Support NeoGAF

[Kataploom]

And they're about the become first party, industry will collapse!

 

[onQ123]

And they're about the become first party, industry will collapse!

Not going to happen the only real threat was the "Digital Babies" who grew up on free Android & iPhone games not adjusting to buying games but it turns out these little suckers spend mad money on Roblox cards so the industry is safe lol

 

[Kataploom]

Not going to happen the only real threat was the "Digital Babies" who grew up on free Android & iPhone games not adjusting to buying games but it turns out these little suckers spend mad money on Roblox cards so the industry is safe lol

They see their streamers spend money on games so they do, maybe? IDK, I was sarcastic anyway lol

 

[nush]

"What videogame crash?"
All of us Brits and fellow Europeans.

The only evidence of it in hindsight was the dump bins in the likes of Poundland full of Atari and Coleco games. Just the games mind, you couldn't get the console to go with them.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Oh yeah, this is why back in the day you were lucky to get 2 games a year and for me it was on Christmas. A game my parents would buy and the money I got for Christmas would buy the other one. Only because there was no way in hell my parents were gonna buy me a $50 video game for my birthday in 1983.

I remember the first time I walked into a video rental store and they had NES games. That was a big moment lol

 

[SmokedMeat]

It wasn't a price war so much as the home computer boom basically creating a bigger and more accessible market for video-games and consoles not being able to keep up.

The Atari VCS had been around for a long time by 1982, and for most of that time only selling modestly because it was prohibitively expensive - especially with the late 70's being a period of economic recession.

By the time it reached an acceptable mass price-point it was already outdated, and as its offer as a game console was narrower in utility than a home computer, it really needed to be keenly priced.

The plain truth is that in 1983 if you wanted to play arcade games at home, consoles were a shitty deal. And this was a situation that was effectively made even worse by cartridges being an exceptionally expensive delivery format for developers, publishers and for consumers.

Makes sense because during the crash I jumped right to the Commodore 64, which at the time felt like a massive jump over the 2600.

 

[Kadve]

That's well known. The VCS/2600 wasn't built with large scale third parties (aka, "piracy") in mind so it had no lockout chip and since it was built entirely off-the-shelf, Atari couldn't even stop people from cloning it.

This of course led to Nintendo introducing some serious harsh rules regarding third parties which might or might not have hurt the industry in the long run (it certainty hurt them).

 

[Clear]

That's well known. The VCS/2600 wasn't built with large scale third parties (aka, "piracy") in mind so it had no lockout chip and since it was built entirely off-the-shelf, Atari couldn't even stop people from cloning it.

This of course led to Nintendo introducing some serious harsh rules regarding third parties which might or might not have hurt the industry in the long run (it certainty hurt them).

I'm generally not one to praise marketing, but it has to be said what Nintendo did with the NES was a masterclass. They totally rehabilitated the idea of a gaming console with how they presented it.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

When someone says price war I kinda think of a battle in the same product category. Here its a case of people back in the early 80's deciding between getting a console or getting a home computer.

Once home computers entered the same price point, it was game over. Because the offer is just better and more broadly appealing.

Video game systems were a familiar concept at this point, but crucially they were considered toys or novelties. Expensive ones at that because the software wasn't cheap.

A home computer on the other hand, was kinda unprecedented, a tool as much as an entertainment product.

Once the idea of bedroom coding became widespread, and the fruits of that began to filter through to the market via small publishers (enabled by no longer having to deal the risk of manufacturing cartridges), consoles as they were understood at that point were done. Period.

Remember at this point there were no mascots, there were just approximations of arcade favourites. Consoles had branding to differentiate them but no real identity to speak of. So when people started to see clones or variations of these same arcade staples albeit usually under a new name on home computers, they were undercut every which way.

Until NIntendo came along and successfully reframed the idea of what a console is anyway! But even then I'd say that it took until some way into the 4th gen of consoles for them to really overtake the home computers in terms of being the perceived best way to play videogames outside of the arcades again.

There were plenty of mascots at the point the crash implosion was starting and then happening.

if you mean console "mascots" Atari had many, Coleco was associated with Smurfs AND CBK, and Intellivision was the AD&D console that also pushed for more strategic games. They had identities at the time they weren't just consoles that ran 500 versions of Pac man (which wasn't as cloned as many people think, at least not on the Coleco and Mattel consoles)

Nintendo didn't come along and reframe a single thing. Nintendo had to strong arm to success, SMB and them were there from both test launches and didn't set fires, they needed to heavily bundle it to do that to have that game identify with the console, and then some of the media decided to forget about that fact to claim it was selling on its own success even though it came with almost every NES sold.

You're view of back then is entirely incorrect. The game wasn't over either.

While yes, computers being low priced had an impact, the impact was not primarily that the computers were the better option for games and gamers chose them over consoles, because this didn't happen in large scale (although they were more powerful in most aspects, but that was true when the NES came out too unless you think it's stronger than an Amiga or ST) but that the computer, which was always seen as an expensive luxury, was nowt at a comparable price point to a gaming console when gaming consoles were trying to be more serious in the eyes of the public (which Ironically Nintendo reversed) to get out of the toy industry connection.

So the actual impact of that wasn't that people were in mass choosing computers over game consoles, the impact was game consoles also dropped the price of their hardware and software, which forced companies on both sides computers and consoles, to all devalue both industries so badly, NO ONE who was involved benefitted from any of the sales when consumers came in mass to buy all these machines and software.

The reason why the console game industry was $100-$150 million in 1985, not the myth that no one was buying games, but that there was no money being made. 10 million of something sold at $50 is different than 10 million something sold at $5.

In 1985 things started to stabilize and head back to normal. Console and Computer industry were damaged, people skip this fact. In fact that nonsense by Commodores long term effect basically created the foundations for the PC/Windows monopoly we have right now with Apple grabbing the tale.

But even with all of this consoles were still viewed as the best way to play games, not PC, not Apple Series, Not Mac. People never stopped buying games or consoles. The myth is that games sales stopped, and while there were some people that were over-highlighted being burned by the industry and retailer actions (which few people put blame on for some reason) there were still millions buying games and consoles. Oddly, this press hyperbole about "gaming being over" and "no one buying" was not done for the computer industry which actually took much more short-term and long-term damage than the console-industry from the crash.

 

[SF Kosmo]

It helped, but I think some of the classic "crash" narrative is in need of revising.

Yes, Activision's legal victories led to a flood of software for the Atari 2600, and some retailers got stuck holding on to inventory that they couldn't move. That definitely had a chilling effect, especially on retail.

But the bigger issue, and one that has been made clear every generation hence, is just that game systems generally drop off about 5 years into their life cycle, and there needs to be an exciting next-gen system to take its place. Atari didn't have that ready, or at least they shelved the one they did have ready (the 7800). Then the NES comes out and fills that void in 85/86, and the market rights itself.

That's all pretty normal, but the problem was nobody knew that at the time. People didn't have a great idea of the life expectancy of these formats, they grew and grew and then suddenly shrank. So people looked for a reason and they latched onto these narratives like "low quality software," which also nested nicely with Nintendo's justifications for their monopolistic practices.

 

[Clear]

There were plenty of mascots at the point the crash implosion was starting and then happening.

if you mean console "mascots" Atari had many, Coleco was associated with Smurfs AND CBK, and Intellivision was the AD&D console that also pushed for more strategic games. They had identities at the time they weren't just consoles that ran 500 versions of Pac man (which wasn't as cloned as many people think, at least not on the Coleco and Mattel consoles)

Every "mascot" you mention was drawn from another source, be it the arcades (for Pacman and Space Invaders which basically made the 2600) or from some other media be it E.T. or the Smurfs. So obviously the console part was ultimately just a means to service those IP's. Not the other way around, like the way Nintendo is synonymous with its stable of self-owned franchise characters.

Remember we are talking about the early 80's, the world was a very different place. TV games had been around for around a decade, and that's how the mass market saw these early consoles. Fancier and more expandable sure, but the Atari VCS was 1977 technology it was always perceived as a successor in that line with expectations set accordingly.

On the other hand, and I really have to stress this again, the idea of a home computer was still something out of Star Trek in 1981! The mass market was just becoming used to or even aware that you could buy such a thing. People had no real idea of what to expect.

But. As soon as the message got out that you could play games on these things... it gave people, especially young people an "in".

Bottom line; for me the key difference is that early consoles were synonymous with the arcade boom period, which ultimately turned out to be relatively short-lived. However home computers were perceived to be part of the overall zeitgeist of the the digital era which changed, and continues to change every aspect of our lives.

Nintendo reestablished the idea of what a game console is, within this new era of mass computerization. And yes, that was a trick achieved through sharp business and brilliant marketing, as much as the quality and individuality of their product

 

[SF Kosmo]

I don't think so. I mean yes he glut of releases had a chilling effect on retail's willingness to stock every game that came out, but much of the classic crash narrative is in need of revision.

But the bigger issue, and one that has been made clear every generation hence, is just that game systems generally drop off about 5 years into their life cycle, and there needs to be an exciting next-gen system to take its place. Atari didn't have that ready, or at least they shelved the one they did have ready (the 7800). Then the NES comes out and fills that void in 85/86, and the market rights itself.

That's all pretty normal, but the problem was nobody knew that at the time. People didn't have a great idea of the life expectancy of these formats, they grew and grew and then suddenly shrank. So people looked for a reason and they latched onto these narratives like "low quality software," which also nested nicely with Nintendo's justifications for their monopolistic practices.

"What videogame crash?"
All of us Brits and fellow Europeans.

And that's really key to understanding the American market crash. The UK gaming market was thriving at the same time the American market was crashing, despite the fact that they ALSO had a flood of independent games of sometimes questionable quality being released.

And the reason for that is because it didn't have the same problems with a single dominant format that had no visible successor 5 years in. The market was overwhelmingly dominated by inexpensive microcomputers, and software was almost entirely third party. New formats came and went organically, and they weren't left with the same kind of two year gap waiting for the next thing.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

85/86, and the market rights itself.

