Nintendo Ruined Video Games

[TigerSuperman]

I think the biggest issue here isn't with Nintendo, but with lack of mainstream coverage of the video game crash itself. Right now blog and gossip media has created the current understanding of the video game crash.

 

The general understanding of the video game crash, especially to those who lean more eastern in gaming tastes, is that Nintendo saved the industry from death. Often they don't even mention the United States just a general Industry. Not an industry that was one foot in the grave and one foot on a banana bill mind you, but that the industry actually was dead. Both are inaccurate regardless, but when you make false statements like Nintendo came out in 1985 and sold millions of consoles after the 'death' of gaming it doesn't surprise me at all that so many people give Nintendo too much credit.

 

As was mentioned earlier in the thread games were still being sold by the truckloads. We had new consoles releasing as well, so clearly companies still thought there was enough profit to be gained in gaming that investing in a new gaming machine during the 'death' of video games would be viable. Wikipedia's article on the crash has improved massively over the last several years but is still a primary source of misinformation. Whether because the article has false quotes or events written as fact or because the article is missing information so the wiki contributors make up their own conclusions.

 

The truth is as mentioned in this thread numerous times, Nintendo entered at the right time. But that's not the only thing that needs to be discussed, most gamers that believe the old tale that gaming was dead didn't even know that the Atari 7800 Pro System and the Sega Master System released the same year, and if I'm not mistaken the Nintendo Entertainment System was the last to launch that year as it was just beat by the Master System by a week in September.

 

As has been said, anybody could have come in and filled the void. Commodore, Atari, Sega, anyone who produced games that was alive could have jumped in and took over. Nintendo didn't really resurrect anything and most of its games that many claimed were different than before were just new versions of the same games we were already playing, just a higher number of games had you jumping while scrolling to the right.

 

I'm not saying they didn't do anything at all, but as others have said in this thread most of the credit Nintendo gets is based on not understanding the video game crash in general. A crash that only effected companies and not so much buyers as Atari proved in 1985.

 

I would also like to bring up something nobody else in this thread has yet, Nintendo might have actually set consoles back for another 5 years because we had three consoles that would compete until the 90's based off 1970's computer tech. Consoles were so far behind the arcade and computer experience it was a nightmare. I myself eventually got all 3 consoles but I'm not going to lie, I really hated the fact games still looked like garbage when in the Atari days we were seeing jumps like every other year. If we continued in the same trajectory from where the ColecoVision left us, by 1987 we should have had Super Nintendo looking games already.

Edited October 3, 2018 by TigerSuperman

[empsolo]

The master system and 7800 released in 1986 not 85. Nintendo was the first console manufacturer to make it to market.

 

Also 16 bit games by 87? Not when it would take another year for consumer prices to come down enough for 16 bit to be affordable by the consumer. Even then, the PC Engine and Mega Drive were still pretty expensive for the home consumer which is why the PC engine did not beat the Famicom until 1990.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited October 3, 2018 by empsolo

[mbd30]

As has been said, anybody could have come in and filled the void. Commodore, Atari, Sega, anyone who produced games that was alive could have jumped in and took over. Nintendo didn't really resurrect anything and most of its games that many claimed were different than before were just new versions of the same games we were already playing, just a higher number of games had you jumping while scrolling to the right.

 

 

 

What do you mean that Nintendo didn't resurrect anything? Just because hypothetically a different company _could_ have done it, doesn't mean that it wasn't in fact Nintendo who resurrected the dead/dying home video games industry in the US.

[TigerSuperman]

The master system and 7800 released in 1986 not 85. Nintendo was the first console manufacturer to make it to market.

 

Also 16 bit games by 87? Not when it would take another year for consumer prices to come down enough for 16 bit to be affordable by the consumer. Even then, the PC Engine and Mega Drive were still pretty expensive for the home consumer which is why the PC engine did not beat the Famicom until 1990.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The NES released in 86 it was test marketed in 85, if we use that logic the 7800 was still first since it was test launched in 84.

