Was PacMan really a "flop"

[Brian R.]

Came across this today, doing some googling around after getting a copy of PacMan 4K.

 

From an article about "10 Technologies that Failed to Retain Their Dominance":

 

 

 

The Atari 2600 is a video game console released in September 1977. It is credited with popularizing the use of microprocessor-based hardware and ROM cartridges containing game code, instead of having non-microprocessor dedicated hardware with all games built in. It was wildly successful, and during much of the 1980s, "Atari" was a synonym for this model in mainstream media and, by extension, for video games in general.

The popularity did not last for long. Atari's best programmers left due to low pay; other consoles were able to reverse-engineer the system and offer compatibility; and Pac-Man and E.T. proved to be huge flops. Atari could've licensed the Nintendo Entertainment System for the U.S. market, but they passed, giving up their last chance for industry relevance.

 

 

 

OK - we all know PacMan wasn't a great conversion of the arcade game. But considering it did sell, and sold a ton, can it really be called a "flop"?

 

 

Our opinions are colored by time. Maybe there were those who on first glance thought it was junk. But I'm sure there were others like me who played it and were happy to do so, just to have PacMan at home to play.

 

 

I think calling it a "flop" is one of those things everyone thinks they know, and it's not really accurate.

 

 

[+FujiSkunk]

Yet another writer who didn't bother to fact-check his "common knowledge."

[Rex Dart]

Of course it wasn't a flop, it was a huge seller. It just stunk.

 

Now I'll leave all of you to make your grumpy comparisons to modern best-sellers of dubious quality.

[CatPix]

Well Pac Man and ET are flops in the eyes of the company, much like the Wii U is considered 'failing to sell" by Nintendo. As in, the Wii U sales are good, but inferior to the expectations, so Nintendo consider the sales as bad.

 

Same things with Pac Man an ET. (I don't have the correct figures for each game, but they are in this range) Both sold over 1 million copies each, which at the time was a best seller. But Atari made 5 or 7 million copies, of which 5/6 of them were never sold.

A product of which only 1/6 of all the unit made sold is a flop, sales wise. But if you look at the sales, it was excellent.

 

So, Pac Man and ET are both flops and huge success : they sold more than every other game of their time, but the expectation from Atari were far too high, making them "flops".

[Brian R.]

Something I am remembering, and I'm not sure if it was PacMan or another game, but I think it was PacMan - that they actually made more PacMan games than consoles that existed.

[CatPix]

And to complete the informations : Atari never got to licence the NES or Famicom.

Nintendo approched them in 1982 to create a video game system, which was a mix of Nintendo arcade chips and Atari chips; mostly, Nintendo provided the CPU and sound, and Atari provided the Maria video chip.

After some development, Atari cancelled all the project, nagging at Nintendo "we don't need a small Japanase arcade maker to make a game system." and Nintendo made the Famicom from the "remains" of the project, using their own GPU.

[jetset]

Technically speaking, Milli Vanilli wasn't a flop either.

[Keatah]

Atari and the VCS a flop? Hardly. The company and the VCS did very well in their market segment and time frame. Whomever wrote the article doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

It's like saying Hercules and CGA graphics were a flop because they didn't retain market dominance. Duhh.. No tech product retains any kind of market dominance. All tech is obsoleted. The VCS was obsoleted. CGA was obsoleted.

 

Let me put it this way:

VCS and Atari a flop because they are not played anymore today.

Hercules & CGA graphics a flop because they are not used today.

 

WTF man?!?! Both products were the first iterations in new and un-explored electronic visual interactive products. Both products were successful for their time. And anyways, how could you expect 1977 gaming technology or 1980's graphics technology to be useful today? You can't.

[+SpiceWare]

The popularity did not last for long.

Say what? The 2600 was produced and sold for almost 15 years (September 1977 - January 1992). I think the PS2's next in line with almost 13 years (March 2000 - January 2013)

[privateers69]

Back then some stores were heavily pushing Pac Man before it was even released. They were giving away promotional stickers and what not. A lot of people prepaid for it thinking it'll be almost the same. Flop? Hardly.. Disappointment? Yes..

[almightytodd]

Wasn't Pac Man the 2600 "pack-in" game for awhile?

[Brian R.]

Back then some stores were heavily pushing Pac Man before it was even released. They were giving away promotional stickers and what not. A lot of people prepaid for it thinking it'll be almost the same. Flop? Hardly.. Disappointment? Yes..

 

See, everyone says "disappointment." I don't remember thinking of it that way, at least not at first. Maybe I was young enough not to notice or care that it wasn't closer to the arcade. All I remember is thinking I was really, really good at PacMan (at home) but wasn't so good at the arcade.

 

And maybe that's why I might have liked 2600 PacMan better - I could play it at home, any time I wanted, no money needed, AND my games lasted longer.

 

I know we noticed the difference with Ms PacMan. But more so, I remember Donkey Kong being a disappointment in the end. When Colecovision came around, that made me notice what the Atari couldn't do.

