Talk:Video game crash of 1983/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Size of the video game industry in 1985

I was interested in this subject, and I saw the bit about the contraction of the market from 1983 to 1985.

However, looking at it, the source of the number appears to be Nintendo itself. Other sources seem to suggest that 1985 saw more units sold than the years prior to the 1983 crash - [this article on Medium,](https://medium.com/the-peruser/a-brief-history-of-video-game-sales-49edbf831dc) citing Deltanomics data, for instance. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Nintendo is almost certainly under reporting the market, or perhaps just reporting its 1985 test market sales and claiming that represents the whole market, as there is certainly some evidence that Atari sold one million consoles in 1985 making that $100 million figure suspect even with deep discounting, but those "Deltanomics" numbers are just VGChartz numbers under another name, which are completely made up. And since they report NES numbers from 1984, they are made up worldwide numbers rather than US numbers. There were not more video games sold in 1985 in the US than at the peak of the market in 1983; already there was a decline of over 20 million units between 1983 and 1984, and 1985 would have only been worse with a dearth of new releases (unfortunately, the major trackers had stopped following the video game industry by then, so while we have decent figures for 1984 and 1986, no good numbers have appeared yet for 1985 outside of that Nintendo-provided dollar figure). Indrian (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a source for the $100 million number? Because in 1985 Atari sold over 1 million 2600's along with new game releases, Coleco had new game releases for the ColecoVision and Adam, Mattel saw enough money in the market to get INTV to continue supporting the INTV and put out a new model, and there was the overly expensive, and flopw, RDI laser system console that came out as well in 1985.

If there's no source for $100 million that's reliable and logical than it may be better to remove it because it makes the video game industry seem like it was in a much worse place than it actually was. If you look at the common history of the crash back in the late 90's early 200's internet where Nintendo sold millions out the gate, and the 2600 was a 4-bit machine, we've come a long way of trying to get the history right. If video game history is to be taken seriously we really need to make sure we have all the facts imo. Spike Danton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• There are literally dozens of newspaper articles from 1986 that give the $100 million figure, but if you dig into those articles, it is clear the number came from Nintendo. I do suspect that Nintendo reported its own sales and claimed they represented the whole market. I do want to point out that your analysis is a bit on the rosy side. First, there were no new releases for VCS or Colecovision in 1985, not a single one. The last releases for each were in 1984, though of course the VCS started getting new games again in the late 1980s. As for the Adam, it was discontinued in 1984, so nothing new there. Colcecovision was discontinued in early 1985. As for INTV, that was not faith in the market by Mattel, but rather a chance to get some kind of return on a failed business unit by selling it. INTV basically kept going by catering to existing owners and never rose above a 2% market share. Still, with Atari selling one million consoles in 1985 and Nintendo selling about 90,000 NES systems, one figures the market was a little bigger than $100 million though probably not by a huge amount. Indrian (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Well the first issue here is you appear to be misinformed about release dates, as Atari and Coleco had releases in 1985 and the Adam was not fully removed from all retailers until 1985. The Adam being the reason why Coleco went for CBK instead of staying in electronics, not the crash. GhostBusters and Alcazar being just an example for each system respectively so yes there were releases in 1985. I would also like to mention that while the Adam had a short life in 1985 the Coleco Vision made it till the end of the year.

There are also newspapers that said over $100 million but those are now harder to find since google newspaper has been down for years. But that's irrelevant.

Why would INTV bother having new games published for the Intellivision, along with selling the console, along with making a new version of the INTV if they had no faith in the market? If they had no faith why would they expect to make any money? It doesn't make any sense. Then you have RDI and one other manufacturer, whos name escapes me at the moment, that launched a $500+ and $300 plus dollar console respectively thinking there was a market for these systems.

1 million ColecoVisionss in 83 brought in over $35-40 million for the industry and that's with Coleco investing heavily in production, marketing and game deals. Atari Sold 1 million 2600's 2 years later. Where they did not put in big $$$ on advertising hardware or software, third-party titles, or production. The math doesn't add up:

1. ColecoVision still sold at 1985 as did the Adam, with new releases (although not many). Yeah for a short time, but that's still revenue for the industry and retailers.

2. Intellivisions were still being sold with a new model and re-releases. They were cheap to produce so no big $$ spend on production or on marketing.

3. While the two new overly expensive consoles flopped by the end of 1985, especially RDI, they still brought in a good amount of revenue tot he industry.

4. The 5200 was still selling software and Atari was selling the last shipments of the console: https://i.imgur.com/vOwnRl3.png

5. MUltiple hit games first or third party drom 1984, regardless of console, were still selling.

6. Atari sold 1 million consoles. No big $$ spend on production, on software, on contracts, on marketing, or on third-parties. Almost entirely all profit in 1985

7. 50,000-90,000 NES systems in test launch, with slight marketing, with its own software.

