The Case Against The Glut: Part One.

[Aswald]

Over and over, it has been said that the reason American video gaming crashed in 1984 is because of "a glut of too many poor-quality games and me-too games."

I say this is a lie, fabricated in 1983/1984 by those really responsible- the Baby-Boomer aged marketers and "experts" who persuaded the industry that it was over, and that "computers were the wave of the future." They simply did what they do today- remain centered around themselves, and refused to consider how the now-two younger generations think (my "Nameless" Generation and you Generation-X folk).*

First of all, what exactly is a "glut?" Too much of something, for the market to absorb. O.K, but...

When I was a kid in the 1970s, television wasn't much different than it had been in the 1950s and 1960s- there were 3 big networks (CBS, NBC, ABC, with PBS and a number of lesser stations and affiliates in some places- even where I was, not too far from NYC, we only got 6 channels).
Then, by 1978, there were- hold on to your seats, now- EIGHT cable channels! Of course, hardly any were 24 hours, and only a few people had them, just as comparitively few people had VCRs. As for the Internet, for all practical purposes, it didn't exist (by the early 1980s, only 1 million Americans by most estimates had computers, and only a fraction of those even had modems).
Flash forward to the present. The Internet. Over 500 channels! Most everyone has a VCR, or DVD(!?), almost everyone has a computer or at least (such as yours truly) access to one. There are more movies, shows, and cartoons on videotape than you can count, and of course, even up here in Central NY, there are lots of video rental/retail outlets.

Now, there are still only 24 hours in a day, and only 7 days in a week.
There are several HUNDRED times as many channels, not to mention the other things (i.e. the Internet).
Has the population of America increased by several hundred since the 1970s?
No.

Therefore, one must conclude that there is a "glut" of channels and entertainment, and therefore the whole thing has collapsed.
But it hasn't, now, has it?

The same with music. Thanks to the Internet and burnable-CDs, there are more music acts than ever, since even a mickey-mouse garage band can put out an album. Therefore, there must be a glut of music, and the whole industry must die.
But it hasn't.

Back in the 1980s, we kept hearing about the "glut" of games for consoles, but what they didn't mention was that THERE WAS ALSO A GLUT OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS, AND TO A POINT A GLUT OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND HARDWARE, TOO!

In other words, what I'm trying to say is this: why did this glut manage to kill home videgaming, but nothing else?

The "experts" kept saying that there was "no" demand for videogaming.
How, then, did Nintendo do so well with the NES? After all, computers were more powerful than before, and if there was no demand for home consoles, then where did those NES sales come from? Obviously, the demand was there all along. This is obvious, and cannot be argued with. If the "experts" were wrong about this key fact, why does anyone believe their "glut" rhetoric? If there was no demand, if home consoles were dead back in the 1980s, then why are we on the 7th generation of home consoles, with even Microsoft getting into the act with the X-Box?

There is more to this, but this is all the time I have for now. Think about it.

*Fun Fact: Did you of Generation-X (1984-2004) know that you got your name from a Baby-Boomer psychiatrist, who wrote about what a bunch of, when you boil it down, whining quitters you are? You can check on this yourself. Maybe you want to change your name?

[kainemaxwell]

You gotta remember also, Nintendo used the R.O.B. as their "trojon horse" to get the NES into people's homes disgusting it as a toy.

[Aswald]

But that was only at the very first. It had nothing to do with CONSUMER demand, but was simply a way of getting the STORES to carry the NES. If there wasn't a demand for home video gaming, that robot would've accomplished nothing; the stores would've had it, but nobody would've bought it.

[Sniderman]

I'm not gonna go into detail, but I don't think you're too far off. I do think the "glut" contributed to the Crash, but I've also felt that the advent of home computers helped drive the final nail. Why buy a Colecovision when you can buy a C64 for the same amount? And it does more! And it's more powerful! And floppys are easier to store than carts! And you can go on-line! (1200 baud! Yeah baby!) Etc.

In fact, when the NES surfaced, I was one of the biggest nay-sayers. "I have a C128. My pal has an Apple II. Who in their right mind is gonna get a cart-based game machine in this day of home computers?" Wow, did I eat crow.

