Would Atari had been better off if Bushnell hadn´t sold it?

[zzip]

On 8/27/2021 at 1:16 PM, Downland1983 said:

I don't buy the viewpoint that video games were cool in 1984, then uncool from 1985 through 1986, and suddenly cool again in 1987.  When a fad becomes unpopular to the point that it's taboo for the "cool kids" to be seen with, and the hangers on get ridiculed, it doesn't make a comeback in 3 years.   Cavaricci jeans didn't suddenly become ubiquitous in high schools 3 years after they went out of style.  Pogs returned to obscurity.  Disco stayed dead.  Etc.

You are comparing it to specific brands and styles of music.   Music kept going.   Dance music returned big time in the second-half of the  80s after the post-disco slump, but it wasn't called disco anymore.   Videogames returned, but it wasn't Pac-Man + Donkey Kong anymore that was hot, it was SMB/Zelda.   After the dotcom crash, internet sites bounced back a few years later in the form of 'social media'.  

 

Every fad has a backlash period, otherwise it wouldn't be a fad.  But many of these things return, often permanently

 

There was a definite shift in attitudes among the young towards video games in the 80s.   They were the hottest thing on the planet 81-83, interest declined 84-87,  then suddenly by 88 it was cool to be a gamer again, with everyone buying NESes. 

 

  I see MTV as the most obvious culprit because suddenly instead of talking about games, we were all talking about Def Leppard, Motley Crue, Van Halen, Duran Duran, Culture Club, Michael Jackson in school-  you know, everyone that was popular on MTV.   You can't both hang out at the arcade after school AND watch MTV.  You couldn't watch MTV and play games at the same time because most families only had one or two TVs back then, and they weren't in the same room.   Kids would spend several hours a day watching MTV waiting for their favorite vids. 

 

But MTV was kind of a fad too and ran it's course as well.   Which I'm sure is why they started adding more and more non-music programming, to the point that "remember when MTV used to play music?" became a meme.   But this cleared the way for games to make a comeback.

 

Besides MTV,  VCRs were becoming huge in this time frame, which was another thing competing for TV time with the game consoles.  Video rental stores were popping up all over the place, and you could suddenly watch movies almost on demand.

 

I know everyone wants to pinpoint how the videogame industry did this to itself.   But I see videogames in the early 80s as a bubble that was going to burst no matter what because it grew too fast.   It wasn't organic growth, it was a craze.

[Leeroy ST]

7 minutes ago, zzip said:

There was a definite shift in attitudes among the young towards video games in the 80s.   They were the hottest thing on the planet 81-83, interest declined 84-87,  then suddenly by 88 it was cool to be a gamer again, with everyone buying NESes. 

How can interest in games decline from 84-87 when they were riding that same period?

 

I do not know why you keep thinking there was a significant demand issue, people still wanted games. Some retailers through a hissy fit because they took orders from questionable companies that went bankrupt, and the price wars dropped prices so low they weren't making money. Consumers barely had anything to do with it.

 

But without context it makes a good news headlines "gaming us dead no players want to buy" 

 

But the games no one wanted to play are still selling on consoles and home computers.

 

But CV profitable sales during and post implosion.

 

New console game releases.

 

New consoles planned for 86.

 

2600 rebounding.

 

?????

 

13 minutes ago, zzip said:

After the dotcom crash, internet sites bounced back a few years later in the form of 'social media'.  

Social media as is was barely around post dotcom bubble.

 

14 minutes ago, zzip said:

Videogames returned, but it wasn't Pac-Man + Donkey Kong anymore that was hot, it was SMB/Zelda.   

Ms.Pacman and some others were still popular so this doesn't hold.

[zzip]

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

I do not know why you keep thinking there was a significant demand issue, people still wanted games. Some retailers through a hissy fit because they took orders from questionable companies that went bankrupt, and the price wars dropped prices so low they weren't making money. Consumers barely had anything to do with it.

Gamers still wanted games.   There were a lot of people caught up in the early 80s game craze that were not gamers.  They were simply following the latest fads.   They stopped going to arcades and buying home games and caused the drop in demand.

 

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

New consoles planned for 86.

 

2600 rebounding.

1985 was the worst year of the crash in terms of sales.   So 86 was a step up from that even if it wasn't exactly a return to the good times just yet.   Atari explained that a large chunk of the 2600 sales in 1985/86 were going to third-world countries that missed out the first time around.  The "Crash" was exclusive to North America.