 

The PC engine and Genesis were expensive because of the length of time consoles were held back. The Famicom was the console companies used as the bar to pass which was a major issue. The Famicom was a slightly more powerful Colecovision, both of which were based off late 70's parts. The Colecovision was the most powerful console we were left with before the crash. By the time the Famicom released nationally in 86' the Famicom was 3 years old. So we got another 4 years of outdated hardware! Not only that, Sega used the Famicon as the bar to pass which was a mistake so when they replaced the Sg-1000/MarkII with the Sega Master System/MarkIII they designed it to be more powerful than the Famicom, that was Pre-MMC Famicom at that!

 

When you have an industry developing new tech based on beating outdated hardware then yes, when you finally get to 16-bit hardware it would be expensive. Or in Necs case, companies would charge a high price intentionally to make profit because of how much better your product looked compared to the outdated competition.

 

You only have to look at the computer gaming industry to see how far behind consoles were. In 1986 we had the 1st generation Amiga and the ST. Consoles should have been right around the same area graphically or only slightly behind. In 1983 consoles and computer games were in the same graphical range for games.

 

 

 

 

What do you mean that Nintendo didn't resurrect anything? Just because hypothetically a different company _could_ have done it, doesn't mean that it wasn't in fact Nintendo who resurrected the dead/dying home video games industry in the US.

They didn't resurrect anything, in order to resurrect something it has to be dead. The US industry was never dead or dying when the NES was even test launched and was already improving before the NES national release. The 2600 likely sold more than the NES between 1985 and 1986 as the NES sold 1.1 million in 1986 and between 50,000-90,000 with the test launch of 1985. The 2600 sold 1 million in 1985 alone and not only did the 2600 get a handful of new games in 86, the redesigned JR. also came out in 86.

 

You could say Nintendo perhaps stabilized the industry by filling the vacuum, but not resurrected it. That only makes the current myth about the video game crash more credible which is already a problem.

Edited October 4, 2018 by TigerSuperman

[mbd30]

They didn't resurrect anything, in order to resurrect something it has to be dead. The US industry was never dead or dying when the NES was even test launched and was already improving before the NES national release. The 2600 likely sold more than the NES between 1985 and 1986 as the NES sold 1.1 million in 1986 and between 50,000-90,000 with the test launch of 1985. The 2600 sold 1 million in 1985 alone and not only did the 2600 get a handful of new games in 86, the redesigned JR. also came out in 86.

 

You could say Nintendo perhaps stabilized the industry by filling the vacuum, but not resurrected it. That only makes the current myth about the video game crash more credible which is already a problem.

 

This looks like desperate historical revisionism by an Atari fanboy in order to downplay Nintendo's achievements. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

Yes, people were still buying and playing games during the crash. It's also true that after the crash home video games went from a multi billion dollar industry to a small fraction of that. Nintendo struggled to get reluctant retailers interested in their product at all. They had to include a gimmicky toy robot so that it could be marketed as a toy and not just a video game system. The success of the NES and its games made home consoles hot again, and revived the industry to being as huge as it was before and proved that it was not a passing fad. These are facts. Not opinions or hypotheticals about what some other company could have done. Facts.

 

So frigging what if the heavily discounted Atari 2600 sold a million unites in 1985, and a smattering of new games were released? Is that your idea of a thriving US home console industry apart from Nintendo?

 

Let's look at the Atari timeline for 1985:

 

https://www.landley.net/history/mirror/atari/museum/Atari-Timeline.html#1985

 

 

"

• (April) For the first time ever, Atari Corp. skips the summer Consumer Electronics Show.
• Atari replaces the 600XL and 800XL home computers with the 65XE and the 130XE computers.
• Atari releases the Atari ST line of home computers.
• Financial difficulties forces Atari Corp. to lay off more employees. Remaining staffers take pay cuts up to 20%."

