The Tired Debate of The Game Crash by the Uninformed

[TVs Hasselhoff]

Here is another article and thread by someone looking to make himself seem smarter than the average bear by claiming there was no industry crash in the past. This all stemmed from people claiming ET was the worst game ever and it leading to the fall of the game economy. This author states that there wasn't a bad time because games and systems were always available. By that logic, the Jaguar was a success because, for quite a while, I could pick one up at KB Toys (for $19.99).

My posting deals more with the nitpicking and fact twisting of people like this just to make a weak point, or to interpret a past that they have no recollection of. Its like watching 'That 70's Show' and seeing everyone get high, wear bell bottoms, and drive a van. Sure, to someone that is 20 years old, that would seem to be the accurate assessment of th 70's. Only recently has this rewriting of that period in gaming taken place, and it seems more to do with writing to make a name for one's self than writing for analysis or review.

Anyway, here's a link, although I'm sure there are several links out there to this topic and article. The body politic of this forum should be more than capable of punching a few holes in his argument or to those that are responding in agreement to 'the myth.'

Its important to have a clear idea of what HAS happened with gaming history, not just a few facts about this game sucking or that game getting burried in the desert. The cause and events are important, not the trivia.

http://www.gametab.com/news/474538/

[Leo_A]

He's kind of right, gaming shifted heavily to PC's around the time. Development and sales never really stopped, they just heavily shifted toward computers for a few years.

[TVs Hasselhoff]

No, i can agree with the shift to computers, but this isn't really addressing moves like Atari stashing 7800 systems in warehouses, or the fact that you could find a lot of games was because of the flood of junk license games and that people weren't buying them.

Abundance of these games doesn't mean market security, and I think he doesn't address that difference.

[Ed Oscuro]

Can't really get into it, but I noticed an interesting post:


I was there too, in fact more so than most of you I'm sure. I worked for such a company that to deal with said crash. The company I worked for also dealt with Arcades. There was indeed a crash, and it hurt all of us. Yes some companies din't make it, but some stood, but not to well. To anyone that said there wasn't a crash...I'm not very wealthy now as proof of it.

[Kid Ice]

This is a lie. I was around then, and although Atari, Magnavox, Mattel, and Coleco dropped out of the video game biz,

Dropped out? I guess they just got tired of making so much darn money.


the arcades were still jumping, the Commodore 64 hand THOUSANDS of games, and the PC was just coming into its own.

The arcades in my town closed down around 84/85.

Commodore 64 had thousands of games...that everyone stole.

The PC was not a viable gaming platform at the time.


Gamers were not without games. Stores were not without product to sell.

Correct on both counts. Stores had tons of five dollar games.


Just because the CONSOLES hit a wall doesn't mean that there was a gaming crash.

If everyone stops going to the movies, it will be a movie industry crash, regardless of DVD sales, cable, etc.


Besides, everybody who was there knows that the Commodore 64 was more gaming console than computer. Who seriously got any work done on the C64?

/me raises hand


The 'crash' is a myth. There was no crash. A big video game company died (Atari, and only the first of many times) and the other companies willingly pulled out of the console business because the computers and arcades were kicking their butts. This does not constitute a crash. This is a SHIFT.

Maybe "the great videogame crash of 1984" just sounds better than "the great videogame SHIFT of 1984".

And when did Atari "die"?


I'm so sick of this lie being turned into some sort of legend.

Yeah, it's really worth getting sick over. It's one of the worst things going on in the world.



It's false. We were playing games EVERY YEAR during the '80s. There wasn't any span of time when you couldn't find any games in stores. There wasn't any span of time when Epyx, Electronic Arts, and Capcom (among others) didn't have a platform to publish for.

Yeah because the C64 was around for about 10 years.


There wasn't a period of time in the 80s when you couldn't find an Atari 2600/5200/7800 on which to play the hundreds of games, even if the company was dead their consoles were still in stores longer than any other console in history.

Right again...you could get any one of those at a flea market for eleven dollars.


And Nintendo/Sega came along real soon after the supposed crash.

Nintendo didn't become popular until a couple years after the crash. Sega really didn't show up to the party until Sonic.


We didn't have some horrible desert gulch of gamelessness. It didn't happen the way they say it did.

E.T. didn't kill gaming. It only killed Atari.



ooo, it wasn't the planes....