 

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

Social media as is was barely around post dotcom bubble.

Dotcom crash was in 2000.   Social media-type sites started appearing around 2004,  although it was called "Web 2.0" at first.   Digg and Reddit were labelled "Social News Sites" then.  MySpace preceded Facebook.  The term "Social Media" started receiving common use a few years later for this new breed of web site.

 

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

Ms.Pacman and some others were still popular so this doesn't hold.

True that Ms. Pacman carried the torch for awhile when Pacman declined, but these games were old-hat by 1984.

[Leeroy ST]

1 hour ago, zzip said:

 and buying home games and caused the drop in demand.

This is precisely the continuing issue, there was no major drop In demand. The numbers dont add up. One of the most damaging to buyers having access was some retailers not stocking much or any games (but many still were as the year proved) which does not equate to consumers themselves stopped buying. There's nothing suggesting that was anything but a small percentage.

 

And the value of the industry crashing had to do with prices, not demand. 

 

1 hour ago, zzip said:

1985 was the worst year of the crash in terms of sales.   

The crash was over, it was the worst year in industry value not sales. Sales were increasing, Atari consoles, Commodore computers, everything was going up through the year, but that doesn't mean anything when coming from heavy price war discounts and with software at bargain bin prices. 

 

1 hour ago, zzip said:

True that Ms. Pacman carried the torch for awhile when Pacman declined, but these games were old-hat by 1984.

 

But still major sellers. Even skipping a gen ahead MS.Pacman was a pillar game for Genesis selling over 1 million copies. Then you had games that did slow down on consoles but do well on computers, so the issue was never the games. 

 

Not to mention again the 2600 resurgence (Or the fact CV was still selling at profit for a good chunk of the year.) The game thing is a myth just like niche Euro only consoles being sold in American stores.

 

Old wikipedia has some good laughs, still does but it's at least not this bad anymore, well at least in one page:

 

"

the time of the crash, there was panic among retailers about the consoles they had to stock, starting with the Atari 2600, Atari 5200, Bally Astrocade, ColecoVision, Coleco Gemini (a 2600 clone), Emerson Arcadia 2001, Fairchild Channel F and System II, Magnavox Odyssey 2, Mattel Intellivision (and Intellivision II/III), the Sears Tele-Games systems (which included both 2600 and Intellivision clones), the TandyvisioN (an Intellivision clone for Radio Shack), Vtech Creativision, Inerton 4000, RCA Studio I and II, APF imagination machine, and the Vectrex.

"

Those RCA Studio 1's all over the shelves. Those poor retailers!

 

 

[roots.genoa]

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

And the value of the industry crashing had to do with prices, not demand.

You know what usually causes prices to plummet? A lack of demand.

So when prices get really low, yes, people start to buy again, so sales increase but the value is not high as it should.

[zzip]

This article about the crash from the era points out how kids were getting bored of video games and tuning out, leading to a drop in demand for videogames.   I don't know why the idea that demand might have fallen or that the videogame market was behaving like a fad/bubble is so controversial now.   It wasn't back then!  

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/17/business/video-games-industry-comes-down-to-earth.html

 

 

Though it once appeared that children would never stop zapping asteroids and blowing up tanks, industry people say that many youngsters seem to have become jaded by Donkey Kong and Chopper Command and have switched to home computers or returned to traditional, nonelectronic fun.

The result has been a jolting upheaval for a leisure diversion that five years ago barely existed and one year ago seemed on an unstoppable roll.

--

''The bloom is off the rose,'' said Steve Hochman, president of the Crown Vending Corporation, a New York-based operator of game machines. ''Most of the operators I'm talking to are off 30 to 40 percent in revenues and that translates to no profit or a loss. Too many machines are chasing too few quarters.''

''We think video games are still a viable product for Christmas,'' said the president of a Northeastern retail chain who asked not to be identified. ''But they no longer have appeal as a 12-month item.'' He said sales of games at his stores have plummeted 50 percent this year, adding, ''It's just a product that's run its course.''

In some respects, the history of video games mirrors the roller-coaster course of citizens' band radios. In the early 1970's, demand for C.B.'s exploded. But the craze subsided almost as swiftly as it arose. Which is not to relegate Zaxxon and Berzerk to the same fad graveyard occupied by hula hoops and Pet Rocks.

--

The shakeout in the industry makes some of the hysteria of the past appear silly. It seemed like only yesterday that the country was swept up in the belief that video games were seizing control of children's minds.

