Coleco caused more damage to the games industry then Atari.

[jetset]

 

In my opinion Atari did much more damage than Coleco did, at least to themselves. The Atari 5200 couldn't play 2600 games

 

Neither could the Colecovision. What's your point?

 

My point is that the friends that I have didn't appreciate Atari's business nonsense. They had invested a lot of money in the systems thay owned, and then guess what Atari has a new system that won't play your old games then another. And none of them were compatible on any system, even the Atari computers. At least you could still play CV cartridges on the Coleco Adam.

 

Granted every system becomes obsolete eventually, but in my opinion Atari was just foolish and it turned a lot of people off.

 

 

The Adam? Huh? You were berating the 5200 because it couldn't play 2600 games. What does the Adam computer have to do with anything? Could you play 2600 games on the Adam without buying an adapter?

Sorry but I was 14 when the 5200 came out. I really didn't care about the "business nonsense" of Atari or any other company I just wanted to play good games. I can't picture anyone under the age of 20 giving a crap about a companies "business nonsense".

[65Gamerguy]

 

In my opinion Atari did much more damage than Coleco did, at least to themselves. The Atari 5200 couldn't play 2600 games

 

Neither could the Colecovision. What's your point?

 

My point is that the friends that I have didn't appreciate Atari's business nonsense. They had invested a lot of money in the systems thay owned, and then guess what Atari has a new system that won't play your old games then another. And none of them were compatible on any system, even the Atari computers. At least you could still play CV cartridges on the Coleco Adam.

 

Granted every system becomes obsolete eventually, but in my opinion Atari was just foolish and it turned a lot of people off.

 

 

The Adam? Huh? You were berating the 5200 because it couldn't play 2600 games. What does the Adam computer have to do with anything? Could you play 2600 games on the Adam without buying an adapter?

Sorry but I was 14 when the 5200 came out. I really didn't care about the "business nonsense" of Atari or any other company I just wanted to play good games. I can't picture anyone under the age of 20 giving a crap about a companies "business nonsense".

 

Why do keep mentioning the 2600? This tread has nothing do with it. All I am saying is that most of my friends were pissed off at Atari for doing what they did. And we were 16 years old then so yea it did make us think about buying Atari and there "business nonsense".

 

Just my thoughts, you can go on from here.

[doctorclu]

Sweet mother of crap... 6 pages of this?

 

Coleco, from my memories of it, was an exciting change in gaming. Period.

 

Atari was already quite "old" when the Coleco came out, but insanely as awesome as Coleco was, the Atari 2600 was massively entrenched. I think THAT was seriously the undoing of the market was that the 2600 was this freight train going at 3 billion miles per hour and nothing no matter how cool could rail that.

 

Not even Atari with the 5200, 7800, or XEGS. The 2600 was just a unstoppable monster.

 

 

 

[akator]

I disagree with every supposition in the first post of this thread. In 1983, the ColecoVision was awesome with great games, and I didn't know anyone back then who thought otherwise.

Edited September 2, 2011 by akator

[jetset]

 

In my opinion Atari did much more damage than Coleco did, at least to themselves. The Atari 5200 couldn't play 2600 games

 

Neither could the Colecovision. What's your point?

 

My point is that the friends that I have didn't appreciate Atari's business nonsense. They had invested a lot of money in the systems thay owned, and then guess what Atari has a new system that won't play your old games then another. And none of them were compatible on any system, even the Atari computers. At least you could still play CV cartridges on the Coleco Adam.

 

Granted every system becomes obsolete eventually, but in my opinion Atari was just foolish and it turned a lot of people off.

 

 

The Adam? Huh? You were berating the 5200 because it couldn't play 2600 games. What does the Adam computer have to do with anything? Could you play 2600 games on the Adam without buying an adapter?

Sorry but I was 14 when the 5200 came out. I really didn't care about the "business nonsense" of Atari or any other company I just wanted to play good games. I can't picture anyone under the age of 20 giving a crap about a companies "business nonsense".

 

Why do keep mentioning the 2600? This tread has nothing do with it. All I am saying is that most of my friends were pissed off at Atari for doing what they did. And we were 16 years old then so yea it did make us think about buying Atari and there "business nonsense".

 

Just my thoughts, you can go on from here.