 

 

Oh yeah, the US home video games industry and Atari were doing so well. There was nothing for Nintendo to revive (sarcasm).

 

Get on your pogo stick and bounce on home.

Edited October 4, 2018 by mbd30

[empsolo]

Why do Atari fanboys point to the Amiga and ST as example of these hypothetical mid 80’s 16 game systems? Do they not release that 1. ST games were often trash and 2. The 16 bit computers sold like trash in the US? Seriously, unless you were in a niche market like the audio or tv industry, chances are you didn’t own an ST or Amiga. They were pretty expensive computers that were valued around the same price as a used car. They should be used as examples on how console manufacturers were right to wait until 16 bit cpus came down in price before starting to manufacture 16 bit consoles.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited October 4, 2018 by empsolo

[John Stamos Mullet]

Why do Atari fanboys point to the Amiga and ST as example of these hypothetical mid 80s 16 game systems?

probably because this an Atari themed website, populated mostly by fans of Atari hardware?

 

This is kind of like logging on to a Ford Mustang forum and asking why Mustang fans like Mustangs.

[Gamemoose]

Ressurect is the correct word as it also means revitalize. According to the US, the home game console market was "dead as disco", even though disco could be heard on many an AM station back then I'm sure.

 

The home console division of Atari in the US pretty much crashed and burned like all the other major players. The stores were clearancing out games and consoles at rock bottom prices. Sure the 2600 sold a million units, but at what profit? If you're not getting a profit...your business/division is essentially done. The American console market was a fish slowly flopping on the beach that no retailer wanted to even touch.

 

So yes, Nintendo splashed water on that market fish and dug out a pond to let the new spring of commerce fill it. Once Nintendo, with some clever marketing by making the NES a combo of a "entertainment system" (hence the design) and "toy" (robot), opened up store shelves to video games then did we see the likes of Atari come back. Oh yessireee with the 2600 from A...Tar...Eeee.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Gamemoose

[TigerSuperman]

 

This looks like desperate historical revisionism by an Atari fanboy in order to downplay Nintendo's achievements. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

Yes, people were still buying and playing games during the crash. It's also true that after the crash home video games went from a multi billion dollar industry to a small fraction of that. Nintendo struggled to get reluctant retailers interested in their product at all. They had to include a gimmicky toy robot so that it could be marketed as a toy and not just a video game system. The success of the NES and its games made home consoles hot again, and revived the industry to being as huge as it was before and proved that it was not a passing fad. These are facts. Not opinions or hypotheticals about what some other company could have done. Facts.

 

So frigging what if the heavily discounted Atari 2600 sold a million unites in 1985, and a smattering of new games were released? Is that your idea of a thriving US home console industry apart from Nintendo?

 

Let's look at the Atari timeline for 1985:

 

https://www.landley.net/history/mirror/atari/museum/Atari-Timeline.html#1985

 

 

"

• (April) For the first time ever, Atari Corp. skips the summer Consumer Electronics Show.
• Atari replaces the 600XL and 800XL home computers with the 65XE and the 130XE computers.
• Atari releases the Atari ST line of home computers.
• Financial difficulties forces Atari Corp. to lay off more employees. Remaining staffers take pay cuts up to 20%."

 

Oh yeah, the US home video games industry and Atari were doing so well. There was nothing for Nintendo to revive (sarcasm).

 

Get on your pogo stick and bounce on home.

Already the last three posts contain revisionist history and misinformation.

 

1. If retail was as bad as fake retrospective history implies than it sure didn't stop people from going to stores to buy 1 million 2600's and whatever amonut of Colecos and Intvs. Those systems no one was carrying, oops?

 

2. You used layoffs that largely hurt the computer side of Atari as an attack on Ataris console business. The computer industry wasn't the one that crashed, are you saying the NES revitalized computers? Your point here is irrelevant.

 

3. Atari Corp was formed to completion in the summer of 84, so they missed one show. Why are you being deceptive and acting like Atari Corp had been going for years and abruptly stopped after the crash?

