Jump to content
IGNORED

How come a lot getting into retro games skip Atari?


totallyterrificpants

Recommended Posts

I don't think you and I are disagreeing here. I think you're minimizing the degree to which bad games f$cked the market. Sure, Atari was figuring out how the market was going to work.

Bad games hurt, but bad ports of highly-anticipated games like Pac Man and to a lesser degree, Donkey Kong hurt far more than the no-name stuff.

 

But there was also a pop-culture videogame mania/bubble going on after pacman. Pac-man songs on the radio, Pac-man Not sustainable. It was going to crash no matter what. Many of the kids following this fad moved onto cabbage patch kids or break dancing next. If the main cause was simply too many bad games on the 2600, it would have just hurt the 2600. It would not have hurt Intellivision/Colecovision and the Arcades too, but it did.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of agree with Schitzophretard in a way. I mean, I disagree with him about the crash in general, as it most certainly did happen. However, he raises a good point about the natural cycle of console generations that definitely makes sense, and likely contributed more to the crash happening than crap games ever did. Frankly, no one thing caused the home console crash, but several factors definitely conspired together to cause it. What it boils down to is that it was a relatively new market. Retailers didn't know any better than to just put out every game they possibly could because it would sell, because that's what was happening at the time. Atari didn't know better than to just put out as many copies as they could make of any particular title. Consumers didn't know how to identify good games from crap games and grew weary of gambling their money. And nobody knew when it was time to say "hey, this hardware is aging, let's put a new console out and start phasing out the old one." It was pretty much a perfect storm that led to the crash happening. Was it avoidable? Possibly, but given that those making decisions at the time didn't have the benefit of hindsight, probably not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of agree with Schitzophretard in a way. I mean, I disagree with him about the crash in general, as it most certainly did happen. However, he raises a good point about the natural cycle of console generations that definitely makes sense, and likely contributed more to the crash happening than crap games ever did. Frankly, no one thing caused the home console crash, but several factors definitely conspired together to cause it. What it boils down to is that it was a relatively new market. Retailers didn't know any better than to just put out every game they possibly could because it would sell, because that's what was happening at the time. Atari didn't know better than to just put out as many copies as they could make of any particular title. Consumers didn't know how to identify good games from crap games and grew weary of gambling their money. And nobody knew when it was time to say "hey, this hardware is aging, let's put a new console out and start phasing out the old one." It was pretty much a perfect storm that led to the crash happening. Was it avoidable? Possibly, but given that those making decisions at the time didn't have the benefit of hindsight, probably not.

I'm not saying that it didn't happen. I'm saying that a misinterpretation of what was happening caused the misinterpretation to be a self-fulfilling prophecy instead of there being something wrong with the market. For an example, right now there is nothing wrong with the console market but if we were to replace our mindsets with that of those from the late 70's and early 80's then we would cause a crash. And if we were to cause a crash people of the future would be thinking there was something wrong with our consoles, games, etc. instead of us.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of agree with Schitzophretard in a way. I mean, I disagree with him about the crash in general, as it most certainly did happen. However, he raises a good point about the natural cycle of console generations that definitely makes sense, and likely contributed more to the crash happening than crap games ever did. Frankly, no one thing caused the home console crash, but several factors definitely conspired together to cause it. What it boils down to is that it was a relatively new market. Retailers didn't know any better than to just put out every game they possibly could because it would sell, because that's what was happening at the time. Atari didn't know better than to just put out as many copies as they could make of any particular title. Consumers didn't know how to identify good games from crap games and grew weary of gambling their money. And nobody knew when it was time to say "hey, this hardware is aging, let's put a new console out and start phasing out the old one." It was pretty much a perfect storm that led to the crash happening. Was it avoidable? Possibly, but given that those making decisions at the time didn't have the benefit of hindsight, probably not.

Atari produced so many cartridges because they really expected the game (ET) to sell many systems.

 

And they did know the hardware was aging, that's why the 5200 and Colecovision were released in 82, both touting "arcade perfect" graphics. Before that, Mattel was constantly running ads showing how much better INTVs graphics were over the 2600. The crash still happened in spite of that, and lead to those systems dying prematurely.

 

I think it's the social aspect that gets ignored. In 81/82, "Pac-man Fever" was like "Pokémon Go Fever" last year, everyone was playing it, now relatively few people still are. It was the same deal with videogames in 81/82. Everyone was into them after Pacman became a sensation. I remember in school, games were all we talked about.

