Jump to content
IGNORED

Video Game Crash and post questions.


John Mayor

Recommended Posts

As i mentioned about my book in the other thread, it only needs a few things straight to be 100% complete with tons of information available. HOWEVER this area is the biggest area of issue.

 

 

 

Even within the same dates or presently, their are TOO MANY conflicting sources. Even on this site (although it had some direct sources that I could use for parts of it that were accurate) because of this conflict it is hard for me to but these finishing touches in my book on the crash history and the point where the crash was gone and the industry got back on its feet. Here are questions below that are needed to complete the section. These questions are literally only needed to be directly answered with a source to be solved.

 

 

 

1. Was the crash the reason coleco dropped out of the console race? Yes it is determined that Coleco made the CV until 1985, but there are numerous online sources that state the CV stopped selling and they dropped out because of that. Yet I hear the CV sold modestly up until launch and the reason they dropped out was either the CBK fad or because they wanted to focus more on computers.

 

 

 

2. It is said that Mattel/INTV were able to sell another 3 or so million Intellivisions after the crash.

 

 

 

3. It is said a lot, y questionable sources, that the NES coming in and bringing the industry back up in 1985 is true. However there are conflicting statements of which include that

 

 

 

A. It is not possible because 1985 was a test market launch and it was considered a failure.

 

 

 

B. Sources say the 2600 sold very very strongly in 1985

 

 

 

c. Sources say that in 1986 the 7800 and the NES were selling neck and neck until around 88. (and the SMS did a decent number in the first year.)

 

 

 

d. Sources say that the console market was already revived before hand and there were still numerous players on the market.

 

 

 

E. Some even say the 2600 itself saved the market. Although that is just a few sources.

 

 

 

4. There seems to be a semi-popular saying of the Atari 2600 being the main cause of the crash somehow, single-handedly, and the Crash involved people not buying games and having tons of bad games. Yet that seems odd in hindsight, as other sources state that the crash was only related to the internal industry and the retailers. As well as people still buying 2600 games from 84 on ward in millions.

 

 

 

5. There is a focus on 2 particular games on the crash. Judging from each games date, It seems a bit odd to place the blame almost all on Pac-Man and E.T. for the crash. Some sources say those games were not even blamed originally but within the mid 90's was randomly speculated by certain media.

 

 

 

6. Some sources say that no one wanted to touch the market at all. Which i personally find odd because there were still like 4 players on the market, but apparently sources say that the industry was practically dead with a "huge vacuum" to fill.

 

 

 

7. From sources that showed the prices of the industry worth during certain years, some of them had the market coming back in 86 with it going back down in 1987. Although there are conflicting charts about the industry values from 1978 to 1990.

 

 

 

 

8. There are sources that say, including this very site which is very very confusing because this is one of the sites that conflict with this, is that the Atari 7800 was not brought out until the success of the NES, which is odd because there are sources saying all it did was test launch in 1985. And some say that it was a failure or dismal at best.

 

 

 

9. The release date of SMB is apparently still in question.

 

 

 

10. It is said that the NES was the first consoles with tile based graphics. Based on my older consoles that is not rue, however I only know of one, I need the others.

 

 

 

11. People say the Reason the Master System came into play was because of the NES. That still seems odd considering the NES success in the test launch that keeps being stated,

 

 

 

12. Some sources say that the Atari 2600 remained the best selling console in North America until the 90's, and some say that the NES became the best selling console. Of course with the numbers being a bit uh, nudged it may be hard to fine hard numbers. Although estimates could help with that.

 

 

 

13. The 7800 was released over seas, i heard it did well although i can't find any info on that at all. I found only one article from a NEW Zealand paper talking about challenging people to a winte games tournament or somethings.

 

 

 

14. Sources say that the SMS, 2600, 7800, and NES were all filled with positive press from CES. Although all I can find is brochure info.

 

 

 

15. A main reason for the crash itself was a slew of consoles. however some sources conflict that by stating that in the next "section" of gaming actually had more systems.

 

 

 

16. last but not least, It is said that all consoles 1982 and up were the third generation of gaming. However, the common consensus, which does not have a verifable source but is used anyway, is that all consoles from 1982 to 1984 are all "second" generation consoles. This would make the new "third generation" consoles only last two years which makes no logical sense however, it is the logic that is used.

 

 

 

So for this, i found some sources although many people shoot down all of the sources i have for this statement. Third wave and third generation are used in all of them and the articles are from near or in the time period of relevance. Oddly, NES is the "exception" to their own rule as somehow the "famicom' does not somehow count. Instead NES with bankswitched carts is somehow "a genration" ahead when it really is not and the graphics are too close even "with" the bankswitching and additional hardware outside a few exceptions. They also oddly made the same exception for the "Atari 7800" but no other system that was released early 1985 or in 1984, including 2 that were not fully released until 1995 or 1996. lessor known consoles yes they are but apparently the rules are complete BS and change when one side wants it to.

