering
the "Vacant Video Game Market" in 1995 owned the not yet dead Video Game
(console) market. The Nintendo was not a Home computer, nor a coin op,
but a "Video Game" Hence, your statement there was NO Video Game Crash is
utter nonsense!
Just because you view electronic games as one market doesn't change the
facts.
: >In the early 80's, I remember paying around $40 Cnd for an Intellivision
: >game. In 1980 dollars, that was a large chunk of money. The crash happened
: >because supply far outstripped demand, and companies were stuck with huge
: >amounts of unsold inventory.
: What I say is that the demand didn't change and the two key companies
: had shot themselves in the foot.
Well, if by having a whole market suddenly stop buying your video game
console and a marked decline in the purchase of software for those consoles
is "shooting themselves in the foot" I guess so. Perhaps Mattel would have
been still around if they had a decent computer to sell....and Atari should
have stopped everything to do with the VCS in 1984 and concentrated on
selling their computers. And, Coleco....hmmm quality control on the Adam
is what hurt that "Home Computer"/"Video Game Console". They got hit by
a double whammy.....the Video Game Crash, and the Commodore 64.
: >You state people weren't exactly "keen" on shelling out $50 for Pac-Man"??
: >I don't know where you get your information, but "Pac-Man" was one of the
: >best selling 2600 carts EVER.
: Not by 1984 they didn't. My facts are sound, yours appear to be based on
: pure nostalgia.
Bzzzztt! Wrong. Whether or not by 1984 people stopped buying Pac Man for
the 2600 is neither here nor there. MY facts are sound....Pac Man was one
of the best selling 2600 VCS carts EVER! How did Atari "shoot themselves
in the foot" with Pac Man as you stated in a previous post?
: >E.T. was the game which was "supposed" to be a big hit, so they made tons.
: They didn't come close to making back the $21 Million they paid for the
: license, it was disasterous for Atari.
I agree.
: >Coleco's losses were due to the ADAM fiasco.....trying to turn a Video game
: >into a COMPUTER.....the "Cabbage Patch fiasco" did nothing but make Coleco
: >money.....am I the only one who remembers people lining up for them
: >much more than the Ticle Me Elmos? They were the hottest toy out there.
: Again, read my other posting for the facts, you are still only following
: what you remember. I don't blame you, without knowing Coleco's history, most
: people on the planet would assume they did well with the Cabbage Patch Kids.
I read that post, and if it is accurate, Coleco did indeed lose money on them.
Obviously, they made too many, and got stuck with the inventory. I guess
that is why Mattel (who don't do Video Games any longer) own the Cabbage
Patch.
: >The only "brilliant" move Nintendo made was to enter a market which was
: >not dead, and had no competitors.
: So you agree with me then? The market was not dead, just the key players
: were.
Yes, it is obvious that the Video Game Market was not dead. But, it didn't
come back until after Atari, Mattel, Magnavox and Coleco were out of the
Video Game (Console) business. Atari obviously, re-entered in 1987 with
the Atari 7800 without success.....it was READY to be released in 1984.
If there was NO CRASH, why wasn't it?
: >Ah, so you agree Computers are NOT Video Games?
: I agree Computers are not Consoles.
So do I.... Computers are not Video Games (Consoles)
: >You make it sound as if people stopped buying Video Games because Atari
: >licensed a Spielberg movie, and Coleco made dolls. Heck, Coleco was a
: >TOY company! As said, Coleco made money from those dolls.
: Again, in the end the Cabbage Patch Kids killed Coleco, they didn't
: walk away with a dime. Atari's poor money management was their problem,
: the ET cart is just the biggest example.
I agree with you on Atari's poor money management. If they had been better
managed, they would have survived the downturn in the Video Game Console
market. (I am adding "Console" to be sure you know what I am talking about).
They had far too much waste from what I understand. They had outrageous
profits during the video game boom which made this excess possible.
: >Atari's computers didn't actually make them huge bucks, but they did not
: >lose money on 'em.....1984 saw the Atari 800XL and 600XL released....
: >why there are a ton of those around. I know, I have a room full of em.
: >However, compared to Apple and Commodore, Atari was 3rd in my opinion.
: Yep. Which just emphasizes what I am saying. It wasn't a crash, it was
: just a matter of other companies (mainly CBM) taking over Atari's market.
: If Atari's name wasn't so synonymous with video games at the time, no one
: would have considered calling it a crash.
Nope, it doesn't empahsize what you are saying. You are off base to suggest
the home computer market had anything to do with the crash. You will find
most everyone will agree with me on that point.
: >Video Game Consoles as a genre were coming to a close, it was thought by
: >EVERYONE.
: At the time most of the computers had cart slots because they thought
: they couldn't sell without them. The genre lines were very blurred and
: frankly still are (CD-Roms are the best example, consoles with loading
: times).
: >You should also get your facts straight...Coleco was not a dominating
: >company in 1983-1984. Mattel was never eclipsed by Coleco despite Coleco
: >becoming an instant contender.
: Stop asking me to get my facts straight when the roles are reversed.
: Here are some relevant numbers: The ColecoVision sold 6 million units in
: its two years. The Intellivision had sold less than 4 million units up to
: that point with several years headstart. Sounds like more than an eclipse
: to me.
I am aware of the Intellivision selling around 3 Million units. The
ColecoVision stats I do not have. Six million sounds a bit high, and
no doubt has the ADAM numbers included. Nevertheless, Coleco was not
the dominant company....more like a blip. Very much like the Sony of today.
: >The facts are that unless for Atari's Computer division, they would have
: >been out of business.
: I won't put it down to one decision on their part, but the facts were that
: Atari did not make enough profit to cover their spending. They just assumed
: they were bulletproof. Don't even get me started on the Atari Games vs Atari
: Corp. debate. =)
Yes, it was a sad day when Atari Games was carved from Atari and the rest
sold to the Tramiels.
: >How can you seriously say there was no Video Game crash?
: I'll say it again, the market may have shifted to other companies, but
: it did not crash.
I'll say it again. There was a video game crash. There was no gradual
transition to Nintendo and Sega. Just ask Mattel, Coleco, Atari, and
Magnavox et al.
Roger Earl
Bruce Tomlin (bto...@crl.com) wrote:
>I don't know why you think the blame can *only* be put on Atari and
>Coleco, when there are also Data Age, US Games, and Mythicon to blame for
>their shovelware.
Oh certainly the deluge of bad third-party games had a lot to do with
it. But companies have to make adjustments for changing markets and Atari
obviously didn't make the changes they needed to. To be fair, they had
owned the market for so long, and there wasn't much to go on as far as
history was concerned. Interesting enough, most of the bad shovelware was
limited to the Atari, with the Intellivision getting a smaller amount and
the ColecoVision and Odyssey^2 getting virtually none at all.
And what about third-party software that was good? Activision and
Imagic are known as having made some of the best carts for the 2600.
In the late 80's Nintendo became synonymous with Video Games almost as
much as Atari had been previously, but they haven't had as much trouble
rolling with the changes and I have no doubt that they look at Atari's
rocky history to make some of their decisions. Perhaps if Atari made
decisions like killing off the old systems to make way for new (imagine
5200 sales if Pac-Man wasn't available on the 2600)... It's hard to say if
we would be better off, but Atari might have survived.
Roger Earl
William M. Moeller wrote:
>I am not the one making a mistake here. "Video Games" when speaking of the
>home market implies a Video Game CONSOLE. It always has. I distinctly
>remember calling my Intellivision and the Atari 2600, and the ColecoVision
>and Odyssey 2 a "Video Game".
My real problem with the "crash" is because it takes this "Video Games"
terminology one assumption further by applying it to a historical view of
a marketplace. Consoles and computers have (and certainly did have in 1984)
had many of the same games and the same companies involved. They are
intermixed in the dollars and cents categories much more than they are on
the shelf.