Fear of Becoming Addicted

The rapid spread of the games triggered fears among many parents that there was something unhealthy about their children captivated for hours before the television screen, fighting imaginary wars and smashing apart brick walls.

Worried citizens in a number of towns managed to get ordinances passed outlawing game parlors or limiting the hours during which school-age children could play.

All of the outcry may have been for nothing. Some children, fickle as ever, have cut down their game playing for the most child-like reason of all: boredom.

''A while back, a lot of games like Pac-Man I used to like a lot,'' said Chris Foudy, a 12-year-old who lives in Cresskill, N.J. ''Now these games are really boring. They're all the same. You kill the invaders and that's it. Boring.''

---

The game business has also become increasingly like the movie and record industries in that it feeds on hits. When there is a hit game, the whole market heats up. Unlike last year, when Pac-Man, Defender, Pitfall and Donkey Kong all sold well, there has been no big hit this year that children clamored for.

Closing Their Doors

Video game parlors have also suffered. Between 1980 and 1982, arcade parlors doubled to 10,000. Industry analysts estimate that more than 1,500 of them have closed this year.

[Leeroy ST]

19 minutes ago, zzip said:

This article about the crash from the era points out how kids were getting bored of video games and tuning out, leading to a drop in demand for videogames.   I don't know why the idea that demand might have fallen or that the videogame market was behaving like a fad/bubble is so controversial now.   It wasn't back then!  

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/17/business/video-games-industry-comes-down-to-earth.html

 

 

 

You're literally using an regional anecdote  in 1983 during the crash itself. Coming off a boom as the price war was also taking off. 

 

That has nothing to do with post crash demand. Which is what you were arguing. (And the young werent the only ones buying games)

 

As you say here:

 

5 hours ago, zzip said:

There was a definite shift in attitudes among the young towards video games in the 80s.   They were the hottest thing on the planet 81-83, interest declined 84-87,  

83 was the crash, it took awhile to see the effects clearly (unless you followed good media) but that's when things imploded. As that happened some casuals got overwhelmed, many only knew of or played a few games before, that's not an indication of wide spread lack of demand

 

The demand never really left, and sales increased during the 84-87 time frame. You're trying to act as if there was no demand until 2-3 years after Nintendo came out and that just isn't the case. When the first articles of the industries VALUE returning came out the industry did not have as many sales as the last peak at that point, but the value still nearing the previous peak because of costs, not demand.

 

I use this example again because it really shows how people get "revenue" and "demand" wrong. If the Atari 7800 was 400k units ahead of NES ltd in 1988 the (honest) press still would say Nintendo is the one bringing the industry value back towards the old peak, and the dishonest press would still pretend no one was buying games and the market itself was dead until Nintendo came.

 

Why? Because Nintendo's stuff COST MORE therefore brought in MORE REVENUE. 

 

The 2600 outsold SMS & 7800, highly possible combined, and yet that probably only brought in a modest bag of change for Atari.

 

39 minutes ago, zzip said:

I don't know why the idea that demand might have fallen 

There was little significant demand change from your 84-87 time period. 83 had a glut of software, on the 2600, so some people may have been disinterested. I never said it was zero disinterest, but insignificant.

 

There's always going to be some casuals that drop games or press releasing exagerrated anecdotes.

 

Look at 1993-1996 for ACTUAL significant demand disinterest dropping the industries value since there was no price war on software or hardware. That drop was nearly the same as the one in the 80's so there's no excuse for it 

 

But CV was strong in 83-84, people wanted 5200 too but Warner robbed them of that, but Jack noticed the demand later when he got the system as part of the deal, and released new software for it. Other plans for gaming were being planned more releases, sales rose quickly, 1985 had a new console release, new software, console and computer sale increases, new competitors preparing to enter. 

 

If demand was significantly low as you imply there wouldn't be such a fast turn around time. So with those increases why was the market still valued low $100 mill) by end of 85?

 

Price.

 

Late 85 is when prices started to really "heal", first with computers, then in 1986 consoles. 

 

Price is the major factor that continues to be ignored. Example: If you have 5 items that cost you $300 to produce and you sold them for $30, and your lease was $100, guess what? You not only sold for much less than you paid for, but you're going to have to find $70 to stay in business.

 

That's what happened. Demand was a marginal issue as most of it was still there and never left.