That's all $100 million? I can only see this making sense if everyone but the NES plus maybe half of the Atari 2600 1 million sells didn't count toward the number. The math doesn't add up no matter how you look at the prices. The cheapest price I found for Atari in 1985 was sears at $29,99 for the console itself, that's $30 x 1 million, and of course it'll be a it less than the total of that but judging from lack of investment the majority of the resulting number, $30,000,000, would be profit. But the issue even with that is we know that it was sold for MORE money in many other places. Then You have The two new systems, Coleco Adam for a couple months, the Coleco Vision till the end of the year, the NES, the Itellivison, and that's all JUST hardware. We haven't even gotten TO software yet. Spike Danton (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• You are, of course right that there were several Colecovision releases in 1985 as well as a couple of VCS releases;that's what I get for being too quick to post. The rest of your statements are still quite overdone in terms of creating an overly rosy view of the market in this period. That said, if you had bothered to read my post, I agreed with you all as long that the market was probably larger than $100 million, so I am not sure what you are arguing against. There are currently no sources with a different figure because everyone stopped tracking the market that year because it was quite moribund. Indrian (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how it paints anything rosy at all. The math doesn't add up no matter how unwilling you are to except it. 1 million Atari 2600's alone with just hardware is around $40 million of that $100 million or so and that's excluding game and software purchases. All the other elements would easily put it over $100 million. Over $100 million oesn't necessarily mean "great" or "amazing" either for an industry that was worth over $3 billion, so I don't see how disputing $100 million is "rosy" unless you think the industry still being cripples but not as crippled translates to it being a massive success in 1985.

As for no one tracking that year, I'm sure there was but it's likely behind some paywall since apparently news publications love to lock older articles behind paywalls. I only assume this because RDI, before they launched their console, implied that everyone was leaving money on the table and reinvestment was going back into the industry so fast that they thought they would take over the majority of the market just launching a new machine, which they cited over $200 million worth of market. Now of course, $200 true or not, is indeed still not really...good so i don't really see what's rosy about that, however that's still a number that makes much more sense than $100 million and that's the only thing I'm arguing is that $100 million doesn't add up to me no matter how I add up the prices. Spike Danton (talk)

The "Prior history" section

To the IP that keeps removing it:

• First, WP:LEDE does not apply. LEDE is about the stuff at the very top of the article, the summary of the page. I agree that Atari's performance before 1982 is not necessary there, but that's not where this is being added.
• But it is relevant to understand that the home console industry ballooned from very little in 1980 to what is was in 1982. The very next section explains the large number of competitors suddenly there. (It's the same logic as the dot-com bubble). It's a logical step to explain to a reader unfamiliar with the timeline of the industry why there was so much competition suddenly when there wasn't before, and where since, there has been competition but no evidence of any bubble or crash (because the industry hasn't grown at that uncontrolled pace since).

It's a completely valid section to simply acclamate the reader to what the situation was leading into 1982 and 1983. --Masem (t) 14:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Just want to say that this page has come a long way from where it was inn the past.

There is still much information to add and expand upon on this page, but I wanted to say that this subject has come a long way from where it was in 2012-2013 or before. Especially during the 2014-2015 edit war that was waged by a user with multiple accounts, although some of his information was valuable.

This page is less lopsided and much more balanced than it was before, and a lot of work has made it much more respectable than it was in the past. There's still more to do, but when you compare the old Crash page from back when the media took Wikipedia video game pages as gospel until now, it's a complete 180 which I'm glad for.

This was always a controversial page, but I'm glad that people are starting to regulate the classic video game consoles articles more and more while making sure that things are neutral and historically accurate. it really makes a big difference. 184.180.154.151 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Question - Impact of Inflation on the Overall Game Industry by 1983

Big question this, but I wonder if inflation was a truly major contributor to the crash for the industry as a whole, or whether it contributed more to a crash in a specific branch of the industry, more precisely arcade video games? Considering that the industry saw various figureheads lobby for a new coin, I would assume that this factor would be more in-line with arcade machines, rather than other branches of video game production. GUtt01 (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Should E.T. and Pac-Man have a section on the page?

Though not directly responsible, E.T. and Pac-Man did play a part in the crash and I feel they should have a section dedicated on the page dedicated to them. Bob3458 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

We want to be careful, it is widely misconstrued these were responsible for the crash when in reality, they had a small role in the crash compared to the other market factors at play. Their role, if anything, was that they were, by the urban legend, the games that were buried in the millions here. Atari did dump a lot of the returned stock of these games, but not so much as to make a separate section for them. But I would think it important to stress how they weren't as critical to the crash as urban legend has it. --Masem (t) 16:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, Pac-Man really had no impact on the crash. It was a massive commercial success that sold 2-4 million copies more than any other VCS game ever had before. At most, the disappointing visuals may have served to make customers more wary of sub-standard product, but it did not hurt Atari's bottom line. The reports that it was over-manufactured are incorrect. E.T. had a sizable impact on Atari due to the sheer volume of returns, which were truly staggering, but the bigger impact on the company was that game sales literally ground to a halt after Thanksgiving due to market over saturation. That was before E.T. returns became an issue. E.T. sold decently over Christmas 1982, though below expectations. Then the returns started pouring in over the first months of 1983. Indrian (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to make a misconception section, but realized that this is better placed as yet another fact, the loss of confidence in Atari (which Kent's book goes into among others). I started enough of a section and just am pinging @Indrian: to see [1] if this looks reasonable to make sure. I know more probably can be added from other sources on Atari but this gets enough to mention where ET + Pac-Man sit without necessarily faulting the games themselves. --Masem (t) 18:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

There are a few problems with that. First, Chase the Chuck Wagon was not an Atari game and is really a bad example anyway because it was a mail-order game direct from Purina. It was a promotional stunt rather than something that gained a mass market release, kinda like the Burger King games in the 2000s. Second, Pac-Man was not rushed, that was E.T. Pac-Man's graphical limitations came about because the programmer -- with no pressure from any executives -- decided that it was important to make the game two-player, which ate up precious resources that could have been used to control flicker.