 

4. Also why don't we actually look at the industry in 1985. 2 new game system entries along with 2 Atari consoles, the ColecoVision, the INTV, and several new software releases.

 

All you did was see "Nintendo got too much credit" came in without any info and ignored the general point I was making to start a fake fanboy war by calling me an Atari fanboy when I called the NES AND the 7800 hardware junk. Looks like you forgot to look before leaping.

[TigerSuperman]

Why do Atari fanboys point to the Amiga and ST as example of these hypothetical mid 80s 16 game systems? Do they not release that 1. ST games were often trash and 2. The 16 bit computers sold like trash in the US? Seriously, unless you were in a niche market like the audio or tv industry, chances are you didnt own an ST or Amiga. They were pretty expensive computers that were valued around the same price as a used car. They should be used as examples on how console manufacturers were right to wait until 16 bit cpus came down in price before starting to manufacture 16 bit consoles.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This post completely ignores the point of my post. Lets avoid a fanboy war here, consoles and computer hardware, for gaming anyway, were largely neck & neck. We should have had consoles with 1st generation Amiga /ST graphics or near by in 1986. Edited October 4, 2018 by TigerSuperman

[TigerSuperman]

Ressurect is the correct word as it also means revitalize. According to the US, the home game console market was "dead as disco", even though disco could be heard on many an AM station back then I'm sure.

 

The home console division of Atari in the US pretty much crashed and burned like all the other major players. The stores were clearancing out games and consoles at rock bottom prices. Sure the 2600 sold a million units, but at what profit? If you're not getting a profit...your business/division is essentially done. The American console market was a fish slowly flopping on the beach that no retailer wanted to even touch.

 

So yes, Nintendo splashed water on that market fish and dug out a pond to let the new spring of commerce fill it. Once Nintendo, with some clever marketing by making the NES a combo of a "entertainment system" (hence the design) and "toy" (robot), opened up store shelves to video games then did we see the likes of Atari come back. Oh yessireee with the 2600 from A...Tar...Eeee.

1. The industry was already growing back so by definition you can't say they were ressurrecting it.

 

2. ColecoVision didn't crash and burn due to the crash. It was cut for other reasons.

 

3. By 1986 Atari made over $20 million in cash and every business wire or etc. Release Atari kept reporting the console division as profitable since 1985, I don't think that momentum in profit came out of thin air.

 

4. I have no issue with Nintendo coming in and filling a vacuum. My issue is people saying the industry was dead, that no one was carrying games, that no one was buying games, and it was a done deal when that's not true. This isn't about downplaying Nintendo. It's about trying to put out accurate history

[mr_me]

But it's true. After the 2600 was released in 1977, Jay Minor and his team created the Atari 8-bit as a game system. After that was completed in 1979, they began work on what became Amiga, again as a game system. Unfortunately neither came out as they should have, as game systems. Atari management was just not interested in Amiga and, like many other talented Atari engineers, Jay Minor quit. Similarly, Mattel was working on a next generation 68000 based game system and custom graphics chip. In 1984 both Atari and Mattel Electronics died and so did a large part of the north american video game industry. These were the largest game deveopment companies in the world employing hundreds of game developers.

 

The north american video game market itself didn't die. That demand was there when Nintendo and Sega stepped in, the video game industry however shifted to Japan. So the north american games industry died but the market was there for the taking. The only thing that needed fixing were retailers. I think Amiga as a games platform might be more sophisticated than nes. Nes hardware is okay and definitely a step above what was there before. The types of games coming out of japan might be a little different than what north america might have done. Plus you have Nintendo stifling developers, bullying retailers, and overcharging consumers for cartridges.

 

I'm pretty sure I wrote something like this already in this thread. So yes it's been discussed.

 

----------

Going back to Nintendo being the bad guy with litigation; that's a little unfair as everybody was suing everybody. The unfortunate thing is that justice seems to side with whoever has the most money. It wasn't always fair.

