Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: What if the video game crash of 1984 never happened?

  1. #1
    Strawberry (Level 2)
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    583
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    156
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    22
    Thanked in
    22 Posts

    Default What if the video game crash of 1984 never happened?

    Let's say that instead of a video game crash in the mid 1980s, the market sorted itself out like it did in the mid 1990s when there was a similar glut of systems. I know the conditions in 1983 and 1995 were very different, but they had two things in common: a glut of systems, and lots of shitty games. This manifested in the 1990s mostly on the less-popular systems, like the CD-i, Jaguar, and even Sega's addons. But let's say something similar happened in the 1980s. Instead of a crash, let's say the shitty games simply sold poorly and went by the wayside, with the market carried on the good games. There were good games back then (a great deal of them were arcade ports, but many weren't).

    Personally, I think there would be some differences in today's market, but it would still be mostly similar. The fly-by-night developers that mostly peddled refried shit would have gone out of business, and the third parties that pumped out mostly good games (such as Activision and Imagic) would have probably survived longer. The ColecoVision would have done much better; it was emerging as the leader of the "2.5" generation, and with more time would have been able to build up a larger market share. One reason for the crash is that the Atari 2600 market was saturated and many low quality, rushed games appeared on the system. The 2600 probably wouldn't have died off in 1983-1984, but continued on for several more years. With the market moving to the next generation systems, a lack of a crash would mean there was no post-crash "reboot" for the 2600 ("The Fun is Back" no more!) and the 2600 would have ceased production around 1986-1987.
    By 1983, Atari had started fucking up and there is no reason to expect that the 2600 would have out-competed the ColecoVision. By 1984, the 2600 would be starting to die, the 5200 stagnating, and Coleco would take the lead in the market. By this time, the Famicom (NES) and SG-1000 were out in Japan, and with a video game market that was still alive in the US, all likelihood is that both the Famicom (possibly renamed as something else, but probably not the NES) and the SG-1000 would have seen '84 releases, if not holiday '83 releases. The Famicom wouldn't be marketed as an "entertainment system", it would more closely resemble its Japanese original. It would have probably seen success, much like it did anyway, although it would have probably got 75% of the market share as opposed to 90%. The underpowered SG-1000 would still have been replaced by the Master System, the ColecoVision would probably have been superceded by a new Coleco console. By 1986 Coleco had a very successful line of Cabbage Patch dolls, and despite the worthless piece of rancid dog shit known as the Coleco Adam, a more successful 'Vision would have done wonders for the company. A four way console race would have likely been unsustainable, and Atari would bounce along the bottom much like the did in real life and die in the '90s. Nintendo and Sega would likely take over most of the Famicom era market, with Coleco being in third, maybe 10-15% market share. Eventually, Coleco would have died out as well; I just can't see them beating Nintendo or Sony. But I could definitely see Coleco lasting into the '90s. If nothing else, the PlayStation would have got them.

    What's your take on it?
    Real collectors drive Hondas, Toyotas, Chevys, Fords, etc... not Rolls Royces.

  2. #2
    Apple (Level 5) Gamevet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,056
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Default

    That scenario would have never happened. Consumers still would have moved on to those affordable 8-bit home computers, even without the over saturation of Atari carts. The sudden switch in consumer interest to computers amplified the problem Atari faced with market saturation.
    Last edited by Gamevet; 06-24-2015 at 10:45 AM.

  3. #3
    Great Puma (Level 12) Steve W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    DFW Metroplex, Texas
    Posts
    4,729
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    79
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    53
    Thanked in
    48 Posts

    Default

    The game crash didn't happen because of lousy games, it was because the leader of the pack, Atari, was run by a bunch of idiots. They were designing holographics, videophones, and a bunch of other things that weren't at their core competency. They had something like 120 buildings scattered all across Silicon Valley working on all sorts of things, and none of it was coming to market fast enough to defer all the R&D costs. They were losing something like two million dollars a day by the end, and their management were doing absolutely everything wrong that they could get wrong. None of them really knew anything about video games or home computers, and being at the tip of the first wave of 'real' game consoles, they didn't know that the market matures and you've got to have a decent follow-up console. They could have easily survived stuff like E.T. and Pac-Man being failures in the marketplace if crappy games were the only thing that was wrong with the situation. The 1984 game crash happened for many reasons, not just a bad movie tie-in game flopping, Atari didn't know how to fix the multiple problems it was facing, and once Atari crumbled, the rest of the marketplace lost confidence and everybody else toppled like dominoes. Video games were considered by the mainstream to be a fad, and a lot of the gamers graduated to home computers with games far more complex than the humble Atari 2600 were capable of.

