The fail of NES hardware/gaming video from UK outlook

[empsolo]

Edit:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Micro

In the UK they had the "BBC computer literacy project" that included a TV show teaching everyone about computers in 1982. There were only a couple of channels on TV so everyone thought they needed a computer.

 

Don't forget that Jack Tremiel, when he was head of Commodore, tried shoving down the throats of the American public during the Texas Instruments Price War that the American public needed a computer at home. Turns out at the time, in a major fit of buyers remorse, that no we kind didn't need a home computer. Especially when the computers that Jack was selling to the American public were incompatible with what was being used in the office and what was being used in schools.

 

So when Commodore comes out with the Amiga in 85, all the American public can say was no, we don't need the Amiga.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Downland1983]

Guru Larry is another one of my favorite Youtubers.

 

"Hello, you!"

 

 

Totally agree. I love me some "Fact Hunt" and "Games That Yanks Can't Wank".

[zzip]

As I saif, there were few consoles in the UK/Europe, the market was fragmented. There was no global marketing strategy before 1980, console were sold as novelty toys. When "big players" arrived on the market, it was in 1980/1982 (Atari, Mattel). By then, computer kits were sold in various magazines, and computers kits like the ZX 80 were cheap.

In 1982, the ZX Spectrum was sold for under 100£ or 1000FF, the same prince (in France) than a Videopac, and cheaper than a VCS. And probably the Intellivision but I can't recall the Intelli prices.

In France in 1984, the government launched a "computer for all" school policy. French schools were equipped with (mostly) French-made computers, the Thomson MO5, TO7, and the PC-compatible SMT Goupil G3 and G4.

There were shows on TV to learn BASIC to kids, on public TV!

In the meantime in France, there was the launch of the "Minitel" that introduced the idea of a national network and using a computer in homes. The Minitel is a dumb terminal, so it introduced the idea that computers were quite easy to use.

Adoption rates are very hard to find, because there were several brands, it would need a country by country basis comparison. And figures of today's system are of little help.

The Oric 1 sold 200 000 units in France. It is considered a decent sale figure for the era; it sounds like an horrible failure today

Game drove sales, yes. Tho, again, there was no "universal" sales game. Games that most people remember about, at least in France, are "local" games, because arcade ports were on all machines.

 

Plus, most developers weren't tied to a platform, so a platform having "that" game was hardly a sales argument, because one day or another, you knew it would be ported to another platform.

A very famous French game (famous in France), L'aigle d'Or, started on the Oric 1, which probably boosted it's sales. But the game was very quicky ported to the Amstrad CPC, the Thomson MO5 and DOS, and the CPC version is the one that most people remember.

Some developers favored a platform (Loriciels developed mostly for the Amstrad CPC) but I do not know of an editor that was tied to one platform only (exception are Atari, of course, and Amstrad's own software division, Amsoft)

So would you say it was slow adoption?

 

I ask because the way I saw it in the US, 'Pac-man' kicked off a "Beatlemania"-style videogame craze. Games were everywhere and it seemed everyone was into games, and this caused console sales through the roof. But of course all fads end, and many into the craze weren't really gamers at heart and just moved onto the next fad. Between them moving on and others upgrading to a computer, console sales just collapsed. Did Europe have a similar craze, or was it more organic (and sustainable) growth?

[juansolo]

I distinctly remember that though only a few kids previously had VCS's, EVERYONE had a computer by the time the Spectrum, C64 and BBC hit the scene. I had friends without the slightest interest in technology with them because it was seen as the future, and wanting your kids to not be disadvantaged in the future, lots of parents bought them. Plus it was relatively affordable, which greatly helped. It wasn't overnight, but it was pretty quick when the BBC came on the scene. Before the BBC, at school we had a room with about 6 Commodore PETs in. That was it. When the BBC micro came out, we had rooms full of them and there were programmes on TV about them. There was a definite push in the UK to get kids into computers, and it worked. For a while, all that investment paid off as it created a generation of computer nerds (of which I am proudly one).

 

We, of course, played games on them.