 

1 hour ago, roots.genoa said:

So when prices get really low, yes, people start to buy again, so sales increase but the value is not high as it should.

That has nothing to do with lack of demand. Lower prices create often more demand. The issue is price, and no one making money from those clearance level sales. The prices didn't drop because of lack of demand.

 

When you have price wars, some companies had to cut their prices to keep competitive. Between competition undercutting them to steal market share, then retailers also pushing a surplus of games from bankrupt companies at $20-$10 in 1983, some companies were trapped in a rock and a hard place.

 

You eventually had computers that were cheaper than a 5200, then the consoles started cutting prices.

 

This is why 1985 was below $100 million in industry value, but got up to $100 million by the end of the year. Sales increased but the prices didn't.

 

Nintendo was well aware of this, fort worth:

 

 

They were also aware of retailers pricing frustrations and priced accordingly. So did Sega (initially)

 

 

 

 

 

[+MrZarniwoop]

Apologies if this was already posted, the crash visualized by revenue change:

 

 

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/50-years-gaming-history-revenue-stream/

[zzip]

16 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

83 was the crash, it took awhile to see the effects clearly (unless you followed good media) but that's when things imploded. As that happened some casuals got overwhelmed, many only knew of or played a few games before, that's not an indication of wide spread lack of demand

The Crash probably started in late 82 when video game Christmas sales disappointed.   However the effects were not really noticeable in the general public yet.   Games were still popular through most of 83.  Fall '83 was when $5 games started showing up in bargain bins, and that seems to be when the bottom really fell out.  

 

There were lots of indications of widespread lack of demand at the time,  from late 83-85,   many arcades suddenly going out of business,  formerly popular video game magazines suddenly struggling or shutting down,  game bargain bins were showing up, many retailers were dropping video games from their product lines.   The retailers that still sold video games often weren't carrying the latest games.  The console makers were all either selling off their lines or running for the exits.    As someone who was still a gamer, it was a distressing time because it really did feel like the hobby was dying.  And I was not seeing much enthusiasm about games from my peer group anymore.  Nothing like it had been in the glory days of 81-83ish.   I mean, I don't know what indicates "wide spread lack of demand" to you, but everything I was seeing indicated that there was a huge drop in demand.

19 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

But CV was strong in 83-84, people wanted 5200 too but Warner robbed them of that, but Jack noticed the demand later when he got the system as part of the deal, and released new software for it. Other plans for gaming were being planned more releases, sales rose quickly, 1985 had a new console release, new software, console and computer sale increases, new competitors preparing to enter. 

You keep saying that the CV was doing well, but Wikipedia indicates its sales also fell significantly in early 84.  Jack's so-called "new 5200 titles" were games that were originally meant to be released in 1984, but got shelved, probably because he bought the company.   Knowing how Jack operated, he most likely released them to liquidate inventory rather than capitalize on strong 5200 demand that wasn't there since the system was already declared dead by the previous management.

 

19 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

 

When you have price wars, some companies had to cut their prices to keep competitive. Between competition undercutting them to steal market share, then retailers also pushing a surplus of games from bankrupt companies at $20-$10 in 1983, some companies were trapped in a rock and a hard place.

 

The arcades suffered too.   Arcade traffic was way down.   There's no "bargin bins" in the arcade, so this explanation doesn't explain that.

 

[Lord Mushroom]

57 minutes ago, zzip said:

The arcades suffered too.   Arcade traffic was way down.   There's no "bargin bins" in the arcade, so this explanation doesn't explain that.

The article, whose link you posted, said:

 

Competition has become so fierce that a number of parlors offer as many as 10 game tokens for $1, as opposed to the customary four.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Lord Mushroom

[zzip]

2 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

I think the article, whose link you posted, said something about arcades offering more game tokens or something per dollar.

I saw that.   Most of the arcades I encountered used quarters and not tokens though,  so I didn't encounter this much.   

 

But I don't think this practice would lead to losing money since the game consumes electricity whether a player is playing or not..  no additional cost there.   The player is still spending a dollar either way since the tokens are useless outside the arcade.   The only way it loses money is if this extra token policy creates enough extra traffic that lines form at machines.  Maybe it would draw traffic from another nearby arcade not giving a bonus.

[Leeroy ST]

51 minutes ago, zzip said:

There were lots of indications of widespread lack of demand at the time,  from late 83-85, many arcades suddenly going out of business,  formerly popular video game magazines suddenly struggling or shutting down,  game bargain bins were showing up, many retailers were dropping video games from their product lines.   