 

The night trap and video game violence stuff was just nintendo and politicians playing politics. Was it really that big a deal. I thought video game ratings was Sega's idea anyway. I thought the comment about video games being for kids was a little funny. I guess it was true in the later 1980s. But a few short years before that, as a kid I was too young to get into an arcade by myself.

[Andromeda Stardust]

More likely, those are quotes from kids on the playground.

Exactly. My friend and I used to believe in high school that the Atari was in fact 4 bits, because bits doubled every generation. In fact we assigned arbitrary bit values to everything. PONG was a 1-bit game for instance. When Game Cube came out, it was 128 bits, double that of 64. No factual basis for any of it.

[TigerSuperman]

Once Nintendo, with some clever marketing by making the NES a combo of a "entertainment system" (hence the design) and "toy" (robot), opened up store shelves to video games then did we see the likes of Atari come back. Oh yessireee with the 2600 from A...Tar...Eeee.

 

I forgot this quote, this is from the old wikipedia/gaming journalist revisionist history of the early and mid 2000's. Where people believed that the NES sold millions in 1985 and was so successful Atari released the 7800 in response.

 

Actually in 1985 as mentioned before, The NES was test marketed and sold between 50,000-90,000 units. So I doubt those are the numbers that made Atari Corp. jump in and release its console 'before' Nintendo nationwide. Especially since it's own console, the 2600, sold way more that same year.

 

Also, the 7800 was halted by the GCC agreement not because the NES was selling millions in 1985. Sega is probably the only company you could make that argument for, and you could debate whether Sega only entered the US market because Nintendo had announced plans to do so. But it also could be that Sega just wanted to try themselves, considering both launched the same month.

[empsolo]

I forgot this quote, this is from the old wikipedia/gaming journalist revisionist history of the early and mid 2000's. Where people believed that the NES sold millions in 1985 and was so successful Atari released the 7800 in response. Actually in 1985 as mentioned before, The NES was test marketed and sold between 50,000-90,000 units. So I doubt those are the numbers that made Atari Corp. jump in and release its console 'before' Nintendo nationwide.

No, but those 90,000 units sold in NYC caused retailers to take a second look at NES since the 1985 Summer CES rejection. The fact that Nintendo was able to sell out half it's inventory in only a few days/weeks in the largest market in the US, would cause mass retailers to pick up orders for the late summer national launch in 1986. A launch that would see Nintendo selling over 1 million units on strength of it's game catalog alone. Meanwhile, neither SEGA or Atari ever really managed how to market their systems to either retailers or the public. Sega famously fumbled well short of their expected 500,000 units sold to retailers by comparison.

Edited October 4, 2018 by empsolo

[TigerSuperman]

 

No, but those 90,000 units sold in NYC caused retailers to take a second look at NES since the 1985 Summer CES rejection. The fact that Nintendo was able to sell out half it's inventory in only a few days/weeks in the largest market in the US, would cause mass retailers to pick up orders for the late summer national launch in 1986. A launch that would see Nintendo selling over 1 million units on strength of it's game catalog alone. Meanwhile, neither SEGA or Atari ever really managed how to market their systems to either retailers or the public. Sega famously fumbled well short of their expected 500,000 units sold to retailers by comparison.

It was the strength of it's marketing and it's availability, plus it's game catalog, not just it's game catalog alone.

 

The 7800 and Sega Master System couldn't be found in half the retailers and Atari had only itself to blame for that. Sega on the other hand I have no idea what kind of decisions they were making. Atari would eventually get into some of the bigger retailers by the end of the year, and also it's own Atari stores, which I still believe was something they never should have done but that's another discussion.

 

But none of that has anything to do with the quote, which claims Atari entered because of Nintendo. It was GCC that delayed the 7800 and the 7800 released nationwide before the Nintendo entertainment system. A myth that only materialized back in the early 2000's because of the belief Nintendo sold millions of consoles in 1985.

