Please ask some questions....

[dangeraaron]

Hello All!!

 

Here at Below Zero Gaming, we are gonna start publishing podcasts to the public. We already have our first idea for our 1st one (E.T.). Now what we need from you, the public, is questions to be answered on the podcast. Questions can include everything that relates to the classic gaming era. All submissions are greatly appreciated!!

 

Thank You, And Ask Away!!

 

Aaron,

Below Zero Gaming

[moycon]

My question is...

 

Why is E.T. so awesome?

[STICH666]

What do you think of the Coleco Gemini.

[triverse]

While not sure if we have anything of interest to you but you could take a look at Retromags.com and see if there is anything that you would like to include or use for your podcasts (all we really ask is that you just mention where you got the mags from or something). Let me know if your interested.

Edited April 18, 2009 by triverse

[Nukey Shay]

If E.T. and Trumpy were playing Combat (game selection 1, both A difficulty), who would score the first point if the game was hacked to have no time limit? They are both short aliens with a knack to make electronics go beyond their programming...so I can't figure it out

[carmel_andrews]

Who is E T

[Inky]

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck COULD chuck wood?

[Nukey Shay]

Trumpy before he learned the Dark Side of The Force and travelled back to Earth to befriend yet another annoying kid.

[Cynn]

Why didn't they bury EVERY copy of the game? (it would have done the world a favor)

[Atarifever]

Why didn't they bury EVERY copy of the game? It would have done the world a favor...

not having to listen to people constantly bitch about a perfectly fine game.

[Nukey Shay]

Just who is it that games like "Fun With Numbers" or "Eli's Ladder" were supposed to appeal to (besides collectors?).

 

 

"Hey kids...here's a great new game. Homework!"

(shouts of ecstatic glee)

[Inky]

Trumpy before he learned the Dark Side of The Force and travelled back to Earth to befriend yet another annoying kid.

 

"Wow, Trumpy, you can do stupid things!"

[+Random Terrain]

Here's a question:

 

Why, after visiting my To What Degree Do You Love E.T.? section by way of a link from an E.T. lover, do people in random forums on the Internet claim that he and I are are the only two people on the planet who like the game when I have an E.T. Appreciation Page full of messages from people who also like the game?

[Cynn]

Easy there fellas. No need to get sensitive. lol I love plenty of games everyone else hates. That's just part of the game.

[STICH666]

Just who is it that games like "Fun With Numbers" or "Eli's Ladder" were supposed to appeal to (besides collectors?).

 

 

"Hey kids...here's a great new game. Homework!"

(shouts of ecstatic glee)

Hahahaha so true. I guess there was a need for educational games but they forgot one major aspect. The GAME!! I guess they just lost the game.

 

(lets see who gets that reference)

[jboypacman]

What do you think is the most over looked game on the Atari 2600?

 

What do you think is the most over-rated game on the Atari 2600?

 

Who was/is your favorite/less favorite 3rd party 2600 game company(Activision,US Games,ect).

 

What are your fondest memories of playing games in the arcades(Pre-Street Fighter please).

 

If you could only have one classic gaming system what would it be?

[Artlover]

Here's a question:

 

Why, after visiting my To What Degree Do You Love E.T.? section by way of a link from an E.T. lover, do people in random forums on the Internet claim that he and I are are the only two people on the planet who like the game when I have an E.T. Appreciation Page full of messages from people who also like the game?

Well, if by full, you mean 28 (including yourself). 28 people out of 1.5 million copies sold = 0.00186%.

[+Random Terrain]

Here's a question:

 

Why, after visiting my To What Degree Do You Love E.T.? section by way of a link from an E.T. lover, do people in random forums on the Internet claim that he and I are are the only two people on the planet who like the game when I have an E.T. Appreciation Page full of messages from people who also like the game?

Well, if by full, you mean 28 (including yourself). 28 people out of 1.5 million copies sold = 0.00186%.

It's still more than 2 people. And if you use the same ratings magic that TV does, one person probably represents thousands of people.

[Classic Pac]

Why is ET so annoying?