NES didn't do much of anything in 1985, and in 1986 people were still strongly buying Atari because that early competition could still have consoles on shelves at (some) retail.

The drop off point for consoles being 5 years is an interesting through, but all Atari basically had to do to give the 2600 another 5 years of good sales was release a redesign. Even some devs came back to make games for it.

Atari 2600 is a strange case because people wanted it not for the hardware. Possibly the only example in gaming where consumers didn't want to move on to the next big thing, after 3 generations of superior hardware releases including two from itself.

they grew and grew and then suddenly shrank. So people looked for a reason and they latched onto these narratives like "low quality software," which also nested nicely with Nintendo's justifications for their monopolistic practices.

Which was never the case because if low quality software was the cause than companies wouldn't have kept lowering their prices into bankruptcy because people were running out and buying games at low cost. maybe some got burned but when you have guys like Coleco that didn't fall in the crash still selling games, and Atari after the crash still selling games, are these millions of people buying low quality software still? After the gaming industry started to blow up since 79 consumers couldn't figure out how to pick games in 5-6 years? Come on.

The retailers who over ordered from in trouble companies and were left holding the bags when they folded, that happened BECAUSE of the crash, not the cause of it, and then those retailers made it worse by not even caring about the industry but many just threw a bunch of games (including good ones) at $2-$8 a pop, maybe 3 for $10 or some other nonsense, some in bargain bins, and that was great for gamers, horrible for everyone in the back end. They ran away as a result.

But everyone still knew the industry had money and business and retail screwed up, but it was popular to blame the players (which people also blamed for buy limits and arcade curfews) instead of who actually caused the crash. Worked well for marketing and press pundits outside the industry creating their own stories. Like E.T. and Pac Man.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Every "mascot" you mention was drawn from another source, be it the arcades (for Pacman and Space Invaders which basically made the 2600) or from some other media be it E.T. or the Smurfs. So obviously the console part was ultimately just a means to service those IP's. Not the other way around, like the way Nintendo is synonymous with its stable of self-owned franchise characters.

I didn't mention Pac Man or Space Invaders.

Mario itself was based off the arcade. Some of the most popular mascots were based off the arcade in some form. CBK was literally a ColecovVision owned IP btw, not based on the arcade. In fact, all 3 consoles had their exclusive games they were known for which was connected to the brand.

What' you're trying to do is pretend that isn't the case, and that console had no identity to push your theory that lower priced computers were a no brainer over consoles when the price lowered. Problem is even if you were right, you're not, that theory STILL would be wrong because no one was choosing computers over consoles for games in mass, the gamers did not stop buying.

but the Atari VCS was 1977 technology it was always perceived as a successor in that line with expectations set accordingly.

You're applying your theory to all consoles not just 1977 VCS.

On the other hand, and I really have to stress this again, the idea of a home computer was still something out of Star Trek in 1981!

Literally already existed for years and millions were being sold at that point, and the new wave which included the C64 also contributed to that growth BEFORE the price wars, and the price wars accelerated the adoption while also killing it, which led to the eventual majority of PC and MAC and the end of the home computer traditionally (at the time.) this was 1981, not 1971 or 61.

But. As soon as the message got out that you could play games on these things... it gave people, especially young people an "in".

People were playing games on home computers before 1981. During the crash while some people made that choice when the prices went down, it was not in mass.

Bottom line; for me the key difference is that early consoles were synonymous with the arcade boom period, which ultimately turned out to be relatively short-lived. However home computers were perceived to be part of the overall zeitgeist of the the digital era which changed, and continues to change every aspect of our lives.

Nintendo reestablished the idea of what a game console is, within this new era of mass computerization. And yes, that was a trick achieved through sharp business and brilliant marketing, as much as the quality and individuality of their product

Nintendo didn't reestablish anything. Their marketing strategy was draconian to push the competition out, otherwise the 2600 would have likely outsold the NES in 1986 because people still wanted the console because of the identity you said it didn't have to consumers (and wasn't far from it initially).

Remember the first mainstream selling game console (by itself) to reach to mass sales globally didn't have a single mascot, and had multiple games that were associated with the brand despite much of those games not even being owned by the company or having their involvement. it didn't have exactly what you're arguing, yet it was the one to break into the mainstream and get audiences into video games that weren't there before while also causing people to leave what they traditionally considered to be typical gaming (unless they were on PC or 3DO) and ran right to that same console. It was the platform itself that was the identity and the games on it, not the games creating identity for the platform.

 

[SF Kosmo]

NES didn't do much of anything in 1985, and in 1986 people were still strongly buying Atari because that early competition could still have consoles on shelves at (some) retail.

The drop off point for consoles being 5 years is an interesting through, but all Atari basically had to do to give the 2600 another 5 years of good sales was release a redesign. Even some devs came back to make games for it.

Well yes, consoles don't just disappear, the transitions take time, but there's a sweet spot to introduce new hardware. Of course it takes a few years for that new system to become the dominant one in terms of software sales, but if it isn't there, we see the market dip.

Atari 2600 is a strange case because people wanted it not for the hardware. Possibly the only example in gaming where consumers didn't want to move on to the next big thing, after 3 generations of superior hardware releases including two from itself.

Well again, this is an issue of not understanding the sweet spot for when to introduce new hardware, because generational consoles releases were uncharted territory. The 5200 released too soon, and discontinued by the time Atari needed a successor. And it didn't really offer enough of a generational leap, it was more to keep up with Intellivision.

7800 on the other hand was too late, beaten to the punch by the NES, which was better hardware in a few key ways that made it better suited to the kinds of games people wanted to see.

I do think if the 7800 launched in mid 1984 like it was supposed to, it may have fared a lot better.,

Which was never the case because if low quality software was the cause than companies wouldn't have kept lowering their prices into bankruptcy because people were running out and buying games at low cost.

Yeah, it was never about low quality software, Activision put out many of the best games on the system. It wasn't even about declining overall sales of games as a whole. But there was a glut of releases all of a sudden, and some of them sat on shelves, a cost which retailers had to eat, so I'm sure that had a chilling effect. And as retailers slashed prices on less popular games, it served to devalue games as a whole.

I don't think this was really the primary cause of the "crash" as a whole, but it does help for understanding why retail had cooled to gaming.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

The 5200 released too soon,

I don't think this is accurate. I would argue that the 5200 launched too late. Games that should have been on the 5200 were on the 2600 instead, no other major platform had this issue but Atari. The 5200 was also based on their 400 computer with some additional limitations given it was a console, yet it looks like they over engineered the console and didn't properly test the controllers.

The other issue was when Atari had a chance to revise the controllers to fix problems, they revised the controllers...without fixing the problems and they were shifting marketing priorities without real reason back to the 2600, but the 5200 was still selling despite that hitting 1 million before Coleco did which was the console all the media was touting as the death of Atari, and Atari decided to pull it out early. 5200 wasn't released too soon, it was mismanaged.

Biggest mistake people make including yourself is the thought Atari was a well run and well managed company, Atari and Warner were both run by people that didn't understand what they were doing but most of their competitors did. They had the winning next generation console (before wikipedia changed the generations those were third gen consoles) they could have fixed and screwed that up, then pulled it out early to bring out another console that was cost effective but then decided to leave because of the computer losses which they connected with the gaming department and then gave the torch to Coleco for free and Warner sold Atari to Jack.

Also 5200 was a big jump from the Intellivision. Maybe not fully capable as the CV, especially with later releases but still a jump.

7800 on the other hand was too late, beaten to the punch by the NES, which was better hardware in a few key ways that made it better suited to the kinds of games people wanted to see.

How did the 7800 come out "too late" if it released nationally before the NES did?

The reason why "eventually" NES excelled in the games people wanted to see is because those were the only games people "knew" as Nintendo also brought over as Japanese called "clones" over with the NES gradually, and many other games that all seemed to have very similar design methodology. Nintendo strong armed competition out of retail through policies even you earlier called monopolistic. In 1986, the 2600 didn't sell that much less than the NES, and the 7800 sold out all the stock Atari could produce with limited funds given the ST was only just making money and Atari Corp was a "new" company with limited funds. With the sales of both consoles only shrinking as Nintendo's policies made it hard to enter, that is why Atari and Sega were both using alternative ways to sell their consoles around Nintendo and their partners, which only worked to an extent but not enough. (Which is why Sega for Genesis entered themselves with a stronger console in 89, announced in 1988, using their reserves to fund themselves in until legal pressure had Nintendo start falling back) after that early time frame, all those people who were buying Atari (and even some Sega Master System) were all either a minority still holding on, or left because of lack of support or availability at retail to buy games for their consoles. No online ordering then, maybe catalog if you had someone who was getting Sega and Atari games in stock. So for the rest of the decade NES and those games you refer too, is ALL people knew after Atari and Sega's footprint was eradicated.

I don't think this was really the primary cause of the "crash" as a whole, but it does help for understanding why retail had cooled to gaming.

Retailers cutting costs was because of the crash, the crash caused those companies to fold. The crash did not start because of the glut. Retailers were already discounting and sitting on games, people were already not making money, as soon as retailers and some game companies left and/or died the crash happened. the consequences then created contagion.

Retailers were at fault for much of their own suffering, but the price war stuff with computers which took a MUCH bigger hit than gaming consoles in the aftermath as well as consumers perception of them (outside Apple and IBM) was really what did it. One could argue Jack caused the crash. I wouldn't go that far, since bad decisions reacting to it by people that should have had more brain sales, and reactionary poor decisions by investors and retailers, did the actual real damage, though Jack shouldn't have been able to get away with that as long as he did anyway.

The 80's basically had nothing in place for anything, crazy decade. Almost all the new rules and regulations came late decade into the 90s.

 

[Clear]

Nintendo didn't reestablish anything.

History tells us otherwise.