    I wonder if Atari had put out the 7800 rather than the 5200 if things would have changed. Sure, it wasn't even conceived yet, but still, if they'd put out a strong capable console with decent joysticks and backwards compatibility, could they have retired the 2600 and passed the torch over to the next generation. Nolan Bushnell wanted to retire the 2600 back around 1978 or so and come up with a more powerful machine, I wonder what the market would have been like if that happened, a new more capable console with launch titles like Asteroids and Space Invaders.

  4. #4
    Cherry (Level 1)
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Milwaukie (Oak Grove), Oregon
    Posts
    352
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Coleco would finally have released the Intellivision expansion module for the ColecoVision.

    ~Ben

  5. #5
    Apple (Level 5) Gamevet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,056
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColecoFan1981 View Post
    Coleco would finally have released the Intellivision expansion module for the ColecoVision.

    ~Ben
    Coleco blew all of their money on the Adam computer.

  6. #6
    Pear (Level 6) Gentlegamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,233
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    7 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gamevet View Post
    That scenario would have never happened. Consumers still would have moved on to those affordable 8-bit home computers, even without the over saturation of Atari carts. The sudden switch in consumer interest to computers amplified the problem Atari faced with market saturation.
    Those home computers weren't affordable, and the market for them was very niche compared to the mass market of home console systems. There was never a switch, sudden or otherwise, in interest to computers. Ask Coleco about their Adam home computer.

  7. #7
    Apple (Level 5) Gamevet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,056
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gentlegamer View Post
    Those home computers weren't affordable, and the market for them was very niche compared to the mass market of home console systems. There was never a switch, sudden or otherwise, in interest to computers. Ask Coleco about their Adam home computer.

    Right!

    Coleco responded to the sudden interest in home computers by trying to market the failed Adam Computer. Even Mattel tried to bring the Aquarius computer to the market, to battle the sudden interest in home computers.


    The Atari 5200 launched at $270.

    http://game-consoles.specout.com/q/1...e-console-cost

    The Intellevsion launched at $300

    The Colecovision launched at $200

    http://gaminghistory101.com/tag/coleco/

    The TRS-80 CoCo launched at $400

    http://oldcomputers.net/coco.html

    The Vic-20 launched at $300

    http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=252

    The C-64 launched at $595 and was dropped down to $200 by 1984.

    http://oldcomputers.net/c64.html

    The Ti 99/4A launched at $525, but was quickly priced out of the market by the C-64.

    http://computermuseum.50megs.com/brands/ti994a.htm

    The Adam computer launched at a price @$700 in 1984.

    http://www.old-computers.com/museum/....asp?st=1&c=57

    The Adam computer was a piece of crap. The early units had a bug that resulted in many of the early units being returned to retail.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_..._crash_of_1983

    The first microcomputers such as the Altair 8800 and Apple I were marketed to a niche of electronics hobbyists as most required assembly from a kit. In 1977, pre-assembled machines with BASIC in ROM became available, including the "Trio of '77": the Apple II, Commodore PET, and TRS-80 Model I. The latter two retailed for under $1,000, but lacked game joysticks and high-resolution color video.[11] Third-party developers created games for all of these platforms. The TRS-80 benefited from Radio Shack's retail stores, which displayed computers and accessories locally in an era where many personal computers were mail-ordered from manufacturers.