>When we speak of "The crash" we refer to "Home" Video Game(s) (CONSOLES).
>Arcades were not affected, and Home Computers were not affected. When
>Nintendo entered the "VIDEO GAME" market in 1985, they did not release
>a Home computer, nor a Coin Op, but a "Video Game" System, along with
>carts which worked with the video game system.
Let's follow that logic and ignore the computers and coin-ops for a
moment. Are we agreed that in order to have a market crash, the marketplace
must be dead at the CONSUMER END at one specific given time? Everyone who
talks about the video game "crash" has been incredibly liberal with their
dates and figures. People go on and on about all of the companies involved
when many of them had their draughts either before or after the supposed
year.
Most of the companies facing sales drops before 1984 were plagued not by
an overall marketplace drop but rather by stiff competition from the two
leaders in the field. This includes Mattel and Magnavox, who seem to have
encountered this crash at the same times that Atari and Coleco boomed.
Some of the other machines, while beautiful systems (Bally Astrocade,
GCE Vectrex, etc.) didn't have a decent percentage of the marketplace in
the first place and arguably died for other reasons.
>: Hmm, so my Robotron cart for my Atari 800 isn't a video game?
>
>Sure, the game is a "Video Game", but the Atari 800 is a "HOME COMPUTER".
>This is just a smoke screen in your arguments.
What smoke screen? It is an example showing how blurred the terminology
is. Please go through a list of C=64 games and pick out how many you
consider do not qualify as video games. The C=64 has a cart port and you can
use a disk drive with the PSX. Who the hell cares? You can play Centipede
on both of them. Are you saying that the "crash" had to do only with the
machines themselves and nothing to do with the games?
>Mattel did not manufacture (for long) a Home Computer, nor did they
>write software for them. Magnavox didn't write Home Computer software,
>nor did they market a computer. Coleco attempted to turn their Video Game
>(Console) into a computer, but never wrote for other computers.
We are talking about a marketplace that was changing. I won't even claim
that it was a cut-and-dried shift from consoles to computers. The largest
change was the boom of independant software (yes, carts are software)
development. The profit emphasis every since has been on the software, not
the hardware. Consoles especially take either a loss or narrow margins on
the machines and rake the $$ in on the licensed games. When companies die
from a changing marketplace, it is regretable, but not a crash. It is only
a crash when everyone stops buying.
>Perhaps Mattel would have been still around if they had a decent computer
>to sell....
I'd say a real upgrade to the Intellivision rather than just a smaller
case (INTV-II) would have helped. This is of course just opinion, but it
was what I expected at the time.
>Atari should have stopped everything to do with the VCS in 1984 and
>concentrated on selling their computers.
My opinion is that Atari should have become more competitive with their
pricing and created more new games on the 5200 rather than the same ones
that were available on the 2600. Yes I like better versions myself, but I
don't expect them to sell well while the older versions are still on the
same shelves.
>Bzzzztt! Wrong. Whether or not by 1984 people stopped buying Pac Man for
>the 2600 is neither here nor there. MY facts are sound....Pac Man was one
>of the best selling 2600 VCS carts EVER! How did Atari "shoot themselves
>in the foot" with Pac Man as you stated in a previous post?
Exactly as I stated, by not significantly reducing the price on their
best-selling cart in order to stay competitive with the third-party
games blamed for causing their fall. Hell, they even had 2600 Pac-Man
competing with a better version on the 5200. It also didn't help that word
had gotten out on how horrible Pac-Man was on the 2600. I'm trying to stress
here how easily it was for a company to take something that was known as
a success and turn it into a disaster.
>Yes, it is obvious that the Video Game Market was not dead. But, it didn't
>come back until after Atari, Mattel, Magnavox and Coleco were out of the
>Video Game (Console) business.
I have no qualms with saying that these companies died in a changing
marketplace. But the irresponsibilty of this "crash" label becomes evident
when people start making false assumptions like "The crash killed Coleco"
or "The Vectrex would have survived without the crash". I see more and more
posts containing sentences like these all of the time. Perhaps I'll be
criticized for taking video game history too seriously, but it actually
happens to be my job. My initial dislike of the "crash" concept happened
about a year ago when I planned on writing an article about it and found
more facts conflicting than supporting the theory.
>I agree with you on Atari's poor money management. If they had been better
>managed, they would have survived the downturn in the Video Game Console
>market. (I am adding "Console" to be sure you know what I am talking about).
>They had far too much waste from what I understand. They had outrageous
>profits during the video game boom which made this excess possible.
When a company is dumping stock in a landfill, IMHO they should be either
already out of business or something is seriously wrong with their
management.
>Yes, it was a sad day when Atari Games was carved from Atari and the rest
>sold to the Tramiels.
Some of the "crash" folklore seems to originate from some immature
comments from Jack Tramiel bragging during interviews about how he rescued
Atari from a dead market.
>I'll say it again. There was a video game crash. There was no gradual
>transition to Nintendo and Sega. Just ask Mattel, Coleco, Atari, and
>Magnavox et al.
BTW, I do still plan to eventually get back to my article, especially
since this debate has rekindled my interest. The focus however, will be
more on the changes of the video game market over the years. If anyone has
any solid numbers and dates I would appreciate them whether or not they
support my opinions. I am far more interested in facts than accepted
conventions.
Roger Earl
V-X (v...@wolfenet.com) wrote:
>I have, and it still looks like a big semantic jackoff by somebody with too
>much time on his hands. You're right. Video games didn't die. We're all still
>playing them. Home games did, for a while. If you'd like, I personally will
>start referring to the crash as "The Home Game Console Crash of 1984, Mostly
>Restricted to the North American Continent" if it'll make you shut the fuck
>up and quit starting fights over nothing.
Ahhh, well up until this point most of the responses to this thread have
at least been intelligent. It obviously does interest some people or else
the posts wouldn't as lengthy and well written as they have. I have respect
for most of the people I've debated with, despite our disagreements. I've
even pointed out that video game history is part of my job, so I'd hardly
call it a jackoff or a waste of my time.
I'm also not interested in fights over nothing, tho I might not ignore
such obvious flamebait occasionally. Too many cool people with good info
just lurk and remain quiet in this newsgroup because they get flamed by
one-time posters any time there is a disagreement.
If you had read the entire thread, you might have noticed some video game
history intermixed with the computers vs. consoles nonsense. As far as
history is concerned, I'm rather keen on it being as correct as possible
and honestly do feel that propogating errors is irresponsible. Pray tell,
what would you have rather read in this newsgroup today than a bit of
video game history?
__ r...@elecplay.com
|_) _ __ The Electric Playground : http://www.elecplay.com/
| \(_)(_/ Vancouver Classic Video Games Club :
_/ http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/9227/
Ken Arromdee
s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk (Sam.) wrote:
>Console games were just too shallow and limited. They still are. With
>a computer you can plug a joystick in and play Llamatron or whatever,
>then put some hours in on Ultima or Elite, but with a console you're
>stuck with arcade games and nothing but.
Actually, there is some crossover. The SNES had a stripped-down Ultima 6 that
could have been much better if they'd have just given it a 2 meg cartridge
(I think they used 1.5 meg), and games like Myst have made it to home systems.
On the other hand, Virtua Fighter has made it to PCs.
But the overall focus for computer games is far different from that for
console games, and this was true even in the time of the crash.
(By the way, while I'm posting in this group, anyone got a cheap Wizardry 1-3
for the PC to sell?)
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@randomc.com, karr...@nyx.nyx.net,
http://www.randomc.com/~arromdee)
"2000 members of the vegetable kingdom and I have to work with _tomatoes_!"