[Gamemoose]

I forgot this quote, this is from the old wikipedia/gaming journalist revisionist history of the early and mid 2000's. Where people believed that the NES sold millions in 1985 and was so successful Atari released the 7800 in response.Actually in 1985 as mentioned before, The NES was test marketed and sold between 50,000-90,000 units. So I doubt those are the numbers that made Atari Corp. jump in and release its console 'before' Nintendo nationwide. Especially since it's own console, the 2600, sold way more that same year.Also, the 7800 was halted by the GCC agreement not because the NES was selling millions in 1985. Sega is probably the only company you could make that argument for, and you could debate whether Sega only entered the US market because Nintendo had announced plans to do so. But it also could be that Sega just wanted to try themselves, considering both launched the same month.

Actually, I might have read that in one if the video game history books, like "Phoenix-Fall and Rise of Video Games".

 

If consoles were still selling, as you said, then why did Atari not have the 7800 on market? True they focused on computers but c'mon, if they were selling Atari 2600's to the tune of a million units, why not sell 7800's? That would be leaving money on the counter and lost money sitting in warehouses.

 

I'll do my homework but from many a person's and market view point, the North American market was pretty much dead. No real media coverage in the positive, magazines either drying up (Joystik, Blip, etc.) or changing format to focus on computers (Electronic Games shifted to primarily computer game coverage by mid 1985). Very few if any cartridges coming out during the "crash" years. Not many stores carrying games like before (I think only K-Mart in my burg had a whopping 5 Atari 2600 carts tucked in their electronics "booth", and they were old titles). Other than arcade games and computers, it was like consoles didn't exist except maybe in toy stores and garage sales.

 

I'll take back the disco reference and change it to the Macarana craze. It was big when it came out-couldn't avoid it. It seemed everyone was doing it. After some time, you didn't hear about it. Oh sure people still danced it at wedding receptions and such but other than that, tumble weeds.

 

You really can't deny that, once Nintendo came on the scene and the NES became popular, that gamibg sprang to life. Just look at the commercials- Atari 7800 "We reinvented the video game" commercial came out AFTER the NES was out. What about the Atari XEGS? It's commercial targeted the NES and even THEY said it was, essentially, a toy compared to the computer that was the XEGS. Then, as I mentioned before, the 2600 was pushed as a budget system with their unforgettable "the fun is back" commercial. It again came out after the NES was established, for sure on or after 1986 as the commercial references "Solaris" which was released in 1986.

 

And...if what you say that the industry didn't die, why did Atari advertise that "the fun is back?". In your approach, they never left the console scene so who at Atari didn't get the memo?

[TigerSuperman]

Actually, I might have read that in one if the video game history books, like "Phoenix-Fall and Rise of Video Games".

 

If consoles were still selling, as you said, then why did Atari not have the 7800 on market?

Did you just ignore the last two quotes responding to you discussing it was disagreements with GCC that delayed the 7800?

 

the North American market was pretty much dead.

 

First don't confuse industry and market as they are not the same thing.

 

The industry was in shambles yes but several companies tried to see if they could fill the vacuum because the market was still there. Several old and new industry players saw a pile of money to grab and still put considerable investment in the industry knowing full well the crash would be temporary. The market was still booming, the demand and interest was still there. Fortunately for Nintendo, they ended up filling the void and grabbing the pile of money.

 

once Nintendo came on the scene and the NES became popular, that gamibg sprang to life. Just look at the commercials- Atari 7800 "We reinvented the video game" commercial came out AFTER the NES was out.

Yes new commercials will come out after old commercials. What does this have to do with anything?

 

What about the Atari XEGS? It's commercial targeted the NES and even THEY said it was, essentially, a toy compared to the computer that was the XEGS.

The XEGS came out in 1987 and they called Nintendo a toy because the XEGS was a computer in a console shell that was based off the XE computer. Atari had no intention of actually using the XEGS to compete with Nintendo.

