Talk:Video game crash of 1983

Competition out of business

I noticed that one of the main effects of the crash that is mentioned, is that many developers went under or were struggling to survive.

But there is no section dedicated to that. What companies went under? I only see 3 companies mentioned without anything more to go on. So could somebody put these companies in?

Before I forget Coleco did not withdraw from the industry when the crash happened just wanted to point that out.

We should also put in information that suggests that people were still buying consoles because a lot of readers such as myself wrongly consider that video games ceased to exist during the crash.

Yet on sites such as Sega-16, Forbes, Atariage, a few google books, others have proven, consoles were not actually dead.

I thought I would mention this so that nobody is confused. I would give you some links to help but I have never used wikipedia before today so i'll leave it to the professionals. This became a very interesting discussion over at the Gamefaqs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.84.141 (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

ET/2600 Dump Found

I'm not sure if this goes into this article, but it probably goes somewhere related to this one: they found the great Atari dump.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/04/26/the-dig-uncovering-the-atari-et-games-buried-in-new-mexico-desert http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614109/Atari-2600-E-T-worst-game-discovered-New-Mexico-landfill-dig.html http://www.cnet.com/news/found-ataris-e-t-games-dug-up-from-new-mexico-landfill/

A Google search brings up more sources if you want them. Lucky9Two (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Check out Atari video game burial. Cheers. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 04:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Early 1980s recession had no effect?

If I recall correctly, there was a nasty Early 1980s recession before the 1983 video game collapse yet it is not mentioned. So one can gather from the lack of a mention that it was not much of a contributor to the 1983 video game collapse? Septagram (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• As near as I can tell, probably not. I have never seen a newspaper article from the time that placed the blame on the recession. Also, the heart of the recession was in 1981-2 when the video game market was experiencing extraordinary growth. By 1984, the US economy was in recovery and the video game industry was well on its way to bottoming out, which it finally did in 1985. In general, the video game industry has proven itself to be incredibly resilient to economic recessions. Even in the most recent one, the industry continued to experience growth in the first two years of the recession before the economy finally caught up to it and caused a decline. Indrian (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"many had large third-party libraries"

Each of these consoles had its own library of games, and many had large third-party libraries.

What does this mean? What's a "third-party library"? Third-party to what? --Special:Contributions/Beefyt (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Third party, as in, made by companies that were not the hardware maker. For example, on a Nintendo made console, a game made by Electronic Arts, Activision, or Ubisoft would be considered "third party games". In this instance, the word library is being used in the same way that "collection" would be used. So, putting it all together, it's saying that a console had a large collection of games made by other companies. This is generally seen as a good thing, it usually means the console was selling well to consumers. Sergecross73 msg me 10:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! I figured that's what it meant, but it's ambiguous; confuses the console with the maker of the console. --beefyt (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the old wording made sense to people familiar with the industry, but not really for general audiences, which is what Wikipedia strives to do. So, your rewording is much better. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 00:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we remove that however since half the consoles mentioned had small libraries f often less than 60 games. 173.79.138.150 (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Title change.

Would it be possible to change the title to NA "Console" video game crash. That s the only subject that this article covers. Computers were fine, Arcades has a different crash that was nowhere near the scope and also picked back up before Consoles did, So it should be emphasized that this is a console crash only. Many people act like the entire industry was dead, including in other countries, where this has no effect, because people take what they see on Wikipedia and put their own pieces together. 173.79.138.150 (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. Articles on Wikipedia are named according to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE, and I believe your suggestion would work towards both of those policies... Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, We would need solid evidence that this is actually called a console crash before we consider changing the title.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I just want to chime in and say that I find the title misleading as well. The arcade market suffered a crash, and the home console market suffered a crash in the United States, but the home computer market (which was primarily driven by video games) didn't suffer a crash but rather a boom at the time. Further, the title says "North" American — which would include Canada — and yet historian Steven L. Kent says, "The American video game market may have crashed in 1983, but the international market continued almost unimpeded. Atari marched on in Europe and Japan. Even the Canadian market remained fairly active throughout most of 1984. Atari, Mattel, even Vectrex sales continued in foreign markets." (The Ultimate History of Video Games, Chapter 17, p. 278. Emphasis mine.). -- Mecandes (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The title is accurate. In 1983-84, there was no concept of a unified "interactive entertainment industry" encompassing both consoles and home computers. When one spoke of "video games" in those days, one referred to arcade and console games (which were actually two very different markets as well, but the press and public did not always make the distinction). Therefore, when the press discussed a "video game crash" at the time, they were not factoring in home computer games at all.