[Nukey Shay]

Here's a question:

 

Why, after visiting my To What Degree Do You Love E.T.? section by way of a link from an E.T. lover, do people in random forums on the Internet claim that he and I are are the only two people on the planet who like the game when I have an E.T. Appreciation Page full of messages from people who also like the game?

Well, if by full, you mean 28 (including yourself). 28 people out of 1.5 million copies sold = 0.00186%.

It's still more than 2 people. And if you use the same ratings magic that TV does, one person probably represents thousands of people.

 

That is correct. Word-of-mouth travelled pretty quickly even without the internet in the 80's (that's why truely HORRIBLE games are generally higher in rarity). ET was not such a despised game back then...neither was Pac-Man. This is reflected in the fact that they are two of the most common carts around. They just happen to be two of the most overstocked games at the time investors were leaving the sinking ship. Atari dumps truckloads to write off the bottom line (and no, they could not "salvage" cases or such if they wanted full credit against the red...the retail product had to be rendered unsellable)...and people make the false connection in retrospect that it was those two games that caused the loss of millions. When actually, the reverse is true. Atari made millions off the carts it DID sell, and the scrapped overstock helped lower inventory value saving them money.

 

I really get tired trying to explain inventory control to those that have zero experience in it

 

Both carts were successes. Neither one lived up to the marketing hype to be sure...but that in itself is not so unusual. It's true that both are a far cry from what was aniticipated before their release. Regardless, the games were still played. The games were still sold. Cases of "Billy said that Mark said that Sue said that Terry said this is a crummy game" were lucky to sell ten thousand units...far from the millions that these did. $30 was a fortune to a kid...way too much to piss away on something if it has nothing but negative feedback surrounding it.

 

Oh...but we apparently lived in bubbles back then too. Completely oblivious to the products we bought...even when stores allowed you to try out games on display

 

Get a clue.

[kyle]

Do you think E.T would do Drew Barrymore if he ever came back to earth? Or would he still see or as a little kid like he did when he was on earth so many years before?

Edited April 19, 2009 by kyle

[Artlover]

That is correct. Word-of-mouth travelled pretty quickly even without the internet in the 80's (that's why truely HORRIBLE games are generally higher in rarity). ET was not such a despised game back then...neither was Pac-Man. This is reflected in the fact that they are two of the most common carts around.

They just happen to be two of the most overstocked games at the time investors were leaving the sinking ship.

And they aren't common, maybe because, they WERE two of the most overstocked games? Or maybe everyone DID despise them and dropped them like a bad habit.

 

Sorry, but games like Pac-Man and ET represent a very specific aspect of products and marketing: NAME. People bought these games based on name alone, and Atari made millions of carts ahead of time because they expected that to be the case. Most of the sales were very early on, before word of mouth could really sweep the nation. Atari could have made a Pac-Man cartridge that didn't do anything more then show a big Pac-Man logo and it still would have sold like hotcakes till everyone figured out the hotcakes were made from poop. It was a short lived bubble. Sales stalled once "everyone" realised that they sucked.

 

..and people make the false connection in retrospect that it was those two games that caused the loss of millions. When actually, the reverse is true. Atari made millions off the carts it DID sell, and the scrapped overstock helped lower inventory value saving them money. Both carts were successes.

Did Atari make enough from ET to pay off the $21 million dollar licensing fee? Which by the way was like twice what the movie even cost to make.

 

Yes, Atari made millions. That in and of it self means nothing nor does it classify the game as being a success. In context of how many were produced, no, generally speaking selling only 1/4 of your stock is not considered successfull. In context of how many people actually like it, no, generally when most people piss and moan about it to the point of sending their own copies back to them for a refund, it's not a success.

 

These games were like fly by night quick money grabs, where a lot of people were suckered in to handing over their money early on, and once the word got out, millions of cartridges got dumped in a hole.