[Aswald]

But computers were around after 1984, weren't they? By the end of the 1980s, they were so much more powerful than they had ever been, yet at no point have they harmed the home videogaming business. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th...why did they only manage to wipe out the 3rd?
Again, the "experts" said that there was NO LONGER A DEMAND. Is anyone going to say that they were right? That they relayed accurate information about the consumer public? Of course not.

I'm not saying that a glut doesn't have an effect, but why didn't it kill anything else? Let's not forget, videogaming is not the only American industry to die because of inner stupidity. Anyone remember Mr. Tramiel's statement about how the Sony Playstation was never going to make it? Some things never change, I guess...

[NoahsMyBro]

I think in part the whole situation was due to a learning experience/process consumers underwent.

First - videogames are everywhere. People think, HEY, this is NEAT.

Second - relatively inexpensive home computers make the scene. People see that they can still play videogames on the computer, but the computer can also do other beneficial stuff, like home finances, help Tommy with his schoolwork/education, etc... Now, maybe most people didn't actually use the system to balance their checkbook or keep a recipe database, and the system probably didn't help most kids in school, but that was the perception.

Third - The masses recognize that the PC didn't necessarily benefit them the way they were hyped to, and in addition to that, console videogame systems were cheaper, and better at playing videogames than computers were. ENTER the NES.

It's just a theory I've just come up with, but it sounds good to me.

[Aswald]

Good theory!

But again, the demand for home videogaming never faded. The ColecoVision held on until 1987/early 1988. Is it a coincidence that the lag in learning occurred at just the right time to kill American gaming (1984), but not to kill the NES just a couple of years later (1986)?

If people did realize that computers are largely hype, why hasn't their sales been harmed? It's been so long, now...

[NoahsMyBro]

I'm only suggesting that at that time computers couldn't satisfy people's expectations. Since then, people's expectations and computer's capabilities have changed.

Around the time of the C64 & Apple ][ people were being led to believe that computers would balance your checkbook, improve your children's grades in school, do your taxes for you, etc...

Nobody thought about how the checkbook data would ever get in to the system in the first place, or how it would be simpler to just do it your self. Few people questioned the claim about improving academic achievement. I never really understood why having a computer should magically motivate me to study. It seemed to me, if I wasn't doing enough studying/homework as-is, wouldn't a computer just provide more avenues to screw around and not do my homework? As for storing recipes, what 50's throwback was still out there using cookbooks, recipes, etc... in such volume that they actually needed some organized method of accessing them? And were they expected to find the recipe they wanted, and print it out, or keep the computer system on the kitchen counter??

And I didn't think the CV was really still out there in the late-80's. Hell, I think the NES was big in '84-85, and most of the previous system's had been almost entirely forgotten by then by most people (not folks like us, obviously).

[Sylentwulf]

Your definition of comparable "gluts" is VERY far off.

Your comparing services to physical costly Cartridges. If I only have $200 to spend on games, then I will buy 4 games, leaving 500 games unbought by me. They released too many games, and people still had the same amount of money to buy games with, so a LOT of games went unbought.

On the other hand, going online doesn't cost much at all, so that's not comparable. And TV services cost less or the same amount now as they ever have, more channels is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

[christianscott27]

i think that we stopped buying the games in the crazy way people did in the space invaders/pac man craze and that casued the industry to level off but no one knew there had to be a leveling off, like with the internet crash.

by the way you're dead wrong about generation X, its not 1984-2002 its more like 1955-1975 and the term came into use from the douglas copeland book of the same name. generation x is roughly defined as the people born after the baby boom but before generation y the children of the boomers.
________
Free Porn Vides (http://www.fucktube.com/)

[Kid Ice]

My feeling is that the poor quality of the products is what caused the industry to crash. I was about 13 at the time this happened...it didn't seem like much of a coincidence to me that Atari and everyone else fell apart at about the same time that I lost interest in the whole thing.

Yes, part of the reason I lost interest was that I got a Commodore computer and could (1) play better games on that, (2) make my own games, and (3) get games for free (which some would uncharitably call "piracy")

However, I would never have gotten into the C64 in the first place if it wasn't for the loads of garbage coming from Atari, Mattel, Coleco, etc.