Second, North American is accurate because this was an industry crash, not a market crash. Demand for video games actually held throughout 1983 in the United States and cartridge sales increased (albeit at sometimes heavily discounted prices) over 1982. The market therefore did not collapse. What did collapse was the industry, i.e. those North American companies like Atari, Mattel, Coleco, Activision, and Imagic that were supplying product to the marketplace. All of these companies either disappeared or were chased out of the business in a greatly weakened state. Once the industry was gone, the market bottomed out in 1985 because no new product was being introduced, but the market demand never really went away, which is why Nintendo, and to a far lesser extent Atari and Sega, experienced success in 1986. The state of the Canadian market during this period has no bearing on whether or not the industry crashed in North America. Indrian (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Video Game crash of 1984

Why does is always {wrong) say 'crash of 1983', when in fact the crash happened in 1984, which can be read in Electronic Games magazine March 1984. Here's some links: http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo12/Alison123456789/video%20game%20crash%20of%2084/cead2479-10fc-4193-9d42-d30ccacf266f_zps8fb13b80.jpg http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo12/Alison123456789/video%20game%20crash%20of%2084/EGmarch1984_zpsbc61ac76.jpg

Here's some more links, Garry Kitchen (famous Activision programmer, talks about the 1984 crash: http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo12/Alison123456789/video%20game%20crash%20of%2084/videogamecrashof1984GarryKitchen_zps7baa2403.jpg

Here's Alan Miller (another famous Activision programmer) talking about the 1984 crash: http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo12/Alison123456789/video%20game%20crash%20of%2084/videogamecrashof1984AlanMiller_zpsbc345682.jpg

Here's another link talking about the 1984 crash: http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo12/Alison123456789/video%20game%20crash%20of%2084/videogamecrashof1984DigitalPress_zpsbb0e1b6d.jpg

I think this should be put right.

Does this represent the majority of reliable sources covering the crash since several other reliable sources say 1983.

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2011/09/21/ten-facts-about-the-great-video-game-crash-of-83 http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/experienced-points/10503-The-Game-Crash-of-2013 http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-10-03-gaming-risks-a-repeat-of-1983-crash-report

This clearly shows that the crash happening in 84 is not an established fact.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The crash as a whole took place over multiple years, as is described that way in the article. I'm assuming it's referred to as the crash of '83 because that's when it began, which I don't think any sources really dispute. Whether or not that's the best title is potentially worth discussing. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it rather hilarious too that references used in the line all say 1984, but the comment remains 1983. It's like ignore the source saying 1984, and believe the comment saying 1983. Strange one, isn't it? Oh, IGN is an unreliable source to use too, because they quoted Wikipedia as their source for the crash of 1983.2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:29A6:6444:16CF:6121 (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Everything I'm reading on the page suggest it should be The Crash of 82.

Tons of Claims with no back-up

A lot of statements and "facts' in this article are made boldly, yet there's nothing to actually back up some of them. It also doesn't help that there's no elaboration so people who read the article no the difference between market and industry crash, and a few users who know extra facts (above this section Indrian states sales of software increased during the crash) do not actually post these findings and reference them. So basically this article is one huge mess here are some of the things along with the above I noticed:

1. The top area says the main cause of the Crash was saturation, this is never explained at all and also is a debatable figure.

2. Flooded console market doesn't actually exist as it is said. While you can find an article or two about some people thinking a "third" console adding the Coleco may start to make things a bit harder for sustainability, (which was dwarfed by Colecos fast high sales) there wasn't any other flooded console, and these consoles aren't even mentioned during the class, failed in NA, or did not release in NA unless they were limited. The Astrocade was mail-order, Channel F was pretty much dead, Arcadia didn't even really exist, we have nothing to cite these for even being reasons people just assume this and throw them in their as if they are facts yet there's nothing showing for this at all. Even back in those days.