 

Then suddenly nobody talked about them anymore, few still seemed interested. Games became seen as a nerdy thing, and nerds were not cool at all in the 80s. How could this not affect sales? Kids were surely the biggest consumers of games at the time. Consoles declined, arcades started declining soon after. The minute games became a craze, a decline was inevitable. That was the root cause. Even if the flood of bad games was controlled, even if 2600 Pac Man was good, even if the ET fiasco was avoided, there still would have been a decline. Atari may have weathered it better, but it would have happened.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of agree with Schitzophretard in a way. I mean, I disagree with him about the crash in general, as it most certainly did happen. However, he raises a good point about the natural cycle of console generations that definitely makes sense, and likely contributed more to the crash happening than crap games ever did. Frankly, no one thing caused the home console crash, but several factors definitely conspired together to cause it. What it boils down to is that it was a relatively new market. Retailers didn't know any better than to just put out every game they possibly could because it would sell, because that's what was happening at the time. Atari didn't know better than to just put out as many copies as they could make of any particular title. Consumers didn't know how to identify good games from crap games and grew weary of gambling their money. And nobody knew when it was time to say "hey, this hardware is aging, let's put a new console out and start phasing out the old one." It was pretty much a perfect storm that led to the crash happening. Was it avoidable? Possibly, but given that those making decisions at the time didn't have the benefit of hindsight, probably not.

 

When Atari was designing the VCS, their plan was to have the next console on the market 3 years later. Engineers knew the hardware would age and need to be replaced. It was the Warner execs who decided that since the 2600 was still selling to put off replacing it. But you are right in that it was a new market and no one really knew what to do. We have the video game business model we have now, which Nintendo gets a lot of credit for creating, because of what happened to Atari and Coleco and all the smaller game publishers.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often wonder why, or even IF, a "glut of bad games" could ruin an industry...

 

How many terrible versus great movies have been made? People didn't quit watching movies

How many terrible versus great books have been written? People didn't quit reading books

How many terrible versus great fast food joints have popped up in the last 60 years? People didn't quit eating fast food

How many terrible versus great" X" have been made? People don't quit "X"!

 

My personal belief (I have to call it that, don't have any facts to back it up) is that the video game "crash" was more just a GOOD dip in sales for a while... a dip that GREATLY impacted MANY companies financially cause they had a LOT of money tied up in this at the time.

I'm sure when consoles first came out, consumers thought it was like the Radio or the TV. You bought it once, and unless it actually broke, you'd be set for life.

The idea that it would be "out of date" and you need to buy a new one in five years would be consider just a "scam"... that's how they get ya!

 

Plus those original sales were truly "original" sales... they were selling systems to many people who never really played games before, then they got it, it was interesting for a week, and then it was shelved along with the golf clubs that haven't been used yet (Next sunny saturday, I SWEAR!) or with the Karate gi, or whatever. These are sold systems, and the way atari estimated sales, it seemed to have thought that EVERYONE who bought an Atari loved the hell out of it and was buying a new game every month.

The fact that they produced more carts than systems already sold with the assumption that people would buy the system just to play game means they assumed that EVERY person who had an Atari was going going to buy THAT particular game, and then there would be none left for the new Atari Customer who just bought his system. Also assuming that person was ALSO going to buy that game.

How cocky is that?

 

The industry didn't crash. Some companies invested WAY, WAY, WAAAAAY more money than they should have and bankrupted themselves... and when they went, it affected the industry as whole thereby hurting all the other companies.

Or maybe that's the definition of a "Crash"... I dunno....

Edited by Torr
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The industry didn't crash. Some companies invested WAY, WAY, WAAAAAY more money than they should have and bankrupted themselves... and when they went, it affected the industry as whole thereby hurting all the other companies.

Or maybe that's the definition of a "Crash"... I dunno....

 

Sounds like basically the definition of a crash to me, but I'm no economist so what do I know?

 

I wouldn't say it was a glut of bad games, but a glut of games period. Everyone wanted in on that sweet, sweet video game money, the market flooded, prices dropped, nobody could recoup their investment and the smaller ones went belly-up.

Edited by KaeruYojimbo
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the VCS is hurt by 1. No franchise sequels. There is no Mario for the 2600. (Yes I know there was the Mario Bros. Game haha). They relied on a lot of arcade games or arcade style. Which is both a great appeal and a drawback foe those who have no concept of what a high score is anymore (super Mario on MED had a score but why? It didn't matter).

 

2. I love Atari but damn you have to have a manual for a majority of games to know how to play. If you don't want to take the tome to look online or get lucky and fund manuals with the game you purchased, then you will look at a game and be WTH? ME A is just more accessible.