And IMO, a huge share of the blame rests on the shoulders of these 2 villains:

1) Atari 2600 Pac Man - this was the game that made people lose faith in Atari. Every Atari game I had played until that game was awesome, or at least it seemed. After Pac Man, I got very cautious about which games I purchased/asked for. People seeemed to get sick of Atari after that.

2) Atari 5200 - what a piece of crap. NO ONE I knew wanted any part of "System X". Even if Atari had stopped publishing 2600 games in order to move people to the 5200, it's unlikely the 3rd parties would have followed.

So, simply, the market crashed because we didn't see a half-decent system after the 2600 until the NES, and then miraculously everything was alright and videogames were "back"!

the kid

Yes, that means Intellivision and Colecovision were not half-decent systems.

No, I'm not counting the Vectrex. That was just too cool for regular people.

[Jorpho]

It seems there's no shortage of people who are saying that the TV, music, and computer industries are about to crash. Well, maybe not so much computers (which are hardly a consumer-only product anymore), but the notion of PVRs and file sharing services seems to be scaring some people into thinking that consumers will no longer settle for getting something they don't actually want.

And I think trying to classify people by "generation" is one smelly kettle of fish. It seems too much like just another thing to base discrimination on...
________
Vermont medical marijuana dispensary (http://vermont.dispensaries.org/)

[Kid Ice]

Interesting you should bring up computers, Jorpho. If the PC industry doesn't crash within the next 3-5 years, I'll be shocked. Who is buying all these new computers? I've had the same computer for 5 years, with no (non-gaming related) problems.

jeff

[Sylentwulf]

I don't think I've ever had a computer for more than 2 years. I don't think I've even used any of the same PARTS for more than 3 years or so :)
I also know a LOT of people who are starting to have multiple computers in their house, there's also still a VERY LARGE portion of america who don't own a computer yet. No WAY the computer industry is going to crash in the next 20 years if ever.

[Jorpho]

Well, I think there's still lots of people out there who are sure they need the latest and greatest, and lots of marketers who want them to keep thinking that. You can only fool all of the people some of the time, though.
________
IOLITE VAPORIZER (http://iolitevaporizer.net/)

[kainemaxwell]

And yet Dell and Gateway keep putting out computers with other useless programs installed on them too...

[Griking]

Take a look around people, the computer market IS crashing. Computer sales in most stores are WAY off in the last year or so. Do you think that’s it’s a coincidence that stores like CompUSA are starting to carry more and more non computer related items such as cameras and phones? Do you think that companies like Staples moving towards build to order computers rather than carrying them in stock is a coincidence? Why would Micron have stopped making computers if the business were so great? Do you think that Compaq merged with HP because its sales were just so terrific that they wanted to share the wealth? It’s not a coincidence; people just aren’t buying new computers as often. It’s not that there isn’t a demand for computers; it’s just that most companies are tightening their belts and the majority of people already have one or two computers already. I also think that most people are more likely upgrade existing computers rather than running out and buying new ones. I’ll tell you what, if you think the computer industry is doing so great then take a look in your local paper and tell me how many computer jobs there are other than marketing and data entry.

[Raedon]

And floppys are easier to store than carts! And you can go on-line! (1200 baud! Yeah baby!) Etc.

Actually when the C64 came out you couldn't get a 1200 baud modem just a 128 baud and 300 baud.. I didn't see a 1200 baud until late in 1986 that was $2,000.00..

Anyway the C64 killed the first wave of consoles.. What happened is the same thing that happens now but the industry knows its going to happen and has planned for it.. the 5 year lifetime of a console. The 2600 and other consoles had all been out for a while and had their run but the companies didn't see that kids wanted better games not more games for the same systems. Enter the C64, the AV cables gave it the best image yet (RF wasn't the only option.) It was the new technology (the only new technology at the time.) It was quickly discovered by everyone I was hanging with that games could be copied and traded among friends saving your summer cash for horror movie rentals.

The console industry just didn't yet have the forsight to see the need to constantly upgrade the systems every 5 years.