3. Focusing on E.T. and a 2600 version of PAc-Man (that sold very well) is also something added to the "primary" reasons of the crash. In fact, most of the effects of these games weren't considered and it's mostly retrospective. These were not core causes of the crash and we have nothing but "misinformed public opinion for the last few years" to back that up."

4. "By June 1983, the market for the more expensive games had shrunk dramatically and was replaced by a new market of rushed-to-market, low-budget games." No this didn't happen, games with polish also had to shrink the prices. This is trying really hard without citation to imply that the majority of games in the bargin bins were all quaker oats type games, which numbers are grossly hyperbole.

5. "A massive industry shakeout resulted. Magnavox and Coleco abandoned the video game business entirely. Imagic withdrew its IPO the day before its stock was to go public; the company later collapsed. The largest third-party developer, Activision, survived in part because they also developed games for home computers to offset their console losses. Most of the smaller software development houses supporting the Atari 2600 closed." This is all wrong, Coleco didn't die during the crash, they were still going, Magnavox as well, there's no source for Imagic, which would be requried for such a statement. We also have nothing on Activision for a statement that bold.

6. "Toy retailers, which controlled consumer access to games, had concluded that video games were a fad. That fad, they assumed, had ended, , and the shelf space would be reassigned to different products; as a result, many retailers ignored video games for several years" So much so that they still carried game consoles? I mean sure it reduced but it wasn't anywhere near this implied hyperbole. Especially with Atari, during the lowest "point" of the crash selling one million consoles, where did those come from? Where were the Colecovisions still being sold? I mean we have no citation for this in the from it's in and then proceed to add reference to an irrelevant Nintendo article about R.O.B., which while the point of the article is related, doesn't back up the rest of some of this "complete no carry" that's been implied for years.

7. "The sales of home video games had dropped considerably during this period, from $3 billion in 1982 to as low as $100 million in 1985" While I have heard of this number as well, I am having issues fininding mutiple reliable sources on this, and am wondering if anybody else has.

8. "In response, Nintendo limited the number of titles that third-party developers could release for their system each year, and promoted its "Seal of Quality", which it allowed to be used on games and peripherals by publishers that met Nintendo's quality standards." The reference for this has nothing to do with this statement and only provided a source for the preceding Hiroshi quote. Also the Nintendo seal of quality yhad nothing to do with quality standards, it just meant the cart was licensed to work on the NES.

9. "The end of the crash allowed Commodore to raise the price of the C64 for the first time upon the June 1986 introduction of the Commodore 64c—a Commodore 64 redesigned for lower cost of manufacture, which Compute! cited as the end of the home-computer price war,[38][39] one of the primary causes of the crash.[40]" The computer "price war" had NOTHING to do with being a serious part of the video game "console" crash.

10. "Other Japanese companies also rivaled Nintendo's success in the United States, with Sega's Mega Drive/Genesis in 1989 and NEC's PC Engine released the same year." This is extra text that has nothing to do with the paragraph it's in.

11. "A second, highly visible result of the crash was the institution of measures to control third-party development of software." this and the rest of the paragraph are useless due to the fact it's false, Coleco (and Mattel) had these, the writer of the paragraph knows this and switched to the 2600 not having it as a reason for his statement, which is not how it works. Even if the 2600 was the more popular console.

There's more, but there are so many things in this article that speak as if they are well known facts but they are either misinformation, lies, speculation, or have nothing providing reliable back-up to support what is being said. We even have had (i've been looking through multiple 2nd gen articles for awhile) people who know things that should be added that are important and have yet to add anything to this article. I believe one evenw rote a book or something and not a piece of that info is in this article.

This article has always been a mess, and it has been shrunken quite a bit since a couple years ago, but there's still key points to this article that are left alone despitenothing supporting these things to be in the article.. 96.255.227.206 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hey Jakandsig, its been awhile. I almost miss our discussions even if they were part of the largest single sockpuppet attack I have ever seen on Wikipedia. All snarkiness aside though, you are right: this article is a mess, and most of the points you have brought up are pretty valid. I would certainly not be adverse to you making a few of these changes as long as you back them up with proper sourcing. You are probably correct that someone like Marty or myself could make most of these changes if we put in the effort, but it would be A LOT of effort, and my attentions are currently focused elsewhere. I am happy to share my thoughts on all your points, however.

