So you basically see the "crash" as a case of supply far outstripping demand. I'm sure consumer confidence was involved, too, since there didn't seem to be any reasonable standard of quality they could take seriously.
I think supply outstripping demand was probably the single biggest factor in the "crash", yes, with quality control right behind it (literally any and every company either wanted in or got in and quickly cobbled together a dev/publishing "studio" (usually a few guys)). It was a combination of cheap and poor product dumping and there not being enough consumers to make up the difference. You had $5 garbage games competing with $30 quality games. Which would the average consumer choose? Further, how many times can you buy crappy games before you stop buying games regardless of price?
It's easy to say that people were getting tired of the then dominant videogame platform, the Atari 2600, but the reality is the platform was still in its prime in terms of quality game releases, and developers were getting things out of it that didn't seem possible back in 1977. The fact that Atari could still sell a revised 2600 (the Jr) into the late 1980's (thanks to Nintendo's resuscitation of the market) and the technical merits of the games kept improving, proved that.
Also, there's no need to go into how Atari sabotaged itself (paying exhorbitant licensing fees for and overproducing Pac-Man and ET catridges without concern for quality, releasing the Atari 5200 with dismal controllers and without 2600 compatibility, etc.), but others like Coleco and Mattel played their own roles, particularly with their computer add-ons. Coleco, for instance, was getting huge sales from the ColecoVision and its games, and had a lot of people excited about the Adam, but when that computer was finally released, it disappointed on many levels (particularly from a quality control standpoint - hardware-wise it was actually competitive) and most importantly caused huge losses for the company, forcing them out of the ColecoVision business. In other words, if they had focused exclusively on the ColecoVision, there is a chance they could have weathered the depression and come out on the other side, NES or no NES. Same thing with Mattel - too many resources into both the Aquarius and the ECS - draining the company financially. Again, it took another company (too bad that never happened with the ColecoVision - mail order company TeleGames got most rights) to take over the stock and most rights and continue to market the platform (with some success) into the late 1980's.
Obviously the computer side had its fair share of failures around this same time period. Again, every company wanted to release a low end computer. Commodore crushed them all with the C-64 because Commodore controlled most of the parts and production, unlike their competitors, allowing them to consistently and dramatically lower the prices. It was also plenty of computer to remain competitive with whatever low end systems the competition could come up with (which were often lacking in comparison). Timex, Texas Instruments, Spectravideo, Panasonic, etc., all came and went relatively quickly in this time period of roughly 1982 - 1985. The only one who was able to limp through the end of the decade with their own low end computers were Radio Shack (thanks to their stores and ability to save money on external advertising and stock demands) and of course, Atari.
Ah, I see I'm blathering again. Fun stuff, though...
Wii: 1345 2773 2048 1586 | PS3: ArmchairArcade Bill Loguidice, Managing Director | Armchair Arcade, Inc.
*************************** Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.
So you basically see the "crash" as a case of supply far outstripping demand. I'm sure consumer confidence was involved, too, since there didn't seem to be any reasonable standard of quality they could take seriously.
I think supply outstripping demand was probably the single biggest factor in the "crash", yes, with quality control right behind it (literally any and every company either wanted in or got in and quickly cobbled together a dev/publishing "studio" (usually a few guys)). It was a combination of cheap and poor product dumping and there not being enough consumers to make up the difference. You had $5 garbage games competing with $30 quality games. Which would the average consumer choose? Further, how many times can you buy crappy games before you stop buying games regardless of price?
It's easy to say that people were getting tired of the then dominant videogame platform, the Atari 2600, but the reality is the platform was still in its prime in terms of quality game releases, and developers were getting things out of it that didn't seem possible back in 1977. The fact that Atari could still sell a revised 2600 (the Jr) into the late 1980's (thanks to Nintendo's resuscitation of the market) and the technical merits of the games kept improving, proved that.
Also, there's no need to go into how Atari sabotaged itself (paying exhorbitant licensing fees for and overproducing Pac-Man and ET catridges without concern for quality, releasing the Atari 5200 with dismal controllers and without 2600 compatibility, etc.), but others like Coleco and Mattel played their own roles, particularly with their computer add-ons. Coleco, for instance, was getting huge sales from the ColecoVision and its games, and had a lot of people excited about the Adam, but when that computer was finally released, it disappointed on many levels (particularly from a quality control standpoint - hardware-wise it was actually competitive) and most importantly caused huge losses for the company, forcing them out of the ColecoVision business. In other words, if they had focused exclusively on the ColecoVision, there is a chance they could have weathered the depression and come out on the other side, NES or no NES. Same thing with Mattel - too many resources into both the Aquarius and the ECS - draining the company financially. Again, it took another company (too bad that never happened with the ColecoVision - mail order company TeleGames got most rights) to take over the stock and most rights and continue to market the platform (with some success) into the late 1980's.
Obviously the computer side had its fair share of failures around this same time period. Again, every company wanted to release a low end computer. Commodore crushed them all with the C-64 because Commodore controlled most of the parts and production, unlike their competitors, allowing them to consistently and dramatically lower the prices. It was also plenty of computer to remain competitive with whatever low end systems the competition could come up with (which were often lacking in comparison). Timex, Texas Instruments, Spectravideo, Panasonic, etc., all came and went relatively quickly in this time period of roughly 1982 - 1985. The only one who was able to limp through the end of the decade with their own low end computers were Radio Shack (thanks to their stores and ability to save money on external advertising and stock demands) and of course, Atari.
Ah, I see I'm blathering again. Fun stuff, though...
Wii: 1345 2773 2048 1586 | PS3: ArmchairArcade
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director | Armchair Arcade, Inc.
***************************
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.