[googlefest1]

im glad someone said it

sure, barels of money wasnt being made but i always saw games

and had a C64 - oh and i didnt get any work done ( i was to young for work) but i know a small company that used C64s to do acounting and run some molding machines

[Haoie]

Well, I still believe in Steve Kent's history on the VG crash. Everyone should so read that chapter in the Ultimate History of VG, I believe it's right after A Case of Two Gorillas.

[davepesc]

I agree that "crash" is a bit over dramatic. E.T. didn't kill gaming, but it shook people's faith in Atari. Add to that the possibility that Atari produced more E.T. carts than there were 2600 consoles in existance at the time (?) and you can see a financial failure coming.
They bet the farm on a lame horse.

I never knew there was a "crash" in 1983-84. All I knew is that my mom came home with a Tandy and the Atari was forgotten. A few years later, the SMS brought me back to "TV" games.

Consumers went with the best product at the time, which they often do. Atari couldn't adapt, so they fell by the wayside.
Remember also that Atari didn't really want to adapt. They were more interested in the computer end of things at the time.

[Ed Oscuro]

Well put, Kid Ice!

[KingCobra]

I was 16-17 durring the soo-called "CRASH" of the video game era and gamming like a madman, I really don't remember any crash outside of Atari and Coleco crashing. Back in those day's you really didn't move on to every new console, ya' pretty much beat the tar outta watcha had years after it's prime, by then NES and Sega were rolling out their big guns in home consoles.

Though, I do remember some coin-op arcades/dealers bailing ASAP in a panic. When Atari bail'd? I think word of mouth caused a huge panic, that's all.

[w3ace]

This discussion leads into a question I've been curious about ever since the 'CRASH' ... Will Game Consoles eventually fall by the wayside when PCs become integrated with TV? I think Atari was correct in moving to Computers and away from the console, they were just about 30 years to early.

[NeoZeedeater]

The main point of that article is correct: video games never died off. Yes, the console industry did crash in North America and it was a big deal but that should never be equated with the death of gaming in its entirety.

Too many kids who started playing games with the NES and later systems have been misled into thinking gaming somehow didn't exist in 1984/1985 despite the fact the number of games made in that period was huge and, more importantly, it was a really innovative and fun time for game design in general. It shouldn't matter that the majority of good games from that time weren't technically on consoles.

[Kid Ice]

Nintendo and Mario brought the console world back from the brink of total destruction. Period.

[ozyr]

I was around during the so-called 'crash' too, and as I see it, it never was really a crash. Sure, lots of companies went under, but I kept on buying and playing game - and they weren't discount junk on the shelves.

The crash to me was more of a time when games were not as abundent. Plus it was the time when some of my favorite consoles bit the dust. But some things made it through, and that's all that matters to me.

[calthaer]

Nintendo and Mario brought the console world back from the brink of total destruction. Period.

And the point that these guys are trying to make is that the console world is not the whole world. Or, even if it comprises a fairly good portion of it (as it does today), that it may not even contain the best parts of it.

[Kid Ice]

I was around during the so-called 'crash' too, and as I see it, it never was really a crash. Sure, lots of companies went under, but I kept on buying and playing game - and they weren't discount junk on the shelves.


So I'm to believe that the crash never happened because *you personally* were still playing game?

This over-generalization of DP forum dwellers to the population at large seems to pop up quite often.

EXAMPLE:
A) Rez has a huge fanbase on DP
there fore
B) Rez has a huge fanbase in the real world
therefore
C) Sega should re-release Rez!

Of course WE were all still playing games. But in the minds of your average American, videogaming was a fad that had run its course by the mid-80s.

[Kid Ice]

Nintendo and Mario brought the console world back from the brink of total destruction. Period.

And the point that these guys are trying to make is that the console world is not the whole world. Or, even if it comprises a fairly good portion of it (as it does today), that it may not even contain the best parts of it.

Yeah but the assertion that arcades were thriving is pretty shaky too. No, arcades weren't stone cold dead the way the console market was, but there appeared to be a significant decline in the popularity of arcades as well.

[Jorpho]

This discussion leads into a question I've been curious about ever since the 'CRASH' ... Will Game Consoles eventually fall by the wayside when PCs become integrated with TV? I think Atari was correct in moving to Computers and away from the console, they were just about 30 years to early.

