maxdrive Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) If Atari would have made a diffrent version of a game like pac man. Like if they would have taken the time to make it like how pac man 4K came out. Do you think it would have had any impact on the 1983 game crash for Atari. Would it have sold more Atari systems, and do you think they would have released the 7800 when they were originally going to. Do you think Atari would have survived the crash better, or would a few more good games not help them Edited March 21, 2016 by maxdrive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high voltage Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) Pac-Man was a million seller. Crash of 1984 would've come anyway, the VCS (1977) had run its course, 3rd Gen consoles like Coleco and Vectrex didn't really take off, computers started to take over as the relevant gaming format. But think about it this way, Coleco, Vectrex, and others died after the 84 crash, Atari survived. The VCS ran until 1992, which is the longest lasting console in history. And in had excellent releases under Tramiel. In USA the JR was the second best selling console in late the 80s. . Edited March 21, 2016 by high voltage 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutchman2000 Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 I think a better pac man game for the 2600 would have done a lot more for Atari. An 8k version like DINTARI's would have sold systems like crazy and kept Atari in good standing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertJets Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Honestly I don't think it would have made a difference. The market was still flooded with too much product, quality or not. Part of me feels that if Atari really pushed themselves to make sure its releases were top notch and as close to perfect as possible it would have set the bar higher in regards to what the consumer could expect. That somehow the $40, or whatever it cost back then, Atari title was really worth it vs the ones in the $5 bin. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+xucaen Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 No single game caused the crash of 83. The market was flooded with 3rd party game maker wannabes releasing poor quality games. Combined with dozens of consoles and home computers, the market couldn't be sustained. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BassGuitari Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 If Atari would have made a diffrent version of a game like pac man. Like if they would have taken the time to make it like how pac man 4K came out. Do you think it would have had any impact on the 1983 game crash for Atari. I feel like the question is being posed from the position that Pac-Man was largely and substantially responsible for the Crash. It wasn't. So to answer the question: No. Pac-Man had no control over the oversaturation the console industry was facing or the rise of [vastly more useful] personal computers. Although Pac-Man became the poster child for the glut of substandard product that was being churned out--mostly by fly-by-night third parties--it was not the cause of it, nor did it represent the sum of it. Would it have sold more Atari systems Doubtful. Pac-Man sold phenomenally as it was, and 2600 console sales were already about as close to critical mass as they could get. People forget that the 2600 sold well even during the crash, albeit at heavily discounted prices. and do you think they would have released the 7800 when they were originally going to. No. Again, Pac-Man sold extremely well and Warner was forced to sell Atari Inc. anyway. The sale itself is what muddled and delayed the release of the 7800. (That and the fact Atari Inc. never paid GCC for the 7800 or its launch titles.) Do you think Atari would have survived the crash better, or would a few more good games not help them I think Atari Inc./Warner needed a lot more than one more good game to reverse their fortunes. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertJets Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 I feel like the question is being posed from the position that Pac-Man was largely and substantially responsible for the Crash. It wasn't. So to answer the question: I thought it was ET and his love for Reese's Pieces. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Puberty was what killed Atari for me. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxdrive Posted March 22, 2016 Author Share Posted March 22, 2016 I don't think I worded my question the best way I could have I know one or two games did not cause the crash the way I worded it was completely wrong I can totally see that. I would also like to thank bassguitari for his answers to the diffrent points of my question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BassGuitari Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I don't think I worded my question the best way I could have I know one or two games did not cause the crash the way I worded it was completely wrong I can totally see that. I would also like to thank bassguitari for his answers to the diffrent points of my question. It's okay. Even given that, I still don't think Atari would have been any better off long-term if the 2600 edition of Pac-Man was a more faithful arcade port, for the reasons I stated above. It would have come down to sales revenue, which even the version of Pac-Man we all know and love (hey, I like it ) generated a healthy amount of. If Pac-Man had bombed, this might be a different discussion. I do think that if Pac-Man was a better Pac-Man game, its high sales figures might have lasted a little longer than they did, but it still wouldn't have been enough. Atari lost something like $500 million in 1983. What we're essentially talking about is: could an improved Pac-Man game have generated $500 million? The answer is simply "no." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfriendly Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Pac-Man sold a million copies but didn't Atari go way overboard on production? Didn't they produce twice as many copies of the game vs the number of 2600's they had sold? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+KaeruYojimbo Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Pac-Man sold a million copies but didn't Atari go way overboard on production? Didn't they produce twice as many copies of the game vs the number of 2600's they had sold? Not twice as many, but more than there were 2600's out there, in the assumption that having the home version of the most popular game in the world would sell consoles. There were plenty of people at the time who didn't think Pac-Man was terrible. It was pretty widely accepted that no home port was going to match up to the arcade, although some did a better job than others. A better Pac-Man wouldn't have changed Atari's fate as it was just one in a line of poor management decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zylon Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I truly think the only difference it would have made is there'd be less speculation now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+KaeruYojimbo Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) I truly think the only difference it would have made is there'd be less