What I'd like to know is what happened in Japan. There was no C64 in Japan as far as I can tell.. my guess is there was no Console crash in Japan as Atari 2600 was replaced by the Famicom in 1983 while in the US the 2600 was replaced by the C64.

In reality there was no "crash" people just don't see the C64 for the powerful console it is. They just saw all the left over 2600 carts while the kids were one isle over in the computer software section..

[Griking]

Anyway the C64 killed the first wave of consoles.. What happened is the same thing that happens now but the industry knows its going to happen and has planned for it.. the 5 year lifetime of a console. The 2600 and other consoles had all been out for a while and had their run but the companies didn't see that kids wanted better games not more games for the same systems.


I don't really buy this because we didn't necessarily get better games, we just got more games for a new console and and many cases the SAME games for new consoles.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think that videogames reached a special time about the SNES era. At this point I was completely satisfied with the quality of graphics and sound effects in games. Also the consoles were powerful enough to make complex games that were more than just twitch/reflex games. Averything since to me has just been extra fluff. Sure the games look and sound great now but I don't buy the games that I buy just because they look and sound great. They have to play great too.

[kainemaxwell]

Back then also, alot of the games were left to the imaginiation as well. Nowadays we seem to be being spoon-fed everything.

[Wavelflack]

I think equating videogames to music, movies, or television, is a flawed analogy. First of all, televised programs are free (exceptions for cable, etc.), and the concepts of the material they display are not limited by the technology. In other words, the "software" can evolve indefinitely. Not so with game machines.

Music? Well, it would be more accurate to compare the rise and fall of musical genres to videogames, rather than music itself. Music has always been, and always will be, inextricably intertwined with humanity. There will never come a day when the world populace gets "burned out with music". However, time and time again, a genre rises to popularity, is shamelessly (and shamefully) exploited, and driven headfirst into the ground. There's the "glut" in music, and the consumers react the same way they did to videogames: They stop buying. They've already heard all of the clones and variations, and the genre is suddenly spent. Nearly overnight, the world decided that they no longer want to hear a Poison clone (death of glam), or a boy band (died for nearly a decade, has been recently revived), or disco (sporadic resurgence), shredder guitar music (died 1990), on and on. In 1983, people decided they were tired of the maze game genre, the uninspired driving game genre, the DK ripoff genre, etc. etc. Videogames died because they only had a handful of "genres" to push, and none to hold in reserve for when the public thirsted for something new.

Before I forget about movies, let me note that they are similar to television in that the medium (in this case film) is not a technical impediment to the artist's vision. It may be difficult to rig a special effect and make it look genuine, but the film itself has technical capabilities far beyond the saturation point of anyone's vision for the near term, at least. A person trying to create a game on an Atari 400, however, definitely has a very short horizon. If you insist on equating videogames to film (in terms of public fickleness), a closer match would be the rise and fall of the Viewmaster.

[Raedon]

Anyway the C64 killed the first wave of consoles.. What happened is the same thing that happens now but the industry knows its going to happen and has planned for it.. the 5 year lifetime of a console. The 2600 and other consoles had all been out for a while and had their run but the companies didn't see that kids wanted better games not more games for the same systems.


I don't really buy this because we didn't necessarily get better games, we just got more games for a new console and and many cases the SAME games for new consoles.

Oh we most certainly got better games. Remember Ultima I? Zork I, II, III? Remember Impossible Mission? all these were available within the first 6 months of the C64 launch.

[kainemaxwell]

Just look what happened when Warcraft 2 and the FPS mad eit big- hundreds of clones came out trying to cash in on the cow. Sometimes one or 2 would stand out with something new (Total Anniliation), but the rest wer euninspired. happened when half-Life came out and probably will again with Warcraft 3.