People have been waiting for years for PCs to become integrated with TV. WebTV sure didn't take off, though, people are still buying TiVos instead of using MythTV, and for some reason not even the XBox 360's various multimedia capabilities don't get mentioned as much as the games.

Maybe it'll happen eventually, but it's a ways off yet.

[googlefest1]

i gues its me but i never got why ET was so bad

i rember as a kid trying it out at my cousins house -- my cousin imediately said " don't play that it stinks" i played it and i liked it - I didnt understand how to play it - but i had fun making ETs head rise and float out of the pits LOL - i have to someday sit down read the manual, discover how to play the game and find out why it has this stigmata

[Slimedog]

The crash actually got me more into gaming. Generally, I only got a new game on either Christmas or my birthday. But when stores started dumping 2600 carts for $5 or less, my dad was grabbing them all over the place. Pre-crash we had maybe 8-10 games, post-crash was just shy of 100. And I was a kid so everything was fun. I played ET for hours along with lots of other shovelware. I did a lot of C64 gaming too, but that was mostly copied games.

[Cav]

I can't really top anything Stonic said. I mean, holy cow! There wasn't a crash?

Revisionist history at its finest.

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry at the stupidity of that concept. O_O

[calthaer]

Yeah but the assertion that arcades were thriving is pretty shaky too. No, arcades weren't stone cold dead the way the console market was, but there appeared to be a significant decline in the popularity of arcades as well.

PC Games > Arcades > consoles.

[Tron 2.0]

The main point of that article is correct: video games never died off. Yes, the console industry did crash in North America and it was a big deal but that should never be equated with the death of gaming in its entirety.

Too many kids who started playing games with the NES and later systems have been misled into thinking gaming somehow didn't exist in 1984/1985 despite the fact the number of games made in that period was huge and, more importantly, it was a really innovative and fun time for game design in general. It shouldn't matter that the majority of good games from that time weren't technically on consoles.
Agreed all the market did was, slow down then pickup again.

Now that i think about it that's how i see it.

[gepeto]

They can call it what they want to.

Here is my take.
The industry did definately crash. The stores lost faith in video games and consoles in general. I remember going into Zayres dept. store and seeing all the intellivision games prices slashed. I initially didn't think much of it but then all the stores were getting rid all game related items. For a strecth all I could do was play my games and new stuff that I got on clearance. The computer was cool but the computer standard wasn't clearly defined. Tandy had there version as well as others one pc software wiouldn't work on another.

People started drifting towards vhs and other forms of entertainment. People that were against video games in the first place just spoke like they expected the market to crash by thinking that it was a fad to begin with.

Companies stop making consoles so to me that is a crash sure there were things to play but companies wanted someone else to take the risk enter Nintendo.

I remember buying the last of the colecovision items the super controllers from kaybee or toys r us one of them.

I personaaly think that if nintendo didn't release the Nes to ignite the passion again we would be looking at videogames like roller blading. Fun while it lasted.

[Melf]

Why does everyone paint the NES as this magical product that instantly set the world on fire? Yes, it did revitalize the NA console market, but it was a pretty risky endeavor that almost fell flat on its face. Anyone who would say that the market in America wasn't in bad shape (I wouldn't necessarily call it a "crash" though) is crazy.

All the NES did was show publishers that you actually had to think about what you were doing before you sent a game to market. Nintendo studied the NA market, saw what needed to be done to make their product successful with the least amount of risk possible, and gave it a shot. Had they not released the NES, Sega or someone else would have eventually been the one to get it right.

It wasn't rocket science or Nintendo's genius that saved the market, it was common sense. After the ton of crap that had been released for the last few years before the NES arrived, you couldn't just toss out something and expect it to sell.

[gepeto]

Why does everyone paint the NES as this magical product that instantly set the world on fire? Yes, it did revitalize the NA console market, but it was a pretty risky endeavor that almost fell flat on its face. Anyone who would say that the market in America wasn't in bad shape (I wouldn't necessarily call it a "crash" though) is crazy.

All the NES did was show publishers that you actually had to think about what you were doing before you sent a game to market. Nintendo studied the NA market, saw what needed to be done to make their product successful with the least amount of risk possible, and gave it a shot. Had they not released the NES, Sega or someone else would have eventually been the one to get it right.

