Did Super Mario Bros end the crash?

[toptenmaterial]

Hi everyone. There has been a lot of debate as to whether or not the home console business would have revived if not for Nintendo's innovative game, Super Mario Bros. So, how much credit can SMB and Nintendo take for the post-crash era? What would the future of gaming have been if not for Nintendo's rise? Would home computer gaming have taken center stage, would the arcades have stayed en vogue, would video games in general have gone out or would our beloved Atari have taken center stage? Feel free to bend the topic to argue any hypothetical scenerio. It's a big "what if"!!!!!

[tz101]

This thread is asking for trouble with so many all-knowing posters here on AA. Presenting a viable hypothesis will ultimately end with at least three individuals I can think of presenting their ideas as "fact" and attempting to disparage any who disagree.

 

AA really needs to moderate the threads to the extent of warning the repeat bullying attempts by a select few. Instead, often those who put them in their place are blamed or ridiculed. Free thinking is not allowed on these forums.

[SoulBlazer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the first NES's sold in the States didn't come with SMB? I think that may have come out as much as a year after the system.

[toptenmaterial]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the first NES's sold in the States didn't come with SMB? I think that may have come out as much as a year after the system.

You're in Providence. I'm in Providence right now.

[PsychoKittyNet]

I guess it depends on the area, I lived in the San Fransico bay area as a kid and according to my uncle, during that time him and his friends still played a lot of games, like the colecovison, atari 2600 and commodore 64, they really did not feel the cash and the NES was just the next great thing to them.

[fiddlepaddle]

This thread is asking for trouble with so many all-knowing posters here on AA. Presenting a viable hypothesis will ultimately end with at least three individuals I can think of presenting their ideas as "fact" and attempting to disparage any who disagree.

 

AA really needs to moderate the threads to the extent of warning the repeat bullying attempts by a select few. Instead, often those who put them in their place are blamed or ridiculed. Free thinking is not allowed on these forums.

Free thinking certainly IS allowed, it's just passionately argued (and yes, sometimes ridiculed). I personally enjoy the banter and expertise-whacking that comes out, especially when, like with this topic, it can't be proven one way or another.

 

Actually, the "crash" was more of a giant depression as there continued to be a (relatively smaller) market for dedicated game consoles. Ultimately, success of an industry must follow demand, and if Nintendo hadn't done it, someone else would have. The dedicated console exists for a very good reason: a well-defined standard platform, widely distributed, ensures a large market for any single game, so more resources gravitate that way.

 

The PC, at the time, was evolving way to rapidly to be a stable platform for very long. Not only that, a lot of people pretended that the "personal computer" was for serious stuff only.

Edited January 23, 2011 by fiddlepaddle

[Cebus Capucinis]

I don't reliably think that Nintendo or SMB can effecitvely be stated as "curing" the video game crash in such a straightforward way -- rather, I like to think that Nintendo proved that a viable business model could still be had through video games, just with a completely different marketing strategy. The initial response to Nintendo in '84/'85 (if I remember right) was very tepid at best -- retailers and potential buyers just weren't interested in the console for fear of the losses on a dead video game market. It really wasn't until Worlds of Wonder tied themselves to Nintendo that sales began to see a significant upsurge and even then, rumor has it that it was due to strong-arming policies on the part of WoW to get the product on the shelves in the first place.

 

Nintendo took a completely different approach to marketing video games -- focusing on limiting the amount of titles produced and enforcing rigid quality controls through their third-party licensing and lock-out methodologies. In this way it could be said they "cured" one of the major ails of the crash -- low-quality content being shoved out by the millions -- but without coupling it with the aggressive marketing campaign and the significance of alternative merchandising streams, I believe Nintendo would have been much less successful.

 

To me, it was less a sign of the market ailing as a whole, with Nintendo coming in as a valiant white knight to rebuild video games, but more a sign of an evolving and unique business market needing specific demands that one company was smart and forward-thinking enough to meet through their strategy.

 

I believe that had Nintendo not pursued such an aggressive strategy, computer makers at the time (such as Atari, Commodore, and Apple) would have put their toes in the water with a bit more differentiation from the computing "norms" of the time. I don't think any of them would have made a significant impact (for example, the Atari ST-type console that was being considered or even an earlier version of the Amiga CD32), but I think our AtariAge repertoire of today would feature a much more diverse "niche" following of a wider variety of consoles that were tested on the market. As a whole, video games weren't a "dead" market -- they were just stagnant and needed a re-vamp. As stated above, I think if Nintendo hadn't done it (and done it as well as they did, even on an Atari website one must give them lots of credit for their strategy) there would have been something to fill the vacuum, even were it a more competitive marketplace.

 

No flaming, no insulting, no NES-bashing, nothing! We're capable of having fun discussions around here.

[the-topdog]

So, like... what is Super Mario Bros?