None of these are indications of lack of consumer demand.

 

First Arcade crashed for primarily it's own unique reason.

 

Second none of the rest of what you said indicated consumers were showing any significant dis interest. The bargain bins were part reaction to the price wars and part retailer response to bankrupt companies that couldn't take back unsold units or just bad stock they ordered without looking.

 

Companies good or bad undercutting the competition worked, but many thought if they all did it they would have similar success across the board. But when the crash started these companies were buried in the implosion, as the crash killed them, they did not cause the crash contrary to belief.

 

But the damage was still done as more costly companies still had to cut prices to be competitive, the few that didn't were in some select areas placed in a case, sometimes behind the counter.

 

All of this is the fault of companies and retailers, some where the blame falls on themselves. Consumers are not involved outside buying a bunch of software and shortly after hardware dirt cheap. Retailers wanted out, some of them, and would put many games in bargin bins. Some dropping games entirely because of low roi for the retailer.

 

Outside some small exceptions demand had little to do with it.

 

Video game magazines have nothing to do with consumer demand either. How many of the casual Pacman or Asteroids crowd do you think we're subscribing to those mags? How many of even the more established gamers were? Most people got their game info, if any, from the press and ads in or outside stores. Maybe some demo units in some spots. Maybe all together those video game specific mags had 150k subs, and I may be being generous. That's a drop in a puddle, even if you doubled it.

 

The problem is your refusal to accept Price was the primary issue of the crash and after, not demand, no E.T., not 300 game systems some which weren't even released in the US, but Price. And the lack of profit caused retailers to react (imo the wrong way) and gave way to some silly headlines.

 

51 minutes ago, zzip said:

 but Wikipedia indicates 

I've always wondered why of most topics gaming is one of the few people use wikipedia for at face value like it's an authority. 

 

51 minutes ago, zzip said:

As someone who was still a gamer, it was a distressing time because it really did feel like the hobby was dying.  

Most people didn't even know there was a crash. 

 

51 minutes ago, zzip said:

You keep saying that the CV was doing well, but Wikipedia indicates its sales also fell significantly in early 84.  Jack's so-called "new 5200 titles" were games that were originally meant to be released in 1984, but got shelved, probably because he bought the company.   Knowing how Jack operated, he most likely released them to liquidate inventory rather than capitalize on strong 5200 demand that wasn't there since the system was already declared dead by the previous management.

The Jack hate has been debunked here so many times here it's not even worth addressing. In fact a thread was already posted on this or the last page, even Curt was involved.

 

As for the CV, CV was up in 1984 until they INTENTIONALLY froze production temporarily to help produce Adam Bomb computers. Then went back to profits after.

 

52 minutes ago, zzip said:

The arcades suffered too.   Arcade traffic was way down.   There's no "bargin bins" in the arcade, so this explanation doesn't explain that.

 

I dont know why you keep comparing two unrelated markets with different circumstances. Arcades had a cost and inflation issue. 

 

[high voltage]

 

1 hour ago, zzip said:

The Crash probably started in late 82 when video game Christmas sales disappointed.   However the effects were not really noticeable in the general public yet.   Games were still popular through most of 83.  Fall '83 was when $5 games started showing up in bargain bins, and that seems to be when the bottom really fell out.  

 

There were lots of indications of widespread lack of demand at the time,  from late 83-85,   many arcades suddenly going out of business,  formerly popular video game magazines suddenly struggling or shutting down,  game bargain bins were showing up, many retailers were dropping video games from their product lines.   The retailers that still sold video games often weren't carrying the latest games.  The console makers were all either selling off their lines or running for the exits.    As someone who was still a gamer, it was a distressing time because it really did feel like the hobby was dying.  And I was not seeing much enthusiasm about games from my peer group anymore.  Nothing like it had been in the glory days of 81-83ish.   I mean, I don't know what indicates "wide spread lack of demand" to you, but everything I was seeing indicated that there was a huge drop in demand.

You keep saying that the CV was doing well, but Wikipedia indicates its sales also fell significantly in early 84.  Jack's so-called "new 5200 titles" were games that were originally meant to be released in 1984, but got shelved, probably because he bought the company.   Knowing how Jack operated, he most likely released them to liquidate inventory rather than capitalize on strong 5200 demand that wasn't there since the system was already declared dead by the previous management.