Chris Cracknell
In article <879.6940T...@direct.ca>, re...@direct.ca (Roger Earl) wrote:
>V-X (v...@wolfenet.com) wrote:
>
>>Bringing up home computers and coin-ops is pointless, anyway, as the
>>"crash" refers to the home console market.
>
> -Sigh- I am not debating computers vs. consoles. This is about Video
>Games.
No it's not. The "Crash" is about Home Video Game Consoles, not Video Games.
It's not a question of debating computers versus consoles. It's a fact
that in 1983 people stopped buying Home Video Game Consoles in huge numbers
and switched instead to home computers. This caused a "Crash" in the Home
Video Game Console market.
You're buildinng a straw-man arguement with your statement that the
"Crash" refers to "Video Games" and then picking it apart by showing that
Video Games continued just fine after 1983.
The "Crash" does NOT refer to video games, it refers to the type of machines
they were played on. Before the "Crash" we were playing on video game
consoles. You couldn't do your taxes on them. You couldn't do a spreadsheet
on them, and you couldn't write a letter to gramma on them. After the
crash we were playing on home computers.
A drop in the price of home computers and a glut in the market of console
games is what contributed to the "Crash" of Home Video Game Consoles in 1983.
There is no fallacy. It was a real event. The Home Video Game Console market
crashed. Video Games went on, just on a different system.
This really shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
CRACKERS
(Spelling it out from hell!!)
--
Accordionist - Wethifl Musician - Atari 2600 Collector | /\/\
http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ad329/Profile.html | \^^/
Bira Bira Devotee - FES Member - Samurai Pizza Cats Fan| =\/=
Chris Cracknell
>Yes but the computers had games like Ultima and the SSI games,
>adventure games and strategy games. 2600 adventure is very nice but
>it's not particularly absorbing. There are a few 2600 games I can play
>a few times over, but I've never spent all night playing a 2600 game
>like I did with my ST and still do with the PC.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
When I was a kid and got my first 2600 for X-mas (I think x-mas 79 or maybe 80)
my brother and I sat up all night long and played "Space Invaders" until we
were hallucinating the next morning.
CRACKERS
(All night long from hell!!)
David Patrick Watts
> And what about third-party software that was good? Activision and
> Imagic are known as having made some of the best carts for the 2600.
>
Hear hear.
> In the late 80's Nintendo became synonymous with Video Games almost as
> much as Atari had been previously, but they haven't had as much trouble
> rolling with the changes and I have no doubt that they look at Atari's
> rocky history to make some of their decisions. Perhaps if Atari made
> decisions like killing off the old systems to make way for new (imagine
> 5200 sales if Pac-Man wasn't available on the 2600)... It's hard to say if
> we would be better off, but Atari might have survived.
And you notice that Nintendo has no qualms about a) making
non-backwardly compatible machines and b) making games that had no
precursor in the arcades and hyping the hell out of them so people will
buy (SM64 and DKC). Gosh...what if the 7800 had reigned? Would we all
have wasted hours and hours on Tower Toppler? Would we look at Karateka
as the paradigm of combat games? Don't get me wrong, I love Atari...it
was my mother video game manufacturer. My family went through a
six-switch and then a four-switch 2600 and now I own a jr and two 7800's
(and I still love to play Ballblazer.)
It seems to me as if Nintendo hasn't really rolled with the
changes...they've ignored them. At a point when everyone went to the
CD, they stuck with cartridges. When everyone else pads their libraries
with PC ports, Nintendo comes up with their own titles. (Theme Park is
available on every system known to man...except the SNES,) When
everyone released a 32-bit system, they stuck it out for their 64. When
everyone else encourages immediate 3rd party support for their platform,
Nintendo holds their reigns tightly. Look at Sega burning their SegaCD
and 32X bridges. It's like Nintendo knows something everyone else
doesn't.
--Patrick
PatMan
Roger Earl (re...@direct.ca) wrote:
: >To sell their games there, Atari had to put out Sears versions of the
: >little confusing (intentionally, perhaps), but if it wasn't for Sears'
: >policy at the time, Atari (and Mattel with the Intellivision) would have
: >sold their consoles as they were sold everywhere else -- under the
: >respective companies' name.
:
: I don't think Atari was complaining too much about using the Sears name.
I dunno -- creating two different sets of labelling and packaging, with
one for relatively limited use (that being the Sears labelled line)
couldn't have been that cost-effective...
: They already had a history of re-selling games under different names to
: grab a larger market share (remember Kee Games?).
I think you're talking apples and oranges here...
A Reed
> : Yep. Which just emphasizes what I am saying. It wasn't a crash, it
was
> : just a matter of other companies (mainly CBM) taking over Atari's
market.
> : If Atari's name wasn't so synonymous with video games at the time, no
one
> : would have considered calling it a crash.
>
> Nope, it doesn't empahsize what you are saying. You are off base to
suggest
> the home computer market had anything to do with the crash. You will find
> most everyone will agree with me on that point.
>
If I could jump in here. . .
I'm afraid I don't agree with you on this point. I sold my 2600 in 1984
for a C64. Most of my gamer friends put down their Ataris and
Intellivisions for a home computer of some kind. Better games, plus it was
more than just a game console. The buzz was that there would be a computer
in every home in 5 years. The advantages of a computer over a console were
obvious.
While I'm sure Atari, Mattel and Coleco would say there was a "crash", I
don't remember one. I played more video games than ever. The game buying
market shifted from the console to the home computer,
A Reed
> I have no idea how old you were during that time, but I don't get the
impression
> that you remember it at all. I was in high school, an avid gamer, and I
do.
> There was a two or three year period, before the introduction of the
8-bit
> Nintendo when just about *nobody* played home games anymore--any games.
I was 16 in 1984, and an avid gamer as well. I never stopped playing video
games after the so-called "crash". In fact, I played more video games than
ever and so did most of my gaming friends. I don't remember a crash. I
just switched game machines, from the Atari to the C64.
Shane Shaffer
Roger Earl (re...@direct.ca) wrote:
: I've even pointed out that video game history is part of my job,
That's the part that sort of irks me. You obviously have seen the
facts, you know what happened, but you are not using the definition of
"video game" that the rest of the world does.
: If you had read the entire thread, you might have noticed some video game
: history intermixed with the computers vs. consoles nonsense.
Nonsense?!? The computers vs. consoles argument is what is at the
core of the thread. Evidently, those who are arguing you believe you are
using an incorrect definition of "video game". I share this opinion. I
do not, nor do any of the other people, make this distinction between
computer and console games out of nostalgia. We make this distinction
because the world has. Popular culture says that video games and computer
games are not the same thing. In conversation, few people refer to
computer games as video games. In business few people refer to computer
games as video games (they'll call them interactive entertainment or some
other garbage). Look at the magazines written by the so-called experts -
do you see console games in Computer Games or CGW? Magazines that cover
computer and console games say so: Next Generation - "Leading edge
computer and video games"; the late Video Games and Computer
Entertainment.
Simply put, given the usages of the words since the earliest days
of electronic gaming, "video games" does not include computer games, and a
port from a console to a computer is a computer game.
: As far as
: history is concerned, I'm rather keen on it being as correct as possible
: and honestly do feel that propogating errors is irresponsible.
We (the people who have been arguing you) feel the same way. We
want to see history being reported as correctly as possibly. That is why
we are making such a fuss about your use of the term "video game". Your
use of the term is historically inaccurate.
As for their not being a crash, I do agree with that. At the
time, I honestly was not aware that this great crash was occuring. All I
saw was games at a lower price. I did notice that there were not as many
new games from the big companies, but now even the town drug store had
games - from my standpoint, 1983/4 were the peak years of the video game
industry. The companies might not have liked those years, but as a game
player it was great. It was not until the heyday of the NES that I heard
of this crash. When I heard the accounts of the crash, they made sense
given what I had observed (except for the shift to computers - I knew it
had happened globally, but I had not seen it at the local level).