 

Do you not even see what you said? It's in the quotes.

In my opinion Atari did much more damage than Coleco did, at least to themselves. The Atari 5200 couldn't play 2600 games

 

You brought up the premise, not me.

[Zwackery]

It was those greedy bastards at Quaker Oats.

[+Yurkie]

Guys this thread was nothing more than bullshit and peoples opinions back 2 years ago when it was started.

 

Playing Time Pilot for the High Score Club would be time better spent.

[NIAD]

Coleco "scrapped" the CV because they had to produced the ADAM computer and that was the very same employees who worked on the CV

 

Actually, no again. This was already covered here, there was no scrapping. What occurred was a pause in Colecovision manufacturing which picked up again and continued in to the first half of '85.

Wungfu... wouldn't you consider these early 1985 statements by Coleco Management to be more "smoke and mirrors" on the lines of the unveiling of the ADAM at Summer CES '83? By this I mean, Coleco had stockpiles of purchased inventory (assembled, partially assembled, loose) that were sitting in their manufacturing plants which they desperately needed to unload in order to raise much needed capital. In hindsight, it would be crazy of them to announce that they were axing the ColecoVision (the ADAM, yes) since that would basically make every reseller think twice about continuing to stock ColecoVision and CV products at the current prices of the time and that doesn't even take into consideration the fact that potential purchasers would begin to avoid it like the plague... thus forcing Coleco to begin the liquidation that much earlier and having to settle for the potential of a lot less capital influx in return.

 

So it would be my "opionion" that they never had any plans to continue manufacturing and selling the CV unlike their statements say (would be interesting to come across purchase records from late 1984 thru early 1985), but their intention was to keep reseller and consumer confidence in them up long enough to maximize their sales of the remaining on hand inventory via resale outlets. Then later it would be easier (not much) for them to swallow the final liquidation of the CV product line to the likes of American Design Components, Kaybee Toys, TeleGames, etc., which would prove to be beneficial to their stock prices as well as give them a further much needed influx of capital.

 

Maybe I'm overthinking things, but when your back is against the wall as their's was, companies seem to do and say anything... more so now than ever. What do you think?

[NIAD]

Guys this thread was nothing more than bullshit and peoples opinions back 2 years ago when it was started.

But it's SO MUCH FUN!

 

You gotta look beyond the so called B.S. and just enjoy it for what it is or ignore it entirely... plus there's always a chance of a very informative post/poster sharing some info. that wasn't known or available previously.

[retroillucid]

As for me, I wanted to say that Coleco did not caused more damage than any other companies back then., that's it

[jetset]

Guys this thread was nothing more than bullshit and peoples opinions back 2 years ago when it was started.

But it's SO MUCH FUN!

 

You gotta look beyond the so called B.S. and just enjoy it for what it is or ignore it entirely...

 

 

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

I said basically the same thing two years ago when this thread started. Join the discussion, or don't.

Edited September 2, 2011 by jetset

[JayWI]

[Atari Joe]

No "one" company is responsible for the crash. The flood of crap carts dumped on the market as well as the personal computer being major contributors.

 

 

In theory, if that were possible LJN should have caused a second crash by late 1991. Everybody knows its true.

[+wood_jl]

It was those greedy bastards at Quaker Oats.

 

I thought Quaker Oats was "the right thing to do?"

 

[Retro Rogue]

 

NIAD -

Wungfu... wouldn't you consider these early 1985 statements by Coleco Management to be more "smoke and mirrors" on the lines of the unveiling of the ADAM at Summer CES '83? By this I mean, Coleco had stockpiles of purchased inventory (assembled, partially assembled, loose) that were sitting in their manufacturing plants which they desperately needed to unload in order to raise much needed capital. In hindsight, it would be crazy of them to announce that they were axing the ColecoVision (the ADAM, yes) since that would basically make every reseller think twice about continuing to stock ColecoVision and CV products at the current prices of the time and that doesn't even take into consideration the fact that potential purchasers would begin to avoid it like the plague... thus forcing Coleco to begin the liquidation that much earlier and having to settle for the potential of a lot less capital influx in return

 

I'd consider that if it was the ADAM we were talking about, in the case of the Colecovision no. I had stock in the company at the time and received the quarterly reports, stock prospectuses, etc. They had stockpiles of ADAM, not Colecovision - which they were indeed continuing to manufacture. Remember we're talking an international market here via CBS as well which started later in the Colecovision's life, and the crash was a US/Canada phenomenon and not European. Likewise if it were "smoke and mirrors" you wouldn't say it's selling moderately well, you say it's selling well and we're going to focus our efforts there now that we're canceling the ADAM - which they were announcing at the same time. In fact they were stating they were stopping manufacturing of the ADAM, not support.