1. So any event as convoluted as the crash is going to have multiple causes with various degrees of influence, but saturation really does seem to be the leading problem. Analysts at the time concluded that there was probably enough product to satisfy 200 percent of market demand, so that created some pretty bad ripple effects when retailers could not sell through product, which meant publishers did not get paid and software had to go into the bargain bin. This caused the price of software to collapse, which meant that publishers could not recoup the cost of creating and marketing new games. Some like to point to the atrocious quality of certain games, but really every single game on the market could have been one of the most brilliant video games ever made and you still would not be able to sell all of them if you exceeded your market demand by 100%.

2. Yeah, the flooded console market thing is complete BS. As you rightly point out, consoles like the Channel F and Astrocade barely existed and could certainly not be found at retail. Everyone knew Atari was the market leader, trailed by Mattel, and that Colecovision was the hot new product gaining ground fast. No one was paying attention to the lesser products, and the success or failure of those products had no bearing on whether the publisher ecosystem could survive because publishers created little or no product for those consoles. This really should go.

3. The ET thing is blown entirely out of proportion, though it was certainly a very bad thing for Atari. Pac-Man, as you state, was a commercial success and most likely had little to do with the crash. It probably was overproduced, but not to the degree articulated in most sources, which parrot Kent. Kent based his info on a Kassar quote that Atari shipped 12 million cartridges and contemporary newspaper accounts that Atari sold 7 million cartridges. Kent was interviewing Kassar over twenty years after the fact, and my guess is he had the production numbers wrong. Also, Atari was planning to start bundling Pac Man with the VCS, so some of that production was not for stand alone retail product.

4. Yeah, that statement completely misconstrues the situation. People would have loved to keep purchasing new high quality games, but the $35 price point could not be maintained in the face of overwhelming discount inventory. It was not just bad games going for under $5.00, plenty of good games were going at that price too. It would take two years to clear out the retail channel, which is why Nintendo had such success again in 1986. The public did not tire of games; retailers just did not want to stock them anymore.

5. You are off base here. The article does not say that Coleco and Magnavox went away, just that they got out of the market. Magnavox cancelled its next system, while Coleco sold vastly reduced quantities until finally pulling the plug for good in early 1985. Imagic did cancel its IPO because it was scheduled for just a couple of days after the Atari announced that tanked video game stocks in December 1982, and it failed to transition to home computer software effectively, thus going out of business. Activision did only survive by moving to computer games, and it still lost money for sixteen consecutive quarters due to the wounds brought on by the crash. More sourcing is always good, but the basic facts here are correct.

6. Okay, absolutes are generally always a bad idea, but the point of the article that retailers did not want to stock video games anymore is true. Nintendo had to fight hard to get its first distribution deals, which is why the company began with a small test market for the NES. Retailers in 1984 and 1985 were largely liquidating backstock at highly discounted prices. They were not interested in anything new.

7. These numbers are frequently cited in newspaper articles in the mid to late 1980s. They are, of course, just estimates by analysts, but they get the point across pretty well about the complete collapse of the market.

8. Yes and no. The Nintendo Seal of Quality was a gimmick in that Nintendo accepted plenty of games of dubious quality. However, Nintendo did subject any game it licensed to rigorous testing, so they were usually bug free even if the game play was dreck. It was an important symbol to lure skittish retailers and consumers back to video games even if it did not really represent anything practically speaking.

9. Agree totally. The video game and home computer markets were on completely different cycles. The home computer market did crash due to Tramiel's price war, but this was completely independent of the video game industry crash.

10. Once again I agree. Sega and NEC did not even really do that well in the US in this time period. Implying that they "rivalled" Nintendo's success is flat out wrong.

11. Again, yes and no. Lockout chips were not new, but Nintendo was the first company to create a complete and rigorous system of quality control that included manufacturing of all cartridges and rigorous testing of all released games. Instituting third-party controls means more than just a lock-out chip.

And that's that. Feel free to make a few changes if you can back them with sources, but try to avoid the edit warring you are becoming known for. It is not constructive and will only get you banned again. Indrian (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2015

Regarding the second to last sentence in the Flooded Console Market section, please replace the sentence with the following sentence which adds clarification and a reference.

A proposed Atari 7800 was 2600-compatible, but its 1984 launch was shelved when Warner Communications split up Atari. Jonpollnow (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Cannolis (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)