 

the 2600 was pushed as a budget system with their unforgettable "the fun is back" commercial. It again came out after the NES was established,

The 2600 was being sold in 1985, where are you getting the 2600 didn't come out until after the NES which launched fully in 86? Even the 2600 Jr. came out before September 86. So established what?

 

if what you say that the industry didn't die, why did Atari advertise that "the fun is back?".

Because the commercial was for the 2600 Jr. as a way to say the 2600 was returning new and improved. Did you check the origin of the commercial your referencing?

[Gamemoose]

Did you just ignore the last two quotes responding to you discussing it was disagreements with GCC that delayed the 7800?

 

I'm going to do a little fact checking on that. Not taking your word as gospel.

 

First don't confuse industry and market as they are not the same thing.

But yet market and industry go hand in hand. No market, your industry suffers.

 

A good litmus- look at the Sears 1985 Christmas Catalog. Only Atari mention were the computers. No Coleco, no 2600, no Intellivision. The biggest retailer at the time with a honken 650+ page catalog and NOTHING for consoles. If that's not an indicator that something was up, I don't know what woukd have been.

 

The industry was in shambles yes but several companies tried to see if they could fill the vacuum because the market was still there. Several old and new industry players saw a pile of money to grab and still put considerable investment in the industry knowing full well the crash would be temporary. The market was still booming, the demand and interest was still there. Fortunately for Nintendo, they ended up filling the void and grabbing the pile of money.

 

So what were the hot titles that flew off shelves and made retailers happy for video game consoles? What stores got these carts into hands of game players? Where were those carts advertised? How did people know about them?

 

 

Yes new commercials will come out after old commercials. What does this have to do with anything?

Commercials were and are the way people found out about products. They are also a cultural snap shot on how business was pushed to the masses. Did you not pay attention to the "ad wars" between Atari, Intellivision, etc.?

 

The XEGS came out in 1987 and they called Nintendo a toy because the XEGS was a computer in a console shell that was based off the XE computer. Atari had no intention of actually using the XEGS to compete with Nintendo.

Did you ever WATCH the commercial? They compare the two side by side. If there was no intention of competition, why even mention or even compare the NES to the XEGS...which was marketed as a game console.

 

The 2600 was being sold in 1985, where are you getting the 2600 didn't come out until after the NES which launched fully in 86? Even the 2600 Jr. came out before September 86. So established what?

I didn't, you're reading what you want to read. The market push, with the "fun is back" ad campaign kicked in AFTER the NES was established. They targeted the budget minded ("And one more thing, it's got a special low price: under 50 bucks ["50 bucks?!"] Now isn't that nice?"). The NES popularity made video games a retail taboo no longer.

 

Because the commercial was for the 2600 Jr. as a way to say the 2600 was returning new and improved. Did you check the origin of the commercial your referencing?

Yes, I saw it back in the day and when I wrote about the Ad Wars in Video Game Trader magazine. If it was released during the reign on the 2600, it would never have been "back" as it would have never left. Advertising is specific in its approach, so why waste the cash to give the impression that the "fun" left?

[TigerSuperman]

I'm going to do a little fact checking on that. Not taking your word as gospel.

 

You have actually looked around the website you're currently posting in since you joined in 2006? AtariAge .com?

 

But yet market and industry go hand in hand. No market, your industry suffers.

But there was a market. That was the whole point.

 

The biggest retailer at the time with a honken 650+ page catalog and NOTHING for consoles. If that's not an indicator that something was up, I don't know what woukd have been.

 

You contradict your previous point because by saying nothing for consoles that includes the NES as well. Regardless yes, retailers were also hurt by the crash and were selective. But just because it wasn't in the book doesn't mean Sears didn't still sell those consoles as they had ads showing those consoles for sale in other media.

 

Unless you think people had to go to the black market alleys to buy 1 million 2600's or hear about the two new console entrants.