Remember the first mainstream selling game console (by itself) to reach to mass sales globally didn't have a single mascot, and had multiple games that were associated with the brand despite much of those games not even being owned by the company or having their involvement. it didn't have exactly what you're arguing, yet it was the one to break into the mainstream and get audiences into video games that weren't there before while also causing people to leave what they traditionally considered to be typical gaming (unless they were on PC or 3DO) and ran right to that same console. It was the platform itself that was the identity and the games on it, not the games creating identity for the platform.

No it didn't. They rode the wave of the arcade fad and as that cooled -which it had by 1982- their growth stalled.

The whole debacle with Atari started out with them paying an outrageous sum for the rights to E.T. precisely because they needed a big holiday follow-up to Space Invaders and Pac-Man. They then doubled down on this hail mary by opting for a huge production run on the carts to fulfil this anticipated spike in demand. After that failed to materialize, the emperor was revealed to have no clothes.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

History tells us otherwise.

No it doesn't, the way you personally are vaguely defining what they reestablished isn't based on anything.

No it didn't. They rode the wave of the arcade fad and as that cooled -which it had by 1982- their growth stalled.

This is a odd reply to you quoting me about the PS1. Which dismantled your previous theory.

The whole debacle with Atari started out with them paying an outrageous sum for the rights to E.T.

Atari was already losing money before ET, you're making things up now.

because they needed a big holiday follow-up to Space Invaders and Pac-Man.

Atari already had follow up hits after Pac man, and Space invaders was released in the 70s's, they already had several hits after that too.

They then doubled down on this hail mary by opting for a huge production run on the carts to fulfil this anticipated spike in demand. After that failed to materialize, the emperor was revealed to have no clothes.

Which has nothing to do with third parties, which is what this thread is arguing, and had nothing to do with the crash. nor was an issue their competitors had.

You are heading toward the myth the Crash was caused by Atari instead of what actually caused the crash and why devs were folding or running and why retail was pissed.

 

[Clear]

No it doesn't, the way you personally are vaguely defining what they reestablished isn't based on anything.

The first successful launch of a console post crash isn't anything?

This is a odd reply to you quoting me about the PS1. Which dismantled your previous theory.

Why would anyone introduce PS1 into a discussion of the 1983 crash?

Atari was already losing money before ET, you're making things up now.

They paid a fortune for the rights, did a huge and hugely expensive production run and although the game actually sold decently, it never came remotely close to breaking even. It was a major event in its day.

Atari already had follow up hits after Pac man, and Space invaders was released in the 70s's, they already had several hits after that too.

The 2600 only saw explosive growth following the launch of Space Invaders, and pac-man the following year.

Which has nothing to do with third parties, which is what this thread is arguing, and had nothing to do with the crash. nor was an issue their competitors had.

If you're a third party and your product is tied to a singular platform that is no longer doing nearly so well as it did 12 months prior you have serious issues, especially if publication requires you to manufacture cartridges up-front. You seem to have no conception as to the significance of distribution and manufacturing costs for smaller publishers.

Its a total no-brainer why shifting to a home computer and distributing on tape of floppy disc was the right move.

You are heading toward the myth the Crash was caused by Atari instead of what actually caused the crash and why devs were folding or running and why retail was pissed.

You don't seem to have a very coherent idea of what the crash was, when it happened, how long it lasted, why it was a US-only phenomenon or its place in the overall history of videogames.

You seem stuck restating the same points over and over unable to contextualize that as part of the bigger picture.

Which is pretty odd considering all that is required is to know who and what the major players were before, during and after 1983. Here's a clue; the big toy companies, the major retailers, all bailed when they realized this new market wasn't tracking like traditional seasonal toys.

The ones that flourished were the pure tech companies coming in from a more general computing base. The exception that proves the rule of course were Nintendo, yes they were involved in the arcade boom, but they adapted their properties and built product identification for that platform around them. They were very careful with their image; "family friendly but not kiddie". They also slathered their product with "seal of quality" markers to rebuild confidence.

Two things that were very important due to the moral panic coming from the resurgent religious right and exascerbated by gimmick "adult" product like Custer's Revenge causing a kerfuffle around '83.

Throughout all of this the key issue was always that the 2600/VCS was an antiquated 1977 design hardware-wise. Yes, games on that system did have a unique look, but it was dated by 1983. Badly dated visuals combined with the inflated pricing of carts made it look like a bad deal to the average consumer. Microcomputers were simply advancing more quickly and titles for them were a fraction of the price.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

The first successful launch of a console post crash isn't anything?

The 7800 and the redesigned jr were also successful at launch, this is what I mean by vaguely defining.

Why would anyone introduce PS1 into a discussion of the 1983 crash?

This is a dodge, proving my point you didn't read what you actually put in the quote box when you made that reply.

They paid a fortune for the rights, did a huge and hugely expensive production run and although the game actually sold decently, it never came remotely close to breaking even. It was a major event in its day.

It wasn't the only one either. Still had nothing to do with the crash.

The 2600 only saw explosive growth following the launch of Space Invaders, and pac-man the following year.

You're lack of knowledge on the library is interesting but this post contradicts your previous one which said the 2600 didn't didn't sell until 1982. Which is also the year Pac-Man came out for the 2600 (and 5200) and not the "year after" Space invaders as you are misinforming. Also I guess Asteroids, Missile command, Activison games, Warlords, Berzerk, Defender, Kaboom, Night Driver, etc, didn't exist in this alternate universe.

If you're a third party and your product is tied to a singular platform that is no longer doing nearly so well as it did 12 months prior you have serious issues, especially if publication requires you to manufacture cartridges up-front. You seem to have no conception as to the significance of distribution and manufacturing costs for smaller publishers.

Its a total no-brainer why shifting to a home computer and distributing on tape of floppy disc was the right move.

You seem to have no conception that third parties were running because they weren't making money. Not because Atari wasn't selling as many consoles or games themselves from 12 months before, whatever time frame your vaguely referring too, while ignoring the competition, or the fact most of Ataris' losses came from the home computers.

BTW, said home computers, in the US, where the crash happened, were mostly on Cartridges during that time, not floppies which were not big yet and a disk drive was incredibly expensive then. US also went form Cartridges eventually to Floppy in the future, Tape was not common in the US, that was more an sian and European thing. Tape wasn't used much.

You seem stuck restating the same points over and over unable to contextualize that as part of the bigger picture.

Actually no, you seem to just be mixing up information and pushing them as fact while being wrong in your execution. So far, you have had no idea what you're talking about and still want to push this make believe theory that gamers were abandoning consoles for computers in mass which never happened. The sales numbers of computers in general then even with the crash up until 1985 were mostly surrounding the C64 while other companies folded, several of the computers that were selling barely had gamers on them compared to consoles.

Saying the 2600 looked bad to the average consumer, that was still buying the console is even more nonsense. As soon as Jack's sale happened and warner jumped, and he put the 2600 with support officially back on the market with new production with games people ran out and brought it again. if what you said is true 2600jr would have been DOA and it wasn't. The decline of Atari was linked to the price wars from computers, both computer and gaming had armchair pundits predicting doom, both were not making money, both had gaming companies, mags close down, both were selling hardware at a loss causing financial and perception damage to hardware makers. Literally all the reasons why the gaming industry crashed were almost ALL the same as why the computer industry crashed, it's not a coincidence. both also started recovering around the same exact time as well.

Only difference is there wasn't a rich Japanese company that could pull the same thing Nintendo did with their retail and distribution partners and strong arm in and push the competition out taking advantage of the 80s lack of regulation and slow vetting at the bottom. Because by the time NEC was interested in coming in ST and Amiga were already out, and the perception of home computers was MUCH worse than consoles because the crash effectively made most US (where the crash happened) consumers to abandon home computers for professional computers targeting enterprise and PC clones (and Apple) creating more affordable models or payment plans with computer stores so you could have those at home. This is why almost every home computer brand was dying from 1986 t0 1990 except Commodore and Atari who managed to make it near the mid 90s ONLY because they had success in Europe and had some niche in the US, which ended up being taken over by PC clones and Apple. The crash was the end of the "gaming" computer or the "accessible" home micro in the US. Which led to average consumer adoption of computers in the first place.

 

[SF Kosmo]

How did the 7800 come out "too late" if it released nationally before the NES did?

A couple months doesn't really matter, the fact is the 7800 had to go head to head with NES on its first holiday, and it wasn't up to the task in terms of games or hardware. If it had two years to build up a library of games and establish itself as the new generation, then it might have had a fighting chance when the NES rolled around, and it just didn't.

The reason why "eventually" NES excelled in the games people wanted to see is because those were the only games people "knew" as Nintendo also brought over as Japanese called "clones" over with the NES gradually, and many other games that all seemed to have very similar design methodology.

I think the tile-based graphics hardware and higher resolution meant the NES was just better at smooth scrolling action 2D games with detailed sprites. Yes, the 7800 could do some things the NES couldn't but the fact is if you look at multiplatform NES and 7800 games side by side, it's clear which ones are better.

Retailers cutting costs was because of the crash, the crash caused those companies to fold. The crash did not start because of the glut.

Yeah, we're in agreement on this, like I said I think it was a secondary effect, not a cause, but it is still important to note the impact.

 

[Clear]

The 7800 and the redesigned jr were also successful at launch, this is what I mean by vaguely defining.

Are you seriously putting those in the same league success-wise as the NES?

This is a dodge, proving my point you didn't read what you actually put in the quote box when you made that reply.

No, my original reply was bolstering my point as to why NES and Nintendo succeeded and Atari perpetually circled the drain post 1983.

I actually misread your post and thought you were staying on topic with the crash of '83 and its aftermath, not spinning off onto a mostly unrelated tangent with what Sony did a decade later.

Once again, you seem to be wilfully ignoring the social and economic conditions as a contributing factor to whether products succeed or fail in the marketplace.