 

 

 

I assume this area is largely the fault of wikipedia, who's article on the crash and almost all other things gaming related is filled with shit. wiki has no source for its generational standings, and if I recall it was near when it was newer were people were saying that consoles before 1986 were not 8-bit systems and I think the original configurations for wikis generational data was based on the "bits" or rather the "bits" they BELIEVED (while not knowing) the consoles had. Otherwise the Intellivision would be competing with the SNES and GENESIS.

 

 

 

Conclusion:

That is all the questions I have on this subject for now. Some of these will actually branch off and answer other questions. I only have a few more tiny trinkets left.

Edited by John Mayor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what to make of the rest of your post, but I'd stop worrying about which consoles are "second generation" and "third generation" and so on. Those generations were designated long after the fact and no one really agrees on which systems should fall where. There's no point in getting nit-picky over it, because what generation a system falls into depends entirely on the context of the comparison. People who get really upset about this are the same people who insist there's a "right" way to eat a Reese's.

 

Also: Nintendo saved gaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll never get a straight answer on any of the"crash" questions because it's such a hotly disputed topic and there is really no right answer to most of what you asked, just different perceptions based on what people prefer. Depending on who you talk to, a lot of folks don't even believe there was a crash and rather the market just moved to the computers of the day due to the enhanced capabilities and cheaper/easier development. Not unlike what the industry is going through now with the proliferation of iOS and Android gaming.

 

Edit: And no, Nintendo did not save gaming. Looking at the current marketplace, at least 2 of the biggest publishers came through the "crash" just fine (being EA and Activision). All Nintendo did was release a successful console. My personal opinion is that it was successful because it narrowed the gap between what could be done on a computer and what was available on a console.

Edited by 98PaceCar
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5. There is a focus on 2 particular games on the crash. Judging from each games date, It seems a bit odd to place the blame almost all on Pac-Man and E.T. for the crash. Some sources say those games were not even blamed originally but within the mid 90's was randomly speculated by certain media.

 

The media doesn't really explain it's not the games themselves but how they were produced that was problematic. Too many carts for the demand. Not enough time for development. etc..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, lots of questions that may never get answered. Use your best judgement. I lived though it, read EG in the early 80's and then the phoenix books in the 90's and some more recent ones.

 

My own opinion is video games never died or needed saving or anything but companies make mistakes and go under or simply survive and move on to other stuff. Gaming was always there especially in all parts of the world. Nintendo knew this and was able to break the retail distrust with a "toy" that within a few years everyone wanted including those who started gaming on XL's or C64's.

 

I still played my Coleco\2600 in 85' and 86' but man did I want that Nintendo system. I think I got mine in 88' and it complemented a C64 perfectly. If not Nintendo I'm sure Sega or some other non American company would have jumped in there at the right time.

 

When I look back now I look at companies crashing but not games.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a general saying be sure to source your answers if you have any.

 

 

Back on topic @cimerians, Not sure where your non-american comment came from but anywho yes, i know these are hotly debated issues, although sites like this and a few others, although harder to find now, did have answers (I think a rogue something has some links on here on this site, he was a user that has some of these questions partially answered but i can't find them)

 

The issue with this statement is that most viewpoint are POV instead of based on information from the time. Like I said, several source (actually i did manage to find 2) said the 1985 test launch was a failure, it is also a heavy saying that the 7800 was delayed and not brought because of the NES success in 95 (which is actually mainly from here yet the 7800 profile on the main part of this site says the opposite) yet other sources say other wise. but that is mostly because they use a POV perspective insted of an on paper perspective.

 

This whole book, it will surprise many people, as it contains down right in most cases outside certain estimates for numbers as those are hard to come by, strict on paper references that cannot be denied even with the most common consensus misinformation. (for example, Coleco was going to buy Atari at one point. offered a deal, and there are numerous articles sources including actual firm press release scans.)