 

The whole word of mouth, store demos, good games sell & bad ones dont arguments can all be dismissed with the following statement: If Pac-Man wasn't called Pac-Man, if ET wasn't called ET, they wouldn't have sold the numbers that they did. That's a fact that can be verified by the fact that there were many MANY great games that didn't sell those kinds of numbers despite being 100x better. Just the fact that most games period didn't sell those kinds of numbers. Just the two games based on one of the most popular arcade games ever and one of the most popular movies ever. Do the math.

 

$30 was a fortune to a kid...way too much to piss away on something if it has nothing but negative feedback surrounding it.

Come on, most kid's weren't spending their own money, it was their parents and relatives.

 

Oh...but we apparently lived in bubbles back then too. Completely oblivious to the products we bought...even when stores allowed you to try out games on display

You mean those store displays that were always occupied by some punk bully little bastard that wouldn't let anyone else play because it was his own personal arcade. Yeah, they were a real help.

[+Random Terrain]

People bought these games based on name alone, and Atari made millions of carts ahead of time because they expected that to be the case.

We pre-ordered Pac-Man blindly, based on name alone because we didn't think Atari would try to screw us that badly. We thought it might look similar to the Pac-Man game we saw on the Atari computer at Woolco. We bought E.T. based on the descriptions in Atari Age magazine and the fact that it was an adventure game:

 

http://www.atariage.com/magazines/magazine...p;CurrentPage=5

 

http://www.atariage.com/magazines/magazine...p;CurrentPage=3

 

Oh, boy! Two new adventure games! I got Raiders of the Lost Ark in November and E.T. just before Christmas in December. Most of the kids at school didn't have an Atari 2600, so I was mostly on my own going by any commercials I could see and info in magazines.

 

 

 

Come on, most kid's weren't spending their own money, it was their parents and relatives.

I begged my mother to buy some games and also bought some games with my own money earned by doing things like mowing yards. Some richer kids had allowances and could buy whatever they wanted, but most kids probably got their games by begging their parents.

 

 

 

Oh...but we apparently lived in bubbles back then too. Completely oblivious to the products we bought...even when stores allowed you to try out games on display

You mean those store displays that were always occupied by some punk bully little bastard that wouldn't let anyone else play because it was his own personal arcade. Yeah, they were a real help.

Woolco and Hills department store did have systems set up for you to play, but you had to play the game they had in it. Most game purchases were based on magazine info and what was on the back of each box.

[Nukey Shay]

And they aren't common, maybe because, they WERE two of the most overstocked games? Or maybe everyone DID despise them and dropped them like a bad habit.

The overstock of what you refer to was destroyed (to remove it from the bottom line). Had this not been the case by Atari trying to cook the books, there would have been a high-profile fraud lawsuit going on. Unless you are suggesting that a videogame company bought off the feds

 

 

Sorry, but games like Pac-Man and ET represent a very specific aspect of products and marketing: NAME.

Not much argument there...that was the whole point of securing a licence of a well-known title to begin with. It was true then, and it's still true today.

 

 

People bought these games based on name alone

The name/hype played a very big part...but it doesn't translate that a title would continue to sell beyond launch date if this was the sole criteria.

 

 

and Atari made millions of carts ahead of time because they expected that to be the case.

Actually, they increased original production based on a few things. Trying to offset the cost of the license was one. Figuring the non-Atari userbase into the mix was another (VCS converters/clones already existed by that time). Not expecting the console market to virtually collapse with no recovery played a bigger role. The latter was compounded by the fact that retailers also shared the same optimism...the console market had an "established" history of bouncing back with the next killer app that made the grade. Those days were over. There's a combination of too many companies after the same consumer dollars and the fact that the buying public was no longer interested in yesterday's machines.

 

 

Most of the sales were very early on, before word of mouth could really sweep the nation.

Word-of-mouth doesn't enter into it where preorders are concerned. Retailers placed large preorders of the games so that they wouldn't be caught short for the season...after all, video games always sold great, right? The latter mentality was shared by everyone involved in the industry. The bounce back was not going to happen this time around.

 

 

Atari could have made a Pac-Man cartridge that didn't do anything more then show a big Pac-Man logo and it still would have sold like hotcakes till everyone figured out the hotcakes were made from poop. It was a short lived bubble. Sales stalled once "everyone" realised that they sucked.

