Talk:Video game crash of 1983

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Wikipedian removed Video game crash of 1983 from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Removal date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Video game crash of 1983 article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	To-do list for Video game crash of 1983:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
needs to be extensively sourced, and any unsourced OR removed
Priority 1 (top)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of High priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Baldur's Gate series Expand: New CVG Articles, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

Contents 1 Crash of 1983 or 1977? 2 North America only event? 3 List for bankrupt companies 4 Cut "Shakeout" sentence in opening paragraph 5 Edit of 8/28/05 6 Cleanup 7 Advergames helped cause the crash? 8 Edit of 10/10/08 9 G4 called it a Video Game Crash, did anyone else? 10 Console bias 11 Move to Home Computers 12 Should this appear in "History of..." menu 13 "Predatory Pricing" Description Changed 14 Changed ET's description 15 Delisted as a Good Article 16 Fake headlines changed 17 Creation of Major Header for European Market 1983-85 18 Sensationalized 19 Serious Problems 19.1 Back to the issue 19.2 The ten steps 20 Sources 21 ET Development Time 22 Next-Gen Confusion 23 Apple Computers? 24 Effects on industry

[edit] Crash of 1983 or 1977?

There is another article called Video Crash of 1977 that auto directs to the Pong article. I dont think this is correct...

The article about 1977 referred to the moment when Pong and Pong clones fully saturated the market and the distributors and manufacturers suddenly could not sell any more Pong style games. Since it really was a single-game phenomenon it was integrated into the Pong article. Coll7 20:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North America only event?

This reads like a purely U.S. story. What happened elsewhere? _R_ 11:08, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I live in the US and have never heard of this before.. I suspect it's somewhat exaggerated. Suppafly 22:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not really. Because the video game industry was a comparatively small and specialized market at that point, it's not really that well known outside of gaming enthuisasts, but it's absolutely essential to the history of the industry, and is referred to quite often in the literature. I am going to go ahead and edit the article to make clear that it's talking about North America: as far as I know, it didn't have much impact overseas, and, even if it did, I'm not qualified to comment on it.... -Seancdaug 04:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Seancdaug, whose edits looked good to me (and whose improvements I tried to build upon with my edits). The news story was all over TV for months, both when the market exploded and when it crashed. The TV ads blanketed the screen. You couldn't go into a toy store or electronics store without seeing the games front and center. And when it all went away it happened very fast and very dramatically -- a multi-billion dollar business largely just disappeared, and took major American companies with it. As the article says, when the market returned years later it was heavily controlled by Japanese companies. The games were sold some in Europe, but were not the phenomenon there that they were in the US, in part because of the high manufacturing costs and price points. Coll7

This article needs to state clearly that the 1983 crash was for the most part a North American only event. Consoles were really popular in North America whereas Personal Computers were more popular around Europe and Asia like the Amiga, MSX1, MSX2, Amstrad CPC, Spectrum, BBC Micro, (even the NES was marketed as a computer in Japan and not a console) etc etc etc. When the North American crash happened, it barely effected Europe and certainly not Japan. The NES is considered by many North Americans as the saviour of the 1983 crash, however in many countries in Europe the Sega Master was FAR more popular than the NES. Even today Consoles remain far more popular in American than they do in Europe. 25 year old Americans think fondly of their NES/Intellivision, many 25 year old Europeans think fondly of their Amigas/Amstards/Spectrums. - UnlimitedAccess 16:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. I added a new second paragraph to concisely place this issue front-and-center. See if you think this does the job. Coll7 00:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

While I agree it is important to clarify that the so-called crash as essentially a North American event, I disagree with the assertion that home computers were more popular than consoles in Europe - especially since many of the computers you reference were not even released until after the crash. The crash was already underway when the MSX platform appeared in 1983, the Amiga and MSX2 were both 1985, and most Spectrum models were released in 1984 or later. --Sir Smedley 23:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List for bankrupt companies

Will somebody sort a list of companies that went near or purely bankrupt at that time rather than mention them in sentences? --SuperDude 04:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• It's not really that simple, and my personal fear is that it will give a false impression of the impact of the crash. While lots of smaller third-party developers did go under, lots of other companies were seriously impacted while never going "near or purely bankrupt": Coleco and Atari were never, to my knowledge, in immediate danger of closing down, and Mattel was hurt and pretty much withdrew from the gaming industry, but has plenty of other activities to keep them aloft. Any list the likes of which you suggest would be so full of caveats, provisos and explanations that I personally can't see how it would be very useful for spot referencing. – Seancdaug 17:08, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Atari lingered but later died -- today's Atari is really the French company Infogrames, who bought the name. Coleco did go bankrupt. Mattel raised money, at the cost of a deep dilution of shareholders below 50% of the refinanced company, resulting in a loss of control. (ii.e. The people who put in the new money controlled the company, not the prior shareholders.) Activision lingered, then died and also had its name bought for a now-successful company. Lots of the small publishers of the day came and went -- might be able to assemble a list of them. Coll7

