Historical question--the video game crash of '83

[The Eidolon]

Hello all,

 

I recall reading in a couple of places the assertion that the unrestricted

nature of atari 2600 cart production contributed to the video game

crash in 1983. Presumably, the market for video games crashed

due to a glut of poor quality carts which turned people off of video

games until the reemerged under Nintendo...

 

My question: does this make sense?

 

I don't recall the 3rd party carts being particularly worse on the

average than those from Atari. I would venture that Activision

was probably better on the average in game quality than Atari.

Sure there were some stinker 3rd party carts, but Atari released

its share of poor carts too (ET anyone?) Most of the really poor

3rd party cart makers I've seen mentioned seem like they had low

production runs--I don't recall having seen most of them at the time--

so it's hard to imagine how they could have caused the crash.

Also, didn't the crash affect all systems, including computer games,

and not just the 2600?

 

To make a long story (question?) short, do you feel 3rd party publishers

on the Atari 2600 were a major contributior to the video game crash,

and if not, what other causes were there?

 

Thanks in advance for any opinions in response!

 

--The Eidolon

[Nukey Shay]

It made no difference except to the publishers themselves. The main factor was a dwindling market for consoles (since full-fledged computers were being sold at or near the same price as a game console). So what you had was millions of games that had no buyers. That wouldn't have made as big as an impact if they had all been made by the same company...but what dollars DID go back was further divided. Nintendo had to resort to shady business practices to drum up interest (keep supply low to make demand higher). The NES "seal of quality" was said to be a guarantee that the game would be good, but in reality it was a guarantee that the software dollars would be going to the same manufacturer.

[MegaManFan]

You also have to keep in mind Atari isn't solely to blame. There was a glut of video games and video game consoles, PERIOD.

[dew2050]

I think 3rd party publishers did contribute to the crash. Many only saw the success of atari. They thought anything would sell just as long as it was on a cart.

 

Also consider the consumer mentality at the time. 1980's consumers loss of interest was massive. I remember toy stores would have bins full of games at rock bottom prices, none of them selling. Somehow you knew those carts were all crap. The good ones were never to be found. It was sort of a collective reaction of loss of interest and dissapointment.

[Nukey Shay]

...meanwhile home computer games continued to sell, regardless of the publisher.

 

You know how it is. If a company has a crap game, it didn't take long for word of it to get around (even faster than positive reviews)...and the game or even the company was avoided like plague. And the home computers certianly had many more third parties than the 2600 had.

 

This "glut of bad games" argument was Nintendo propeganda more than anything else. Even excellent games just weren't selling for consoles at the time.

[Desolate One]

I thought it was the crash of '84?

[NovaXpress]

I thought it was the crash of '84?

It went to hell in the Xmas season of 83. That's when the losses started and retailers begain clearing out their inventory. By the end of 84 most retailers had dumped video games entirely.

 

...meanwhile home computer games continued to sell, regardless of the publisher.  

 

You know how it is. If a company has a crap game, it didn't take long for word of it to get around (even faster than positive reviews)...and the game or even the company was avoided like plague. And the home computers certianly had many more third parties than the 2600 had.  

 

This "glut of bad games" argument was Nintendo propeganda more than anything else. Even excellent games just weren't selling for consoles at the time.

Thatnks for mentioning this, I thought so as well. There have always been lousy games around. The retailers are the ones who killed the golden goose. They were devoting massive shelf space to every game, regardless of quality. They purchased every game in the same quantity. So while the 20 copies of Q*Bert flew off the shelves, the 20 copies of M.A.D. were all still sitting. Every product that sits on the shelf costs money to the retailer. That space is rented and must be used for a product with turnover. So during Xmas 83 there are so many games on the market that when the plusses and minues are added up: video game space is unprofitable and should be given to other toys. The proper response should have been to choose a smaller, better selection of games that would sell.

 

I know one thing for sure: in 83 and 84 people were still playing videogames, the retailers just weren't selling them.