Interesting that the ENTIRE console market would be affected by one company's TWO games then, right? Sorry, there's no reason that failed titles by one company for one console should translate to failed sales for everybody. As far as the public was concerned, they had better things to spend their money on.

Do you really attribute the death of, say, the Colecovision to the death of Atari's Pac-Man?? I fail to see how the two are connected...other than that they are both console game-related. Consoles were no longer interesting toys. Cheaper home computers (that had a strong existing userbase), home video, home audio...those were 3 things that were consuming more of the public's dollars. Console gaming was no longer capturing everyone's attention.

 

 

Did Atari make enough from ET to pay off the $21 million dollar licensing fee? Which by the way was like twice what the movie even cost to make.

Do you have any figures of what they sold? Whatever it was, you are talking about a few dollars per unit (and not even including the home computer division). All this is beside the point, because companies are driven by investing. Investors were no longer interested because the public was no longer interested.

 

 

Yes, Atari made millions. That in and of it self means nothing nor does it classify the game as being a success.

Actually, it does It was apparently enough to fuel additional production of the games. Unfortunately for them, they wouldn't have a future so rosy. The entire console market had gone walkies.

 

 

In context of how many were produced, no, generally speaking selling only 1/4 of your stock is not considered successfull.

Anything above production cost is profit. What would you guess that it cost Atari to produce a game at that time (counting programmer's fee, assembly line, etc.)? A few dollars per unit total?

 

 

In context of how many people actually like it, no, generally when most people piss and moan about it to the point of sending their own copies back to them for a refund, it's not a success.

Opened games are non-returnable. This was true even back then. Returns in this case was directly from retailers...who could no longer afford to support the dying console market...making it die that much faster. Preorders placed months in advance were also cancelled...meaning finished product made in response to preorder figures sat in the warehouses instead of being shipped off at all.

 

 

These games were like fly by night quick money grabs, where a lot of people were suckered in to handing over their money early on, and once the word got out, millions of cartridges got dumped in a hole.

Word gets out VERY fast regardless of what product you attribute it to. It still doesn't explain the death of the industry as a whole.

 

 

The whole word of mouth, store demos, good games sell & bad ones dont arguments can all be dismissed with the following statement: If Pac-Man wasn't called Pac-Man, if ET wasn't called ET, they wouldn't have sold the numbers that they did. That's a fact that can be verified by the fact that there were many MANY great games that didn't sell those kinds of numbers despite being 100x better.

"Official" titles should sell better than unofficial titles. Everybody wants the official game. Name-recognition does a lot for a product

 

 

Just the fact that most games period didn't sell those kinds of numbers. Just the two games based on one of the most popular arcade games ever and one of the most popular movies ever. Do the math.

First you say that they didn't sell, and now you say they did. It's getting harder to account for all those games when so few of them sold

 

 

$30 was a fortune to a kid...way too much to piss away on something if it has nothing but negative feedback surrounding it.

Come on, most kid's weren't spending their own money, it was their parents and relatives.

Does it matter where the money comes from? $30 could be spent in quite a lot of ways...rather than toward a game that you know you already figure that you aren't going to like (based on opinions gathered beforehand). It doesn't make the cash any less important to anybody.

 

 

Oh...but we apparently lived in bubbles back then too. Completely oblivious to the products we bought...even when stores allowed you to try out games on display

You mean those store displays that were always occupied by some punk bully little bastard that wouldn't let anyone else play because it was his own personal arcade. Yeah, they were a real help.

You're right, eyes and ears don't help at all. Apparently, not even trying the game. So stick to your guns that the majority of the public had no idea what they were buying then. No matter how you spin it, it's completely untrue. Hell, the box itself shows a screenshot. So did many gaming mags at the time. This doesn't become a much of a deciding factor for E.T. (which was completely new), but doesn't explain Pac-Man...where it's known what the original game looks like.

[Atarifever]

Why is ET so annoying?

Because you are no good at games.