[toptenmaterial]

So, like... what is Super Mario Bros?

oh dude it's awesome!! these two italian dudes get sucked down the toilet and end up in an alternate universe doing mushrooms. you gotta play it.

[Rev]

it was a crash for companies. not consumers.

[JPjuice23]

Does anyone else think the videogame crash was over-exaggerated at all?

 

I never grew up during this time, so I have no idea, but it seems to me most people shrug it off when talking about their childhood.

[Chuplayer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the first NES's sold in the States didn't come with SMB? I think that may have come out as much as a year after the system.

I'm fairly certain the first NESes came with Gyromite and Duck Hunt on two separate carts. Of course, the system also came with two controllers, a Zapper, and ROB.

 

I don't know exactly when SMB entered the picture, but it probably wasn't long.

[toptenmaterial]

Does anyone else think the videogame crash was over-exaggerated at all?

 

I never grew up during this time, so I have no idea, but it seems to me most people shrug it off when talking about their childhood.

 

You should actually pose that as a thread, it's a good one at that. I am 30 and never heard of it until I really started getting into Atari, around 2007. That being said, the financial impact was very real, in the billions. In terms of video game consoles and games, we can see a definite "before and after", with linier games featuring characters that we can identify with, lots of musical variation and controllers with D-pads. I don't know if such a distinction can be made with computer games, I wasn't into that as a boy, perhaps someone can shed some light on that.

 

 

it was a crash for companies. not consumers.

 

the market had bounced back by '86 or so. that being said, lack of consumer confidence was a key component in the demise of atari and so many others. it can be argued that nintendo contributed to a resurgent market by sparking consumer interest.

Edited January 23, 2011 by toptenmaterial

[Prodos8]

Does anyone else think the videogame crash was over-exaggerated at all?

 

I never grew up during this time, so I have no idea, but it seems to me most people shrug it off when talking about their childhood.

I was actually good for consumers with things like $1.99 atari/inty games, $50 Vectrex consoles, $45 Sears super video arcades. Everything was on clearance since it was all being discontinued. The emphasis moved to the home computers and they pretty much picked up the slack until another viable home console came around.

[TheMeanwhile]

I'm positive Super Mario Bros. had alot to do with increasing the popularity of the console. A VERY popular game is good for business. It sold consoles, and made video games popular again. From then on out, sales increased for not just Nintendo, but other game consoles released.

 

It is a good guess that Super Mario Bros. DID assist in the recovery. However, I'd give more credit to the NES in general for healing the wounds. Without it, Super Mario Bros. would have never even been released in the US on a home console. So to say, NES can be credited with saving the dedicated home console. However, I believe that computers today would be catered towards gaming more so then we observe today if we never had the NES since gaming probably would have stayed on computers.

[+Psionic]

This thread is asking for trouble with so many all-knowing posters here on AA. Presenting a viable hypothesis will ultimately end with at least three individuals I can think of presenting their ideas as "fact" and attempting to disparage any who disagree.

 

AA really needs to moderate the threads to the extent of warning the repeat bullying attempts by a select few. Instead, often those who put them in their place are blamed or ridiculed. Free thinking is not allowed on these forums.

I highly suggest you cut back on the flamebait and other trolling activities or I suspect you won't be around here much longer. I also suggest you cease trashing this site on other message boards, as I've seen you doing. If there's anyone who needs to be put "in their place", it's you.

 

If you have that much of a problem with this site, take a walk.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the first NES's sold in the States didn't come with SMB? I think that may have come out as much as a year after the system.

I'm fairly certain the first NESes came with Gyromite and Duck Hunt on two separate carts. Of course, the system also came with two controllers, a Zapper, and ROB.

 

I don't know exactly when SMB entered the picture, but it probably wasn't long.

Super Mario Bros. was a launch title in North America, it just wasn't the pack-in originally.

[+Random Terrain]

However, I believe that computers today would be catered towards gaming more so then we observe today if we never had the NES since gaming probably would have stayed on computers.

Seems like millions would have eventually begged for a new console. With computers needing more RAM and a new graphics card every 2 months, it's nice to know that a console will play whatever games you buy for it. You're guaranteed to have at least 5 years of games that look and play the way they are supposed to.

[Arkhan]

I think the crash is an over-exaggerated joke as far as gamers go.

 

I'm only 22 , so I am just repeating what my friends and family that are older have told me.

 

back in the 80s they used to hang out at parks and swap atari 2600 games, and they would play their C64s religiously, even AFTER NES came out. There was never an OH GOD. WE NEED GAMES, I HOPE THIS CRASH ENDS. nonsense

 

 

They weren't wandering a desolate wasteland of ET Cartridges, scrounging for Tiger handhelds and shit.

 

 

 

That being said, no I don't think Mario is really what put things back on track. It helped, but it wasn't ALL mario. There were other systems at the same time FFS. Mario's just the one RoundEye McWhiteman associates with the most.

 

ALEX KIDD. WHAT? fuckyeah.