Calling it a crash is a bit of a misnomer though. It was not
something that happened all of the sudden - it took 2 years. I disagree
with your argument that systems like the Astrocade were victims or
contributors to the crash - they died on their own accord - but the crash
should not be viewed as something that happened when the entire industry
en masse collapsed. The small 3rd party manufacturers went first,
followed by the medium sized manufacturers, and eventually the heavy
hitters. There were too many games, too many bad games, and companies
fell by the wayside as they could no longer compete. It was not a crash -
more of a grinding to a stop. But much as population as a whole has
decided to make the distinction between console and computer games, they
call this event a crash, and hence, the video game crash of '84.
In summary, there was no "crash" - the video game industry died
after a lengthy illness. Note that I said video game industry. This is
where your line of argument is faulty. I am not, nor is anyone else,
calling console games exclusively "video games" because it is convenient,
or for any other contrived reason. We make the distinction between video
games and computer games because that is just the way it is.
Apart from this, you are making an interesting and valid argument.
Don't let the misuse of "video games" be your fatal error.
- Shane Shaffer
king...@wam.umd.edu
Roger Earl
Chris Cracknell wrote:
>When I was a kid and got my first 2600 for X-mas (I think x-mas 79 or maybe
>80) my brother and I sat up all night long and played "Space Invaders" until
>we were hallucinating the next morning.
I think a lot of us played Space Invaders or Asteroids until we got
"in the zone" and then just kept going 'til we passed out to see if we
could play forever. I remember fondly the first time my cousin and I
ever found a store that actually rented out cartridges. We played River
Raid for 18 hours straight because it had to be returned the next day.
Roger Earl
Chris Cracknell wrote:
>No it's not. The "Crash" is about Home Video Game Consoles, not Video Games.
But who out there actually believes that the consoles can be seperated
from the games? The games are what sold the Atari and although the C=64
had the additional benefits of being a computer, the games are what sold it
as well.
>You're buildinng a straw-man arguement with your statement that the
>"Crash" refers to "Video Games" and then picking it apart by showing that
>Video Games continued just fine after 1983.
That is the basis of my arguement, although one key difference is that
I'm insisting that video games overall did well during '83-84, not just
afterwards.
>A drop in the price of home computers and a glut in the market of console
>games is what contributed to the "Crash" of Home Video Game Consoles in 1983.
>There is no fallacy. It was a real event. The Home Video Game Console market
>crashed. Video Games went on, just on a different system.
>
>This really shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
I disagree with the assumptions of what caused it and have already
outlined why I believe it wasn't a "glut in the market". The end results
may be true, but people are looking back and making guesses as to how it
happened. And then they've made further conclusions based on those
assumptions, which amounts to a rewrite of history that is no doubt
popularly accepted. Popular opinions are easy to understand, they just
aren't necessarily correct. Look how much effort it took for me to explain
Coleco's troubles.
mdo...@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
15 years ago, Sears was America's (US) largest and most powerful retailer.
To get anything in a Sears store, it had to have the "Sears" name.
That is how names like Kenmore, Crafsman, and Die Hard have become household
names.
Sears had high standards (then) and could enforce their will on suppliers.
They were able to extend this to video games -- for a while at least.
Both Atari and Mattel made versions of their games for Sears -- carts and
units.
And while the Atari line required just a different face plate on the machine,
the Sears Super Video Arcade is a completely different looking machine and
the Sears Video Arcade II is the 2800, which was unreleased in the US..
On the cart side, Atari had to do different boxes, books and cart labs. Mattel
only had to do boxes and books since the cart labs have no compnay
identification on them (that is why it is impractical to collect "Sears"
Intellivision games. And you cannot go by license rights. I bought Basketball
at Sears and got an NBA Basketball cart. I bought NFL Football and got a
Football cart.
All for now
mike dougherty
In article <5ah8uu$5...@crow.cybercomm.net>, dge...@cybercomm.net
(PatMan)
writes:
mdo...@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
I have been reading about the debate between computers and video games.
A couple of thoughts hit me today.
I bought the ECS (falsely), the ADAM (falsely) and eventually the C64 (truly)
to let me do term papers and such on a computer at home instead of having to
shlep the 25 miles to the university and use the computer lab or use a
typewriter. Games were a bonus but not a requirement. I bought some games for
the c64 whereas I was still getting everything Intellivision I could get my
hands on in 1984 (when I bought the C64) as well as some Atari closeout stuff.
Mike Dougherty
OJSimpson
Glenn Saunders wrote:
>
> Comparing a C=64 to a 5200 is unfair, since the 5200 is a stripped down
> Atari 8-bit with shitty controllers and no keyboard. Compare a C=64 to a
> fully fledged Atari 8-bit instead.
---Ok. You make a great point. The C-64 vs Atari 8-bit then... I'm
not gonna get into that debate.
My point is that the C-64 had better games + you could be productive +
Free software all for just a little more
cash then what the Game systems were going for at the time. No wonder
the game machines took a dive.
My question still is:
How much did the NES cost when it was first released?
OJ
---Kill, Maim, Die.... Just don't drink
Lee Seitz
In article <5afr4u$6...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
William Moeller <af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote:
>Yes, it is obvious that the Video Game Market was not dead. But, it didn't
>come back until after Atari, Mattel, Magnavox and Coleco were out of the
>Video Game (Console) business. Atari obviously, re-entered in 1987 with
>the Atari 7800 without success.....it was READY to be released in 1984.
>If there was NO CRASH, why wasn't it?
It was my understanding that Mr. Tramiel had no desire to sell video
games. He was only interested in computers. Thus, he had Atari sit
on the 7800 until he saw the money Nintendo was starting to rake in.
(If you had a "brand new" console sitting in your warehouse and saw
the video game market was coming back, what would you do?) Whether
Mr. Tramiel's motivations in only pursuing the computer market at
first were personal taste or business related is a question only he
can answer. (And perhaps he has in interviews, but I haven't read
them.)
DISCLAIMER: I have no facts in front of me to back any of this up.
It's all based on my faulty memory, so I fully expect 50 people to
correct me.
--
Lee K. Seitz lks...@hiwaay.net
Suite 101 Contributing Editor http://fly.hiwaay.net/~lkseitz/
Dare to be stupid. Do the Donkey Kong. O- Finger for Geek Code.
Live long and prosper. May the Force be with you. Up, up, and away!
Lee Seitz
In article <32c9c1c4...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Sam. <s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Yes but the computers had games like Ultima and the SSI games,
>adventure games and strategy games. 2600 adventure is very nice but
>it's not particularly absorbing. There are a few 2600 games I can play
>a few times over, but I've never spent all night playing a 2600 game
>like I did with my ST and still do with the PC.
Although I don't consider it a classic and am loathe to admit it, more
than once I stayed up all night in college playing a Mega Man game on
the NES. (Mind you, the fact that it wasn't my NES probably
contributed to that. I never owned an NES until very recently, so it
was still a novelty to me.) I guess its my anal-retentive streak that
makes me have to finish a game. My thumb felt like mush by the time I
was through. (Stupid joypads. My kingdom for a joystick! 8)
OTOH, I was also known to stay up all night in high school playing
Might & Magic on my family's Apple //e.
Bruce Tomlin
David Patrick Watts <d.w...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in rec.games.video.classic:
>And you notice that Nintendo has no qualms about a) making
>non-backwardly compatible machines and b) making games that had no
What's so special about Nintendo on this? Almost NO home video game
producers have done this. Admittedly, a few had no choice because they
simply died, but aside from the 7800, the Sega Master System adapters for
Genesis (not updated in the USA for the new model) and Game Gear, and
some TurboGraphix stuff, find me an example of a company making a machine
that is backward compatible with their previous model--and lived to tell
about it. (In other words, Magnavox O^3 doesn't count.) Okay, maybe
3DO M2, but they're all but dead now.