[Aswald]

The analogy I made is quite valid- more so than even I had thought!
First of all, most channels get important revenue from sponsors. Sponsors are not going to spend money on programs that nobody will watch, unless they have some agenda or some other reason for doing so.
The reason the analogy is valid is because television, like videogames, is based on demand. Baywatch was on the air for years; clearly it had what people wanted. The Pauly Shore Show was off after just a few episodes. Just like anything else, there were winners and losers.
Television is NOT free- out of the hundreds of channels out there, only a few are free- the ones you can get on a regular television, as we did in the 1970s and before. Do you get HBOplus and MTV2 for free, maybe? No- you have to pay a supplier for it. You have choices, many choices, and for several years I noticed satellite channels that came- and went.
The population of America has not changed THAT much since the 1970s, not by several hundred times, yet there are so many channels now. The pie is only a little larger, but now there are many, many more who want a slice out of it. Channels have to be content with less, because getting a huge portion, except in certain specific cases (the last episode of "Seinfeld") , is no longer realistic. At 4:00 P.M, I don't watch any of the Big Networks, like I once did- I watch A-Team reruns on TNN. Obviously, in 1982, CBS wasn't worried about losing a viewer to TNN, because it, like hundreds of other channels, didn't exist! TNT likes to brag that Witchblade (yuck!) has such a big audience, but if you compare its ratings with that of, say, Miami Vice, Bonanza, or I Love Lucy back in their times, you'd laugh. It's just that TNT knows that things are different now, and that BY TODAY'S STANDARDS, that show is doing well- but if, in the 1970s, a network had a show with ratings like that, it would've gone the way of Automan, The Phoenix, and The Misfits of Science.

The point I made was that where there was once a few, there are now so many, including VCRs, the Internet, DVDs, etc., etc....a glut!

It isn't likely that computers had much of an effect on videogaming. People who bring up cost are thinking of today, when you can, with some research, get a powerful computer with everything for under $700, but back in the early 1980s, you would've had to have spent, just for the C-64 alone (no disk drive, no nuthin') about $600, or roughly $900-$1000 in today's money! As always, videogaming is cheaper, and even today most people know that they are 2 separate things, except for some crossing over. By the mid-1980s, most estimates put computer ownership at maybe 2 1/2 million or so- the ColecoVision alone had 3 to 6 million owners; even if 75% only were in America, then, when you figure in 5200, Intellivision, and 2600 owners, then gaming-videogamers still greatly outnumbered their computer counterparts. The demand was there, and people were waiting...

What happened with videogaming in 1984 is a perfect example of when theory replaces actual research, and opinion replaces reality. Nintendo did not bring back videogaming, they just tapped into the demand that had been ignored-but was there- all along.

[Arcade Antics]

The analogy I made is quite valid- more so than even I had thought! The point I made was that where there was once a few, there are now so many, including VCRs, the Internet, DVDs, etc., etc....a glut!

It's not a glut when the demand is there to meet the supply. You said so yourself. There's still a HUGE demand for all those things. And besides, Wavel is right, the analogy is flawed.


What happened with videogaming in 1984 is a perfect example of when theory replaces actual research, and opinion replaces reality. Nintendo did not bring back videogaming, they just tapped into the demand that had been ignored-but was there- all along.

I still don't see your point. You're saying that nameless "Experts" hidden away in "Expert Mountain" somewhere caused the "crash" by saying "Hey, folks, there's a glut of games!"

Look, I don't care if "Experts" go on the record tomorrow and say that DVDs are passe. I'm still gonna buy 'em and watch 'em. Just like I did with videogames. Are you suggesting that we, the public, are mindless automatons?

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Or get why you're hung up on it. Or otherwise understand it.

Even if the "Experts" in question DID cause the "crash," agreeing with that sentiment isn't going to put 2600, Intellivision, and ColecoVision games back on store shelves. It happened, we know, and it's done. We can still buy all kinds of new and old games pretty much anywhere.

[Aswald]

Arcade Antics, I'm afraid that both you and Wavel have missed the point I was trying to make- entirely.

First of all, the title of my post said "The Case AGAINST The Glut." I myself maintained that there wasn't really a glut. My analogy with television is valid because- and again, you missed the point- there are far more programs than the viewing public can possibly absorb. Videotapes? Use some logic here- ever since 1984, there have literally been tens of thousands of titles added to the supply; how many videotapes do Pokemon and Dragonball-Z alone- just two programs- have? Dozens. By the logic of the "Experts," there MUST be a glut, so the whole industry must have crashed long ago.