[surfnmadness]

Too many systems, too many games, too much new technology with PC's hitting the scene.

 

Too many neato things on the market at once. Not enuf buyers. Even MTV was new then.

[Ze_ro]

I recall reading in a couple of places the assertion that the unrestricted nature of atari 2600 cart production contributed to the video game crash in 1983.

 

There's your answer, within your own quotes

 

Poor 3rd party games contributed to the crash, but they definitely weren't the only cause. Many people have already pointed out some of the other contributing factors. On it's own, the 3rd party games probably wouldn't have caused the crash though.

 

It's kind of strange how things have worked out since then though. As Nukey Shay pointed out, powerful computers were become cheap... anyone ever notice how PC's and console's seem to live in harmony these days? I guess PC's generally aren't cheap enough to be an alternative, and many people are disillusioned with the difficulties of playing games on PC's (installing, compatibility issues, system requirements). 80's computers were less variable and less complicated, so I guess this wasn't an issue at the time.

 

I also find it strange that computers were viewed as so useful back then. Most of them weren't powerful enough to be truely useful. I remember trying to use Geos on the C64, but the initial load time made everything pointless, since I could write a letter by hand before it started. Aside from learning to program, I think the only "useful" part of having a C64 was tricking your parents into buying it for you because it would help you with your homework I don't recall ever using my C64 on anything remotely related to school.

 

It's also interesting that huge amounts of poor quality 3rd party games was such a problem back then. Hell, look at all the shovelware that the PSX had! Heck, even the NES and the 16-bit systems had a lot of bad games (Pretty much anything by THQ or Acclaim). Perhaps a bad 32-bit game is still better than a bad 8-bit game... at least you can enjoy the FMV.

 

--Zero

[VidGameKing]

ditto.

[Rob Mitchell]

I caused the crash! I sold my 2600 with 20 games in 1983 for $300! Then I had no interest in spending $$$ for videogames.

 

Rob Mitchell, Atlanta, GA

[VidGameKing]

yeah I helped cause the crash too! I was born in '82 and the world was so shocked it stoped buying video games the next year!

[Nintendo Penguin]

A previous post mentioned the industry remerging with Nintendo, but do not for get the Coin-Ops!

 

Dragon's Lair had a lot to do with reviving the depressed video game industry.

[Nukey Shay]

Not really. Dragon's Lair appeared as corner arcades began to wane (sometimes due to community concern). And game players either "got it" or didn't. The idea of memorizing entire lists of moves didn't seem too appealing to me. I'd say that the "next wave" of players were more influenced by Street Fighter and the like.

 

An interesting bit of trivia can be seen in Dragon's Lair 2. The game was completed in 1984, but not actually released for seven years. That should tell you how well arcades were doing at the time

[NovaXpress]

Dragon's Lair was too expensive to support the arcades. Owners shelled out a huge sum for the machine which half the time didn't operate. Many players such as myself dropped a few bucks in Dragon's Lair for the weirdness of it and never touched it again. The game sucked. Lair did big business the first couple of months, which caused desperate arcade owners to invest in other laser disc games. The others all flopped.

 

Actually I'd say Dragon's Lair helped to accellerate the fall of arcades. It inspired huge investments which did not pay off.

[desiv]

Believe me, I more than offset you "many" players who dropped a few coins into Dragon's Lair and gave up..

 

Believe me... My friends and I single-handedly made up for you and yours..

 

:-)

 

You really think that if Dragon's Lair didn't make money, we would have had Space Ace, Dragon's Lair II, etc????

 

It made plenty money!!!!

 

Not enough to save arcades, but it did fine..

 

That said, I'd agree that the Street fighter games appeared to do better and the market started leaning that way...

 

I don't understand why, as the takeover of the fighting games was the real reason I stopped going to arcades.. Got really boring..

 

Punch, kick, grab heart.. snore....

 

Dragon's Lair is right up there on my list of all time greatest games, along with Tron, Tempest, MsPacman, Donkey Kong, etc...