In fact, the N64 has more compatibilty with the previous model than the
Saturn. Where? In using the same A/V plug and RF switch. Not much
backward compatibility, but more than you're getting from Sega. The
least they could have done was made the A/V port and RF adapter
compatible, which I hear they didn't.
>precursor in the arcades and hyping the hell out of them so people will
>buy (SM64 and DKC). Gosh...what if the 7800 had reigned? Would we all
>have wasted hours and hours on Tower Toppler? Would we look at Karateka
>as the paradigm of combat games? Don't get me wrong, I love Atari...it
No, third parties might have actually started making decent games for the
damn thing. The reason the 7800 has so much crap is that Atari's efforts
were half-hearted because the Tramiels didn't think it was worth the
effort since of course nobody wanted home video games any more. If the
7800 had been released in 1984 when it was supposed to have been, and it
became a hit, there would have been much more money around to put the
effort into making good software.
>everyone released a 32-bit system, they stuck it out for their 64. When
>everyone else encourages immediate 3rd party support for their platform,
>Nintendo holds their reigns tightly. Look at Sega burning their SegaCD
>and 32X bridges. It's like Nintendo knows something everyone else
>doesn't.
Gee, I guess that's why there are only two (?) third-party Virtual Boy
titles (Waterworld and Baseball) out of a total library of 13?
Jeff Witt
In article <32CD44...@cut-slash-backslash.runaway>,
ojsi...@cut-slash-backslash.runaway says...
>My question still is:
>How much did the NES cost when it was first released?
From my memory (but don't quote me on this one), I believe it was first
released in the $200.00 range. But remember, the first NES came with
R.O.B. (Robot Operating Buddy, or something like that), the light gun,
and Super Mario Brothers and Gyromite. I don't believe Duck Hunt was
included, but I could be wrong.
David Patrick Watts
Bruce Tomlin wrote:
>
> David Patrick Watts <d.w...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in rec.games.video.classic:
> >And you notice that Nintendo has no qualms about a) making
> >non-backwardly compatible machines and b) making games that had no
>
> What's so special about Nintendo on this? Almost NO home video game
> producers have done this. Admittedly, a few had no choice because they
> simply died, but aside from the 7800, the Sega Master System adapters for
> Genesis (not updated in the USA for the new model) and Game Gear, and
> some TurboGraphix stuff, find me an example of a company making a machine
> that is backward compatible with their previous model--and lived to tell
> about it. (In other words, Magnavox O^3 doesn't count.) Okay, maybe
> 3DO M2, but they're all but dead now.
I think you answered the question yourself. Remember the 5200 compatability module?
> In fact, the N64 has more compatibilty with the previous model than the
> Saturn. Where? In using the same A/V plug and RF switch.
Weak. It's like saying they're both compatable because they both play on a TV. Remember, the issue is Nintendo-Atari,
not Nintendo-Sega
> Gosh...what if the 7800 had reigned? Would we all
> ... there would have been much more money around to put the
> effort into making good software.
I agree.
> >Nintendo holds their reigns tightly. Look at Sega burning their SegaCD
>
> Gee, I guess that's why there are only two (?) third-party Virtual Boy
> titles (Waterworld and Baseball) out of a total library of 13?
Oh, and I guess you'd call the Virtual Boy a "mainstream" system? It doesn't have a niche (console, handheld)...it was
trying to create one...and I guess no one had that niche laying around for it to fill. You don't mean to tell me Nin
thought the Virtual Boy was supposed to replace the SNES!?! I can just see dozens of folks strapping on their VB's and
the SNES collecting dust!
--Patrick
David Patrick Watts
A Reed wrote:
>
> > : Yep. Which just emphasizes what I am saying. It wasn't a crash, it
> was
> > : just a matter of other companies (mainly CBM) taking over Atari's
> market.
>
> I'm afraid I don't agree with you on this point. I sold my 2600 in 1984
> for a C64.
So maybe it's just a price point issue. In the late 70's people were
willing to plunk down $125 for a console video game machine. In the
early 80's, the home computers filled that price point (minus quite a
few peripherals, mind you...but they ran for the $125 you spent.) In
the late 80's, the price point scooted up to $150 and it got you a
Nintendo or SMS. The early 90's was the SNES at $150 (now without a
pack-in game) and the Genesis and now...PSX and Saturn at $199. The
next thing to be big will hit that price point and fill it with new
technology. N64?
By the way...does anyone else see some kind of karmic relationship
between the C64 and the N64?
--Patrick
Joey McDonald
In a message of 02 Jan 97 Chris Cracknell wrote to All:
CC> No it's not. The "Crash" is about Home Video Game Consoles, not Video
CC> Games.
>> EDITED STUFF <<
CC> There is no fallacy. It was a real event. The Home Video Game Console
CC> market
CC> crashed. Video Games went on, just on a different system.
CC> This really shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
CC> CRACKERS
CC> (Spelling it out from hell!!)
Give that man a cracker! :) 99% correct... I was there, I should
know :) I'm not taking sides in the argument.. (there have been
some good points made on BOTH sides).
I only say 99% correct becuase... "video games" as a whole DID
suffer. When you REMOVE one of the main outlets for a type
of media.... then there is no question the entire market for
the media itself will suffer a loss. There WERE new roads ahead
(the computer market).. but the loss of the home console market
did take a chunk out of the "VIDEO GAME" market as a whole. And yes..
some people were simply SICK of video games IN GENERAL.. and they
decided to take up a new hobby of some sort.. (perhaps dating
girls :)
Anyway.. You're right Chris... there is no question that a CRASH
occured.. and you're right that we are "primarily" talking about
a CONSOLE market crashing. The computer market was there to
"pick up the pieces" of what was LEFT (those who still had
a interest in playing games (or wanted MORE than simply games) and
could afford to spend the extra money on a "computer" system. Beleive
me... there was also a geat deal of dis-interest in video games IN
GENERAL at the time period we are discussing.... and THAT is bad
for video games as a whole... and THAT is a CRASH.
Them are the FACTS.... not nostalgia.
A nickel's worth of free advice...
.. from a man who marveled at the sight of PONG.
Joey McDonald
Galen Tatsuo Komatsu
>included, but I could be wrong.
Unless Gyromite used the Light Gun in addition to ROB, I would
hope it came with Duck Hunt. Then again, The older Atari 2600 systems
came with paddles, but no paddle game pack-in. (so we wound up making
those tanks zoom around in circles with that whining sound. =^)
--
gkom...@hawaii.edu
_______
(_)___oo) Ned the log.
Yogi
-released in the $200.00 range. But remember, the first NES came with
-R.O.B. (Robot Operating Buddy, or something like that), the light
gun,
-and Super Mario Brothers and Gyromite. I don't believe Duck Hunt was
-included, but I could be wrong.
-
Actually, Super Mario Brothers was not available at the NES system
release, and it did in fact come with Gyromite, Duck Hunt/Wild West
The reply to email attached to this message is False.
To Reply via email to this message, remove the asterisks
and email ***scharles*****@*****blast.*net
NO UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL
Larry Scott Ii
: much as Atari had been previously, but they haven't had as much trouble
: rocky history to make some of their decisions. Perhaps if Atari made
: decisions like killing off the old systems to make way for new (imagine
: 5200 sales if Pac-Man wasn't available on the 2600)... It's hard to say if
: we would be better off, but Atari might have survived.
I mentioned this once in another thread, but it's relevant here too: One
major difference between pre and post "crash" systems is that games for
post crash systems are usually only available for a year or so before
they're discontinued. Atari and Mattel were still selling 5 and 6 year
old games up til the "crash". Hell, look at the Playstation.. the
initial batch of games available for it (Raiden, Kileak, etc) were out of
print 8 months after the system was introduced. Just try to find any of
the early games for sale new.. no can do. Atari and Mattel did make new
and improved games, but the continual presence of the oldies robbed shelf
space from new games, and reminded buyers just how old and out-of-date the
systems really were..
I think today's more limited runs per game help keep a steady supply of
new material hitting the shelves.. the PSX has some 220 or so games
available (not counting Japanese games) and it's a little over a year old.
It has it's share of shovelware, but there are plenty of winners in there
also.
Larry Scott Ii
: Actually, there is some crossover. The SNES had a stripped-down Ultima 6 that
: could have been much better if they'd have just given it a 2 meg cartridge
Straying off topic here.. but NES Ultima 6 was actually a very good
port. The conversations were "dumbed down" a bit, but other than that the
only thing missing was the portraits of NPC's during conversation. They
were nice, but not essential.
However...
If you want to see butchering at it's finest, check out ultima *7* for the
SNES.. This should've never been attempted. Not only was it censored to
death (everyone who was murdered in the PC is now only "kidnapped") but
it's just a shell of it's former self in all respects. Not surprising
given they stuffed a 22 megabyte game into a 1 megabyte (8 megabit)
cartridge.
I believe snes u6 was also 1 meg (8 megabit).
And Runes of Virtue was just a stupid Gauntlet clone with Ultima
characters thrown in. Shame on Origin for allowing this crap to be
released...
Larry Scott Ii
: :Look at Sega burning their SegaCD
: :and 32X bridges.
: The big N isn't exactly pushing the Virtual Boy and SNES anymore!
Fer sure.. I'd say the Virtual Boy was a much bigger flop than either the
32x or the Jaguar.. What'd it wind up with.. 14 games? It even had a
huge advertising blitz behind it.. much more than Atari or Sega had.. The
VB may be one of the biggest flops in videogame history.. Anyone have
any figures on what Nin lost on that thing?
Of course, flop or no, when Blockbuster was clearing 'em out, I snapped up
everything I could find :)
Patrick Wickwire
David Patrick Watts wrote:
>
> So maybe it's just a price point issue. In the late 70's people were
> willing to plunk down $125 for a console video game machine. In the
$125? For what system? My uncle paid $280 for an Atari 2600 in
1977 or 1978. In 1982 I bought one on sale for $149, regular price was
either $179 or $199 I'm not certain which.
> early 80's, the home computers filled that price point (minus quite a
> few peripherals, mind you...but they ran for the $125 you spent.) In
What the Hell... are you on crack or just weren't old enough to
buy those systems back then? Here are a few prices listed in Video &
Home Computers Buyer's Guide from 1983.
Atari 5200 $299.95
Color Computer $399.95 (4K Ram)
VIC 20 $299.95
Commodore 64 $595.00
Atari 400 $499.95 (8K Ram)
Atari 400 $630.00 (16K Ram)
Atari 800 $1,080.00 (16K Ram)
All of those prices are for the bare unit, no monitor or
disk/tape drive. The guide lists the price of other video game
systems as being between $130 and $200 depending on what you bought
and where you bought it.
> the late 80's, the price point scooted up to $150 and it got you a
> Nintendo or SMS. The early 90's was the SNES at $150 (now without a
> pack-in game) and the Genesis and now...PSX and Saturn at $199. The
> next thing to be big will hit that price point and fill it with new
> technology. N64?
>
As you can see above the $200+ price point was hit 20 years ago.
It's much cheaper to buy a system now then it was back then, and that
doesn't even take into account the devaluation of the dollar.
Patrick Wickwire
nowh...@gldnet.com
mdo...@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
The price point for video games was higher than than it is now.
The Atari 2600 was close to $200 at its introduction.
The Intellivision was ov er $250.
TThe Atari 5200 and Colecovision were about $200 at their introduction.
Meanwhile, home computers (ike the c64 and atari 800) were close to $500.
Only when their pirce point began to get under $300 xid more and more people
start buying them.
mike dougherty
In article <32CF28...@worldnet.att.net>, David Patrick Watts
<d.w...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> A Reed wrote:
>>
>> > : Yep. Which just emphasizes what I am saying. It wasn't a crash, it
>> was
>> > : just a matter of other companies (mainly CBM) taking over Atari's
>> market.
>>
>> If I could jump in here. . .
>> I'm afraid I don't agree with you on this point. I sold my 2600 in 1984
>> for a C64.
>
> So maybe it's just a price point issue. In the late 70's people were
> willing to plunk down $125 for a console video game machine. In the
> early 80's, the home computers filled that price point (minus quite a
> few peripherals, mind you...but they ran for the $125 you spent.) In
> the late 80's, the price point scooted up to $150 and it got you a
> Nintendo or SMS. The early 90's was the SNES at $150 (now without a
> pack-in game) and the Genesis and now...PSX and Saturn at $199. The
> next thing to be big will hit that price point and fill it with new
> technology. N64?
>
William Moeller
In <01bbf8af$b9c23b60$f366e6ce@areed>, "A Reed" <ar...@zoomnet.net> wrote:
: > : Yep. Which just emphasizes what I am saying. It wasn't a crash, it
: was
: > : just a matter of other companies (mainly CBM) taking over Atari's
: market.
: > : If Atari's name wasn't so synonymous with video games at the time, no
: one
: > : would have considered calling it a crash.
: >
: > Nope, it doesn't empahsize what you are saying. You are off base to
: suggest
: > the home computer market had anything to do with the crash. You will find
: > most everyone will agree with me on that point.
: >
: If I could jump in here. . .
: I'm afraid I don't agree with you on this point. I sold my 2600 in 1984
: for a C64. Most of my gamer friends put down their Ataris and
: Intellivisions for a home computer of some kind. Better games, plus it was
: more than just a game console. The buzz was that there would be a computer
: in every home in 5 years. The advantages of a computer over a console were
: obvious.
: While I'm sure Atari, Mattel and Coleco would say there was a "crash", I
: don't remember one. I played more video games than ever. The game buying
: market shifted from the console to the home computer,
You are taking me out of context here. I know because of the way I wrote it,
one could mis read what I was trying to say.
To be clearer, I was saying that the computer market was a separate entity
from "Video Games" ie "Consoles"......there was no computer crash in 1984,
there was a "Video Game" crash....not the games themselves, but a device which
played carts exclusively, and could not be programmed by the home user.
Atari did not go out of business like Mattel, because they had a computer
division. It WAS a shift to home computers which caused a "crash". If
you were looking for the latest and greatest VCS or Intellivision software
in 1984, you would have been disapointed.
By 1984, I had an Atari and a Commodore computer, plus my trusty
Intellivision....sure, there was no "crash" or lack of software if you had
a computer....but if you had a "Video Game", yes, there was.
I was merely refuting a claim that CBM (for arguments sake) took over
Mattel's "business" because Mattel "dropped the ball"....ie that the
computer and video game (console) business were one and the same.
--
William M. Moeller
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca or wi...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Ken Arromdee
>: Actually, there is some crossover. The SNES had a stripped-down Ultima 6 that
>: could have been much better if they'd have just given it a 2 meg cartridge
>Straying off topic here.. but NES Ultima 6 was actually a very good
>port. The conversations were "dumbed down" a bit, but other than that the
>only thing missing was the portraits of NPC's during conversation. They
>were nice, but not essential.
Some of the spells were missing. There was no difference between large and
small boats because of the changes. Certain parts were simply cut short (I
wondered why I couldn't do much with the place with the giants (or whatever
they were) and finally entered that dungeon on my own, until I checked a PC
FAQ and found that the section was just removed. Objects which you needed to
take were just marked as takable, and you didn't have to ask the owner for them
(again, the FAQs didn't sound this way).