 

That hindsite is also contradictory. If they're both not doing well and you have significant inventory of both, you don't announce dropping one and not the other - especially if you're going to try and apply that retailer panic reasoning. You keep them both "going" if you want to clear out inventory (and even then the announcement included that the Montreal subsidiary was going to continue manufacturing and promoting the ADAM). Greenberg's announcement was specifically that they were stopping manufacturing of ADAM but keeping manufacturing of Colecovision going (which again clearly states manufacturing of the Colecovision had continued since the Adam's release, as it'd be ridiculous to address continuing manufacturing something that some people are claiming stopped over a year before). That proposed logic also doesn't hold up for how actual retail chains work and how the market was at the time. The retail market had already largely shrunk and those that were left were already in a major discount phase. Whether the liquidation phase was then or 7 months later as it turned out, it wouldn't have effected things in that way given the current market - especially when analysts were expecting them to leave both markets (computer and console) at some point soon anyways. What you're describing via retailer fear is more what you'd worry about in the pre-crash market.

 

So it would be my "opionion" that they never had any plans to continue manufacturing and selling the CV unlike their statements say (would be interesting to come across purchase records from late 1984 thru early 1985), but their intention was to keep reseller and consumer confidence in them up long enough to maximize their sales of the remaining on hand inventory via resale outlets. Then later it would be easier (not much) for them to swallow the final liquidation of the CV product line to the likes of American Design Components, Kaybee Toys, TeleGames, etc., which would prove to be beneficial to their stock prices as well as give them a further much needed influx of capital.

 

Again, it's the opposite reason. If you have a product that's selling reasonably well and didn't suffer the same fate as the ADAM, what you want to keep it going and keep product in the chain with other products that are selling well (cabbage patch) to maximize efforts to cover that hole in earnings caused by ADAM (which is also why they tied the Colecovision to the Cabbage Patch for a time). If it's not doing well, you start the liquidation process right away so you can write off the losses (which is a benefit to the company in the US) and move on. They already had huge losses in 1984 from ADAM, and announcing cancellation of the Colecovision wouldn't have done much more - just as it didn't when they actually announced that 6 months later in July that they were considering liquidating or when they actually did it over July through October.

 

Maybe I'm overthinking things, but when your back is against the wall as their's was, companies seem to do and say anything... more so now than ever. What do you think?

 

Their back was against the wall because of ADAM, not Colecovision. ADAM was the primary source of their major losses for 1984. That's why they were doing things like giving away a $500 scholarship to people who bought the thing during the '84 Christmas season.

 

 

 

[65Gamerguy]

 

In my opinion Atari did much more damage than Coleco did, at least to themselves. The Atari 5200 couldn't play 2600 games

 

Neither could the Colecovision. What's your point?

 

My point is that the friends that I have didn't appreciate Atari's business nonsense. They had invested a lot of money in the systems thay owned, and then guess what Atari has a new system that won't play your old games then another. And none of them were compatible on any system, even the Atari computers. At least you could still play CV cartridges on the Coleco Adam.

 

Granted every system becomes obsolete eventually, but in my opinion Atari was just foolish and it turned a lot of people off.

 

 

The Adam? Huh? You were berating the 5200 because it couldn't play 2600 games. What does the Adam computer have to do with anything? Could you play 2600 games on the Adam without buying an adapter?

Sorry but I was 14 when the 5200 came out. I really didn't care about the "business nonsense" of Atari or any other company I just wanted to play good games. I can't picture anyone under the age of 20 giving a crap about a companies "business nonsense".

 

But the 2600, 5200, 7800, and 400 computer were MADE BY ATARI. And none of them were capable of playing any cartridges from any of these systems, at least initally.

[jetset]

 

In my opinion Atari did much more damage than Coleco did, at least to themselves. The Atari 5200 couldn't play 2600 games

 

Neither could the Colecovision. What's your point?