 

 

The arcades suffered too.   Arcade traffic was way down.   There's no "bargin bins" in the arcade, so this explanation doesn't explain that.

 

 

 

 

 

Somewhere I also read in EG, the Crash started in 1983

Edited September 1, 2021 by high voltage

[Leeroy ST]

20 minutes ago, high voltage said:

Somewhere I also read in EG, 

Btw, any luck on finding those scans/documents on the Nintendo retailer threats?

[zzip]

11 minutes ago, high voltage said:

 

 

Somewhere I also read in EG, the Crash started in 1983

 

The crash took place over a series of months.    Games were very hot in 1982, but sales of ET and other game/systems were disappointing at Christmas 1982.   This was the first sign of trouble for an industry that had practically been printing money.

 

With regards to the Electronic Games reporting.   Electronic Games reported more than once that they had a 3 month lead time from when they write articles until the magazine hits the news stand.  This is the explaination they'd give to explain why their news didn't always seem timely.  (this was pre-digital publishing days)  

 

Also the date on the cover wasn't the date the issue went on sale- more like when it stopped being sold.   The magazine was on-sale the month before the cover date.   In that particular issue, if you look at the editorial, it says the magazine is dated Mar 1984 instead of Feb 1984 because they were switching to a bi-monthly format.   So that might mean this issue may have been on sale as early as Jan.   At any rate, the article about the crash or 'shake-up' was almost certainly written sometime in late 83 due to lead time.  The previous Jan 1984 issue had a preview of that shake-out article in "Coming Attractions" on the last page, and that was certainly on the news stands in Dec 83.    

 

Also the NYT article I linked yesterday about the crash was also publish in Oct 83,  so it seems like the crash really started happening Q4 of that year, maybe even Q3.

 

[Leeroy ST]

Here are some quotes from another thread disagreeing with the demand premise being the cause, especially since there was a turn around starting through 85:

On 1/24/2018 at 8:25 AM, mr_me said:

Too many games did have something to do with it, but it was more a retail channel problem. Another misconception is demand went down. Demand for new games went up but simply weren't easily available. The stories about bargain bin sales of old cartridges are irrelevant.

 

Retailers had limited capacity to stock cartridges and they had no clue what they were buying. This wasn't a problem when selection was limited, they stocked everything. When selection exploded, retailers had no clue how to evaluate their cartridge purchases and made poor purchases. They had stock thay nobody wanted to buy. That stock not only didn't move but it prevented new cartridges that people wanted to buy and pay top dollar from coming in. All retailers knew was that cartridges weren't selling 

 

On 1/24/2018 at 10:11 AM, spacecadet said:

I think the crash is one of those things that there are so many theories behind, it's pretty easy to find an article or book to disagree with and start a thread on like this.

 

But one thing you have to realize about the crash is that it was an *industry* crash, not a market crash...

We've had far worse downturns and losses in the industry since then, but a company like Microsoft can just absorb losing $5 billion over 5 years. Mattel, Atari, etc. could not absorb losing $250-400 million over one year. 

 

On 1/24/2018 at 3:37 PM, spacecadet said:

By the end of 1983, manufacturers could no longer afford to make new games, so of course people bought fewer of them. But that lack of money came *first*. And that was a result of earlier "irrational exuberance" on the part of game makers, who made more games than people wanted to buy earlier in that year.

 

I'm attaching a news article from October of 1983 that I'm sure some people have seen (it's one of the few scanned articles that's easily found on the net). It starts off talking about how demand is down, but read to the end - that's where there's a good analysis as to why that basically mirrors what I'm saying. Also, it wasn't down as much as you'd probably think - from $1.6 billion to $1.3 billion is a drop that a well-run industry should be able to manage, especially since it was temporary.

 

Note the last line of the article - "demand was up by 100%, but manufacturers' output was up by 175%." Well, there's your problem!

 

Meanwhile there was a large drop in 1993-1996 but no one is calling it a crash or saying Sony saved gaming and no one was buying games anymore after 1993 and E.T 1994 crashed the whole thing all by itself.

 

But in this case legit lack of consumer Demand would be a major part of the problem because unlike the 80s there's no price factor and reactionary retailers tanking value this time, along with third parties over producing and trying to under cut the popular titles in price.

 

There was no AAA clone of Twisted Metal or Rayman or Need for Speed in the 94-95 period that was just or near as good or produced  launching at $10-20 new, compared to $50-$60 prices for the big popular hits.