    In 1979, Atari unveiled the Atari 400 and 800 computers, built around a chipset originally meant for use in a game console, and which retailed for the same price as their names. In 1981, IBM introduced the IBM 5150 PC with a $1,565 base price,[12] while Sinclair Research introduced its low-end ZX81 microcomputer for ₤70. By 1982, new desktop computer designs were commonly providing better color graphics and sound than game consoles and personal computer sales were booming. The TI 99/4A and the Atari 400 were both at $349, Radio Shack's Color Computer sold at $379, and Commodore International had just reduced the price of the VIC-20 to $199 and the 64 to $499.[13][14][15]

    Games dominated home computers' software libraries. A 1984 compendium of reviews of Atari 8-bit software used 198 pages for games compared to 167 for all other software types.[16] Because computers generally had more memory and faster processors than a console, they permitted more sophisticated games. They could also be used for tasks such as word processing and home accounting. Games were easier to duplicate, since they could be packaged as floppy disks or cassette tapes instead of ROM modules (though some cassette-based systems retained ROM modules as an "instant-on" option). This opened the field to a cottage industry of third-party software developers. Writeable storage media allowed players to save games in progress, a useful feature for increasingly complex games which was not available on the consoles of the era.

    In 1982 a price war began between Commodore and Texas Instruments, and home computers became as inexpensive as video-game consoles;[17] Because of vertical integration, Commodore—which even discontinued list prices—could make a profit when selling the 64 for a retail price of $200.[18] Dan Gutman, founder in 1982 of Video Games Player magazine, recalled in 1987 that "As the first wave of the personal computer boom started, the video games market began to taper off. People asked themselves, 'Why should I buy a video game system when I can buy a computer that will play games and do so much more?'"[19] By the time TI was ready in 1983 to introduce the 99/2 computer, designed to sell for $99, the TI-99/4A sold for $99;[20] the Atari 800's price in July was $165;[21] and after Commodore cut the retail price of the 64 to $300 in June 1983 some stores began selling it for as little as $199. A newspaper stated in September 1983 about the cancellation of the Intellivision III, "Who was going to pay $200-plus for a machine that could only play games?"[22] Commodore explicitly targeted video game players by offering competitive upgrades, where rival systems could be traded for a discount toward the purchase of a Commodore 64. Commodore's ownership of chip fabricator MOS Technology allowed manufacture of integrated circuits in-house, so the VIC-20 and C64 sold for much lower prices than competing home computers. Atari and Texas Instruments were squeezed out of the desktop market. Many European and Japanese computer manufacturers chose to avoid the saturated U.S. market, hence the North American absence of computers like the MSX and Amstrad CPC.[citation needed]

    By 1983, Gutman wrote, "Video games were officially dead and computers were hot". He renamed his magazine to Computer Games in October 1983, but "I noticed that the word games became a dirty word in the press. We started replacing it with simulations as often as possible". Soon "The computer slump began ... Suddenly, everyone was saying that the home computer was a fad, just another hula hoop". Computer Games published its last issue in late 1984.[19] In 1988, Computer Gaming World founder Russell Sipe noted that "the arcade game crash of 1984" had "took down the majority of the computer game magazines with it." He stated that, by "the winter of 1984, only a few computer game magazines remained," and by the summer of 1985, Computer Gaming World "was the only 4-color computer game magazine left."[23]
    Last edited by Gamevet; 06-24-2015 at 11:20 PM.

  8. #8
    Great Puma (Level 12) Niku-Sama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Deadford, OR
    Posts
    4,143
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    65
    Thanked in
    60 Posts

    Default

    if the crash never happened we'd all still be playing Atari 2600 and pacman and et on it because since it didn't happen we were all content that those were good games to keep around and keep the same system for almost 40 years because it never really needed improving and no one ever got tired of it and the same old stuff. Atari would have stagnated after selling the same system for many years, by this time thered probably be enough 2600's that every person could own 3 of them, every person on the planet that is, so they would still be in business but not exactly rolling in the dough like they were.

    this is what I think would happen, because the crash happened because they kept making the same thing, there weren't any improvements in the tech for a long time on that system and people got tired of it.
    but if it didn't happen it would translate into the population being content on how the games and their hardware were

  9. #9
    Kirby (Level 13) Tanooki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    5,964
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Default