Edited May 1, 2017 by juansolo

[Downland1983]

So would you say it was slow adoption?

 

I ask because the way I saw it in the US, 'Pac-man' kicked off a "Beatlemania"-style videogame craze. Games were everywhere and it seemed everyone was into games, and this caused console sales through the roof. But of course all fads end, and many into the craze weren't really gamers at heart and just moved onto the next fad. Between them moving on and others upgrading to a computer, console sales just collapsed. Did Europe have a similar craze, or was it more organic (and sustainable) growth?

 

I don't think saying that Pac-mania wearing off caused the video game crash in North America is very accurate.

[zzip]

I don't think saying that Pac-mania wearing off caused the video game crash in North America is very accurate.

Why wouldn't it? I distinctly recall how popular games were for a couple of years-- it's all we talked about, and then one year they became distinctly uncool, with many of the people who used to play them no longer interested.. How could that not be reflected in the sales? Arcades started closing soon after. All the videogame magazines folded, etc.

 

All this because E.T. existed? really? Or a glut of bad 2600 games caused people who had intellivision and colecovision games to stop buying games too, and stop going to arcades? Those explanations just don't completely make sense.

 

Pokémon Go was all the rage last summer, and almost nobody talks about it now, daily users have dropped by more than half. Do you think Pokémon Go revenue has increased or decreased? So if something is a fad.. demand can and will dry up.

[Downland1983]

Why wouldn't it? I distinctly recall how popular games were for a couple of years-- it's all we talked about, and then one year they became distinctly uncool, with many of the people who used to play them no longer interested.. How could that not be reflected in the sales? Arcades started closing soon after. All the videogame magazines folded, etc.

 

All this because E.T. existed? really? Or a glut of bad 2600 games caused people who had intellivision and colecovision games to stop buying games too, and stop going to arcades? Those explanations just don't completely make sense.

 

Pokémon Go was all the rage last summer, and almost nobody talks about it now, daily users have dropped by more than half. Do you think Pokémon Go revenue has increased or decreased? So if something is a fad.. demand can and will dry up.

 

Pokémon Go may have dropped off in activity, but it's not like it's taking mobile down with it. Yes, I still had a Coleco Vision in 1985, and yes I was still clamoring for new games. But, during the video game crash there were no new games to be had. On the software-side, there were no new games to be bought no matter how many times my father took me to Toys R Us to check. My brother and I had to get our gaming fix on our dad's TRS-80 Color Computer 2 from 1985 until we got an NES. Not because we wanted to, but because we had (not that I don't have extremely fond memories of Downland, Dungeon's of Daggorath, etc). I don't ever remember video games being uncool. Arcades may not have been explosively popular in the mid to late 80's, but they were still popular even into the early 90's. At least where I am.

Shovelware had a huge impact on bringing the early 80's console market to a halt. Retailers at the time didn't know any better in the early 80's when order software titles for their shelves and when huge piles of started filling the bargain bins, they stopped ordering which helped crash the whole system much like how rampant speculation can drive a stock market crash.

If console gaming were just a fad fueled by Pac-Mania, it wouldn't have come back as strong as it did with the NES and remain strong ever since.

[zzip]

Pokémon Go may have dropped off in activity, but it's not like it's taking mobile down with it.

That's because the mobile market wasn't built on the back of the success of Pokémon Go. If Pokémon Go had released in like 2010, and people rushed out to buy smartphones to play it, and other developers rushed in to make "me too" games to piggyback on its success. There would be a similar crash in hardware and software sales when people got bored with Pokémon Go.

 

Yes, I still had a Coleco Vision in 1985, and yes I was still clamoring for new games. But, during the video game crash there were no new games to be had. On the software-side, there were no new games to be bought no matter how many times my father took me to Toys R Us to check. My brother and I had to get our gaming fix on our dad's TRS-80 Color Computer 2 from 1985 until we got an NES. Not because we wanted to, but because we had (not that I don't have extremely fond memories of Downland, Dungeon's of Daggorath, etc).

Colecovision was discontinued in 85, even for other systems 1985 was kind of a rough year. Wikipedia says game sales fell from $3 Billion in 82 to $100 million in 1985. That's an incredible drop. Clearly people had lost interest.