[zzip]

46 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

None of these are indications of lack of consumer demand.

So what exactly would indicate a lack of consumer demand according to you.  if revenue drying up, arcades collapsing, magazines folding, game companies running for the exits and kids complaining that games aren't fun anymore all don't count?

 

54 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

Video game magazines have nothing to do with consumer demand either. How many of the casual Pacman or Asteroids crowd do you think we're subscribing to those mags? How many of even the more established gamers were? Most people got their game info, if any, from the press and ads in or outside stores. Maybe some demo units in some spots. Maybe all together those video game specific mags had 150k subs, and I may be being generous. That's a drop in a puddle, even if you doubled it.

Every hobby had magazines.   In the pre-internet days they were the best place to get game information and reviews.   No the average casual didn't subscribe, but the more hard-core ones do.   You know the kind of people that wanted to learn about good games, not the bargain bin ones?   If they couldn't find enough of those kinds of readers and advertisers who wanted to reach them.   How were people going to learn about games from stores when many of them were getting out of the game business and certainly dumping their demo units.

 

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

I've always wondered why of most topics gaming is one of the few people use wikipedia for at face value like it's an authority. 

I have my issues with wikipedia, but at least it cites it's sources,  I haven't seen any that contradict it.

 

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

Most people didn't even know there was a crash. 

Yes, because most people stopped caring about games.

 

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

As for the CV, CV was up in 1984 until they INTENTIONALLY froze production temporarily to help produce Adam Bomb computers. Then went back to profits after.

Oh yes,  they were so profitable that they fled the game industry a short time later.  Damn those profits!

 

1 hour ago, Leeroy ST said:

I dont know why you keep comparing two unrelated markets with different circumstances. Arcades had a cost and inflation issue. 

Arcades are completely unrelated to home gaming?   Wow learn something new everyday!   I'm sure the fact that they collapsed at the same time is pure coincidence then.  Couldn't possibly be the consumers were getting bored of games, (both the home and arcade kind) and moved to something else.  Nope can't be that!  

 

[Lord Mushroom]

2 minutes ago, zzip said:

The player is still spending a dollar either way since the tokens are useless outside the arcade.   The only way it loses money is if this extra token policy creates enough extra traffic that lines form at machines.

If the average arcade player doesn´t respond to the reduced price by playing so much more that he/she spends the same amount or more than before, total revenue for the arcade industry would fall.

[leech]

I'll have to read over this thread, so maybe it was covered already?  But Jay Miner and David Crane would probably have stayed at Atari making awesome things and they could have been far more successful.

 

Granted from current things, it sounds like Activision became the new Atari, but in the hottub meeting sort of way that is frowned upon these days.

[Lord Mushroom]

18 minutes ago, leech said:

I'll have to read over this thread, so maybe it was covered already?  But Jay Miner and David Crane would probably have stayed at Atari making awesome things and they could have been far more successful.

 

Granted from current things, it sounds like Activision became the new Atari, but in the hottub meeting sort of way that is frowned upon these days.

Yes, it has been mentioned that talented people would have been more likely to stay. Jay Miner and the Activision guys have explicitly been mentioned.

 

But I think the importance of this has been underestimated. Activision is today a $64 billion company (although half of that is the result of a merger with Blizzard). Even if the console business had failed under Bushnell, Atari would still have been better off with Bushnell, if the game development/publishing business had performed as well as Activision has.

 

Making more great games would also have increased their chances of being able to succeed in the console hardware industry.

[Leeroy ST]

1 hour ago, zzip said:

So what exactly would indicate a lack of consumer demand according to you.  if revenue drying up, arcades collapsing, magazines folding, game companies running for the exits and kids complaining that games aren't fun anymore all don't count?

This has already been explained to you here and in other there's.by others, you're intentionally ignoring the explanations instead of addressing them. Same with you bringing up the coin op industry without realizing it had its own separate problems. Or ignoring revenue Software charts.

 

1 hour ago, zzip said:

  No the average casual didn't subscribe, but the more hard-core ones do.   

Which proves my point since you brought up casuals multiple times in this conversation.

 

1 hour ago, zzip said:

Yes, because most people stopped caring about games.

 

But you said games were hot in 83 (actually you said 82) good job contradicting yourself.

 

1 hour ago, zzip said:

Oh yes,  they were so profitable that they fled the game industry a short time later.  Damn those profits!

You're made up history is only second to your irrational bias for Nintendo and against companies before them.