You're lack of knowledge on the library is interesting but this post contradicts your previous one which said the 2600 didn't didn't sell until 1982. Which is also the year Pac-Man came out for the 2600 (and 5200) and not the "year after" Space invaders as you are misinforming. Also I guess Asteroids, Missile command, Activison games, Warlords, Berzerk, Defender, Kaboom, Night Driver, etc, didn't exist in this alternate universe.

No I said it didn't sell well in its early years (78-80). Sales picked up huge with the release of Space Invaders in early '80 and went into overdrive with Pac-Man about a year later. Atari started losing steam in '82, and never recovered.

I suspect part of the confusion arises from the hype around the 2600 version of Pac Man pre-release being the thing that drove sales, whereas the actual quality of the port probably hurt it because even though what its doing with the hardware was technically quite impressive, it really drove home that the 2600 was a 70's relic. Especially as things on the home computer scene were advancing rapidly.

You seem to have no conception that third parties were running because they weren't making money. Not because Atari wasn't selling as many consoles or games themselves from 12 months before, whatever time frame your vaguely referring too, while ignoring the competition, or the fact most of Ataris' losses came from the home computers.

BTW, said home computers, in the US, where the crash happened, were mostly on Cartridges during that time, not floppies which were not big yet and a disk drive was incredibly expensive then. US also went form Cartridges eventually to Floppy in the future, Tape was not common in the US, that was more an sian and European thing. Tape wasn't used much.

Dubious about that. Software distribution was rarely in cart form for the home computers (Apple II, Vic20/C64, Atari 8-bit, TRS-80, etc) because they were computers and needed a means to save programs!

Once again, there are massive economic and production downsides to publishing on carts.

Actually no, you seem to just be mixing up information and pushing them as fact while being wrong in your execution. So far, you have had no idea what you're talking about and still want to push this make believe theory that gamers were abandoning consoles for computers in mass which never happened. The sales numbers of computers in general then even with the crash up until 1985 were mostly surrounding the C64 while other companies folded, several of the computers that were selling barely had gamers on them compared to consoles

Consoles and computers may share the same appeal to certain demographic groups. but they are wildly dissimilar business. The amount of software published for the C64 was huge, but very little of that revenue made it back to Commodore due to the lack of licensing. However that doesn't mean to say the presence of that software and its comparative visual quality had no impact.

There were graphics whores back in 1982 too!

Saying the 2600 looked bad to the average consumer, that was still buying the console is even more nonsense.

The 2600 was dated as hell by '81. By 1985 (You know when the Amiga launched) it looked like an absolute relic.

As soon as Jack's sale happened and warner jumped, and he put the 2600 with support officially back on the market with new production with games people ran out and brought it again. if what you said is true 2600jr would have been DOA and it wasn't. The decline of Atari was linked to the price wars from computers, both computer and gaming had armchair pundits predicting doom, both were not making money, both had gaming companies, mags close down, both were selling hardware at a loss causing financial and perception damage to hardware makers. Literally all the reasons why the gaming industry crashed were almost ALL the same as why the computer industry crashed, it's not a coincidence. both also started recovering around the same exact time as well.

No. As I pointed out previously similarity in function is not the same as similarity in business model.

Only difference is there wasn't a rich Japanese company that could pull the same thing Nintendo did with their retail and distribution partners and strong arm in and push the competition out taking advantage of the 80s lack of regulation and slow vetting at the bottom. Because by the time NEC was interested in coming in ST and Amiga were already out, and the perception of home computers was MUCH worse than consoles because the crash effectively made most US (where the crash happened) consumers to abandon home computers for professional computers targeting enterprise and PC clones (and Apple) creating more affordable models or payment plans with computer stores so you could have those at home. This is why almost every home computer brand was dying from 1986 t0 1990 except Commodore and Atari who managed to make it near the mid 90s ONLY because they had success in Europe and had some niche in the US, which ended up being taken over by PC clones and Apple. The crash was the end of the "gaming" computer or the "accessible" home micro in the US. Which led to average consumer adoption of computers in the first place.

SEGA managed to compete and thrive, whereas Atari could never regain a glimmer of their glory days. Their fate was seemingly tied to the heyday of the arcades by the mid-80's when home machines became the de-facto location to play videogames for most people, the game was up.

Its a pretty tragic irony that the last gasp of greatness of their arcade fame was the home port of Marble Madness, a title that was synonymous with Amiga!

You disregard every company that prospered post crasj

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Are you seriously putting those in the same league success-wise as the NES?

Which isn't what you said or is what you quoted backing my suspicion you aren't actually looking at what text you quote. You seem to be intentionally making vague claims/absolutes with little defining so you can pull accusations like this off, proving my previous point.

I actually misread your post and thought you were staying on topic with the crash of '83 and its aftermath, not spinning off onto a mostly unrelated tangent with what Sony did a decade later.

Which is impossible if you read the quote, and you still haven't because it wasn't an unrelated tangent, it was proving your previous nonsense theory about identity and mascots wrong.

No I said it didn't sell well in its early years (78-80). Sales picked up huge with the release of Space Invaders in early '80 and went into overdrive with Pac-Man about a year later. Atari started losing steam in '82, and never recovered.

No, you said that Space Invaders and Pac man caused the success ignoring all other games and said that Pac Man came out the next year after space invaders,
.

The 2600 only saw explosive growth following the launch of Space Invaders, and pac-man the following year.

You're clearly arguing about something you know little about and based on what you pivot to, you're clearly trying to debate using wikipedia which isn't going to work out for you. There is no confusion, you are consistently getting facts wrong or making your own up from speculation based on poor information you have.

Dubious about that. Software distribution was rarely in cart form for the home computers (Apple II, Vic20/C64, Atari 8-bit, TRS-80, etc) because they were computers and needed a means to save programs!

Which again proves my point you're debating based on poor information and you have no idea what you are talking about In the US cartridges were the primary format for computer gaming and they quickly moved to disk drives as the prices dropped, where Europe had much of it's software on tape and 5x the piracy because of it with cheaper costs.

SEGA managed to compete and thrive, whereas Atari could never regain a glimmer of their glory days.

Sega lost to Atari in marketshare in the US.

The 2600 was dated as hell by '81. By 1985 (You know when the Amiga launched) it looked like an absolute relic.

That's nice, didn't stop people from buying it and has little to do with the subject.

The rest of what you say in the post speculative junk and conspiracy theories that make the fanboy book writers who gave complete nonsensical near unsourced claims about crash and post-crash seem slightly less insane.

In late 1984, those with actual involvement or access to insight with gaming and had the number to differentiate where different industries (console, computer arcade) were going, were saying what was the clear issue of the crash, NO ONE was making any money.

When you have many software studios, the First Party companies, and retailers all create a market of bargain bin costs to race to the bottom, companies lose millions, investors lose millions, and some of those software studios fold. Now the stock is kept at the retailer after the crash happens, and then makes things worse in the after math by throwing the stock they have at even lower prices, and to entice the adoption by the consumer, also cut the costs of hardware, which the hardware makers were already doing.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

A couple months doesn't really matter, the fact is the 7800 had to go head to head with NES on its first holiday, and it wasn't up to the task in terms of games or hardware.

This is a bad perspective given that 7800 sold out all Atari could produce. It being "up to the task" seems to be a personal belief in this case. The 2600 also was hot which sold not too far behind, and that's with an Atari that was pushed out of many retailers already because Nintendo trying to strong arm with help form their partners and distributors competition out the market which was starting to rapidly take effect.

Hardware was also up to task, you're talking about a perception consumers had after Sega and Atari were basically impossible to find and trying to apply it back tot he first holiday which doesn't make sense.

I think the tile-based graphics hardware and higher resolution meant the NES was just better at smooth scrolling action 2D games with detailed sprites. Yes, the 7800 could do some things the NES couldn't but the fact is if you look at multiplatform NES and 7800 games side by side, it's clear which ones are better.

Several of which are better on the 7800, the ones that are were the ones with the effects that are akin to what would be more common on the genesis and SNES ironically. Tile-based scrolling was the NES only main advantage and it had some problems doing that compared to Sega's Master System with performance and graphical hiccups without some addition support in the Roms. But I repeat, the perception of it being more powerful is owed to the NES eventually being the only thing most people actually were able to find or see, with TP games brought over from japan also having similar gameplay. This made it so that the chips in the carts Nintendo used to improve that one advantage as the NES lifespan continued, made those games look even better, but if you moved away from those type of games the NES starts collapsing pretty quickly. But it was the standard, because the standard was forced. Sure, Sega had a better machine at those type of games and did pivot to try and be competitive, but consumers were barely finding that system, people probably had to mail-order in some cases that were keeping track of mags hardcore (like hanging out at the convenience store and reading gaming or gaming related mags and putting it back on the shelf type of investment.), but Sega eventually was able to break through after using their cash reserves to fund the genesis more aggressively, and then pivoting back to the tile-based platforming with Sonic beating Nintendo at their own game temporarily.

Yeah, we're in agreement on this, like I said I think it was a secondary effect, not a cause, but it is still important to note the impact.

Yes, the impact of the reactions made what happened after the crash worse, the crash may not have been as bad (especially for the computer side of the industry) if people were a bit smarter or did some basic understanding of the gaming industry, but it was the 80's so...

 

[Clear]

Which isn't what you said or is what you quoted backing my suspicion you aren't actually looking at what text you quote. You seem to be intentionally making vague claims/absolutes with little defining so you can pull accusations like this off, proving my previous point.

I'm not trying to "pull anything off"!

Which is impossible if you read the quote, and you still haven't because it wasn't an unrelated tangent, it was proving your previous nonsense theory about identity and mascots wrong.

So the market was the same in 1994 as it was in 1984?

No, you said that Space Invaders and Pac man caused the success ignoring all other games and said that Pac Man came out the next year after space invaders,
.