 

I don't ever remember video games being uncool. Arcades may not have been explosively popular in the mid to late 80's, but they were still popular even into the early 90's. At least where I am.

Where I was, games became very uncool until the NES. Those of us into gaming found each other in high school, but none of us was very public about our interest, whereas a few years before all everyone talked about was videogames. Arcades opened in nearby strip malls and were full of kids, but then two years later they all shut down. The only ones that survived were in the major malls and beaches.

 

Shovelware had a huge impact on bringing the early 80's console market to a halt. Retailers at the time didn't know any better in the early 80's when order software titles for their shelves and when huge piles of started filling the bargain bins, they stopped ordering which helped crash the whole system much like how rampant speculation can drive a stock market crash.

Shovelware was mostly limited to 2600. Yes retailers over-ordered. Yes bargain bins were full of games. However that should not have killed demand so completely. Think about it, in 83 you're a kid looking forward to big titles being ported like Centipede, MS. Pacman, Pole Position, Crystal Castles. You walk into a store and find "Sneak and Peek" or something in the bargain bin for $4.99, you buy it.. is your reaction going to be "OMG, this sucks so bad that I don't even want to play Centipede, Dig Dug, Pole Position, etc anymore, I'm out!" I can't see that happening very much, but that's what the official telling of the crash would have us believe (well substitute ET for sneak and peek, but still -- doesn't make sense) Yes cheap games could hurt full priced titles short term, but demand should have recovered for those big name games, but it didn't. Most of the bargain bin crap for for 2600, why did the gamers on other systems stop buying games too? Why did they stop going to arcades as much?

 

If console gaming were just a fad fueled by Pac-Mania, it wouldn't have come back as strong as it did with the NES and remain strong ever since.

That's because not everyone lost interest, and there were a new generation of kids that were too young for the last wave of games. NES grew at a more sustainable rate. It wasn't the flash, overnight sensation/fashion statement that marked the early 80s wave- that left as quickly as it came.

Edited May 1, 2017 by zzip

[mr_me]

By 1985 people lost interest because there was nothing to buy. Supply problems started in 1983. Retailers stopped taking new games. Imagic for example had a hard time getting new games into the retail channel. This was very noticeable in 1983. I waited for the new games announced for 1983. I found some but it wasnt easy. Demand didn't disappear but the supply sure did. Some say demand actually increased in 1983.

 

Arcades disappeared for different reasons. The small arcades just couldnt be profitable at 25c a play. Their costs are going up with inflation but increasing price per play wasnt workable. Thats why manufacturers switched to multiplayer games for more revenue.

[Downland1983]

That's because the mobile market wasn't built on the back of the success of Pokémon Go. If Pokémon Go had released in like 2010, and people rushed out to buy smartphones to play it, and other developers rushed in to make "me too" games to piggyback on its success. There would be a similar crash in hardware and software sales when people got bored with Pokémon Go.

 

 

Colecovision was discontinued in 85, even for other systems 1985 was kind of a rough year. Wikipedia says game sales fell from $3 Billion in 82 to $100 million in 1985. That's an incredible drop. Clearly people had lost interest.

 

 

Where I was, games became very uncool until the NES. Those of us into gaming found each other in high school, but none of us was very public about our interest, whereas a few years before all everyone talked about was videogames. Arcades opened in nearby strip malls and were full of kids, but then two years later they all shut down. The only ones that survived were in the major malls and beaches.

 

 

Shovelware was mostly limited to 2600. Yes retailers over-ordered. Yes bargain bins were full of games. However that should not have killed demand so completely. Think about it, in 83 you're a kid looking forward to big titles being ported like Centipede, MS. Pacman, Pole Position, Crystal Castles. You walk into a store and find "Sneak and Peek" or something in the bargain bin for $4.99, you buy it.. is your reaction going to be "OMG, this sucks so bad that I don't even want to play Centipede, Dig Dug, Pole Position, etc anymore, I'm out!" I can't see that happening very much, but that's what the official telling of the crash would have us believe (well substitute ET for sneak and peek, but still -- doesn't make sense) Yes cheap games could hurt full priced titles short term, but demand should have recovered for those big name games, but it didn't. Most of the bargain bin crap for for 2600, why did the gamers on other systems stop buying games too? Why did they stop going to arcades as much?