speculation now. And there'd be one less thing for people to make fun of on YouTube. Edited March 22, 2016 by KaeruYojimbo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+RichG1972 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 If Atari would have made a diffrent version of a game like pac man. Like if they would have taken the time to make it like how pac man 4K came out. Do you think it would have had any impact on the 1983 game crash for Atari. Would it have sold more Atari systems, and do you think they would have released the 7800 when they were originally going to. Do you think Atari would have survived the crash better, or would a few more good games not help them If you watch the movie 'Atari: Game Over', they clearly state in that movie that the video game crash of 1983 was not the fault of Pac-Man or even E.T., it was because the market was in the words of Nolan Bushnell "too saturated", because the people at the by then Warner run Atari were trying to crank out another 10 million 2600 consoles and put them out into the open market where not only were there an ABUNDANCE of them at the time but also the other competing game systems on the market as well, not to mention a flood of games that were WORSE than what people believe Pac-Man and E.T. to be. So to state that the market crash blame lies squarely on the shoulders of Pac-Man or E.T. or even Pac-Man AND E.T. is at best erroneous. Don't rely on a bunch of scuttlebutt, get the facts, they are all there in the 'Atari: Game Over' movie, if you cannot find this movie I have it just PM me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serguei2 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Pac-Man was a million seller. Crash of 1984 would've come anyway, the VCS (1977) had run its course, 3rd Gen consoles like Coleco and Vectrex didn't really take off, computers started to take over as the relevant gaming format. But think about it this way, Coleco, Vectrex, and others died after the 84 crash, Atari survived. The VCS ran until 1992, which is the longest lasting console in history. And in had excellent releases under Tramiel. In USA the JR was the second best selling console in late the 80s. . So, is Atari 2600 more popular than Sega Master System? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro Rogue Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 The VCS ran until 1992, which is the longest lasting console in history. . No. Both the Famicom (1983 - 2003) and SMS (1985 to present - it's still actively being manufactured and sold in Brazil) are longer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulBlazer Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 Retro Rogue, on 04 Apr 2016 - 1:59 PM, said: No. Both the Famicom (1983 - 2003) and SMS (1985 to present - it's still actively being manufactured and sold in Brazil) are longer. I took the poster to mean the longest running console in the US, which I THINK is correct. I'm not sure how long the PS1 and PS2 went. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keatah Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 No single game caused the crash of 83. The market was flooded with 3rd party game maker wannabes releasing poor quality games. Combined with dozens of consoles and home computers, the market couldn't be sustained. That's right. Even I ran out of money and desire to continue building a collection at the rate the market was expanding. No way I could stay on top of everything. There's only so many versions of Zaxxon and Pac-Man one can play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Gull Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 So let me ask this question then for the sake of curiosity. Nintendo kept their game publishing narrow mandating a Seal of Approval to get games on the system. If Atari had taken the same stance in their later days would they have been able to produce better titles and keep the flood of poor game development in check? And deliberate..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Phruby Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Nintendo had a lock out chip from the very beginning. Atari did not. It would have done nothing for Atari to have a seal of Approval or a lock out chip when games still ran on older systems no problem. It would have made no difference if Pacman was better or if ET had less bugs. We still loved our crazy looking Pacman because that is what we had. I use to play ET on speed runs back in the day. It's not that hard once you get use to it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Put another way, the "Seal Of Approval" was Nintendo's way of getting a cut from the publishers regardless of how well it sells (or not). The lock out made this possible. So (for the sake of argument), if Atari implemented some kind of deal to imply "quality assurance" with the consumers...it would be on the honor system here...would that have affected anything? The answer is still no. Atari mismanaged their OWN affairs left and right. The market was on the downslide in 1981. You wanna know what was "in" with consumers at the time? Home video, digital audio, personal computers. Atari could only compete in one of those things, and they messed that up too. "I know...let's blame our userbase for our problems!". Idiots. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goochman Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 The 5200 and not advancing the computer line is what sank Atari IMHO. They sat on the 2600 cash cow way too long. The 5200 adn 1200XL rollouts were a disaster and there was no way forward for Atari on the console and computer line after that. Atari had to reset back to the 800XL and 7800 which were no real advancement while the C64 took off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+KaeruYojimbo Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 I didn't own an NES, so maybe someone who did can tell me, did a game having or not having the seal actually affect your decision to buy it? I know there were relatively few unlicensed NES games compared to the 2600, but the Tengen games are generally high quality. Did anyone genuinely pass on RBI Baseball and Gauntlet just because they didn't have the seal? Any sort of "Atari Seal of Quality" would have been pretty worthless. The third party publishers producing quality games (Activision, Imagic, Parker Bros., etc.) wouldn't have seen any need to pay Atari for approval or submit to some set of standards since there was nothing Atari could do to prevent them from making the games anyway. The ones who might have thought they would benefit from a shiny gold seal of quality were the ones making crappy games, which would have totally defeated the purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high voltage Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 So let me ask this question then for the sake of curiosity. Nintendo kept their game publishing narrow mandating a Seal of Approval to get games on the system. If Atari had taken the same stance in their later days would they have been able to produce better titles and keep the flood of poor game development in check? And deliberate..... Did this help to prevent Nintendo from rubbish games on NES, of course not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
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.