But, as I myself said, it clearly hasn't. In spite of the fact that there are so many thousands upon thousands of different titles out there now, with more being added at an astonishing rate. And, since prices have gone down greatly (my 1981 Starlog magazine lists VCR movie tapes at an average of 60-70 dollars EACH, or roughly about $90-$100 in today's money), they are readily available for both rental AND purchase.
Didn't I say that it hasn't collapsed because there was (and is) a demand? Yes.


Your next point, about "Experts on a mountain," is curious, because that is almost exactly what happened! Look, your next statement, about the DVDs and you not caring what the "Experts" say, once again shows that you missed my whole point! You are assuming that, because YOU want DVDs, the industry will continue to make them.
But what if the industry DOESN'T ASK YOU WHAT YOU WANT?
There you go. My whole point.
There were from 3 to 6 MILLION ColecoVision owners out there in 1984, not to mention owners of other systems. How could anyone believe that there wasn't a demand? Answer- people who listened to "Experts," who tried to theorize about reality.
Understand this- the "Experts" said that videogaming was dead! The industry believed them, rather than asking the consumer public (largely members of my generation).
Again, use some logic here. In 1984, the "Experts" said videogaming was dead. By 1986, Nintendo was well on its way with the NES. Are you going to believe that in less than 2 years, people suddenly decided that they liked videogaming after all? No- it was because THE DEMAND WAS THERE ALL ALONG, like I've said a million times already. You yourself said that where there is a demand, there can't really be a glut! So- since Nintendo proved that there was a demand, then how could there have ever been a "glut," by your own reasoning?
Ask yourself this- where could the industry have gotten the idea that there was no demand, that videogaming was "dead," when this was obviously not the case? Who told them this? It sure as heck wasn't us game players!

No, we aren't mindless automatons (although looking at politics of the past 2 decades, one wonders), but what does that matter if nobody listens to us? Again, you are assuming that WE listened to the "experts," which is NOT what I've said, ever- my point was that the INDUSTRY listened to them, and once that happened, it was all over. If you are looking for a Burger King and a knowledgeable person tells you to make a left, but some know-nothing tells you to make a right, and you listen to him, guess what? You're going to get lost. It doesn't matter how much the first person knows; what matters is who you listen to. The American industry listened to the "Experts." Nintendo listened to the gaming public. Guess who got it right?

Your comment about Colecos, Intellivisions, and Ataris being over and not going back on the shelves is a statement that genuinely frightens me, because it shows that you missed my final and most important point- the fact that this sort of thing has happened everywhere. Not just videogaming- everywhere. American auto makers were whining that Japanese weren't buying American cars. What they WEREN'T saying was this:

1) Japanese people are smaller than Americans, and so do not prefer huge cars (any more than I'd want a car made for Hulk Hogan). Yet those were the cars we sent.

2) Japanese people want fuel-efficient cars; we sent them gas-guzzlers.

3) Turns are tighter and parking spaces are smaller in Japan, so smaller, more maneuverable cars were wanted. We sent them huge cars.

4) In Japan, as in England, they drive on the left side of the road. We sent them cars with the controls on the left side, just as they are here, where we drive on the right side of the road.

Now consider the cars the Japanese sent here. For one thing, how many had the controls on the wrong side? None. They knew what the consumer wanted, and gave it to them; not so the American industries. And this is one reason why so many American industries are dead. Videogaming was just the best example.

See "Off-Topics," "Star Comics," for more.

[Raedon]

every american car i've owned has had electrical problems, a body part where paint flakes off, and a seal that breaks at 100,000 miles and costs $1k.

[Arcade Antics]

Arcade Antics, I'm afraid that both you and Wavel have missed the point I was trying to make- entirely.

I guess I did.


First of all, the title of my post said "The Case AGAINST The Glut." I myself maintained that there wasn't really a glut. My analogy with television is valid because- and again, you missed the point- there are far more programs than the viewing public can possibly absorb. Videotapes? Use some logic here- ever since 1984, there have literally been tens of thousands of titles added to the supply; how many videotapes do Pokemon and Dragonball-Z alone- just two programs- have? Dozens. By the logic of the "Experts," there MUST be a glut, so the whole industry must have crashed long ago.

But here's the first problem I have with your case: there actually WAS a glut. Maybe it's not as big as reports would lead the masses to believe, but it was there. Blaming "Experts" for creating it by simply saying it existed doesn't hold any water. Game companies stopped making games because it became unprofitable.