 

 

That's because not everyone lost interest, and there were a new generation of kids that were too young for the last wave of games. NES grew at a more sustainable rate. It wasn't the flash, overnight sensation/fashion statement that marked the early 80s wave- that left as quickly as it came.

"Those awful games flooded the market at huge discounts, and ruined the video game business" - David Crane (Co-Founder of Activision) http://www.arcadeattack.co.uk/david-crane/

 

The entire reason that Nintendo had to bring the Famicom over to the US as "The Nintendo Entertainment System" and bundle it with R.O.B. was because the U.S. retailers didn't want to place orders for another video game console. They had to market it as a toy. That wasn't to assuage the consumers who were ready for more video games. It was to assuage the fears of the retailers who had been burned just a couple of years prior by over saturation of bad games. This also led Nintendo to come up with the measures they used in the late 80's to limit the freedom of 3rd Parties that so many consider draconian now, but in reality brought stability back to the video game market at a time that desperately needed it.

 

By 1985 people lost interest because there was nothing to buy. Supply problems started in 1983. Retailers stopped taking new games. Imagic for example had a hard time getting new games into the retail channel. This was very noticeable in 1983. I waited for the new games announced for 1983. I found some but it wasnt easy. Demand didn't disappear but the supply sure did. Some say demand actually increased in 1983.

 

Arcades disappeared for different reasons. The small arcades just couldnt be profitable at 25c a play. Their costs are going up with inflation but increasing price per play wasnt workable. Thats why manufacturers switched to multiplayer games for more revenue.

 

That is the exact point I'm trying to get across to zzip.

[zzip]

The entire reason that Nintendo had to bring the Famicom over to the US as "The Nintendo Entertainment System" and bundle it with R.O.B. was because the U.S. retailers didn't want to place orders for another video game console. They had to market it as a toy. That wasn't to assuage the consumers who were ready for more video games. It was to assuage the fears of the retailers who had been burned just a couple of years prior by over saturation of bad games. This also led Nintendo to come up with the measures they used in the late 80's to limit the freedom of 3rd Parties that so many consider draconian now, but in reality brought stability back to the video game market at a time that desperately needed it.

Closeouts were nothing new to retail at the time. Bookstores weren't destroyed because they had a bargain books sections. Music stores weren't destroyed by bargain bins. Consumers are discerning enough to know that the marked-down game they never heard of might not be good.

 

If you go by the official version, consumers bought multiple bargain bin games for the same money that they used to buy a single game. Ok- if that's true, then how did videogame sales drop from $3 billion to $100 million during the crash? If you spent $30 on 6 games instead of 1, you still spent $30. If everyone only spent half that.. it still goes to 1.5 billion, To get to $100 million people would have to spend only 3% as much on games. How is that not demand drying up?

 

That is the exact point I'm trying to get across to zzip.

I've heard it all before. But I find the most common explanations just don't stand up to scrutiny. Everyone treats it as simply a supply problem. I say it was more a demand-side problem. Videogame interest was at unsustainable frenzy level in 81-82, and when the frenzy died off, many people simply moved onto the next fad- break dancing or whatever. If it was simply oversupply, retailers would have learned to deal with it like the music and book business do.

 

Yes you were still interested in buying games, as was I and most people on this site. But the girl across the street who loved Frogger and Ms Pacman- she was now into Madonna, Cyndi Lauper and Culture Club and didn't care about games anymore-- there were more people like her who stopped spending money on games than there were true gamers whose passion never died.

 

Today we call those people 'casuals'. Their interest in playing games comes and goes. Problem was back then their interest all started at roughly the same time (Pacman fever) and all ended at roughly the same time. You saw the phenomenon again with the Wii. Millions of casual gamers bought it for the novelty. Most lost interest after a couple years and when the successor came out, it only sold a small fraction of what the Wii did.