    Niku is being overly extreme (sarcasm?) but it's a valid point. If they were just happy as long as they were at Atari to sit on that turd of a 2600 and make money off it, it would be a benchmark for others to follow. Even as successful as Nintendo is in the era(was now) look at the NES as it was around for 9 years! 1985-1994(last game Wario's Woods) and even in that 9 year period 7 of it was pretty active still and 6 was without the SNES. And then the Gameboy, 1989 through 2002 (Last GB/GBC hybrid was 2001, GBC only late 2002.) Nintendo in both cases had little to no reason to bother let alone care to move things along because it sold and sold well, people enjoyed their systems and games and more than ever got their values worth out of it. Had the backstabbery and other weird junk of the 90s not happened the 16bit era could have repeated that fact and rode out the 90s pretty much without issue. I think gaming hardware wouldn't be as far along because there would have been more motivation to maintain profits having more games and not developing more systems faster than before. Mind you cell phones and tablets would have eventually screwed with the gaming industry and forced change, but it would have been later. Now you're looking at systems that last if you're lucky 4-5 years before they're outdated, but oddly now they're making games so much on the old stuff the new isn't being picked up well so it's almost like a spring back to the past of a longer life. You don't really see PS3 and 360 releases slowing much as they should be.

  10. #10
    Apple (Level 5) Gamevet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,056
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Default

    I don't think you are going to see a whole lot more games being produced for PS3 and 360. It's going to be mostly updates to sports franchises like FIFA and Madden. The 360 has been around for 10 years; it had a great run.

  11. #11
    celerystalker is a poindexter celerystalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,818
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    14 Posts

    Default

    The thing is, a "crash" was inevitable. It's simple technological evolution. Old tech gets stale and people lose interest to a significant degree, especially in regard to games. The crash wasn't as much a legitimate collapse as it was the retail worldbeing understandably unaware that systems come and go in cycles as technology becomes new and attractive, gains a user base, and then slowly becomes irrelevant to other entertainment options. It was less of a crash and more of an awkward transition, and in hindsight, completely understandable. How were retailers supposed to predict the next big thing when it was happening in Japan for the first time?

    I think the better question would be what if Atari had been managed well. What if they hadn't done their weird co-development of the 5200 and 7800? What if they continued to be stronger in their arcade division? What if the Tramiel sale didn't happen? What if Atari had ended up as the US distributor for the NES?

  12. #12
    Pear (Level 6) Gentlegamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,233
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    7 Posts

    Default

    Atari being managed well wouldn't have stopped the avalanche of garbage games since there was no lock out technology in their systems. Unless you retroactively include lock out in 'managed well.'

  13. #13
    Kirby (Level 13) Tanooki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    5,964
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Default

    If Atari hadn't tried to ream Nintendo and they owned the rights to peddle the NES in the US they'd probably have lasted into the 21st century. I know the name is around now, but it's an arrogant little french pig using the name and the licenses it still owns trying to get third parties to make games while he makes repeated unreasonable demands and pissing everyone off who crosses his path (a story onto itself I know multiple angles about.) Depending how Nintendo would have licensed current or future rights to Atari back in the mid80s it could have been a one system deal, or something Atari could option to keep renewing themselves going forward as they were the ones with the clout then. I don't see them having blown it so horribly as Tonka did with Sega (Master System.) I'm not sure we would have ever seen the 5200, 7800 or the Jaguar. They could have became the long term distributor and main office in the US if not globally outside of Japan's grasp as well as being an exclusive game maker too. It would have been interesting given the hardware Nintendo made and the atari/bally/midway properties Atari controlled which could have been exclusively ported from the arcades.

    The question of management, even if Atari were still fairly dumb, Nintendo did lock their systems out, so they still would have had some form of control over what people were allowed to peddle, and NCL still would have been pulling Atari's strings to sue the crap out of unlicensed game makers along with threatening retailers probably all the same. The difference I'd think would be Tengen would have had even nicer versions of games, all licensed, thanks to internal knowledge Nintendo always seems to hold back so they can make the best games.

  14. #14
    Great Puma (Level 12) Steve W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    DFW Metroplex, Texas
    Posts
    4,729
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    79
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    53
    Thanked in
    48 Posts

    Default

    Did the original Famicom have a lockout chip? It seems like there's all sorts of casing styles for Famicom cartridges, making me wonder if they originally didn't have any kind of lock-out chip in Japan, and after the Atari market was drowned in third-party drivel which sank the market, they decided to use a lock-out chip in the NES. Not having any kind of protection in the original model would explain why there was so much piracy of Famicom games in Asia.