But, as I myself said, it clearly hasn't. In spite of the fact that there are so many thousands upon thousands of different titles out there now, with more being added at an astonishing rate. And, since prices have gone down greatly (my 1981 Starlog magazine lists VCR movie tapes at an average of 60-70 dollars EACH, or roughly about $90-$100 in today's money), they are readily available for both rental AND purchase.
Didn't I say that it hasn't collapsed because there was (and is) a demand? Yes.

I guess so. I agree with that in any case.


Your next point, about "Experts on a mountain," is curious, because that is almost exactly what happened! Look, your next statement, about the DVDs and you not caring what the "Experts" say, once again shows that you missed my whole point! You are assuming that, because YOU want DVDs, the industry will continue to make them.

Wrong. I'm not assuming anything at all. I like DVDs. End of story. I like them because I like them, NOT because it's cool, hip, or because an "Expert" instructed me, or the industry, to like them.


But what if the industry DOESN'T ASK YOU WHAT YOU WANT?
There you go. My whole point.

And what I'm saying is that I don't care if the industry asks me what I want or not. I'm in charge of my thoughts, not the industry, not experts.

I sort of see what you're trying to say now, is it that the "Experts" are ruling the industry instead of consumers?


There were from 3 to 6 MILLION ColecoVision owners out there in 1984, not to mention owners of other systems. How could anyone believe that there wasn't a demand? Answer- people who listened to "Experts," who tried to theorize about reality.

I disagree with you here. Isn't it possible that many casual gamers simply got tired of games? Thus, the demand decreased substantially? We haven't grown out of gaming, but maybe they did, just as they grew out of their other toys, board games, Barbies, Star Wars, etc. You have to remember that of the 3-6 M ColecoVisions sold, probably less than half a million of them went to hardcore gamers like us.


Understand this- the "Experts" said that videogaming was dead! The industry believed them, rather than asking the consumer public (largely members of my generation).

If that's true, how do we still have new games today? And Atari didn't really stop supporting the 2600 until 1991, so where does that leave us?


Again, use some logic here. In 1984, the "Experts" said videogaming was dead. By 1986, Nintendo was well on its way with the NES. Are you going to believe that in less than 2 years, people suddenly decided that they liked videogaming after all? No- it was because THE DEMAND WAS THERE ALL ALONG, like I've said a million times already. You yourself said that where there is a demand, there can't really be a glut! So- since Nintendo proved that there was a demand, then how could there have ever been a "glut," by your own reasoning?

I guess we're splitting hairs here in a semantics issue. I throw the term "glut" around as a temporary state of affairs. There was a glut of bad games circa 1984. Then, there wasn't. A couple years back, there was a glut of PC memory. Manufacturers stopped cranking out such a huge supply, and now there's not a glut anymore. The market restored balance, just like the videogame market.


Ask yourself this- where could the industry have gotten the idea that there was no demand, that videogaming was "dead," when this was obviously not the case? Who told them this? It sure as heck wasn't us game players!

From their annual reports. Sales figures. $ in the bank.


No, we aren't mindless automatons (although looking at politics of the past 2 decades, one wonders)

I agree with you there!


but what does that matter if nobody listens to us?

It doesn't matter. I guess in the end I did miss your whole point, because I agree with that.

So in sum, you're saying that "Experts" ruined the game industry by telling the industry that it was over before it was really over?

But the industry is alive and well today, generating more revenue than the movie industry. So in the end, games win?

[odysseyzine]

I think there is a glut of bad games going on right now! But I don't think it will kill the industry. Not by a longshot. I agree with the sentiment that a lot of the games in recent years have been fluff compared to more classic eras. I think there is too much of an emphasis on a finite set of genres, and there are a lot of games that are too much the same in too many ways. I'd like to see gaming go back to innovative gameplay, and forget about making the same game over and over with more polygons.

[kainemaxwell]

Something becomes popular, thene veryone and their grandmother jumps onto the bandwagon to produce the same thing with little variation. Sometimes something different but of the same theme comes out, but then we're deluged under the same games over and over.