Now you're just being pedantic! Those were the 2600's biggest selling carts, were released in that order and both attached to legitimate global pop-cultural phenomenon. Pitfall! Sold great, no doubt, but was that selling to new or pre-existing owners?

You're clearly arguing about something you know little about and based on what you pivot to, you're clearly trying to debate using wikipedia which isn't going to work out for you. There is no confusion, you are consistently getting facts wrong or making your own up from speculation based on poor information you have.

Untrue. I do reference wikipedia, but I'm old enough to have lived through the entire period, and we're talking about events from 40 years ago!

Which again proves my point you're debating based on poor information and you have no idea what you are talking about In the US cartridges were the primary format for computer gaming and they quickly moved to disk drives as the prices dropped, where Europe had much of it's software on tape and 5x the piracy because of it with cheaper costs.

Nope, I'm just thinking holistically. The problem with your argument as a whole is that you place singular focus on the price-war component, something that explains the moment of the crash, but has no real answer for what happened in the years after.

Sega lost to Atari in marketshare in the US.

In which years?

The rest of what you say in the post speculative junk and conspiracy theories that make the fanboy book writers who gave complete nonsensical near unsourced claims about crash and post-crash seem slightly less insane.

Conspiracy theories? About what?

At the end of the day what happened? Gaming and computerization grew bigger year on year, and within that enlarging "sea" of opportunity some companies and brands succeeded, while others failed.

In late 1984, those with actual involvement or access to insight with gaming and had the number to differentiate where different industries (console, computer arcade) were going, were saying what was the clear issue of the crash, NO ONE was making any money.

This disproves nothing. Making money is one thing and growing the business is another. The crash was a US-only phenomenon, but elsewhere in the world things were fine. So if you were diversified you had a cushion, because the DEMAND was constantly growing globally.

When you have many software studios, the First Party companies, and retailers all create a market of bargain bin costs to race to the bottom, companies lose millions, investors lose millions, and some of those software studios fold. Now the stock is kept at the retailer after the crash happens, and then makes things worse in the after math by throwing the stock they have at even lower prices, and to entice the adoption by the consumer, also cut the costs of hardware, which the hardware makers were already doing.

Its called competition. This was big in the 80's Trust me!

Prices didn't rebound, they settled at what the market would support, because initially the sheer cost was what was impeding uptake.

 

[Impotaku]

Third parties had nothing to do with the crash. It was only the console market that crashed.

It’s was only in the USA too, had zero effect on either Europe or japan who went on as normal.

 

[Mephisto40]

It wasnt so bad in Europe because we were happy playing on our Commodore Amiga's and Atari ST's

 

[Rubim]

The concern is that its going to result in further mergers, with the entire AAA space ending up balkanized. Basically if a deal worth $70b goes through, everything and everyone is up for grabs.

And why is that an issue?

Let them fuck themselves up.

Square brought Eidos and eventually it did not payed out

 

[Clear]

And why is that an issue?

Let them fuck themselves up.

Square brought Eidos and eventually it did not payed out

Everyone has less choice and it all costs more.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

I'm not trying to "pull anything off"!

This is a dodge and yes you are as shown in your next reply which still doesn't address a single thing,

So the market was the same in 1994 as it was in 1984?

As shown, you are clearly not having a real discussion.

Now you're just being pedantic!

No, you're backpedaling and pretending you didn't try to shift the goal post form being wrong last time. which you also do here below,

Those were the 2600's biggest selling carts, were released in that order

Which wasn't the claim you made before, you're literally pretending that your last posts weren't made (which I quoted in case you try editing.) and pretending you made a completely different argument.

Untrue. I do reference wikipedia, but I'm old enough to have lived through the entire period, and we're talking about events from 40 years ago!

So you confirmed it's true, and if you were around then you sure are making a lot of mistakes. Like believing home computer gaming in the US was dominated by tape.

Nope, I'm just thinking holistically.

No, you're trying to save yourself my moving the goal posts again, this is what you said,

Its a total no-brainer why shifting to a home computer and distributing on tape of floppy disc was the right move.

Dubious about that. Software distribution was rarely in cart form for the home computers (Apple II, Vic20/C64, Atari 8-bit, TRS-80, etc)

Considering the early 80's is what we are talking about here, in the US, this is nonsense. US went cartridges first and then started moving toward floppy. There was never a tape boom like in Europe for gaming (and really programs in general for the US honestly) gaming was mostly cartridges, when you look at US collections or sales online of old computers it's mostly cartridges with some exceptions sure, but tape was never a popular gaming medium, and Floppy drives were not really starting to pick up the pace until 1984.

In which years?

Apparently you are forgetting we are talking about the 7800 and NES years here.

This disproves nothing. Making money is one thing and growing the business is another. The crash was a US-only phenomenon, but elsewhere in the world things were fine. So if you were diversified you had a cushion, because the DEMAND was constantly growing globally.

Which has nothing to do with what I said, and your shifting because the article throws all your theories into the dumpster.

The crash was a US-only phenomenon, you know what else was? Massive race to the bottom price battles across software and hardware, and investors and retailers reacting in the dumbest possible way.

As clearly shown that was the cause of the crash, as people were still buying gaming as the source clearly stated. The console and computer industry were devalued massively and it wasn't just gaming impacted either.

Also yes, prices did rebound in 1985, not you're just altering history. You clearly don't have the information for this topic and are trying to act like you didn't say what you claimed before while trying to change the original topic. The main reason for the crash has been provided.

 

[SF Kosmo]

This is a bad perspective given that 7800 sold out all Atari could produce. It being "up to the task" seems to be a personal belief in this case.

Come on, man, you cannot attribute all of the 7800's failure to initial supply issues, eventually the market is gonna judge a system.

The 2600 also was hot which sold not too far behind, and that's with an Atari that was pushed out of many retailers already because Nintendo trying to strong arm with help form their partners and distributors competition out the market which was starting to rapidly take effect.

Hardware was also up to task, you're talking about a perception consumers had after Sega and Atari were basically impossible to find and trying to apply it back tot he first holiday which doesn't make sense.

You're ignoring the actual point, here, which is that Atari made these problems for themselves by delaying the system for two whole years. Had they launched in 1984 they wouldn't have had to worry about any of this, and their hardware would have seemed more cutting edge to consumers as well.

Several of which are better on the 7800, the ones that are were the ones with the effects that are akin to what would be more common on the genesis and SNES ironically.

Charming quirks of the more PC-like hardware aside, I don't think most consumers saw it that way. They saw the blocky wide pixels from the 160 horizontal resolution and the choppier movement and scrolling, and it felt a step behind.

The library was also a factor as well. By the end of 1986, the NES had around 35 games out. Atari 7800 had 5, all of which were ports of years-old arcade games. That definitely contributed to the sense that 7800 was more part of the old gen than the new.

Tile-based scrolling was the NES only main advantage and it had some problems doing that compared to Sega's Master System with performance and graphical hiccups without some addition support in the Roms.

Yeah, the SMS smoked the NES in terms of hardware, but even though they launched close together in the US, Nintendo had a huge head start and deeply entrenched developer relationships in Japan that really handicapped Sega in terms of software.

Sure, Sega had a better machine at those type of games and did pivot to try and be competitive, but consumers were barely finding that system, people probably had to mail-order in some cases that were keeping track of mags hardcore (like hanging out at the convenience store and reading gaming or gaming related mags and putting it back on the shelf type of investment.), but Sega eventually was able to break through after using their cash reserves to fund the genesis more aggressively, and then pivoting back to the tile-based platforming with Sonic beating Nintendo at their own game temporarily.

Sega got pretty decent retail distribution once they partnered with Tonka, which was in 1987, I think. I remember the game stores in the mall and the major toy chains all had it. But NES had sold millions in that first year, and it was too late to catch up.

 

[Havoc2049]

It wasnt so bad in Europe because we were happy playing on our Commodore Amiga's and Atari ST's

The crash happened before those computers were even released. At the time of the crash, the C-64, Atari 400/800/XL and Apple II were solid gaming platforms in the US. The Amiga, Mac and Atari ST had their time as solid gaming platforms in the US as well, but the market for the ST and Amiga died out earlier than in the Europe. Only the diehards stayed with the Amiga and ST past 1990 in the US.

 

[Clear]

Also yes, prices did rebound in 1985, not you're just altering history. You clearly don't have the information for this topic and are trying to act like you didn't say what you claimed before while trying to change the original topic. The main reason for the crash has been provided.

No they did not. You can't even assert this given how drastically the competitive landscape had shifted over the previous 2 years.

You're so fixated on this price-war thesis that you are apparently oblivious to everything else that was happening.

Yes there was constant pressure in terms of pricing across all segments, but that was natural given how the market was expanding. Those in the best position to serve that demand reaped the rewards, and those that couldn't (of whom there were many) fell by the wayside.

If it was just the price situation Atari would have rallied as things settled later in the decade, but they couldn't. They failed on every front.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Come on, man, you cannot attribute all of the 7800's failure to initial supply issues, eventually the market is gonna judge a system.

Which isn't what I did and you know this, but made this up anyway because?

You're ignoring the actual point, here, which is that Atari made these problems for themselves by delaying the system for two whole years.

Atari didn't delay anything for two years. Warner sold to jack, and Warner was trying to get off not paying GCC, which jack did in 1985 when it was clear Warner wasn't going to let up since they already had the other console it was specifically the 7800 that was being held it was separate form the the whole rest of the company Warner sold to Jack, two different deals.

Charming quirks of the more PC-like hardware aside, I don't think most consumers saw it that way.

Because most consumers didn't see it, which is the point you are actively avoiding and disregarding. By the time of 1988 Nintendo basically strong armed the competition out of the market using the same actions you yourself called monopolistic not long ago in this very thread, yet for some reason you're omitting this from the 7800's sales after the first year, which did pick up with production but had a cap because there was less places for Atari to sell it, which is one reason why Atari tried to go into retail for itself.

So with the competition barely existent outside of a niche, the year before NES has it's peak year and was a shooting start by itself at most retail, consumers didn't even know what the other systems had, and with limited access to consumers the few consumers who did probably didn't even see many games for sales if that, same with Sega. You're trying to blame Atari for something you're looking back on in retrospect and not of the time and trying to pretendt you are.

The library was also a factor as well. By the end of 1986, the NES had around 35 games out. Atari 7800 had 5, all of which were ports of years-old arcade games. That definitely contributed to the sense that 7800 was more part of the old gen than the new.

it's only a factor in retrospect. 7800 sold out with "5" (slightly misleading) games and the 2600 was selling boatloads iirc with NO new games just reprint of later favorite releases that didn't have much time to shine and some old classics. Don't think the new games came out for the 2600 until after 86, maybe there was one.

None of which had any impact on Nintendo strong arming Sega and Atari out of retail. 7800 could have released 80 games and the 7800 still would have sold out the same number they were able to produce and would still have the same uphill battle getting on shelves. This is the part you keep erasing, there wasn't never a chance for Atari to prove anything, and lack of space meant lack of space for games, which meant it's position to investors and developers just like Sega, looked risky, so outside a few exceptions did not touch and, and because they didn't want Nintendo they just didn't touch consoles at all, which is precisely why japan dominated the console scene with a small percentage of western releases until the Genesis came around and that started to increase gradually, and then rapidly after 3DO and PS1.

So you has no chance to prove the console, no support for the console, and absolutely nothing Atari Corp could have done unless Jack managed to convince 3 billionaires to throw money into the fire to reverse Nintendo's own strong arming with their partners (which included the rich and influential World of Wonder) the other direction, which wasn't going to happen. The only way anything would have changed for Atari OR Sega, is if the legal system and regulations wasn't as dumb and slow with the many things (even outside gaming) that were slid in the 80s.

You're looking at libraries and other things long past the day these consoles by Atari and Sega died and are trying to apply hindsight to the present during those times, a flawed way of understanding the history of what happened.

Yeah, the SMS smoked the NES in terms of hardware, but even though they launched close together in the US, Nintendo had a huge head start and deeply entrenched developer relationships in Japan that really handicapped Sega in terms of software.

Software had nothing to do with it, again as with Atari you're making the same exact mistake with Sega, looking in hindsight after both consoles are dead and their libraries, and then making an assumption presented as evidence, that the library was the problem.

In 1988 Sega and Atari were effectively gone from retail within the margin of error. Although technically since in 1986 Sega did not sell out like Atari did and had hundreds of thousands of consoles sitting on the shelves having more stock than the 7800, Sega proves two point with the Master System in 1986, that they did not present the console right and it wasn't as appealing as Nintendo or Atari then, and that the 7800 was a wanted machine that didn't have enough stock.

If it was just about games and supply wasn't the issue Sega wouldn't have had hundreds of thousands of consoles sitting on shelves.

Like I said, you aren't thinking from the perspective of the time, you're going back with hindsight and applying a conclusion you came to dismissing the circumstances during those years the same way Wikipedia pretend that because 125,000 Sega consoles were sold compared to 100,000 7800's, that the 7800 was "behind" and wasn't gaining traction. when it was actually sold out what they produced on back order and Sega had unsold units collecting dust they couldn't move for another year or so. Both of which are flawed in their approach.

Sega got pretty decent retail distribution once they partnered with Tonka, which was in 1987, I think. I remember the game stores in the mall and the major toy chains all had it. But NES had sold millions in that first year, and it was too late to catch up.

Maybe anecdotally but not nationally, which is why there were reports indicating that wasn't working and why Sega dropped them for the Genesis.

Also are you implying NES sold millions in 1986? They shipped 1.1 million (game over a pro-Nintendo book says they possibly fudged that number but I'll go with that regardless),

1986, https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19870228&id=ChNPAAAAIBAJ&pg=7027,7957469

NES	1.1 million
2600/Jr.	775k
SMS	125k
7800	100k

Atari total

875k

That was with Nintendo already having a flood of units and controlling most of the retail space, I would say it's very likely NES would have been clearly outsold if they were in an even playing field. But despite that being a good showing, Nintendo will quickly have a great monopoly and push out both Atari and Sega out of most retail sometime in 1988. Which happened right before the NES best ever year in sales in the US and the marketing and news coverage was at it's peak and the name was everywhere.

i think you're seeing this as saying that games wouldn't matter, they would, but you aren't considering the circumstances that led to both Sega and Atari's end of life library.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

No they did not. You can't even assert this given how drastically the competitive landscape had shifted over the previous 2 years.

You're so fixated on this price-war thesis that you are apparently oblivious to everything else that was happening.

No you're dismissing anything that actually happened DURING that time if it doesn't align with your flawed perception, example,

Yes there was constant pressure in terms of pricing across all segments, but that was natural given how the market was expanding.

There was nothing natural about anything that was happening leading up to and during the crash, it's a notable hallmark of Commodore, Computing, and video game history for a reason, because it was unpresented, and lasted quite a long time.

If it was just the price situation Atari would have rallied as things settled later in the decade, but they couldn't. They failed on every front.

I don't even think you know what you're talking about at this point either. Warner sold Atari because of the loss of money and not being smart enough to see a way to recover, so why would Atari rally later in the decade? Atari was reformatted, with less money. Later in the decade?

 

[Clear]

There was nothing natural about anything that was happening leading up to and during the crash, it's a notable hallmark of Commodore, Computing, and video game history for a reason, because it was unpresented, and lasted quite a long time.

The whole rise of video-gaming and the home-computing revolution was unprecedented!

Seriously, why do you think so many home computers started out pitched as devices for work and productivity and only found success when they were repositioned as gaming computers? Does that not demonstrate that the demand was there, but not being met by the incumbents in that space?

I don't even think you know what you're talking about at this point either. Warner sold Atari because of the loss of money and not being smart enough to see a way to recover, so why would Atari rally later in the decade? Atari was reformatted, with less money. Later in the decade?

That's because you're not very bright.

If Atari had the market appeal that you seem to believe it had, then it'd have been able to capitalize on that legacy. What's more when Warners sold the company to Tramiel in '85, they kept the arcade business! Something that really shows where they believed the value to be situated.

The plain truth of the matter is that while Atari was a super desirable brand in 1980 or 1981, by 1984 it was old-hat and somewhat tarnished by the quality of 2600 software. Kids in bedrooms were making better and more exciting games, and selling them for a fraction of the cost of their carts.

If you were into, or looking to get into games at the time this was the undeniable reality.

People tend to exaggerate the deficiencies of their product as being instrumental in the crash, but my honest opinion it was just that time had simply caught up with them and their business model made them too slow to respond.

The sad part is that Atari 8-bit computers were genuinely great machines, and hosted some killer titles. The problem was always the pricing, and once Commodore got bullish with the C64, they were toast. What's worse, given that the machines were technologically so similar, Commodore benefitted from the inevitable ports and reissues in Europe. Titles like the Lucasarts games, M.u.l.e, most of the Synapse library all started on 8-bit Atari, but their association stopped there.

Almost everyone creative jumped-ship.

This is what killed Atari in the end.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

The whole rise of video-gaming and the home-computing revolution was unprecedented!

You're not even refuting what I'm saying, you just think you are.

Seriously, why do you think so many home computers started out pitched as devices for work and productivity and only found success when they were repositioned as gaming computers?

Which is false, either you're a European trying to poorly argue about the US computer market (hence the tape thing) or you just have no idea what you are talking about. Home computers exploded right when the trinity came out and was growing rapidly per quarter each quarter since.

That's because you're not very bright.

If Atari had the market appeal that you seem to believe it had, then it'd have been able to capitalize on that legacy. What's more when Warners sold the company to Tramiel in '85, they kept the arcade business! Something that really shows where they believed the value to be situated.

You're a special kind of something, but i don't know what, but you're clearly projecting your lack of brightness.

Warner didn't keep the arcade business, Jack couldn't get it, they literally had to force Warner to give them money "to keep the lights on" or Jack would walk away for the deal. Then they were tied up in the 7800 SEPARATE transaction. Jack did not have the resources to get the arcade division. you continue to show you have no flipping idea what you're talking about.

Just like how you are talking about a "market appeal" which has nothing to do with the fact that the crash was caused by no one making money because of devalued prices, you're mixing up a bunch of different poor arguments and adding new ones that weren't even mentioned before, because you keep getting things wrong and keep failing to cover that up with something else you got wrong or is barely related to the topic.

The plain truth of the matter is that while Atari was a super desirable brand in 1980 or 1981, by 1984 it was old-hat and somewhat tarnished by the quality of 2600 software.

And yet was still selling, you keep going on and on about something you make up in headcanon. In 1986 as soon as Atari corp upped the production and tried to shove stock in places they still could (outside of Nintendo's monopolistic arms) 2600's flew right off the shelves and sold not far behind the the NES that year even with that massive footprint shrink that Nintendo was making worse and worse pushing them and Sega out the market. The 2600 was never not in demand. The only time the 2600 was ever selling below it's potential, was because retailers and developers during and a bit after the crash were running from not making money because there was no money to be made because everything was a fire sales and devalued because of the price conflict. So with less retailers selling them, that reduces the number. Yet it still did well in US 1985, and even sold more than 1 million worldwide that year anyway.

Funny how both Atari and Commodore sales rebounded as that devaluation was reversing, it's almost like you never had an argument. Everyone know that the Atari 2600 was technically outdated, that had nothing to do with it being desirable or the crash, you're making up random nonsense you pulled out the blender to try to convince yourself what you're saying makes sense or actually happened. While omitting everything else butt he 2600.

The sad part is that Atari 8-bit computers were genuinely great machines, and hosted some killer titles. The problem was always the pricing, and once Commodore got bullish with the C64, they were toast. What's worse, given that the machines were technologically so similar, Commodore benefitted from the inevitable ports and reissues in Europe. Titles like the Lucasarts games, M.u.l.e, most of the Synapse library all started on 8-bit Atari, but their association stopped there.