 

It was close to a year between the intentional temporary half of production for Adam and them discontinuing the CV. Which was still selling after until stock was gone.

 

They didn't leave "the game industry" they left "Electronics" because of the losses of the Adam. A story that's pretty well known. Between the Adam losses and only having the CV toys non-electronic and other were 90% of Colecos sales. Which at the time was high because their toys and CBK were huge. So they doubled down on that, which ended up becoming a bad bet later the same year. Of course CV wasn't selling like it was in 84 given some retailers backed off games, but the demand was there.

 

You could be dishonest and say they "left" the "gaming industry" a "short" time later while ignoring Colecos own statements on profits, but that doesn't prove anything other than your argument not working. 

 

The truth is while Atari was misleading investors and Mattel was making bad moves as the crashes effects became clearer,  CV was fine, and then after the temporary halt they were still fine and getting software. Sorry. 

 

1 hour ago, zzip said:

I'm sure the fact that they collapsed at the same time is pure coincidence then.  Couldn't possibly be the consumers were getting bored of games, (both the home and arcade kind) and moved to something else.  Nope can't be that!  

 

Actually it wasn't at the same time, but you have to make up your own context for that confirmation bias. Also ignore other factors.

 

Here is something:

 

Hmm booming home video game market. Though someone told me crash happened at the same time.

 

Oh recession was also a factor? I was told to ignore that it was just mass lack of demand. Hmmm....

 

 

 

 

[leech]

12 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

Yes, it has been mentioned that talented people would have been more likely to stay. Jay Miner and the Activision guys have explicitly been mentioned.

 

But I think the importance of this has been underestimated. Activision is today a $64 billion company (although half of that is the result of a merger with Blizzard). Even if the console business had failed under Bushnell, Atari would still have been better off with Bushnell, if the game development/publishing business had performed as well as Activision has.

 

Making more great games would also have increased their chances of being able to succeed in the console hardware industry.

Yeah, I mean most people on the street, if you mentioned Pitfall, people qre more than likely to say "that old Atari game was awesome!" Even though it was made at the time after Activision formed. 

 

Before Warner there were many famous names that worked at Atari, including the Steves.  Had Atari kept innovating and pushing the envelope... so yeah, I voted yes for Bushnell.

 

i think I have found that Bushnell gets bored with success so sells and moves on.  It has been mentioned he has done it multiple times...

 

It is like me, if my Atari 800 is working fine, I will play with my ST.  If it has no issues, I will play with my Amiga... well it always has issues...  I got back into retro computers because Linux just works now and it is boring to me... have to be able to tinker.  I probably am a lot like Bushnell in that regard.

[Leeroy ST]

13 minutes ago, leech said:

Yeah, I mean most people on the street, if you mentioned Pitfall, people qre more than likely to say "that old Atari game was awesome!" Even though it was made at the time after Activision formed. 

 

Before Warner there were many famous names that worked at Atari, including the Steves.  Had Atari kept innovating and pushing the envelope... so yeah, I voted yes for Bushnell.

 

i think I have found that Bushnell gets bored with success so sells and moves on.  It has been mentioned he has done it multiple times...

 

It is like me, if my Atari 800 is working fine, I will play with my ST.  If it has no issues, I will play with my Amiga... well it always has issues...  I got back into retro computers because Linux just works now and it is boring to me... have to be able to tinker.  I probably am a lot like Bushnell in that regard.

I think Chucky Cheese is the only thing he started that's still (technically) around isn't it?

[DavidD]

15 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

I think Chucky Cheese is the only thing he started that's still (technically) around isn't it?

Atari is still "technically" around, though.

 

Chuck E. Cheese was bought out by its primary competitor, Pizza Time Theater, ages ago.  They kept the Chuck E. Cheese branding... soft of like Infogrames and Atari.

[Leeroy ST]

3 minutes ago, DavidD said:

Atari is still "technically" around, though.

 

Chuck E. Cheese was bought out by its primary competitor, Pizza Time Theater, ages ago.  They kept the Chuck E. Cheese branding... soft of like Infogrames and Atari.

Well those both wouldn't work then.

 

I guess what I meant is was Chucky Cheese the longest thing he had before it failed or/and the brand beame just a name?

 

But I guess that still would be Atari since Atari corp lasted until 1996.

 

Seems most of his stuff didn't work past the 80's. Outside the ventures he did after the 80's ended of course. But none of those lasted long either it seems.