 

My point is that the friends that I have didn't appreciate Atari's business nonsense. They had invested a lot of money in the systems thay owned, and then guess what Atari has a new system that won't play your old games then another. And none of them were compatible on any system, even the Atari computers. At least you could still play CV cartridges on the Coleco Adam.

 

Granted every system becomes obsolete eventually, but in my opinion Atari was just foolish and it turned a lot of people off.

 

 

The Adam? Huh? You were berating the 5200 because it couldn't play 2600 games. What does the Adam computer have to do with anything? Could you play 2600 games on the Adam without buying an adapter?

Sorry but I was 14 when the 5200 came out. I really didn't care about the "business nonsense" of Atari or any other company I just wanted to play good games. I can't picture anyone under the age of 20 giving a crap about a companies "business nonsense".

 

But the 2600, 5200, 7800, and 400 computer were MADE BY ATARI. And none of them were capable of playing any cartridges from any of these systems, at least initally.

 

Ok true, but back then backwards compatibility wasn't anything gamers cared about. Practically everyone owned an Atari 2600. Why would you need another system to play those games on when you already had that system connected to your television????

[TheGameCollector]

Im not trying to argue with you but how can one say in 83-84 "VIDEO GAMING IS DEAD, THE FUTURE IS IN COMPUTING!!!!" when the arcades were always packed and they were constantly getting new games each week and it never slowed down?

 

Very simple: in the early 80s, arcade games and home games were completely seperate entities. They were treated as such by both the developers and consumers. Arcade games kept going because they were something to do while you waited for a movie or a pizza. At home, however, the set-top console was supposed to be a thing of the past, whereas computers were the future. Of course, the computer played arcade ports. By saying "Consoles are dead", it wasn't that games were dying completely, it was just that consoles were seen to be passe.

 

Good comparison: Movies aren't "dying" in the slightest, but "EVERYONE KNOWS" that downloads are the future and DVDs will be in a landfill by 2011. It's a mantra that gets repeated so often that nobody bothers to think it through anymore. It was the same in 1983... consoles were "dead" because people would rather buy a computer or go to an arcade, not buy a new Atari. Oddly enough, today, consoles are the top of the heap, PCs have a solid following, and arcades are the venue that's becoming an anachronism.

 

And I think what has been killing arcades is not consoles being just as powerful, but handheld gaming having improved many times over the years. Now when you wait for your pizza or your meal at a restaurant, you have your own handheld system to turn on and play for a few minutes. Namco Museum is in your pocket. And even more recently, the explosion of phone gaming. It's cheaper to download a game on your phone than it is to lose a bunch of quarters in a gamble of whether or not you do well in the game.

 

Arcade visits have become something people end up doing on special occasions with friends rather than an everyday occurance. Plenty of movie theaters and malls have arcades though and people are still lured to them. Just not all the time like they used to in the 80s and 90s.

[ozma wars]

Im not trying to argue with you but how can one say in 83-84 "VIDEO GAMING IS DEAD, THE FUTURE IS IN COMPUTING!!!!" when the arcades were always packed and they were constantly getting new games each week and it never slowed down?

 

Very simple: in the early 80s, arcade games and home games were completely seperate entities. They were treated as such by both the developers and consumers. Arcade games kept going because they were something to do while you waited for a movie or a pizza. At home, however, the set-top console was supposed to be a thing of the past, whereas computers were the future. Of course, the computer played arcade ports. By saying "Consoles are dead", it wasn't that games were dying completely, it was just that consoles were seen to be passe.

 

Good comparison: Movies aren't "dying" in the slightest, but "EVERYONE KNOWS" that downloads are the future and DVDs will be in a landfill by 2011. It's a mantra that gets repeated so often that nobody bothers to think it through anymore. It was the same in 1983... consoles were "dead" because people would rather buy a computer or go to an arcade, not buy a new Atari. Oddly enough, today, consoles are the top of the heap, PCs have a solid following, and arcades are the venue that's becoming an anachronism.

 

And I think what has been killing arcades is not consoles being just as powerful, but handheld gaming having improved many times over the years. Now when you wait for your pizza or your meal at a restaurant, you have your own handheld system to turn on and play for a few minutes. Namco Museum is in your pocket. And even more recently, the explosion of phone gaming. It's cheaper to download a game on your phone than it is to lose a bunch of quarters in a gamble of whether or not you do well in the game.

