The Case Against The Glut: Part One.

[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.