    The Atari 7800 had a lock-out chip in it, a fairly good one from all accounts. Not the kind of chip that you can circumvent like the NES chip. It could have held its own very easily if it had been put out rather than the 5200, and kept out the riffraff from creating shovelware like they did on the 2600.

    What I would find interesting to know is how joysticks would have evolved. I believe Gunpei Yokoi, the creator of the Game & Watch series, was left-handed and the Famicom/NES control pad was based on the Game & Watch control scheme. Suddenly the joystick way of playing, with controlling your character with your right hand and firing with your left, were switched. I'd like to know how joysticks would be shaped after multiple generations if they had remained the traditional form of control rather than a game pad.
    Last edited by Steve W; 06-26-2015 at 03:24 AM.

  15. #15
    Apple (Level 5) Gamevet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,056
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Default

    Arcade games like Street Fighter 2 had the joystick on the left. It must be a Japanese thing.

  16. #16
    Ghostbuster


    Greg2600's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Soprano Land, NJ
    Posts
    4,003
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    10
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    65
    Thanked in
    60 Posts
    Xbox LIVE
    Greg2600

    Default

    As others have noted, the crash was caused by business practices by nearly the whole industry at the time. Crash or not, Nintendo and SEGA were coming ashore. The timing would have been another story, but they were on their way. Sony and Microsoft began to have people from within the game industry run the show 15 years ago, most companies were run by people with retail experience, but not in games and often not in toys.
    The Paunch Stevenson Show free Internet podcast - www.paunchstevenson.com - DP FEEDBACK

  17. #17
    Cherry (Level 1) Flojomojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    200
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gamevet View Post
    Arcade games like Street Fighter 2 had the joystick on the left. It must be a Japanese thing.
    I feel that without the market corrections that the big crash brought, Japanese gaming would not have gained such a foothold in the West, possibly until the Sony Playstation came along.

    Then again, what do I know? I didn't realize that Japanese companies were behind some of the classics of our day, simply because they were licensed by Western companies. Pole Position was covered in Atari stickers and billboards, and Pole Position II was the Atari 7800 launch game, but it was Namco all along. Same for Dig Dug, Galaga, Galaxian, and so on. I probably thought Coleco had more to do with Donkey Kong than Nintendo back then. Which goes to show, what we experienced, and what we think we understand, might not be the whole picture.

    We should ask the author of Console Wars to construct some more phony dialogue to tell us the "inside story" of the crash from the perspective of Atari, Commodore, et al.

  18. #18
    Pear (Level 6) Gentlegamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,233
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    7 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flojomojo View Post
    We should ask the author of Console Wars to construct some more phony dialogue to tell us the "inside story" of the crash from the perspective of Atari, Commodore, et al.
    He would contact Tom Kalinske, who would tell him he was secretly the mastermind behind everything good that happened.

  19. #19
    Great Puma (Level 12)
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,993
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    8
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flojomojo View Post
    We should ask the author of Console Wars to construct some more phony dialogue to tell us the "inside story" of the crash from the perspective of Atari, Commodore, et al.
    I recently read Console Wars.
    Glade to see I wasn't the only one who thought it was crap.

  20. #20
    Kirby (Level 13) Tanooki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    5,964
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Default

    That bad eh? I've heard of the book, hadn't heard it was a steaming pile though. Anyone ever write up some article or well meaty sized book review pulling up facts why it sucks? I love seeing revisionist history destroyed when it's not in the context of amusement (alternative history) which I do like reading because it's plausible crap that just didn't happen.

Similar Threads

  1. 1984 crash: some info
    By Arqueologia_Digital in forum Classic Gaming
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-30-2007, 05:37 PM
  2. Help me get a crash course in video game music!
    By Austin in forum Classic Gaming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-23-2006, 07:09 PM
  3. Did you live through the Great Video Game Crash of 1984?
    By Anthony1 in forum Classic Gaming
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 04-10-2004, 01:22 PM
  4. Will there be a video game crash in 1984?
    By DigitalSpace in forum Classic Gaming
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-01-2004, 11:29 PM
  5. What if the crash never happened.
    By briskbc in forum Classic Gaming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-04-2002, 01:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •