The '83 Crash

[zetastrike]

I was watching CGR's little retrospect on the Crash of 83 yesterday and it got me wondering if what happened to the industry back then was really as bad as people say. It seems to me that most are overdramatic about it. The market has gone through a lot of slumps in its history like in the mid 70s and early 90s, so was the "Great Crash" really a crash or just another slump no different than the others? From what I gather, sales of Atari games and consoles were on the rise in 84-85 and the industry was rebounding pretty well, but Nintendo swooped in and stole the market from under Atari's feet and smothered out any and all competition with the 3rd party contracts. I kind of laugh when people say things like "without nintendo, there would be no videogames anywhere ever." It would be interesting to see what things would have been like had nintendo not been so anti-competition.

[N.Saibot]

It is certainly wrong to say that without Nintendo videogames wouldn't exist anymore. But as far the
crash is concerned, I do get the feeling, that here in Germany people were playing more C64 instead
of some consoles. The crash of the videogame market basically meant, that people stopped buying
dedicated consoles and switched over to computers that also had games to offer.

If Nintendo didn't came "to the rescue" we would either be playing more on computers or Sega would
have taken the role of the big N (my favorite scenario : P)

[Bastardcat]

People herald the Japanese for saving gaming, but they didn't "save" shit. All they did was stifle Western hardware development for years to come.

[Iron Lizard]

I have always heard it was more of a US thing than world wide but the US is a pretty damn big market. That being said considering the amount of resistance Nintendo faced getting their product in stores says a lot about how series it really was. Nintendo had to guarantee that they would buy back any unsold systems if the NES was not successful. When retailers refuse to carry a product anymore its safe to say something is wrong.

I don't think nicer tactics would have saved Atari and everyone else. Nintendo had a superior system and actually had a licensing system that allowed them to make money off of it.

After studying history in college I think people who lived through the said event may sometimes over dramatize the past a bit perhaps but not completely. Then younger generation almost always come along and say it wasn't that bad they were just exaggerating. I think this is a classic case.

[ThugsRook]

the crash of '83???
was that a 2bit or 4bit crash?

there was no crash in '83, home consoles were still a joke and not taken seriously AT ALL.

Arcades were alive and well

[ShadowHawk]

the crash of '83???
was that a 2bit or 4bit crash?

there was no crash in '83, home consoles were still a joke and not taken seriously AT ALL.

Arcades were alive and well

WA HAR HAR HAR

[JDB]

GET MARK BACK! I'M TIRED OF WATCHING THIS DITZ READ FROM AN AUTOCUE!

[GeckoYamori]

Certainly didn't affect the game industry as a whole. It was just in the home console market. Arcade and home computer gaming was alive and well.

Nintendo did what they did in the 8-bit days because there were tons upon tons of crap games coming out for Atari, which was one of the reasons for the crash. Anyone could release Atari games without a license. It's understandable that they didn't want to fall in the same trap, though they clearly got a bit overzealous.

[JCU]

I was watching CGR's little retrospect on the Crash of 83 yesterday and it got me wondering if what happened to the industry back then was really as bad as people say. It seems to me that most are overdramatic about it.

Reading about it from various sources would make one think nothing but doom and gloom but from a gamers p.o.v. we weren't as effected as suggested.

We still had games and we still played games whether in an arcade, on a home console or a home p.c. Games were available but many at some incredible prices. On Monday they were full price but Tuesday found them in the cheap bin.

[old man]

Give me a break. Most of the people who blab about the crash o' 83 weren't even born in 83.

edit: JCU makes a good point. The negative effects were probably felt more from the retailer, developer end than the consumer end. Kind of like when the market went through a slump/mini-crash in the early 90's, but we won't talk about that one since no one believes it happened either.

[Splatterhouse5]

I was 6 back in 1983, so i wasn't old enough to care (or even notice) a VG crash. From my point of view, I spent time with my Colecovision, the NES came out, and then I wanted that. I understand why the crash happened, but i didn't care. I was fine for years just playing the Colecovision games that I had. However, I suppose it would have been an interesting "what if" if Nintendo never got involved in the manner that they did. Miyamoto (and other high talent programmers) might have ended up at Sega, and maybe a character like Alex Kidd or Bonk would have been as big a deal as Mario is today.

[WarmSignal]

Probably just a slow year that was followed by a really productive one, and they like to call it a "crash" to build up the NES.

[gamevet]

It is certainly wrong to say that without Nintendo videogames wouldn't exist anymore. But as far the crash is concerned, I do get the feeling, that here in Germany people were playing more C64 instead of some consoles. The crash of the videogame market basically meant, that people stopped buying
dedicated consoles and switched over to computers that also had games to offer.

It wasn't a videogame crash, it was a console gaming crash. Home computers took over the market, while console makers didn't have an answer. The Colecovision was certainly a powerful enough console to replace the 2600, but why pay for games when you can copy your friends game on the home computer?

If Nintendo didn't came "to the rescue" we would either be playing more on computers or Sega would have taken the role of the big N (my favorite scenario : P)

If Super Mario Bros. wasn't such a powerful property, Nintendo might not have had any success either. The home computers had such a huge stranglehold on videogame market, that it almost seemed impossible for a console to make headway.

the crash of '83???
was that a 2bit or 4bit crash?

there was no crash in '83, home consoles were still a joke and not taken seriously AT ALL.

Arcades were alive and well

The Colecovision was very capable of delivering arcade games within the home, but the home computers were too dominant at the time. Even Coleco and Mattel tried to battle for a piece of home computing, with the Adam and Mattels add-ons.

Certainly didn't affect the game industry as a whole. It was just in the home console market. Arcade and home computer gaming was alive and well.

It did effect the game industry as a whole. Companies like Imagic, Coleco and Atari hemorrhaged money, and if they didn't go under, they were very close to doing so.

Nintendo did what they did in the 8-bit days because there were tons upon tons of crap games coming out for Atari, which was one of the reasons for the crash. Anyone could release Atari games without a license. It's understandable that they didn't want to fall in the same trap, though they clearly got a bit overzealous.

Yeah, Atari certainly did the most damage; there's no way that anyone could profit when a console has over 60 titles released for it within a year, when its userbase is under 30 million. It may seem like anyone could release a game without a license from Atari, but they risked being sued by Atari if they didn't get their approval.

Atari had approved so many titles, that I was picking up games for $5 at the local Kay Bee Toys. The retailers couldn't do anything about the onslaught of games, except to take the losses and clear out the excess inventory.

[Bastardcat]

Oh God! I love me some Colecovision!

[j_factor]

Colecovision might have continued to do fine if it weren't for the Adam. The Adam was an unmitigated disaster.