I also found it exceedingly odd that some dungeons had objects in them and
some dungeons looked exactly like those but had untakable dummy items located
where the other dungeons had takable items. (This smelled of cheap reuse of
the same data to me. I could be wrong.) And of course, the game had no
ending to speak of, since all the space was used cramming the game in.
(Still haven't played 7 yet... as soon as I get a decent hard drive for this
computer. Of course, this is behind the times, but we _are_ in a classics
newsgroup.)
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@randomc.com, karr...@nyx.nyx.net,
http://www.randomc.com/~arromdee)
"2000 members of the vegetable kingdom and I have to work with _tomatoes_!"
PatMan
mdo...@wvnvms.wvnet.edu wrote:
: 15 years ago, Sears was America's (US) largest and most powerful retailer.
: To get anything in a Sears store, it had to have the "Sears" name.
: Both Atari and Mattel made versions of their games for Sears -- carts and
: units.
: And while the Atari line required just a different face plate on the machine,
Actually, all it required is different printing designs on the plastic
case molding -- there is no faceplace, per se. The woodgrain piece in the
front was white in color and the plastic facing behind the 6 (or 4?)
switches on the front was also white (I'm going by memory...only knew one
person who had the Sears 2600 -- it also came with Air-Sea Battle (or
whatever the Sears version was) instead of Combat, which was the original
2600 pack-in)
: the Sears Super Video Arcade is a completely different looking machine and
Are you sure? I could have sworn the original Sears SVA was a re-labelled
Intellivision (like the version Radio Shack sold)
: the Sears Video Arcade II is the 2800, which was unreleased in the US..
:
: On the cart side, Atari had to do different boxes, books and cart labs. Mattel
: only had to do boxes and books since the cart labs have no compnay
Wasn't aware of that...only played an Intellivision twice, and before that
the closest I came to one of it's carts was the cases used for the 2600
M-network games (they took an Intellivision cart case, snapped an
extension on it that fit a 2600 slot, and designed the game chips to fit
inside)
Roger Earl
Larry Scott Li wrote:
>I think today's more limited runs per game help keep a steady supply of
>new material hitting the shelves.. the PSX has some 220 or so games
>available (not counting Japanese games) and it's a little over a year old.
>It has it's share of shovelware, but there are plenty of winners in there
>also.
But is that really a good thing? Discontinuing games so quickly? I'm sure
that most of us would like to see the video game industry end up with
something more along the lines of the video tape industry. You know, stores
and rental shops that keep stock of both classics and new releases.
Currently the situation is getting dreadful that I'm seeing more and more
electronic stores only keeping half a dozen games on the shelf.
Ken Arromdee
af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (William Moeller) wrote:
>: >The kids who would get Nintendos for Christmas were still too young to
>: >play video games.
>: Huh? Are you suggesting that there was a lack of children in 1984 and
>: then suddenly a miraculous boom that culminated in the approriate age of
>: children for 1985???
>I am suggesting that the "Nintendo Generation" of which you seem to belong,
>were not old enough to buy Video Games for. My niece is 5. I did not
>buy one for her this year.....next year, I will buy her a video game.
>In my opinion, she is TOO YOUNG this year to appreciate one.
Ages are continuous.
Along with 5 year olds, there are 6 year olds, 7 year olds, etc.
In 1984, there were kids who weren't of age to play video games in 1983 but
were in 1984--going from 1983 to 1984 caused there to be new potential
customers just like going from 1984 to 1985. There wasn't anything special
about 1985--_every_ year had children who were too young to play video games
the year before.
Ken Arromdee
cha...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Charles E. "Rick" Taylor, IV) wrote:
>"Video games" are electronic games played by means of images on a video screen,
>according to the dictionary. Whether cartridge or disk-based doesn't enter
>into the definition at all. Of all the silly things we've argued about on this
>group, we're debating what a *video game* is???
The *type* of games available on computers are, in practice, different from
the type of games available on video game systems. There is some overlap,
but in general they are not the same kind of game. Sure, you _can_ play
Myst on a Saturn, and you _can_ play Virtua Cop on a PC, but each of these
games is atypical for that platform.
Furthermore, computers have other uses than game playing, though of course
game playing is one of the most common. And even just considering games,
computers are used differently enough that the audience changes a bit--someone
of age to play NES might not understand how to plug in a disk drive or type
in a program from a magazine.
have clue--will travel
In article <32CFB3...@gldnet.com>,
Patrick Wickwire <nowh...@gldnet.com> wrote:
>David Patrick Watts wrote:
>>
>> So maybe it's just a price point issue. In the late 70's people were
>> willing to plunk down $125 for a console video game machine. In the
>
>1977 or 1978. In 1982 I bought one on sale for $149, regular price was
>either $179 or $199 I'm not certain which.
>
>buy those systems back then? Here are a few prices listed in Video &
>Home Computers Buyer's Guide from 1983.
>
>
>Atari 5200 $299.95
>Color Computer $399.95 (4K Ram)
>VIC 20 $299.95
>Commodore 64 $595.00
>Atari 400 $499.95 (8K Ram)
>Atari 400 $630.00 (16K Ram)
>Atari 800 $1,080.00 (16K Ram)
>
>It's much cheaper to buy a system now then it was back then, and that
>doesn't even take into account the devaluation of the dollar.
And I have an Intellivision in its original box, from Lionel Kiddie City
circa 1980-1981 or so, labeled $249.99.
Which is also the original price tag on my TurboExpress (which is, thankfully,
5x what I paid for it).
jeff. hell, some flea-market types are STILL trying
to charge $100+ for C64s.
--
--- If you look very, very closely, you can see Edward R. Murrow. ---
http://www.netaxs.com/~vsp/ -- cartlists, games, Ang2.8.0 character status.
"Remember, there's no problem so complex it can't be solved by killing
everyone even remotely associated with it." -- G.D., Scorched Earth Party
Yogi
On 7 Jan 1997 01:17:37 GMT, dge...@cybercomm.net (PatMan) wrote:
-mdo...@wvnvms.wvnet.edu wrote:
-: 15 years ago, Sears was America's (US) largest and most powerful
retailer.
-: To get anything in a Sears store, it had to have the "Sears" name.
-
-: Both Atari and Mattel made versions of their games for Sears --
carts and
-: units.
(Much deleted)
Both Sears and Radio Shack practice what is called "Private Labeling"
which means that they go to manufacturer's and say "You have this
popular product. Lots of people are trying to copy it with their own
versions. We want YOU to make us a copy with OUR name on it, we will
advertise it as 'playing Atari games'. WE will assume warranty
responsibility (This caveat is why manufacturer's will do this). WE
will buy XXXXXXX thousand of these (i.e. a sure sale)."
Atari and Mattell were not FORCED to make versions of either of these.
They WANTED to. (If you had a choice of selling 10,000 units at once,
relabels, or sending 100 at a time to individual distributers' what
would you do?"
Remember, the goal of manufacturer's is to push VOLUME.......
William Moeller
In <5au1dg$7...@nyx.cs.du.edu>, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
: af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (William Moeller) wrote:
: >I am suggesting that the "Nintendo Generation" of which you seem to belong,
: >were not old enough to buy Video Games for. My niece is 5. I did not
: >buy one for her this year.....next year, I will buy her a video game.
: >In my opinion, she is TOO YOUNG this year to appreciate one.
: Ages are continuous.
: Along with 5 year olds, there are 6 year olds, 7 year olds, etc.
: In 1984, there were kids who weren't of age to play video games in 1983 but
: were in 1984--going from 1983 to 1984 caused there to be new potential
: customers just like going from 1984 to 1985. There wasn't anything special
: about 1985--_every_ year had children who were too young to play video games
: the year before.