Third, Atari never anticipated 12 million in sales. This all goes back to Kent. Ray Kassar told Kent they shipped 12 million Pac-Man cartridges. This was just a recollection without any documentary evidence made over a decade after the fact. Kent took this as gospel, looked at sales reports that stated Atari sold around seven million, and concluded all on his own that Atari failed to sell 5 million cartridges. Pac-Man sold very well in the Spring. There are reports that sales slowed in the summer, which makes sense just because it had already been out a few months, but then it was selling just fine again in the holiday season. It remained in the lower half of the top 10 of the Billboard charts throughout the last three months of 1982. Here are some internal Atari sales figures that can be seen in the background during a segment of the documentary Once Upon Atari that drive home the point (click on it for a larger, readable image):

Atari sales 1981-84

These are net sales, ie product sold minus product that did not sell or was returned. Look at E.T. See how in 1983 it sold -600,000 units? That's because returns were so bad that they dwarfed additional sales. Then look at Pac-Man. Over 7 million in 1982 and another 600,000 in 1983. If there were five million unsold copies of the game, or even two million, those numbers would have buckled and you would either see really low net sales for 1982 or a crushing negative figure in 1983 as for E.T. The Pac-Man problem really is a giant myth. The one thing you can say about it, which some executives from the time have speculated about, is that it might have made the public more cautious and unwilling to buy a game just because it had an Atari logo on it. That may have hurt sales of future Atari product, but Pac-Man came out just fine. Indrian (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken out a few of those things that look questionable, but again, stressing that Pac-Man's quality (but otherwise sold apparently fine to Atari/Warner), followed by E.T's quality was the problem on confidence. I'm sure there's more sourcing to be added. --Masem (t) 19:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Some language needs clarification

"built around a chipset originally meant for use in a game console, and which retailed for the same price as their respective names."

Is this trying to say that the 400 sold for $400, while the 800 sold for $800? If not, what does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorvindr (talk • contribs) 06:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Atari's licensed version of Space Invaders from Taito"

Does this mean "Atari's licensed version of Taito's Space Invaders," or "Taito's licensed version of Space Invaders, which they made for Atari?"

sales of the VCS quadrupled

Annual sales? Monthly? 1980 is mentioned earlier in the sentence; does that mean 1980's sales were 400% of 1979's?

sales of the VCS quadrupled, and the game was the first title to sell more than a million copies.

The first video game ever? The first Atari game? The first video game cartridge? The first game of this era?Did this release propel Space Invaders to be the first video game title to sell over 1 million copies? Technically, the present wording explicitly means the last possibility, since any game with the precise name "Space Invaders" would count toward the total sales of the "title."

Kassar expected this to occur when about half of American households had a video game console

"American" can mean many things. Is this in reference to North America? North and South America? The United States? Given the linguistic conventions of the day, if this is anything near a direct quote, the word "American" would almost definitely refer exclusively to the United States. In any event, if this is not a quote, the phrasing needs adjustment, as the term "American," taken in a modern context, cannot be assumed to mean anything in particular. It most accurately refers to "both North and South America," but I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to know if that is indeed the intent in this case.

Atari did not allow credits to appear on their games

"on" or "in?" Were credits forbidden from appearing on-screen, on packaging, or both?

Experts predicted a glut in 1983, with only 10% of games producing 75% of sales.

Was the prediction made in 1983, or does it refer to 1983? Was the prediction made in a year in which 10% of games accounted for 75% of sales, or was that the prediction? I don't love the word "glut" in this context, but that's purely a matter of preference and honestly, it's a very descriptive word that means so much more than it literally says, so I think it probably is the best word, my personal feelings notwithstanding.

Thorvindr (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Help figuring out if the 1983-84 events helped ensure that games were mostly marketed toward boys over girls during 80s/90s?

I don't have much so far, but see Adam Ruins Everything - Why People Think Video Games Are Just for Boys - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08CVkBxvBM and https://gameluster.com/why-are-games-marketed-toward-boys/ Anyone care to help? Oathed (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Video game crash of 1983

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Video game crash of 1983's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "polygonNoGirls":

• From Nintendo marketing: Lien, Tracey (December 2, 2013). "No Girls Allowed". Polygon.
• From Women and video games: Lien, Tracey (December 2, 2013). "No Girls Allowed". Polygon. Archived from the original on February 22, 2017. Retrieved February 12, 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)