Almost everyone creative jumped-ship.

This is what killed Atari in the end.

There's a lot wrong here, but how did you get to your crash argument to this new everyone jumped form Atari to Commodore argument. The same Commodore who started the price war and lead to the crash?

How many new arguments are you going to introduce in this conversation?

 

[Deerock71]

Sony 11 years from now after cod goes exclusive on Xbox:

And even though it was never actually said, I can still hear McCoy saying it.

 

[Clear]

There's a lot wrong here, but how did you get to your crash argument to this new everyone jumped form Atari to Commodore argument. The same Commodore who started the price war and lead to the crash?

You keep saying stuff like this, but refute nothing, and add nothing to the conversation.

Your reading comprehension seems off too. I mean it should be very evident that I'm talking about the aftermath of the crash and who benefitted from it? Yet, you want me to somehow loop that back into the precipitating factors... which I've already given my account of repeatedly. Very strange!

Maybe you're just floundering and playing the "last word" game in order to save face... Whatever. I really don't care. You aren't going to convince me of your alternate narrative for events I actually lived through as an aspiring game dev.

That said, after all this I'm really not sure quite what you actually believe. I mean, I get the bit about the aggressive competition on price affecting the entire market, but why was Atari the one to crash hard from market leader to perpetual also-ran in years that followed? I mean it wasn't just the VCS, every successor console failed, as did every personal computer they made. They went from a famous name in the arcades in the late 70's and early 80's to basically nobodies there too.

Their failure was pretty much absolute, and absolutely unique given what the came into the crash with, and what they left with.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Atari didn't delay anything for two years. Warner sold to jack, and Warner was trying to get off not paying GCC, which jack did in 1985 when it was clear Warner wasn't going to let up since they already had the other console it was specifically the 7800 that was being held it was separate form the the whole rest of the company Warner sold to Jack, two different deals.

My point is that if it came out earlier it might have had a shot, but it didn't. There's no real need to get into the weeds of who made what decision that led to that if you aren't in disagreement with the actual point.

Because most consumers didn't see it, which is the point you are actively avoiding and disregarding.

Why would I talk about things that wouldn't have been apparent to a consumer in a discussion of why a system didn't succeed? Of course I am actively avoiding getting into the weeds of what the hardware could do in theory, it's irrelevant. In practice it wasn't competitive.

None of which had any impact on Nintendo strong arming Sega and Atari out of retail. 7800 could have released 80 games and the 7800 still would have sold out the same number they were able to produce and would still have the same uphill battle getting on shelves.

Again this stuff about Nintendo's bully tactics doesn't really apply until after Nintendo becomes the market leader. They didn't have that leverage before then. So this again agrees with my point that if the 7800 released at a time when Atari was still the market leader with a strong retail presence it would have had a much easier time getting traction.

Software had nothing to do with it, again as with Atari you're making the same exact mistake with Sega, looking in hindsight after both consoles are dead and their libraries, and then making an assumption presented as evidence, that the library was the problem.

In 1988 Sega and Atari were effectively gone from retail within the margin of error.

This is absolutely not true, these systems were stocked at every Toys R Us in the country, man, as well as Babbage's, Kay Bee, etc. People just weren't buying them in the same way they were buying NES games.

I say this as a kid who bought a SMS in 1988 after playing the demo kiosks and several different stores.

If it was just about games and supply wasn't the issue Sega wouldn't have had hundreds of thousands of consoles sitting on shelves.

What? If people didn't want the system because it didn't have the games they wanted from their favorite devs, then yes unsold systems are obviously going to sit on shelves.

It's bananas to try to sit here and argue software isn't a relevant factor in system sales.

Also are you implying NES sold millions in 1986?

No, when I say first year I mean the first 12 months after they launched the system nationally.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

You keep saying stuff like this, but refute nothing, and add nothing to the conversation.

The irony given your attempts to change and add new things to the conversation once you have to remove what you were wrong about from it.

Your reading comprehension seems off too. I mean it should be very evident that I'm talking about the aftermath of the crash and who benefitted from it? Y

That might be your issue but not mine. Good thing I quoted everything you wrote so it's clear you kept shifting the goal posts by hoping topics and adding random things you never said previously but acted like you did.

Maybe you're just floundering and playing the "last word" game in order to save face... Whatever.

I've never seen someone sabotage themself this badly before.

That said, after all this I'm really not sure quite what you actually believe.

I'm not sure if you can stay on one topic of conversation, so it works out.

You aren't going to convince me of your alternate narrative for events I actually lived through as an aspiring game dev.

Yes, living through that *checks notes* early 80s USA were all the game releases were released on tape, oh wait that didn't happen because you weren't actually there, or you were but not in the US.

Don't forget that after Space Invaders Pac Man released the next year (wrong) and no other big hits released during that time (wrong), and cartridges were rare (wrong) and tape was common in the US for computer games (wrong), along with Mario as a mascot wasn't from the arcade (wrong), and the theory the crash started with Atari spending money on E.T. (wrong), or gamers in mass were jumping from consoles to computers (wrong), definitely claims, statements, and implications by someone who was there in 80's US computer and console scene... if we rewrote how history actually happened.

But anyway, as i said earlier it doesn't seem like you want an actual discussion, hence the need to add to the conversation to aide in shifting the goal posts, or attempting to trick me with vague poorly defined statements so you can go "no I mean" later. Which I believe makes this unproductive.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

My point is that if it came out earlier it might have had a shot, but it didn't. There's no real need to get into the weeds of who made what decision that led to that if you aren't in disagreement with the actual point.

Which is what the disagreement was on, because they did have a shot when they came out if the circumstances were different, and you are too quick to dismiss that. Esoecialy when releasing early would also be a change in circumstance.

Why would I talk about things that wouldn't have been apparent to a consumer in a discussion of why a system didn't succeed?

You're argument was that

Charming quirks of the more PC-like hardware aside, I don't think most consumers saw it that way. They saw the blocky wide pixels from the 160 horizontal resolution and the choppier movement and scrolling, and it felt a step behind.

Yes they didn't see it that way because they didn't see the console, and they didn't see the games that would change that perception. I am not talking about hardware in theory there were several games that blew the NES out the water in certain areas outside tile-based scrolling. Just like the NES blows the 7800 out the water with tile-based scrolling. You're basically trying to argue about something with limited information on the 7800 which is why you went with the " in theory" narrative because you weren't aware of any.

Again this stuff about Nintendo's bully tactics doesn't really apply until after Nintendo becomes the market leader. They didn't have that leverage before then

Nintendo was bullying before they even launched and was the market leader by the end of 1986. The Sega-Tonka, and Atari exploring retailers to buy all started in 1st half of 1987. You're information is completely wrong. You're thinking Nintendo was market leader years after the fact then bullied, that's not what happened, they were already into shady tactics before then, the only reason why you are associating bullying later is because there was louder legal attention later.

This is absolutely not true, these systems were stocked at every Toys R Us in the country, man, as well as Babbage's, Kay Bee, etc. People just weren't buying them in the same way they were buying NES games.

You're using an anecdote, most people didn't know what the SMS or 7800 were for a reason. Most people had no access to these consoles, and many peoples best bet was ordering. In 1988 they were scared and their availability got worse and worse after that.

While It may be so you saw stacked 7800's and SMS perhaps, that clearly wasn't a nationwide thing where only the NES was present. This wasn't a situation where you have a known underseller that couldn't compete like 3DO vs. PSX, where only a couple million brought it but people at least heard of it. There also wouldn't have been such a push by Sega and Atari to get around the retail blockade they were facing. It's common sense, why would they bother if they were nationally stacked and what were then among the top retailers for video games?

What? If people didn't want the system because it didn't have the games they wanted from their favorite devs, then yes unsold systems are obviously going to sit on shelves.

It's bananas to try to sit here and argue software isn't a relevant factor in system sales.

You took a cut a line of text out of context in a statement I was responding to your claim about ATARI and using Sega to prove my point,

I don't know what made you feel the need to fabricate what was actually said which is a shame but this was the actual text,

in 1986 Sega did not sell out like Atari did and had hundreds of thousands of consoles sitting on the shelves having more stock than the 7800, Sega proves two point with the Master System in 1986, that they did not present the console right and it wasn't as appealing as Nintendo or Atari then, and that the 7800 was a wanted machine that didn't have enough stock.

If it was just about games and supply wasn't the issue, Sega wouldn't have had hundreds of thousands of consoles sitting on shelves.

Crazy how different that reads in context.

 

[Clear]

But anyway, as i said earlier it doesn't seem like you want an actual discussion, hence the need to add to the conversation to aide in shifting the goal posts, or attempting to trick me with vague poorly defined statements so you can go "no I mean" later. Which I believe makes this unproductive.

I'm not trying to "trick you", with poorly defined statements or any other tactic. I really don't care that much!

That you're reading that sort of intent into it is pretty bizarre to be honest.

Could it just be that we disagree on a matter that's been dead for 40 years?
And you are so desperate to prove your point that you are treating a pretty casual discussion like a legal proceedings?

The one factual error was me casually stating that Pacman was a year after Space Invaders, when it was in fact 2 years. Whoopty-doo, you really got me with that one! It was a nit-pick, a specious bit of criticism of a statement that I was making in a general conversational sense to illustrate Atari's need for continuity in releases that spoke to a wider market.

The point about me being around at the time btw was that I actually recall the reception to these games. E.T. didn't stink any less regardless of where you were in the world! The point being that you didn't have to be in America to understand that the times were changing, that the initial boom sparked by Space Invaders and that golden age of arcade hardware was coming to an end.

People started to expect more, what Atari offered was about as cool as someone offering a pong/video-tennis game by about 1980!

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

I'm not trying to "trick you", with poorly defined statements or any other tactic. I really don't care that much!