: --
: Ken Arromdee (arro...@randomc.com, karr...@nyx.nyx.net,
: http://www.randomc.com/~arromdee)
Yes, but my point was that in 1984, everyone who WANTED a Video Game
(console) had one! And, those who wanted something better, were going
on to Computer systems. Hence, it took a couple of years....1986, 1987
for Video Game consoles...ie the NINTENDO to take off....showing that the
"Video Game" (console) market was not dead. Mom and Dad didn't want to
spend big money on a computer system and bought a Video Game system to
satisfy junior.
Larry Scott Ii
: : the Sears Super Video Arcade is a completely different looking machine and
: Are you sure? I could have sworn the original Sears SVA was a re-labelled
: Intellivision (like the version Radio Shack sold)
It shares the same basic design, but it's definitly a different case,
unlike the 2600/Telegames units.
Larry Scott Ii
: But is that really a good thing? Discontinuing games so quickly? I'm sure
: something more along the lines of the video tape industry. You know, stores
: and rental shops that keep stock of both classics and new releases.
: Currently the situation is getting dreadful that I'm seeing more and more
: electronic stores only keeping half a dozen games on the shelf.
If you have flea markets nearby, it's not too bad.. Or else you just have
to buy before it's gone.. there's too many to keep stock of everything
(although a half dozen is way too little.. Best Buy and EB usually have
at least 35-50 titles at any one time)
Larry Scott Ii
: Some of the spells were missing. There was no difference between large and
<Game faults snipped>
Hmm.. to tell you the truth, I played the PC version through, and played
the SNES port a bit to check the translation.. guess I didn't play far
enough! :) Even with those additional faults, I still think it
(ultima6) survived the translation to a console better than any of the
others. u4 on the NES isn't bad, and from what I hear the SMS port is
excellent.. still gotta get that..
Larry
David R Johnson
: This guy hit it right on .. that's exactly what I did, except my calling
: was Ultima.. I bought an 8-bit *just* to play Ultima 3 .. then Ultima
: 2.. then 1.. then 4. Then a '64 to play 5. Then a PC to play 6. Console
: games couldn't (and still can't) touch Ultima.. :)
Perhaps we are missing the point here. Console games didn't try to match
(or touch) Ultima. Console games were designed around arcade style
play. When's the last time you saw an epic adventure on an arcade
machine? (Well, ok, there was Thayer's Quest, but that wasn't exactly a
mega-hit). Consoles and computers could (and in fact do) compliment each
other well. I have a Mac, and a slew of consoles.
--
-David Johnson
"Hey, I own a '60 Falcon Ranchero. How cool!"
(drjo...@brain.uccs.edu)
Larry Scott Ii
: : This guy hit it right on .. that's exactly what I did, except my calling
: : was Ultima.. I bought an 8-bit *just* to play Ultima 3 .. then Ultima
: : 2.. then 1.. then 4. Then a '64 to play 5. Then a PC to play 6. Console
: : games couldn't (and still can't) touch Ultima.. :)
: Perhaps we are missing the point here. Console games didn't try to match
: (or touch) Ultima. Console games were designed around arcade style
: play. When's the last time you saw an epic adventure on an arcade
Well, we were discussing reasons for the crash (I think) .. one reason
would be people like me being sick of arcade-style games after years of
Atari and jumping ship to more involved games. Action games were cool,
but that's *all* consoles offered. Computers offered action games AND
adventure/RPG/text/etc. style games. Consoles couldn't compete and were
driven from the market IMHO.
PatMan
Yogi (no...@nowhere.com) wrote:
: -mdo...@wvnvms.wvnet.edu wrote:
: -: 15 years ago, Sears was America's (US) largest and most powerful
: retailer.
: -: To get anything in a Sears store, it had to have the "Sears" name.
: -
: -: Both Atari and Mattel made versions of their games for Sears --
: carts and
: -: units.
:
: (Much deleted)
:
: Both Sears and Radio Shack practice what is called "Private Labeling"
: which means that they go to manufacturer's and say "You have this
: popular product. Lots of people are trying to copy it with their own
: versions. We want YOU to make us a copy with OUR name on it, we will
: advertise it as 'playing Atari games'. WE will assume warranty
: responsibility (This caveat is why manufacturer's will do this). WE
: will buy XXXXXXX thousand of these (i.e. a sure sale)."
: Atari and Mattell were not FORCED to make versions of either of these.
Well, as everything in life, it depends on your point of view whether or
not Atari/Mattel were "forced" to make Sears versions of their games.
Yes, Tandy (i.e. Radio Shack) and Sears practice the method of
selling "private label" merchandise...but (at the time in question at
least) this was to the EXCLUSION of selling "name brand" merchandise. If
Whirlpool wanted to sell their washing machine at Sears, they had to slap
the Sears name on it (the fact that Sears purchased the appliances and
assumed repair responsibilities is irrelevant -- if Whirlpool wanted the
money from the sale of their goods from Sears, they ***HAD** to put the
Sears brand name on it)
This is the same that happened with Atari and Mattel...
: They WANTED to. (If you had a choice of selling 10,000 units at once,
Yes, they *WANTED* to sell their merchandise at Sears. To do this, they
*HAD* to put the Sears name on it.
I don't think any company develops a product and says "Hey, wouldn't it be
a great idea to slap a Sears name on this product and sell it through
them?" I think it's more like "Ok, we want to sell this product, and
Sears might be a good place to do it...but we have to put a Sears name on
it to do that..."
You can argue that the fact a company does this shows they "want" to sell
their product with a Sears name on it...but I still contend that if Sears
originally gave companies the option of selling products with their own
name on it (Whirlpool, Maytag, whatever...) the companies would choose to
exercise that option (and to back that up I give you the current Sears
"Brand Central" policy. I am, however, not claiming that companies
wouldn't also make/honor contracts with Sears to provide them with
Sears-brand merchandise as well, though I do feel that Atari/Mattel would
likely not have produced Sears-brand versions of their systems if allowed
to sell the Atari/Mattel versions through Sears)
: relabels, or sending 100 at a time to individual distributers' what
: would you do?"
Again, whether or not the decision is a "no-brainer" is irrelevant. The
fact remains that, at the time their systems were on sale, if Atari and
Mattel wanted their products sold at Sears, they *had* to put a Sears name
on it to do so.
: Remember, the goal of manufacturer's is to push VOLUME.......
...at the lowest cost to them. While it is probably a negligible price,
somehow I think that producing a second version of boxes/labelling/etc.
has *some* cost associated with it. Choosing to negotiate to produce a
product with someone else's name on it because it's a good business deal
is one thing. *HAVING* to negotiate to produce a product with someone
else's name on it because it's the only way that someone else will sell it
is another thing. Again, at the time of these events, if you wanted your
product sold at Sears, it had to carry a Sears name.
(I don;t mean to sound like I am coming down on Sears...most of my
household appliances are Kenmore brand, and over the years I have given
the store a good deal of my shopping business...)
: The reply to email attached to this message is False.
David R Johnson
: Well, we were discussing reasons for the crash (I think) .. one reason
: would be people like me being sick of arcade-style games after years of
: Atari and jumping ship to more involved games. Action games were cool,
: but that's *all* consoles offered. Computers offered action games AND
: adventure/RPG/text/etc. style games. Consoles couldn't compete and were
: driven from the market IMHO.
I agree that computer could offer much more than consoles could, at least
in terms of versitility. The flaw I see in your logic is that most
computers cost a lot more than consoles did. Even the C64, which was an
incredibly popular computer, still cost more than a Coleco.
IMHO the main reason for the crash was the total and utter oversaturation
of the market. I remember going into a Toys 'R Us in Southern California
to buy games, and having to decide between getting 3 CBS games for $30,
or 1 Atari game for $30. The basic economics of it were pretty simple -
it was no longer possible to make a profit selling games.
(BTW - I bought the CBS games - Tunnel Runner, Solar Fox and Mountain
King. Got two of them back now. Still need Tunnel Runner.)