[Brian R.]

Atari and the VCS a flop? Hardly. The company and the VCS did very well in their market segment and time frame. Whomever wrote the article doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

It's like saying Hercules and CGA graphics were a flop because they didn't retain market dominance. Duhh.. No tech product retains any kind of market dominance. All tech is obsoleted. The VCS was obsoleted. CGA was obsoleted.

 

Let me put it this way:

VCS and Atari a flop because they are not played anymore today.

Hercules & CGA graphics a flop because they are not used today.

 

WTF man?!?! Both products were the first iterations in new and un-explored electronic visual interactive products. Both products were successful for their time. And anyways, how could you expect 1977 gaming technology or 1980's graphics technology to be useful today? You can't.

 

I think the problem is a view of history colored by "modern" perspective.

 

For instance, and I don't know if this was the case - how do you think a review of Atari by someone born in the 90s would compare to a review by someone born in the 70s, who actually grew up with Atari, played it back in the day, etc.?

[lokidchser]

Something I am remembering, and I'm not sure if it was PacMan or another game, but I think it was PacMan - that they actually made more PacMan games than consoles that existed.

this bit of trivia is actually applicable to E.T.. they produced more copies of the game in hopes that it would impact sales of the VCS, if I recall correctly

[SoulBlazer]

I've said this in other threads, but even as a young kid, I considered Pac Man for the 2600 a disappointment cause it was nothing like the arcade game that I loved. Had I not been familiar with the arcade version, I probably would have liked it. As it was, I considered it a rushed and sloppy port that could have been done better, and that opinion hasn't changed with time.

[JadeETC]

Best selling game for the VCS, caused the crash of '83.

[Brian R.]

Sarcasm Jade or you serious?

 

I don't think any one game caused the crash. Nor do I think it would've been just PacMan and ET.

 

Wasn't there a flood of cheap, low quality games that contributed? PacMan and ET may be disliked, but I still think at the time both sold, and I'd say there were a lot worse games released by companies looking to cash in on the opportunity.

 

I remember playing ET a lot back then too.

 

Maybe how much you liked PacMan depended on your age, how much you recognized the differences, how often you got to play the real thing... let's see, in 82 I would've been 10 or 11. Getting to an arcade was not something I could easily do. As I said, I was just thrilled to play "PacMan" at home. Maybe someone older would've seen it differently.

[BillyHW]

Pac-Man may have sold millions, and made Atari $$$, but it also hurt their reputation considerably, and cost them $$$ in the long run. But those costs are a lot harder to quantify. I suspect they are a lot larger, thus making Pac-Man a catastrophic flop.

 

It's really too bad they didn't give the programmer some more time, then it could have been more like Ms. Pac-Man, which is a perfectly respectable port that brings the fun of the arcade game home.

[Brian R.]

I still tend to think the opinion of PacMan is worse today than it was "back then." And that it's only gotten worse over time.

[RickR]

Read the review from the top gaming magazine back then. Page 71.

 

http://www.digitpress.com/library/magazines/electronic_games/electronic_games_jun82.pdf

 

They summed it up pretty well: Those desperate for a gobble game will be happy, those that wanted a good arcade port will be disappointed.

 

I think I can say with all honesty that we all knew Pac Man wasn't very good, but we bought it anyways. And the crash didn't happen for another year, so I don't think it's going to be easy to blame a particular game...

[RickR]

As someone that was a teenager back in the Atari 2600 times - I'll say that Pac Man was the game that really made me start to question Atari. It's like I finally realized they didn't have much respect for their customers. The game wasn't even close to the arcade version....not even the colors were correct. What were they thinking. Another stinker that may have pushed me out of the 2600 market was Defender. By then I had a VIC-20, and its version of Defender was 100 times better than the 2600 version.

So I don't think Pac Man was a flop, but it sure hurt customer confidence in Atari.

Edited September 17, 2013 by RickR

[Brian R.]

I don't think I ever saw those gaming mags back then.

 

Gobbler and Goblins... lol... cute.

 

I remember me, my cousins, we all absolutely loved Defender on the 2600.

 

But I also remember a guy in our neighborhood who had an Intellivision, and being mesmerzied by it.

 

But it wasn't until Colecovision and its superior Donkey Kong came along that we gave up the VCS for Coleco. After that, it was Nintendo, and that's where I had my personal video game crash, not to be revived until a Game Gear, Genesis and then back to Atari.

 

For a while, we didn't think or expect that arcade games could be reproduced fully at home. Not until we saw it could be done, at least better, as time progressed. Now, we're at a point with tech where there's full expectation that everything will be spot-on, and I think that colors judgements when we look back.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Brian R.

[Atari Punk 78]

It was only a flop in our hearts. Atari, on the other hand, cried all the way to the bank.

[DemonoidTentacle]

Definitely not a flop. The game isn't very good, but you can't dig a hole in the back yard without finding PacMan 2600.

[high voltage]

Best selling game for the VCS, caused the crash of '83.

 

crash was in 1984