[Downland1983]

Closeouts were nothing new to retail at the time. Bookstores weren't destroyed because they had a bargain books sections. Music stores weren't destroyed by bargain bins. Consumers are discerning enough to know that the marked-down game they never heard of might not be good.

 

If you go by the official version, consumers bought multiple bargain bin games for the same money that they used to buy a single game. Ok- if that's true, then how did videogame sales drop from $3 billion to $100 million during the crash? If you spent $30 on 6 games instead of 1, you still spent $30. If everyone only spent half that.. it still goes to 1.5 billion, To get to $100 million people would have to spend only 3% as much on games. How is that not demand drying up?

 

 

I've heard it all before. But I find the most common explanations just don't stand up to scrutiny. Everyone treats it as simply a supply problem. I say it was more a demand-side problem. Videogame interest was at unsustainable frenzy level in 81-82, and when the frenzy died off, many people simply moved onto the next fad- break dancing or whatever. If it was simply oversupply, retailers would have learned to deal with it like the music and book business do.

 

Yes you were still interested in buying games, as was I and most people on this site. But the girl across the street who loved Frogger and Ms Pacman- she was now into Madonna, Cyndi Lauper and Culture Club and didn't care about games anymore-- there were more people like her who stopped spending money on games than there were true gamers whose passion never died.

 

Today we call those people 'casuals'. Their interest in playing games comes and goes. Problem was back then their interest all started at roughly the same time (Pacman fever) and all ended at roughly the same time. You saw the phenomenon again with the Wii. Millions of casual gamers bought it for the novelty. Most lost interest after a couple years and when the successor came out, it only sold a small fraction of what the Wii did.

 

Because the video game industry was new to retail, it was the retailers themselves who didn't know how to order for it. They weren't able to discern the next Asteroids or Pitfall! from shovelware crap. And it wasn't that instead of buying a $40 game, parents were spending $40 buying their kids 8 bargain bin games at $5 a piece. They were spending $5 on one bargain bin game and calling it a day content with having saved $35 in the process. The spend was not the same the way you imply it was. Also, no matter how many bargain bin games sold, by the very nature of their markdowns, they represented lost revenue for the industry in and of themselves. Because the bargain bins were so clogged with shovelware, the retailers didn't want to deal with it anymore, so they curtailed their orders all together.

 

It's funny that you mention the Wii, because like the Atari 2600, the Wii suffered from a glut of shovelware produced by 3rd parties looking to make a quick cheap cash grab off a huge userbase. It's successor suffered from an identity crisis and poor marketing. Because the casual consumer didn't have their ear to the ground and know that the Wii U was an entirely new system, they figured it was a prohibitively expensive add-on to the Wii, which they already had, and so ignored it. Nintendo learned a great deal from this. They gave the Switch a name that divorced itself from the Wii & Wii U, paid for a Super Bowl commercial viewed by 111.19 million people (the first time Nintendo has ever aired a commercial during the Super Bowl in the company's history) and have continued to air ads on tv (and even in movie theaters) on a regular basis. As a result, the Switch has been sold out on a regular basis prompting Nintendo to increase their current manufacture order to 16 million units, which is more units than the Wii U was able to sell from 2012 up to now. But, I digress.

 

If it was the consumer who soured on video games in the mid-80's and not the retailers, there wouldn't have been a market for the NES to explode into, and there wouldn't have been a need for Nintendo to alter the identity of the Famicom into something else just to get it into the stores. The demand was there.

[mr_me]

Yes, retailers are to blame but the manufacturers have some responsiblity. Warner, Mattel, Coleco made terrible mistakes. Warner not replacing the 2600 sooner was primarily responsible for the shovelware. Mattel and Coleco wasted millions on hardware products that went nowhere. Colecovisions and Intellivisions sold well in 1983. Mattel increased their installed base by 33% that year but they decided to exit the market. No doubt there was demand until it all disappeared.