 

The last fighting game I liked was Gladiator.. :-)

 

desiv

[birdie3]

I don't know if any one would agree with me here but I would say that the stock market crash of 1984 may have influenced the general North American publics' spending habits. There was a massive loss of money everywhere and less disposable income in general.

 

Too add to earlier statements, I remember Dragon's Lair and really hating the fact that it cost 50 cents to play and when you played and it was hard to make a game last any more than 30 seconds or so. I think the fact that video games were becoming too expensive (ie: $40 for a new Atari 2600 cart) may have pissed people off also. Plus, the awe of the whole video game phenominon had passed and people were looking for a new fad. Computers were becoming quite advanced and people in general were more interested in the most advanced technologies and this is why the NES became popular. It was a step up from TIA. The Olympics were pretty interesting that year. Every person in every home had an Atari. Over saturation of the market blah blah blah blah ...

[Nukey Shay]

Home computers being more advanced for less cost is being one. Other funnels for the buck were also advancing and getting more easily obtainable...like VCR's, CD players, cable television, high-definition and home theatres...and that is just the living room. That's a lot of new directions for the hard-earned dollar to go. Video game consoles had already peaked...so it was natural that they took the back seat for awhile as people began buying these new gismos.

[VidGameKing]

ahh, thats actually the best explaination I've heard yet! also a very viable and credible one!

[NovaXpress]

Home computers being more advanced for less cost is being one. Other funnels for the buck were also advancing and getting more easily obtainable...like VCR's, CD players, cable television, high-definition and home theatres...and that is just the living room. That's a lot of new directions for the hard-earned dollar to go. Video game consoles had already peaked...so it was natural that they took the back seat for awhile as people began buying these new gismos.

 

Sounds a lot like 2003 doesn't it?

[VidGameKing]

yeah I've just got my new computer built, here the specs:

 

Pentium 4 3.2Ghz with Hyper Threading

Asus P4C800 Deluxe mother board

180GB Ultra ATA 133

1.5GB DDR3500 Memory

Geforce 4 FX 5900 256MB

Creative Labs Audigy2 sound card

Sony DVD+/- RW

Mitsumi 56X CD-ROM

Zip-250

 

and the games I bought for it:

 

unreal2

Wolfenstein RTCW

Medal of Honor w/expansion

 

total price paid: $700

 

that would translate into:

about four XBOXs or PS2s or five GameCubes

 

but how long is it going to last??? much longer than any console right now.

 

the best console (tech wise) is the XBOX and it's specs dont even come close to my new PC's. and guess what I'm going to be buying soon! a G5!!! I know I'm so excited, you compare that to any game console!!! my point? new and exciting things are afoot in the home computer world, so video games get a rest, while the PC/MAC world hits warp 27.5

[The Eidolon]

Wow, thanks for all the responses!

 

One question, someone mentioned a stock marked crash in '84.

I can't remember any such thing. Wasn't the big stock market

crash in 1987?

 

Seems like the general consensus is:

1) There was a glut of consoles, carts at the time

2) The 2600 was partly a fad whos time had passed

3) New computers were making existing consoles obsolete

4) Poor third party software quality being the casue of Atari's demise

exists mostly in the minds of paranoid/controlling Nintendo executives

 

Plus a few individuals were big enough to admit personal responsibility

for the crash. Thanks for clearing that up!

 

--The Eidolon

[Gunstar]