[AtariLeaf]

Was the "crash" more of a North American problem? Did it have any influence on companies in Europe and other parts of the world? The reason I ask is that the NES wasn't nearly as popular as the SMS in Europe and certainly can't be credited with ending the crash, if it even existed, over there.

[The_Laird]

Was the "crash" more of a North American problem? Did it have any influence on companies in Europe and other parts of the world? The reason I ask is that the NES wasn't nearly as popular as the SMS in Europe and certainly can't be credited with ending the crash, if it even existed, over there.

 

The crash didn't happen in UK or Europe. Over here we were all playing on home computers, especially the Spectrum. The Master System really didn't take off big here until the Megadrive came out when it was marketed as a budget version of the MD as it had many of the same games.

[+Ransom]

it was a crash for companies. not consumers.

 

You're right, it was awful for companies but not so much for consumers. I know this is all anecdotal, but all the gamers I knew back then who were really into the hobby simply switched to home computers (which most of us already had by the time of the crash). The casual gamers I knew (people who had a 2600 because it was the hot thing and their parents got it for them one Christmas, but who only played it occasionally) just stopped buying the 1-2 cartridges they would normally buy a year because it was no longer cool or whatever. For them, I suppose it did seem as though video gaming was a fad just like the reporters were saying on TV and in the newspapers at the time.

 

One thing I have to keep in mind is that things were moving so fast back then. From 1977 to 1982, a lot of different consoles and computers were introduced. Many of them moved the bar on price/performance. I know I was used to keeping up to some extent. I went from Telstar Arcade to 2600 to Colecovision to 5200 to 400 to 1200XL in the course of 5 or 6 years. Some of those products were leaps and bounds beyond what I had before. So at the time, to me, it didn't really matter what was going on in the console market. If consoles were a 'fad', well, that was OK because I had already moved on to computers and was making my own games (not to mention playing some really stellar games).

 

Of course, the North American console market had to come back eventually because it was just too profitable. You had this thriving console market in Asia, and another in Europe. One of them had to step in and take over the market if no North American company would do it. And that's just what happened.

[AtariLeaf]

I think its true that if you were a real gamer, you'd move onto other platforms from that time period. I myself moved onto the Tandy Coco and didn't even really get back into console gaming until the NES had been out for a few years - 1988 I believe.

 

As was mentioned, it was the companies that did this to themselves that caused their own self-imposed crash. Video gaming in and of itself has never died, it just moved onto home computers.

[Arkhan]

THE CRASH IS A LIE. WE'VE BEEN HAD.

[jeremysart]

No doubt the crash has been blown out of proportion on the internet. It was there, but if you weren't in the business, there was probably a very good chance you did not even notice. And the crash lasted but a blink of the eye at that; 1983 was a booming year for games, consoles, and computers.. the majority of cartridges and machines in my collection are dated 1983. 1984 was a dry year, but by 1985 things were picking back up, and in 1986 the market was booming again.

 

If anything, I think the short break in console gaming made way for computers as we see them today. The IBM 5150 hit the market the same year it crashed, and though its not known is a legacy of gaming, or still a popular platform like an Amiga, Tandy, or C64, it did pave the way for the "PC" as we know it today.

 

Personally, the crash did not affect our family at all; there were so many damn games for the 2600 that we didn't even think about getting a new console until 89', and guess what it was? Not an NES, but an Intellivision II and the ECS. Prices were low enough on it that we were able to have dozens of games for both consoles. In 1990 we got yet another console.. guess? Colecovision. It wasn't until early 1991 that we finally got an NES.

 

Thats not to say I don't give Nintendo credit, because I certainly do. To this day, the first 3 Mario games are some of my favorite games of all time. They innovated the game controller as well.. while I love the 2600 joystick, no other system had a comfortable controller until NES imo. It was also one of the first systems that could reproduce nearly arcade perfect games, such as Double Dragon, Ninja Turtles II, Contra etc. Games that felt like an adventure! So I wouldn't say they swept in and resuscitated the gaming industry, but they definitely get credit.

[swlovinist]

Super Mario Bros was released at the perfect time, along with a new game system that did business things very differently from its predecessors. The success of Super Mario Bros and the Nintendo to me is septate from the events of the crash.. It is kind of like blaming E.T. on the crash. There were several factors that caused the industry to get into a mess, and it took several factors for the industry to recover. People wanted to something new and were ready to move on...then Nintendo hit the shores. One vivid memory I had as a child is a line going out of a GROCERY STORE. There was about 12 people in line waiting for a chance to play a new arcade game...Super Mario Bros.

 

The industry is always going to be demanding innovation and something new. Whenever that comes along and is successfully advertised/promoted, you usually have an instant hit. There will be future lulls in the game industry with companies going out of business and creativity stagnant. The company who can innovate and promote the next big thing successfully to the public will have a major hit on their hands. Nintendo has done this in the past, along with several other game companies, including Atari.