[zzip]

It's funny that you mention the Wii, because like the Atari 2600, the Wii suffered from a glut of shovelware produced by 3rd parties looking to make a quick cheap cash grab off a huge userbase. It's successor suffered from an identity crisis and poor marketing. Because the casual consumer didn't have their ear to the ground and know that the Wii U was an entirely new system, they figured it was a prohibitively expensive add-on to the Wii, which they already had, and so ignored it.

The Wii had a worse shovelware problem than the 2600 ever did. Bins and bins full of that crap. Did cause retailers to exit gaming because demand was still there for full-priced titles.

 

But the problems with the Wii U were more than name. If all those Wii buyers still cared about the Wii they would have figured it out, it isn't hard. But largely they didn't because they moved on to Facebook gaming and mobile gaming. Nothing much Nintendo could do to change this at the time.

 

Nintendo learned a great deal from this. They gave the Switch a name that divorced itself from the Wii & Wii U, paid for a Super Bowl commercial viewed by 111.19 million people (the first time Nintendo has ever aired a commercial during the Super Bowl in the company's history) and have continued to air ads on tv (and even in movie theaters) on a regular basis. As a result, the Switch has been sold out on a regular basis prompting Nintendo to increase their current manufacture order to 16 million units, which is more units than the Wii U was able to sell from 2012 up to now. But, I digress.

And the Switch will ultimately suffer the same fate as the Wii, mark my words. They have consumer interest now, but in 2-3 years time a large portion of the Switch base will have moved on to something else. Nintendo is chasing the casuals still, not the dedicated gamers, who are largely aligned with Xbox, PlayStation and PC. They are buying it because the novelty of mobile gaming is wearing off, and they are looking for the next cool thing.

 

If it was the consumer who soured on video games in the mid-80's and not the retailers, there wouldn't have been a market for the NES to explode into, and there wouldn't have been a need for Nintendo to alter the identity of the Famicom into something else just to get it into the stores. The demand was there.

If you see the pattern in casuals, they go in and out of things. Into games, out of games. Into Wii, out of Wii, into Mafia Wars, out of Mafia Wars, into Farmville, out of Farmville, into Pokémon Go, out... etc, etc. 84-86 or so represented the "out phase" of the 80s game wave. At the same time, the dedicated gamers abandoned consoles for 8-bit computers. Only when the 16-bit computers came and were way too expensive to be game machines was there demand for consoles again. In the meantime the number of dedicated gamers grew over time, so they could now sustain a console ecosystem based around a hobby, not a fad.

[Downland1983]

The Wii had a worse shovelware problem than the 2600 ever did. Bins and bins full of that crap. Did cause retailers to exit gaming because demand was still there for full-priced titles.

 

But the problems with the Wii U were more than name. If all those Wii buyers still cared about the Wii they would have figured it out, it isn't hard. But largely they didn't because they moved on to Facebook gaming and mobile gaming. Nothing much Nintendo could do to change this at the time.

 

 

And the Switch will ultimately suffer the same fate as the Wii, mark my words. They have consumer interest now, but in 2-3 years time a large portion of the Switch base will have moved on to something else. Nintendo is chasing the casuals still, not the dedicated gamers, who are largely aligned with Xbox, PlayStation and PC. They are buying it because the novelty of mobile gaming is wearing off, and they are looking for the next cool thing.

 

 

If you see the pattern in casuals, they go in and out of things. Into games, out of games. Into Wii, out of Wii, into Mafia Wars, out of Mafia Wars, into Farmville, out of Farmville, into Pokémon Go, out... etc, etc. 84-86 or so represented the "out phase" of the 80s game wave. At the same time, the dedicated gamers abandoned consoles for 8-bit computers. Only when the 16-bit computers came and were way too expensive to be game machines was there demand for consoles again. In the meantime the number of dedicated gamers grew over time, so they could now sustain a console ecosystem based around a hobby, not a fad.

 

It's good that you bring up the console gamers going to 8 bit computers during the crash, because the home computer price war of the early 80's was another strong contributor to the crash itself. When home computers which had more applications than just video games came down to a sub-$200 price point, they became more appealing of a purchase than a $200 console that only had 1 application.