It wasn't rocket science or Nintendo's genius that saved the market, it was common sense. After the ton of crap that had been released for the last few years before the NES arrived, you couldn't just toss out something and expect it to sell.

Well I am going by what I experienced at the time and what I read in the years to follow. I also read the book gameover(excellent it talked about the crash in depth) and it had and interesting info on what happened from the corp players involved at the time.

Alot of people have the common sense to do something but actually doing it is another matter. And just because a game had nintendo seal of quality doesn't mean it was good. Nintendo had its share of turds.

Whether or not nintendo nes came out people would still be playing games there is no denying that. But there is no denying the fact that Companies were in wait and see what happens to nintendo. mode when the nes started making gaming profitable again people were back on board. Nintendo made them pay by charging huge fees.

The competition started lining up devices to knock them off
sega had the master system out but the install base could not macth nintendo.

The nes brought on the genesis and turbo graphic,snes and creative development. Now we take cpu power for granted.
back then it took all you had to squeeze an arcade machine into a tiny cart and retain the spirit of the game.

Pressing cartridges and consoles not knowing whether or not the games is going to sell is a huge undertaking. I think they deserve there props. There fee practice and unwillingness to change there practices came to backfire on them. Alienating co and some fans alike.

[Bojay1997]

Sure, there was clearly a crash where many companies went under or got out of the videogame business and many stores stopped selling consoles and games. I clearly remember my parents and other parents being down on arcades and video games in general around that time. They were aware of the crash because everywhere we shopped, consoles and games were being sold cheap.

On the other hand, as the article points out, home computer sales really took off around this time. Every store I remember shopping at simply reallocated shelf space to the C64 and Apple 2 games and accessories. A short time later, the NES was released and consoles became acceptable to my parents again and I remember my brother and I going to buy ours at Fedco in San Diego. I kept using my C64 and eventually got an Amiga, but there was clearly a period of a year or two when console gaming just wasn't popular. I don't think most ordinary people outside of the industry ever knew how serious the economic impact of the crash really was.

[diskoboy]

Jesus... Saying there wasn't a crash is like saying World War 2 never happened.

I remember the crash vividly. Watching Atari die the slow, painful death it did was like watching your enire family get thrown into a wood chipper. Kassar and his Warner cronies dragged that company into hell. I also remember everyone trying to distance the computer market from the console market. Calling a C-64 or Apple ][ a video game was like swearing in church.

I remember everyone thinking Dragon's Lair would be the savior of the industry. Instead, the game was timid, and the LD players were always broken. Most of the console companies made a bad name for themselves in the early 80's. Too many mistakes were made. Magnavox, the innovators of the home console, was the first big company to bail out after being in 3rd that gen. Atari announced it lost $200 something million bucks and the Atari 5200 was a horrid joke. Mattell... Same story as Atari. Coleco could've owned the market if they didn't fuck up the ADAM. The second generation of consoles (the 5200, Colecovision) were not really much of an improvement over the previous gen. People didn't see much innovation in hardware until the late 80's.

[ozyr]

I was around during the so-called 'crash' too, and as I see it, it never was really a crash. Sure, lots of companies went under, but I kept on buying and playing game - and they weren't discount junk on the shelves.


So I'm to believe that the crash never happened because *you personally* were still playing game?

This over-generalization of DP forum dwellers to the population at large seems to pop up quite often.

Of course WE were all still playing games. But in the minds of your average American, videogaming was a fad that had run its course by the mid-80s.

First off - I expressed my 'opinion' and experience during the so-called Crash. I was playing and buying games during that time - period! If you don't like that, too bad. It is a fact for me! And if you actually read what I posted, I said it 'as I see it, it never really was a crash' - but I did not say that many companies died, went out of business, and games were low on demand (which did happen). To me, this is not a crash. A Crash would have been no consoles or games to be had at all - which was not the case for me... I've been through many lows in gaming history (video, rpg, and others) to not really see them how you and many other see them.
Under your terms, Dungeons and Dragons had a crash in the 90's - but I would not agree with this either - because I was there playing and buying stuff too.

I was going to post a more rude reply to your comments on my post - but frankly, your not worth the effort. All I can say in that regards is - Get Bent!

end-of-line (which means, I no longer pay attention to your posts).

[GrandAmChandler]

I was going to post a more rude reply to your comments on my post - but frankly, your not worth the effort. All I can say in that regards is - Get Bent!

end-of-line (which means, I no longer pay attention to your posts).