Edited by John Mayor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I think a rogue something has some links on here on this site, he was a user that has some of these questions partially answered but i can't find them)

I believe you're referring to "Retro Rogue", a.k.a. Marty Goldberg, the co-author (with Curt Vendel) of "Atari Inc.: Business Is Fun". If you're researching the Video Game Crash, he'd be a good person to talk to (if you haven't already), as both he and Vendel have conducted extensive research into the events and circumstances which contributed to the crash.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best source for finding out exactly what happened during the Video Game Crash would be the gaming magazines from '83-'84 which you can find on archive.org and Atarimania. The 2600, or VCS as it was called, was the most popular platform because there were more games for it. There were more advance systems but they had apdaters to play 2600 games which became a standarized format like VHS tapes. Problem was the limitations of the 2600 hardware and a whole glut of games from anyone because it was first seen as a gold mine. So even with 2600 games in the discount bins (or because of it) people still bought them to build up their collection. Chain stores though got upset that they expected to sell the games at full price and they took a financial hit. And of course journalists declared video games a fad and home computers were more serious. The real reason why people bought Commodore 64's and such is because they play games with better graphics and control. But still magazines at the time sound like it was an embarassment to even say the words "video games" which was why there wasn't much talk about how the industry was between '84-'86.

 

And that's why Nintendo have huge uphill climb to even succeed in North America. That 1985 test market you describe was probably the AVS which was suppose to be like a home computer because of all the perceptions mentioned before. But the kids that played it hated it so they had to go with Plan B. The '86 test market was the NES which was remade into a toy with a robot and laser gun to get the chain stores to even look at it. It worked and that's how Nintendo got their foot in the door.

 

(The 7800 had been made in '84 but Atari Corp couldn't get it out for another two years due to legal issues, Marty Goldberg can explain it fully...)

 

The NES, SMS and 7800 got the same start in the overall market. Nintendo though had the advantage of 3rd party games imported from Japan and the exclusive lock-in which gave them the largest library of all the 3rd generation systems. So that's why gaming magazines gave Nintendo credit for "saving" video games because they were still mad at Atari for nearly ruining the industry and Commodore became forgotten in North America. And of course the kids that read the mags believed every word of it to this very day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall we brought in a couple NES with the robot systems for Christmas 85,got them from NY I thing. Neither sold and people thought the robot was weird. It jsut sat and after thr holiday we sold them at a big loss. later in mid to late 86 demand for it started. so could be tryue, originally people just did not know wht it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on topic @cimerians, Not sure where your non-american comment came from but anywho yes, i know these are hotly debated issues,

 

 

They are and that's just my point of view as you mention. If you need cold hard facts I mentioned EG, the Phoenix books and many other sources including Curt and Marty who can point you in the right places....even look into picking up Bill Kunkel's book and look for his interviews online before he passed away. If you cant find something just use your best judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The best source for finding out exactly what happened during the Video Game Crash would be the gaming magazines from '83-'84 which you can find on archive.org and Atarimania. The 2600, or VCS as it was called, was the most popular platform because there were more games for it. There were more advance systems but they had apdaters to play 2600 games which became a standarized format like VHS tapes. Problem was the limitations of the 2600 hardware and a whole glut of games from anyone because it was first seen as a gold mine. So even with 2600 games in the discount bins (or because of it) people still bought them to build up their collection. Chain stores though got upset that they expected to sell the games at full price and they took a financial hit. And of course journalists declared video games a fad and home computers were more serious. The real reason why people bought Commodore 64's and such is because they play games with better graphics and control. But still magazines at the time sound like it was an embarassment to even say the words "video games" which was why there wasn't much talk about how the industry was between '84-'86.

 

And that's why Nintendo have huge uphill climb to even succeed in North America. That 1985 test market you describe was probably the AVS which was suppose to be like a home computer because of all the perceptions mentioned before. But the kids that played it hated it so they had to go with Plan B. The '86 test market was the NES which was remade into a toy with a robot and laser gun to get the chain stores to even look at it. It worked and that's how Nintendo got their foot in the door.

 

(The 7800 had been made in '84 but Atari Corp couldn't get it out for another two years due to legal issues, Marty Goldberg can explain it fully...)

 

The NES, SMS and 7800 got the same start in the overall market. Nintendo though had the advantage of 3rd party games imported from Japan and the exclusive lock-in which gave them the largest library of all the 3rd generation systems. So that's why gaming magazines gave Nintendo credit for "saving" video games because they were still mad at Atari for nearly ruining the industry and Commodore became forgotten in North America. And of course the kids that read the mags believed every word of it to this very day.

 

This is a very interesting posts but i have no source for these. i see you are pointing me to a couple of sites, but in the case of archives.org i do not know of any names of magazines to look in their. If you can provide me the names of the sources that contain this information you speak of then I can add it, other wise it will be ridiculed in the modern day over the "wiki/IGN concensus."

 

In fact some of what you say to me makes a lot more sense thinking logically, because looking at how the 7800 sold before 89 it made no sense to me how this consensus came to be. it makes even less sense that almost all current sites that have this information are unsourced and use POV articles to prove their point instead of actually being accurate. Which is why i am going for the end all be all complete book with no room to wiggle people favorisms and altered (whether forgotten ot on purpose) memories of the past.

 

If you cant find something just use your best judgement.