[Bill Loguidice]

 

It's good that you bring up the console gamers going to 8 bit computers during the crash, because the home computer price war of the early 80's was another strong contributor to the crash itself. When home computers which had more applications than just video games came down to a sub-$200 price point, they became more appealing of a purchase than a $200 console that only had 1 application.

 

I consider that myth more than fact. The arcade and home computer industries suffered their own significant losses and contractions during the Crash (1983 - 1985). To me, the biggest factors in the Crash were simply too much product too fast, too low of a barrier to entry with too few companies with the financial resources necessary to survive weak or declining sales periods, and an overall immature industry. Obviously, all of those factors were slowly corrected post 1985, with, as the decade wore on, a decreasing amount of product choice, but also an increasing amount of overall stability to go along with a recovering and then (healthy) expanding market.

[zzip]

It's good that you bring up the console gamers going to 8 bit computers during the crash, because the home computer price war of the early 80's was another strong contributor to the crash itself. When home computers which had more applications than just video games came down to a sub-$200 price point, they became more appealing of a purchase than a $200 console that only had 1 application.

yup when you can get a 5200 or a 600XL for the similar prices and both play the same games, why buy the 5200?

 

Not only that, every console of that era showed off or released keyboard/computer add on peripherals. So even the console manufacturers believed it was the future of gaming. Even the NES/famicom had Keyboard and floppy disk peripherals.

[Bill Loguidice]

yup when you can get a 5200 or a 600XL for the similar prices and both play the same games, why buy the 5200?

 

Not only that, every console of that era showed off or released keyboard/computer add on peripherals. So even the console manufacturers believed it was the future of gaming. Even the NES/famicom had Keyboard and floppy disk peripherals.

 

You buy a 5200 because a computer is not a console. As the rise of the NES proved decisively and the healthy modern console market still embodies, there's not necessarily an equivalency to the experiences in the eyes of consumers. Sure, computer add-ons for videogame consoles were tried shortly after the first consoles were released in the late 70s, but sales never really materialized for these hybrid creations. It never really worked in the reverse either, when computers were turned into simplified consoles, like with the Amstrad GX4000 or C64GS.

 

It was still early days for the home videogame and personal computer markets, so of course lots of different things were tried in the hopes that something would work.

[zzip]

You buy a 5200 because a computer is not a console. As the rise of the NES proved decisively and the healthy modern console market still embodies, there's not necessarily an equivalency to the experiences in the eyes of consumers. Sure, computer add-ons for videogame consoles were tried shortly after the first consoles were released in the late 70s, but sales never really materialized for these hybrid creations. It never really worked in the reverse either, when computers were turned into simplified consoles, like with the Amstrad GX4000 or C64GS.

 

It was still early days for the home videogame and personal computer markets, so of course lots of different things were tried in the hopes that something would work.

Come on now, we all know the 5200 was just an 8-bit without the keyboard and a different cart slot. The 5200 was a monster-sized console with a bizarre RF connector and terrible controllers. The compact 600/800XL was better in every way. People largely rejected the 5200 and colecovision and both were discontinued relatively shortly thereafter. They embraced the C64 in large numbers. The main reason people went back to consoles was the cost of 16-bit computers. If Amiga technology was packaged in a C64 form factor for $300 or less, do you really think the NES would have gotten so popular? But computers were never really sold in that kind of low-cost form factor again (unless you count things like Raspberry Pi, but that's weak hardware compared to today's gaming consoles)

[mr_me]

Colecovision was popular. It had a short life but according to this article sold six million units in two years, outselling the c64. https://www.lifewire.com/history-of-colecovision-729731 [Had Coleco not selfdestructed trying to make a computer things might have been different. Similarly had Mattel continued making software instead of closing up shop things might have been different.]

 

Consoles are computers without keyboards. But parents werent going to buy a computer for their eight year old. At $90 the NES was just right. In the mid 1980s everyone was thinking computers not videogames, everyone except a couple of Japanese companies. The computer business was not a bad idea; Microsoft and Intel did alright.