And yet you did anyway, one example,

The first successful launch of a console post crash isn't anything?

Are you seriously putting those in the same league success-wise as the NES?

You multiple times intentionally made ill-defined vague statements so you can go "actually" and "I mean this" later. Although to be fair it compares to the amount of times you got your historical facts wrong, which you had to abandon in the conversation so tried to move goal posts. It's no surprise you're trying to downplay that as nitpicks despite the huge pile of mistakes you consistently made sense this conversation began. Now you're not even addressing anything, just making subtle jabs.

The one factual error was me casually stating that Pacman was a year after Space Invaders,

Most everything you said has been wrong, including everything I listed in the previous post. You can pretend it's only one thing when all your posts are quoted. But that's not going to make them disappear.

In fact, you end this post trailing on off topic, again, changing your previous argument, again. You aren't even talking about price wars or the crash anymore, it's not just focused on theories about Atari specifically.

 

[Clear]

Most everything you said has been wrong, including everything I listed in the previous post. You can pretend it's only one thing when all your posts are quoted. But that's not going to make them disappear.

In your opinion.
What you listed was a bunch of misrepresentations of what I wrote, due to what I presumed to be your poor reading comprehension. Something that I noted previously.

In fact, you end this post trailing on off topic, again, changing your previous argument, again. You aren't even talking about price wars or the crash anymore, it's not just focused on theories about Atari specifically.

No, its simply that my perception of the situation is more complicated, with more elements in play than yours. Which is why I've frequently referenced what was happening elsewhere contemporaneously around the crash.

Just your vision of the situation is so narrow, and your attitude so comically pugilistic, that you either don't see it, or can't admit you see it!

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

In your opinion.
What you listed was a bunch of misrepresentations of what I wrote,

Except they aren't because you doubled down (minimum) on each one and they are clear as day. There are no misrepresentations. Just you being inconsistent on what topic you are arguing and switching words around and pretending you said something different before, forgetting that all your posts are quoted making that a poor strategy. This is why you can't and haven't and won't elaborate on why you doubled down on any of them because you can't explain away the mistakes or misinformation about the US market for consoles and computers.

No, its simply that my perception of the situation is more complicated, with more elements in play than yours.

No it's simply you trying to distract from being wrong by adding something else to try and use to move the goal posts of the conversation to something you weren't arguing before. You ended your last post trailing off topic again, you weren't even on the subject of the Crash and price cuts. You were now consolidating your argument around Atari and something about it being outdated not even in relation to the crash now, While bringing up E.T. again out of nowhere out of context in some rambling.

In this post you mention the crash as a throw away line. You were barely discussing anything related to the crash back before, you were misinformed about both industries and pushing misinformation in order to cover up the facts you kept getting wrong.

The actual discussion was about the crash, which was caused by quick devaluation that spread from computers to consoles, which is why the focus on the VALUE of the console industry going down and the contemporary articles of the time (from people who knew about the industry/were in it and knew what they were talking about) were talking about how there was no one MAKING MONEY DESPITE the sales. The comparison of 1982 to 1985 is also brought up commonly for that same reason. Because it was all based on value and losing money.

Pointless side stuff like "Atari was outdated" is irrelevant since people were still buying the console and it had nothing to do with several companies devaluing their hardware and software prices, you have rarely mentioned other players because you kept getting your focusing on getting Atari focused facts wrong, but you're telling me you're vision is complex? You don't have much of a vision at all here.

Atari devaluing the 5200 to the point they were losing too much cash, and already announcing they were going to pull out BEFORE the crash which was a red flag, so they could put out a stronger console (7800) from a TP with some of their involvement, that wouldn't lose as much money, is literally clear evidence of what was going on at the time. Luckily Coleco didn't play that game as much as Atari did, so CV got a decent library because of that and survived into 1984 and much of 1985, unfortunately, Coleco was not so smart in the computer area which is what caused them to leave electronics in the end. Yeah 5200 also didn't replace the controllers and screwed up some other areas with customers but that's not why they pulled it out otherwise they would have got rid of it earlier instead of revising the controllers multiple times without fixing them. It sold 1 million faster than Coleco.

Big publishers like Imagic had to drop their prices to keep up and grab those customers now running to buy hit games at low prices, because it wasn't just poor games as misinformed narratives propose, that were dropping in price but also good ones.

Atari who never once made money on their computers, was losing even more money going from almost $400or more with decent config for the A800 to $150 (then less later) in a span of less than 10 months, for a company that was already slow to drop prices and selling slowly (during the computer rush holidays in 83 warner couldn't produce enough units, but they would still lose money even if they did with low prices). Atari 2600 was already costing less than half a CV in 1982 at regular prices and was cheap to produce. Atari had to spend more lobbying support for games and other software for their computes, than just games on the 2600, which devs were already doing because of market lead and the fact some devs were releasing games on pretty much all consoles available worth anything which was seen as an issue (which is today now accepted). Not only was the 2600 barely a dent in what caused Atari to fall over, but it was even more of a blimp for the turmoil in the "gaming" industry assuming you combine the computer and consoles together (even more of a blip if you add arcades.) as the 2600 was just additional losses to the brand on top of computing.

It was always about no money being made, that is the crash, that is the reactions afterward making things worse, that is why the console gaming industry was $100 million (estimate) in 1985, and with computer gaming added not too much more than that. All players were rebounding in sales as things stabilized across 1985 into 1986 (for those who weren't gone) which all happened around the same time which also aligned with retailers restocking and buyers coming out to buy, showing less buys were due to less access not demand, which also explains why the 2600 started selling well again at a rapid pace from later 1985 until the end of 1986 with the relaunch, and why C64 was doing the same which Commodore couldn't kill or replace and the Amiga was basically doa in the US. Because the demand was never gone even with the prices of accessories and computers gradually going up. The Amiga was basically a new niche with no real compatibility like the 128, which also was doing well from 85 into 86, because it had real compatibility with the C64.

Sure Atari over ordered several games (not just E.T) hence why the landfill was there BEFORE E.T. existed, also for defects for console and computer stuff as well. Sure there were many new third-party developers jumping in once the gates were open, but guess what, the rapid amount of developers were already starting in 1980, and until late 1982 were not a problem until some companies started undercutting other in cost, because third parties would have no reason to produce many cartridges until they saw results, which is why many of the same companies that folded had already released games prior without retailers over ordering. Once the price wars started, now companies had an excuse to under cut even lower, which increased demand at those prices which then retailers over ordered, and Atari, who was always over-ordering because they kept releasing hit games to varying degrees (not just Space Invaders and Pac Man) also had retailers over ordering and Atari over producing, but what Atari didn't see, or some other companies that were third-party, and this also applies to computer software in the home computer industry as well, was that there would be consistent demand for good or decent software at the lower prices, so everyone was reducing prices to sell more software to consumers who were not trained to expect games in general, good or bad, to have lower average prices.

Eventually however, due to the combination of lack of space, and not every game able to sell to the same consumers just by cutting the price, especially with all the choices, caused a crash which started damaging and causing some companies to fold, which meant those orders came at the time this finally became apparent. But now too late in realizing this, the retailers were stuck with the stock, especially for the games that weren't moving so hot or they weren't able to put out on shelves yet, so instead of planning around that they just took all the games and gave them to consumers on clearance, which now created a new low. So companies decided to price cut a bit more just so they would be low enough for the low-cost demand generated, but it was too low for many companies which made the after-shock of the crash worse, as well as the retailers to start limiting game selection and new stock, or to leave dealing with gaming software altogether for both consoles AND computers, the latter of which people always omit. In the US there were no software sale improvements outside Apple and PC, so when you see the nonsense that "computer software was doing well" it's misleading because it was not talking about the US home computer market with the micros, which Apple and IBM were consistently separated from as "real computer" for "real work" and "not toys", which is where Activision and EA were mostly making their money on in the US post-crash (in Europe the story is different entirely obviously.).

So, eventually the value of the industry declined. It was devalued so much that people were running because the current situation at the time made it so there was no money to be made for most companies and several retailers. People started coming back in 1985 the year when the turn around would start from the lows, almost ALL at the same time with the console and the home computer industry, with some retailers putting out newstock (some limited out of caution) which all met demand as the footprint increased across both Home Computer and Console markets.

Therefore, demand was never the issue it was price. Again, i would like to mention that the original reports of Nintendo leading in "rejuvenating" money brought into the industry, which was spun as gaming is dead and they saved it by people who wanted to have 80's style clickbait traffic to their tabloids or papers, which Nintendo of America allowed and facilitated, was specifically about how much money consumers were spending on Nintendo stuff, and what that spending brought to the console gaming industry. Since Nintendo had the highest priced gaming software and accessories and other things at the time, and later became near the ONLY option to buy from, this would not have changed even if Nintendo wasn't bullying out competitors from retail, and Atari had tripled the NES sales sold every year until 1988. The only difference is the myth wouldn't have formed in this scenario, because Nintendo would not be leading, but because in reality they were also leading, this made it very easy for the spread of poor analysts which weren't actually analysts, and poor journalists with fans riding off them, to propagate the myth gaming was dead and Nintendo saved it narrative, which never happened because outside some artificial anecdotes forced by retailers abandoning the market which made it so people didn't have access to games, which some took as a sign it was dead when it wasn't, the demand was not actually gone, which is why the demand came back in unison across console and computer as the industries stabilized and devs came back, and retailers were starting to add more stock again gradually.

Almost anything else was related, or was a reaction to the underlying issue of devaluation. Which was what the crash was, what caused it, and what ended up being the hole some companies fell in who were able to get away with mistakes in the past, and couldn't any longer. Trying to act like there are disconnecting factors is a bit ridiculous since the actual points of change were all related to moves made in relation to the problem of devaluation or losing money too fast, the devaluation making it so poor choices could be recovered from, or trying to undercut the competition by creating an impulse demand by consumers until the competition folds, etc.