You don't seem to know how the modern worl works. using my judgement without references will cut out deals i made for the book and people will think it's a POV nonsense to change the already revised history i have again, tried this before, so do not think that I am ignoring your suggestions it's just how it is now. I already have the majority of my WHOLE book with pretty much impossible to debate factual sources, all you can at least acess online, containing links and sites where you can look at magazine scans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be wonderful to have solid sales figures for each company, and each console, but that data is simply not available (with perhaps a few minor exceptions for Atari). The best you are going to get is contemporary industry analyst's opinions about market share.

 

Are these estimates accurate? As there is nothing solid to compare them against, there is no way to answer that question. Look at as much data from as many sources as possible and see what the broad trends are. It is unlikely that two different sources will have the exact same figures, but overall they should be similar. Ignore the obvious outliers.

 

Many years ago, I was researching a local business for the time-period 1880-1930. The original financial records were long since destroyed, so I went with the estimates of annual sales, credit worthiness, etc. as published in the trade magazines and local newspapers. That was not an ideal approach, but that was the only data available, so I had to make the best use of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the interest of simplifying.....there were technically two crashes, one in the arcades and one at home. However, and this is a point that is often overlooked, neither flushed the industry down the toilet. TONS of video games were sold regardless, arcades continued to operate, there just wasn't anywhere near the glut that there was previously. It was a bubble, brought on by strong sales in a new industry, and multiple companies jumped on the bandwagon. That couldn't hold the weight of overproduced games, garbage games, and price wars between manufacturers.

 

As for Mattel and Coleco, they were toy companies first and foremost. They operated on the basis that pretty much all toys are fads and will pass. Exceptions being stuff like Barbie, LEGO, Nerf, etc. Most get a few years and die out. Neither company were in it for the long haul, because that's just not how they operated their toy businesses.

 

Nintendo on the other hand, came in with a plan executed perfectly, unlike their predecessors who were flying by the seat of their pants.

Edited by Greg2600
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: And no, Nintendo did not save gaming. Looking at the current marketplace, at least 2 of the biggest publishers came through the "crash" just fine (being EA and Activision).

 

Though I agree with you, EA and Activision were making bank on computers, EA especially who also made things like paint and music programs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really doubt there is a simple answer to many of those questions.
If you can't provide a definite common response, present the different views as best you can.

Frankly, the viewpoints as to what happened are different because different companies, different individuals and even different locations all had different experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't seem to know how the modern worl works. using my judgement without references will cut out deals i made for the book and people will think it's a POV nonsense to change the already revised history i have again, tried this before, so do not think that I am ignoring your suggestions it's just how it is now. I already have the majority of my WHOLE book with pretty much impossible to debate factual sources, all you can at least acess online, containing links and sites where you can look at magazine scans.

 

I said if you cannot find facts use your best judgement and explain that in your book so people understand what you have done and to what lengths you have searched. Its not nonsense. All I'm saying is that its almost impossible to get black and white physical facts and if there are people who cant understand that then in my opinion they are not worth your time. I'm sure the MAJORITY of readers will enjoy the book you cant worry about pleasing everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It would be wonderful to have solid sales figures for each company, and each console, but that data is simply not available (with perhaps a few minor exceptions for Atari). The best you are going to get is contemporary industry analyst's opinions about market share.

 

Are these estimates accurate? As there is nothing solid to compare them against, there is no way to answer that question. Look at as much data from as many sources as possible and see what the broad trends are. It is unlikely that two different sources will have the exact same figures, but overall they should be similar. Ignore the obvious outliers.

 

Many years ago, I was researching a local business for the time-period 1880-1930. The original financial records were long since destroyed, so I went with the estimates of annual sales, credit worthiness, etc. as published in the trade magazines and local newspapers. That was not an ideal approach, but that was the only data available, so I had to make the best use of it.

 

I was asking for estimates though. If only Rouge was here to find half the threads on a few of these questions on here lol, the search here is.. amazingly bad.

 

As for the rest of your post I understand what you are saying. Technically unless i am mistaken, we only have 7800 solid (U.S. only) numbers. I have been looking for magazines outside the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's plenty about the crash in the final few issues of Electronic Games -- a magazine that, tellingly, then became Computer Entertainment in 1985 (and folded after a few more issues).

Another good source is Electronic Fun with Computers & Games also hosted on Digital Press (I appoligize for thinking the scans were on a different site).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have actually gotten most of these questions answered, or at least in some cases, have sources to base conclusions off of. Thanks to others who send me PM's with information, although it might be interesting for you to post your findings on the thread as well but I am sure you are doing that for a reason i suppose.

 

Now there is only two old consoles I need a bit of info on, and then i can start the demo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...