Edited May 2, 2017 by mr_me

[Downland1983]

Come on now, we all know the 5200 was just an 8-bit without the keyboard and a different cart slot. The 5200 was a monster-sized console with a bizarre RF connector and terrible controllers. The compact 600/800XL was better in every way. People largely rejected the 5200 and colecovision and both were discontinued relatively shortly thereafter. They embraced the C64 in large numbers. The main reason people went back to consoles was the cost of 16-bit computers. If Amiga technology was packaged in a C64 form factor for $300 or less, do you really think the NES would have gotten so popular? But computers were never really sold in that kind of low-cost form factor again (unless you count things like Raspberry Pi, but that's weak hardware compared to today's gaming consoles)

Okay, now you are taking it a bit far. Colecovision was not "largely rejected". The Colecovision was hugely successful for Coleco. Unfortunately, Coleco decided to put all of it's eggs in the Adam Family Computer basket next. When faulty batches went out at launch, an irreversible bad impression was left which the Adam never had a chance to come back from. Like the saying goes, you only get 1 chance to make a 1st impression.

 

From New York Times, January 3, 1985:

With Colecovision, the company already had a reputation as a winner in consumer electronics. ''We move with blinding speed,'' Mr. Greenberg boasted in the headier days of 1983, when the company was at its zenith. ''And we never try to be the lowest-cost producer.''

It was that strategy, the analysts were saying then, that could turn the Adam into Coleco's brilliant second act. And the early reviews of the machine fueled the optimism. The Adam's attractiveness lay in its packaging: It combined disparate parts - a computer, a printer, a keyboard, and software - in a ''bundled system'' that sold for about $700.

By fall, however, the company was running into snags. The first shipments were delayed. Then systems were rushed out the factory door in Amsterdam, N.Y., in time for Christmas, only to be returned by angry consumers who complained of a variety of quality-control problems.

'A Bad Reputation'

''The bottom line was that they missed Christmas, and the quality problems gave Adam a bad reputation,'' said Jan Lewis, a senior analyst at Infocorp, a Cupertino, Calif., market research firm.

The stock market reacted sharply. While Coleco shares sold for just below $60 a share when the Adam was first introduced, the combination of the production problems and rampant price cutting sent the stock below $20 by that December.

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/01/03/business/coleco-gives-up-on-the-adam.html

 

It was the losses on the Adam that caused Coleco to exit electronics all together and focus on their line of Cabbage Patch Dolls. But, the ColecoVision itself was never viewed as a failure, either then or now.

[Bill Loguidice]

Yes. In fact, even the 5200 did well in the short time it was on the market. It was the aforementioned general mismanagement and relative chaos that really doomed the videogame industry for a few years there, which certainly was not surprising for a relatively new industry. And again, the personal computing industry was dramatically affected as well. There's really no mystery or debate as to why the industry went boom and bust, and why the idea that people were turning to computers instead has been proven false.

 

And just to address the comment from zzip: "If Amiga technology was packaged in a C64 form factor for $300 or less, do you really think the NES would have gotten so popular?" Yes, the NES still would have been wildly popular if it was released in exactly the same way it was with the same generation-defining games. It's almost never the best or more versatile technology that wins out. It's the technology that has broad appeal for its time. Save for the C-64, computers never sold in the same numbers as consoles did, which were usually lower cost, purpose-built devices with a low barrier to entry and no need to justify their existences other than to just "play games."

[high voltage]

Consoles could be computers with keyboards

 

[zzip]

Consoles could be computers with keyboards

 

I'm not sure how much the Odyssey 2 qualifies as a computer, but it was in the "keyboard war" before there was a keyboard war

[Bill Loguidice]

Of course consoles could be computers, and there are plenty of examples going back to the Bally Astrocade and right up to the PS3's ability to officially run Linux (since disabled). The point is, complexity is generally abstracted on a console, whereas it tends to be embraced with a computer, plus there's the whole optimized-for-a-TV and couch experience thing. That's why each always has and likely will continue to have its own place in the home for the foreseeable future for many people. That's also why it was a false, though superficially appealing, premise, when the idea of computers replacing consoles was first proffered by some magazines of the day at the height of the Crash.