While there may be a number of reasons for the crash of '84, I can tell you why I didn't buy the games back then, or the new consoles like the 5200 and Colecovision. I actually didn't get my 2600 until '83 and I bought games like a madman from the "bargain bins" and while there were a few choice games to be had like Pitfall2 and Tank or tank command or whatever it was called (a battlezone clone that was better; Activision game) most were crap and I was disillusioned with the inferior 2600 graphics after being turned on to Apple II games at school. I bought an Atari 8-bit computer because it was as cheap as the consoles, with better games and it's application abilities beyond the console. I quickly became a computer man and steered clear of consoles like they had the plague, until I got a 7800 in '87, which I liked, but the 8-bit was still king. I kept and used my 8-bit and no oither machine except the occasional game on the 7800 like Commando or Xenophobe which were'nt on the 8-bit until the early 90's. By then, the computer industry had gone the way of the PC, which was a piece of crap and as said before, required installation, compatiblities, etc. which totally turned me off of computers, since I was used to the load and go floppy disks similiar to the load and go carts, just took a bit longer to load, that's all. So I am now strictly a console man because of the ease of popping in a cart or game disc and "load and go," I RARELY ever bother with PC games. If PC were still as simple to play a game on as the 80's computers, I'd probably still be a computer gamer, but the console was brought back to life for me with consoles finally coming out (the 32 and 64-bit systems) that were as powerful as the current PC's when they were released, but without the headaches. If only PC's of today were still as simple as putting in a cd-rom and playing the game, knowing it would work properly and with no intallation, simply because it was made for the PC and I have a PC, like with 80's computers; instead I have to look at the box to make sure the game will run on my computer at all, then install it, then half the time there is an incompatiblity problem or some drivers are in conflict, etc. it all becomes a HUGE headache to me, and I've grown use to controllers instead of a mouse and keyboard in the meantime, so just plopping a cart or disk in one of my game consoles is what I do instead. When I'm not playing my classic computers which are still as easy to use as the current day consoles...just my 2 cents. I think that most people had a similiar experience to mine in the 80's, which lead to the crash, and the whole thing sort of turned around again, at least with me, when we had the early 90's computer market crash...never heard of that? probably because you were a PC user, no problem there, I'm talking about the proprietary computer market crash because of the dominance of Intel/Microsoft/PC, the loss of Commodore and Atari and computer platforms and the near loss of Apple, and then Apple macs basically turning into PC's with all the same headaches of installation, etc.

So now I'm a console junky once again and PC's be damned!

[VidGameKing]

agreed, console gaming is a simpler way of life, that many people enjoy. I on the other hand enjoy all the "fiddling" I get to do on my PC, I run a combination of Windows XP Pro / RedHat9. I find that windows XP pro is the most stable of all of the windows out there, esspecially since they have done away with the quick dos cernel. I rarely have problems with compatibility. but I understand the frustration of older computers. I think with the advent of the G5 from apple with the "true" 64-bit CPU core, and the new Itainium chips from intel, we'll see this cool new tech trickle down to consoles in two or three years. just like in '83 new computer tech caused a downfall in video games.

[JB]

agreed, console gaming is a simpler way of life, that many people enjoy.

Nothing like slapping it in and going, without waiting for hte install and worrying about performance and system requirements.

 

But truly, the big draw of consoles from a true gamer's perspective is the exclusive games.

If the game you want is only available on one platform, that platform becomes more attractive.

 

I on the other hand enjoy all the "fiddling" I get to do on my PC,

So do I.

Just not when I wanna play a game.

 

I find that windows XP pro is the most stable of all of the windows out there, esspecially since they have done away with the quick dos cernel.

From what I've heard 2k is actually more stable, though I have no 1st hand experience with XP.

And actually, properly tweaked, even a Win98 system can be quite stable.

I can pull a week of uptime on my secondary machine, which runs Win98 for DOS compatibility purposes.

 

I rarely have problems with compatibility. but I understand the frustration of older computers.

My compatibility problems arise form NEWER computers.

PCI soundcards and NT-based OSes have made DOS games QUITE tempermental.

 

I think with the advent of the G5 from apple with the "true" 64-bit CPU core, and the new Itainium chips from intel, we'll see this cool new tech trickle down to consoles in two or three years. just like in '83 new computer tech caused a downfall in video games.

I doubt we'll ever see a home Itanium, though I know the next x86 iterations are going to be 64-bit.

 

And it's not like 32-bit CPUs hurt game consoles. Why should 64-bit ones be any exception? Especially since the game consoles have already embraced them(DreamCast, N64, and GameCube all use 64-bit CPUs, as I recall).