 

I would like to put my niece and nephews on an old Mario game to see how they do. Because they are use to the Mario games in which it's normal to have 60 plus lives. I really dont think they could handle the difficulty of mario 1 or even 3; but the name recognition of that game would get them more interested than any of my Atari games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sounds like basically the definition of a crash to me, but I'm no economist so what do I know?

 

I wouldn't say it was a glut of bad games, but a glut of games period. Everyone wanted in on that sweet, sweet video game money, the market flooded, prices dropped, nobody could recoup their investment and the smaller ones went belly-up.

I think a complete lack of regulation was a huge part of this. This was one of the reasons why Nintendo created their licensing plan for selling systems in the US. They may have gotten greedy, but I think Atari would have been okay if absolute garbage from third parties weren't sitting in the bargain bin for $5 while Atari was still trying to sell brand new games at $40 a pop.

 

And valid points to participants in this thread about the generational decline that happens every time a new console comes out. Atari wasn't a TV or VCR. Games would inevitably get bigger and more complex, until new hardware was required to meet developer's design goals. This cycle continues to this day. Instead, the industry viewed the inevitable decline of the Atari 2600 as the end of the video gaming "fad." It was just the beginning...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These days I'm running into people who are self-proclaimed retrograding lovers buy when I ask what retro console they play on they tell me PS2 and PS3.

 

Also I couldn't repeat myself enough that retrograding on the internet usually starts with nes being the oldest. Heck, even the TV show Game Center CX which covers retro games only go as far as the Famicom.

 

Many people I talk Atari to just tell me they don't find things that old fun, which is ridiculous cause it's not about whether the games are fun, but rather the age. There's a reason the Atari 2600 is one of the first kinds of video games i ever heard about when I have access to the internet (I'm born in the 90s) and how it pretty much won over all its other competitors like the Colecovision and Intellivision. What sickens me is how in various gaming history videos and books, all they talk about Atari is Pacman and ET, as if they were all Atari had to offer. (ET isn't even that bad)

Edited by Tangentg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are very few games on any Atari console (not including the computers) with the kind of depth seen in Super Mario Bros or Legend of Zelda.

 

I think Atari is interesting, but it doesn't have the staying power of some of the other, newer game systems. Arcade style high score chases are fun, but games with a sense of progression (some of which allow to to save your work!) are FUNNER. ;-)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally dislike games relying on progression cause you can't just sit there and play for 5 minutes and move on. You need to build on what you ready have done before and it's not as relaxing cause if you mess up, its not just a one time thing either.

It also wrecked social gaming for me. In the Atari days, when you played videogames with friends, you would play for 5-10 minutes, crash and burn, then pass the joystick to the next person.

 

When SMB came along, you could easily wrack up dozens of bonus lives and have unlimited continues. Hanging out playing games became watching one guy play on and on and one, and never pass the controller because "he's not dead yet". Boring. I always hated Nintendo for that! Although the Wii SMB lets you play 4 players at once, but now I'm not a kid anymore and finding 4 people in the house who all want to play the game almost never happens :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The industry didn't crash. Some companies invested WAY, WAY, WAAAAAY more money than they should have and bankrupted themselves... and when they went, it affected the industry as whole thereby hurting all the other companies.

Or maybe that's the definition of a "Crash"... I dunno....

Wikipedia says sales of games dropped from $3 billion in 1982 to $100 million in 1985. That's pretty drastic! I'd say it was a crash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are very few games on any Atari console (not including the computers) with the kind of depth seen in Super Mario Bros or Legend of Zelda.

 

I think Atari is interesting, but it doesn't have the staying power of some of the other, newer game systems. Arcade style high score chases are fun, but games with a sense of progression (some of which allow to to save your work!) are FUNNER. ;-)

 

The problem with progression games is eventually you progress to the end and there's no reason to play again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with progression games is eventually you progress to the end and there's no reason to play again.

A problem that is "solved" by endless treadmill MMOs, social RPGs and other software as a service.

 

I confess there are a few games like this I enjoy, despite being an oldster that prefers to keep stuff forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Like I said, no reason to play again. :)

I've played and beat SMB probably over a hundred times. I still find it fun every time I play it. 1, 2, or 3 they are all fun to play again I think regardless of whether or not you have beat them. Some of the newer games I've played over as well after I've beat them. I've replayed Tomb Raider on the PS1 before because it seems there is always new stuff to find that I've missed first go round. I've done the same with the Tomb Raider reboot on the Xbox 360. If a game is fun it is worth replaying. Also if what you say were the case then there would be no such thing as movie sales, only rentals because what point is there to own something you've already seen and should never watch again(which I actually don't watch movies again very much myself and have a very small library of movies I'm just saying though).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...