 

Arcade visits have become something people end up doing on special occasions with friends rather than an everyday occurance. Plenty of movie theaters and malls have arcades though and people are still lured to them. Just not all the time like they used to in the 80s and 90s.

 

Lucky guys

here arcades completely disappeared and the few games still around are Tetris and Metal Slug in hundreds hacked versions ..... 1 Euro ( 1,40 USd ) for a minute playing being the difficulty setted at crazy levels...just the time to order yr. pizza and paying..for two, waiting those 7-8 minutes.

All distributors destroyed thousand jamma boards....ops sorry, that's nostalgia..out of this topic.

[youki]

Don't you think that it is simply the "price" that killed the arcade.

 

In France , between 1980 and 1990 the price for one play has been almost multiplied by 10. Most of young people could not afford that. Spend so much money for 2 minutes of pleasure... because of course to be able to master a game an play more than 2 minutes, you need to be extremly rich!.

[ozma wars]

Don't you think that it is simply the "price" that killed the arcade.

 

In France , between 1980 and 1990 the price for one play has been almost multiplied by 10. Most of young people could not afford that. Spend so much money for 2 minutes of pleasure... because of course to be able to master a game an play more than 2 minutes, you need to be extremly rich!.

 

good old times when played JUNO FIRST Konami, it was summer 1983 (or 1984?) and spent on the machine 14 hours with only a coin, 200 Italian lire (10 cents now ). no school that day ... good old times.

 

No, I think the price not the reason that killed the arcade. Arcades were a good place where to find the last game and new and old friends. More expensive now to buy, as in the past, the last cartridge or cd.

Good old times.

[akator]

Don't you think that it is simply the "price" that killed the arcade.

 

In France , between 1980 and 1990 the price for one play has been almost multiplied by 10. Most of young people could not afford that. Spend so much money for 2 minutes of pleasure... because of course to be able to master a game an play more than 2 minutes, you need to be extremly rich!.

 

That's a good point, and not just for France. I had forgotten how frustrated I was with arcades in the late 80s because so many games went to .50, some even $1 like the cockpit racers. I definitely stopped spending as much money at the arcades because it wasn't worth it to me.

 

Things got even worse in the 90s. I wanted to enjoy arcades still, but it was unreasonably expensive. A cockpit Ridge Racer cost $2/play and some games were even up to $5. An evening at the arcade in 1998 could easily cost $200+. A PlayStation only cost $150. The arcade owners priced themselves out of their own market.

 

About the same time more people started shifting to debit cards. Even if there were arcade games around that still only cost .25, many people stopped carrying cash and change. If you make them go to an ATM, then get change, that's too many steps without immediate satisfaction and the average person looses their impulse to play. Even if they do play, they are more aware of the money spent. Debit cards may not have killed the arcade, but they helped add the nails to the coffin.

[+Yurkie]

I strongly disagree with your by 1998 people were mostly using debit card nonsense!!!

 

Perhaps years from now people could say "by 2011 most people were using debit cards", and while still not real accurate, it would be much more so than claiming we were nearly a cashless society 13 years ago.

[youki]

The first time i went to U.S , i have been very surprised that Debit/Credit Card was not the "standard". Tons of shop, restaurant i went didn't want to be paid with card. And Finding ATM was very hard compared to my country at the same time. And you had what i considered as a prehistoric system of Credit Card , your Card didn't have chip on it and no pin code. It was around 1995 i think. Personnaly , I have almost stopped to use cash since 1990. But i don't think it is what caused the end of arcade. For me it is mainly the price combined with new generation of game we could play on modern console. Some games (not specially arcade game , but RPG , Strategy , adventure etc..) became more and more interesting and time consuming. Young people ran after to school directly to home to play the game... and don't stop in the arcade.

Edited September 7, 2011 by youki

[jetset]

I strongly disagree with your by 1998 people were mostly using debit card nonsense!!!

 

Perhaps years from now people could say "by 2011 most people were using debit cards", and while still not real accurate, it would be much more so than claiming we were nearly a cashless society 13 years ago.

 

There are actually people who still use cash?