I suggest you start paying attention to mine. Play nice. Or else. He voiced his opinion just like you did. Everyone has a voice here on DP. If you don't have anything nice, or intelligent to say, don't say it at all please. Thanks.

[Flack]

I think some of the contention here is the difference between "was there a crash" and "did you notice there was a crash". And really it comes down to your definition of a crash.

Was there a crash in the sense that the market took a dive and it was horrible for the business? Undeniably. Did kids notice it? Depends on who you were, I suppose. Like I said in my earlier response, if you were a kid who was into computers or scooped up tons of cheap games, it probably didn't seem like much of a crash. If you worked in silicon valley and lost your job, it probably seemed much more severe.

[Aswald]

I will always maintain that the crash was largely caused by Baby Boomer "experts" and marketers who decided that video gaming was dead based largely on stupid theories. They had no comprehension of what my generation (the one after the Baby Boomers) wanted, and so the foolish industries, believing it, rushed into computer gaming, thus allowing the prophesy to fufill itself.

If video gaming really was dead in 1984 and the future really was in computers, why are we still playing with Playstation 2s and X-Box 360s in the year 2006? How does one explain the SMS, Super NES and the Genesis, the TurboGrafx-16, the rash of 3-DOs and such, the Saturns, Jaguars, Nintendo-64s, Playstations, X-Boxes, etc.? It's been 22 years; isn't that proof enough that those "experts" were...gasp!...WRONG?!!

How did Nintendo "revive" the game industry? Answer: by asking the kids who PLAYED the games, not the "experts." There wasn't anything to resurrect; it was there all along, just waiting for someone to cash in on it. Which Nintendo and the NES most certainly did.

[Kid Ice]

I was around during the so-called 'crash' too, and as I see it, it never was really a crash. Sure, lots of companies went under, but I kept on buying and playing game - and they weren't discount junk on the shelves.


So I'm to believe that the crash never happened because *you personally* were still playing game?

This over-generalization of DP forum dwellers to the population at large seems to pop up quite often.

Of course WE were all still playing games. But in the minds of your average American, videogaming was a fad that had run its course by the mid-80s.

First off - I expressed my 'opinion' and experience during the so-called Crash. I was playing and buying games during that time - period! If you don't like that, too bad. It is a fact for me! And if you actually read what I posted, I said it 'as I see it, it never really was a crash' - but I did not say that many companies died, went out of business, and games were low on demand (which did happen). To me, this is not a crash. A Crash would have been no consoles or games to be had at all - which was not the case for me... I've been through many lows in gaming history (video, rpg, and others) to not really see them how you and many other see them.
Under your terms, Dungeons and Dragons had a crash in the 90's - but I would not agree with this either - because I was there playing and buying stuff too.

I was going to post a more rude reply to your comments on my post - but frankly, your not worth the effort. All I can say in that regards is - Get Bent!

end-of-line (which means, I no longer pay attention to your posts).

I apologize because my comments obviously offended you. However, I stand firm on the FACTS. People are somehow being deluded into thinking this is a matter of opinion. The statement "I don't think there was a crash" is simply not valid. It is no more valid then "I don't think Trenton is in New Jersey".

I invite all of you "there was no crash" people to come to the keynotes at CGE in 2007. Then you can explain to those men from Atari and Activision and Imagic and Intellivision how there was no crash. I invite you to look at the literature and support your argument. I invite you to speak to key people in the industry and let us know how that goes. Get people who really know their history involved.

[Aswald]

I think what might be meant here is whether or not there was a "crash" in the usual sense.

Even in 1984, 1985, 1986, and even 1987 and into 1988 quite a few of us were still going into stores to buy games for the CV and other systems (the CV was still the strongest). This is not the behavior one expects from those no longer into video gaming.

So while the American INDUSTRIES committed suicide, the actual DEMAND was there all along. Had Atari handled things better, had Coleco not gone into that stupid ADAM computer but stuck to the CV (and imagine if Lord of the Dungeon, and its inevitable sequels, had been released starting in 1983), along with the MSX-style games Opcode has released for it (such as Sky Jaguar, with Nemesis 3 and Knightmare following in the future), the NES might not have made it here.

In other words, had the American industries been more observant and had they "stuck to it," like Nintendo did with the NES, then who knows what gaming would've looked like today?