 

You seem to be confusing me saying the market wasn't dead with the crash never happened. Those aren't the same thing. Yes there was less retail presence, that doesn't mean the market was dead. People were clearly still buying video game products. If the market was dead Atari wouldn't have sold 1 million consoles in 85 and Nintendo wouldn't have sold 1 million consoles in 86. It would have taken Nintendo longer to reach higher numbers if no one was actually buying video game related products.

 

what stores got these carts into hands of game players? Where were those carts advertised? How did people know about them?

It's almost like the theory that the market was dead and you couldn't buy games was highly exaggerated or something.

 

Commercials were and are the way people found out about products. They are also a cultural snap shot on how business was pushed to the masses.

Yes and commercials did play for gaming consoles in 1985, did you think that because the industry got shaken nobody wanted to advertise anymore?

 

They compare the two side by side. If there was no intention of competition, why even mention or even compare the NES to the XEGS...which was marketed as a game console.

If the XEGS was supposed to compete they would have given it more marketing and produced a lot more units as they only had 100,000 units produced in 1987. The point of the XEGS was to increase sales of the 8-bit line of computers. Just because they used the NES in a commercial to try and take some buyers doesn't mean Atari was expecting the XEGS to actually beat the NES.

 

I didn't, you're reading what you want to read. The market push, with the "fun is back" ad campaign kicked in AFTER the NES was established.

This isn't true no matter how many times you say it. I know where you got your misinformation from as well, Wikipedia. The NES wasn't even released nationwide when the JR came out because the JR was released before September. Either way it doesn't matter, the NES didn't establish anything in 1986 other than just releasing so I don't get why you keep bringing it up. Establish what?

 

Also you did say the 2600 came out after the NES in 1986 as well. A mistake you are doubling down on as the 2600 was being sold in 1985. The 1986 release of the 2600 was the JR. and you only know that now because I brought it up. You didn't even know the commercial was related to the JR. before.

 

If it was released during the reign on the 2600, it would never have been "back" as it would have never left. Advertising is specific in its approach, so why waste the cash to give the impression that the "fun" left?

Because the 2600 was a 9 year old system in 1986? So by having a new redesign and new games "the fun is back" is a completely logical commercial that's simple to understand. You seem to be searching for straws in New York and not finding any.

Edited October 4, 2018 by TigerSuperman

[Gamemoose]

Oi...now I see why you're getting lambasted. I don't have the time or energy to put up with you. You make the history sound a bit Orweillian in nature and you're out bring "truthiness" to the brain washed heathens.

[TigerSuperman]

To be clear I don't agree with the title "Nintendo ruined video games" but I do dispute that the NES resurrected gaming and that the gaming market was dead in 85. I also maintain that the NES led to consoles falling far behind other gaming systems which has also been mentioned in this thread several times. I also blame Atari and Sega for this as well for different reasons. I think the average gamer lacking accurate information about the video game crash aids in their confusion.

[JBerel]

The real question is when did Nintendo come out with their first "not pitfall" game, Jungles of Natheria???

[jaybird3rd]

You seem to be searching for straws in New York and not finding any.

... and you seem to be searching for a reason to start arguments with people. Again. I really wish you'd look somewhere else, far away from AtariAge. In the meantime, you're now blocked from this thread.

 

(And once again, we're all still well aware that it's you.)

[Gamemoose]

... and you seem to be searching for a reason to start arguments with people. Again. I really wish you'd look somewhere else, far away from AtariAge. In the meantime, you're now blocked from this thread.

 

(And once again, we're all still well aware that it's you.)

Wow...I read through your link and the link to your reply to the other incarnation. A lotta push from them but no bending to see the other point of view.

 

I like a good debate but when every bit o' info is disputed, like with me, my sign up history here and the 7800...like I read EVERYTHING. 7800 isn't of interest to me. It'd be like asking what brands of adult diapers there are at the local store. "What, you don't know? You've been shopping there since 2006....". It's no longer fun. I knew I coukd find and lay out articles, interviews, etc. to prove otherwise but still.

 

Crash-denier