[edit] Cut "Shakeout" sentence in opening paragraph

I propose we do this. The paragrph argues with itself, and it's confusing. Coll7

I implemented a draft based on this suggestion and in general cleaned up the opening -- see if you think it's an improvement or if I cut something you believe was of value. Coll7

[edit] Edit of 8/28/05

A recent edit had added some important points but the author had been misinformed on some technicalities of how platform owners control their machines. I built on the prior author's edits and corrected the business practices content. At that point the article was big enough that it looked like it should have subheads, which I added. I also moved one reference to coin-op games to a different location in the article. All comments, corrections, suggestions etc. are welcome. Coll7 04:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I've cleaned up a lot of little niggling errors and performed a general copyedit of this article. I also fixed some awkward sentence constructions and the capitalization of sections so they adhere to the Wikipedia standards a little better. I removed the sentence: "It seems that the people actually cared about the quality of the games being sold." from the fifth paragraph of the Causes section because it seems, well, obvious. People don't like to spend money on crap, which isn't a new sentiment, nor one specific to the 1980s.

[edit] Advergames helped cause the crash?

The article makes it sound like games ment to advertise brands helped the crash:

This court case legitimized third-party development, and companies as ill-prepared as Quaker Oats rushed to open video game divisions, much to the amazement of both Wall Street and consumers. Unlike Activision, they did not have top designers to create the games. Games such as Chuck Wagon and Kool-Aid Man were less-than-stellar examples of games companies would make in the hopes of selling their product and taking advantage of the video game boom. While heavily advertised and marketed, the games were poor and didn't catch on as hoped.

Seems to makes the case that Kool-Aid and Quaker Oats were big players in the crash. Them and other companies who wanted to use videogames as advertisements for their other non-video game products

Actually, those are two very different cases, and maybe some editing needs to be done to clarify:

• Quaker Oats was the most visibly bizarre of a number of companies that either rushed in as startups or "diversified" into games once it appeared that big, fast money was there. That rush of unqualifed manufacturers of very weak games was a major cause of the crash. Thanks to them, about twice as many games came to market in 1982 as the market could bear, and many of them were very lame. When they flooded the discount tables in 1983 it killed the full-price market, which is why the HW companies now manage inventories so tightly.
• The adver-games were a minor sidelight. They were more a symptom that we had entered the mainstream than a direct contributor to the problems. The sponsors paid for their development, then made them discounted giveaways to use as promotion, and there were very few of them.

So the Quaker Oats Man was indicted and convicted. Kool-Aid Man turns out to have been largely an innocent bystander and should not be charged. Coll7 18:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit of 10/10/08

This started out as an attempt to clean up the issues raised by an anon poster (who made good points) in the Talk section directly above this one. Almost all the changes are in the Causes section. In trying to make things more clear I ended up adding a bullet-point summary for Causes, moving around a number of paragraphs, adding subheaders, etc. and editing some text to restore the flow. There's a little new content there (about reverse engineering and programmer raids) but mostly it's an edit pass rather than a rewrite once you see how the paragraphs all settled back together. I also caught a clever little vandal edit that had crept in unnoticed. Please review and see whether I did in fact make the issues more clear after the re-sequencing. Coll7 02:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] G4 called it a Video Game Crash, did anyone else?

I first heard the phrase "Video Game Crash of 1983" on a documentary of the Atari on G4, surely there must be more references to the video game crash than that, could you please tell me what your sources were, I am just curious if the media did indeed call it "Video Game Crash of 1983" (Tigerghost 19:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

I just did a fast Google search on the independent words (video, 1983, crash, game) and got lots of listings, including GameSpot, Dot Eater etc. The term was used a lot contemporaneously (the three largest game dev employers of January 1983 were all basically out of the business two years later, so it felt like a "crash"), and gradually started to standardize over the years. I don't think it's the only way people refer to that time, but it is by far the most common. I've heard phrases like "When ET tanked the industry" or "when the video game bubble burst" as well. Coll7 02:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Console bias

I have a bit of a problem with the very last line of the article: "As consoles continued gaining momentum in the 1990s, the computer market as a whole faded from view as a major platform for retail games, despite many notable individual successes."

If I may, I just want to quote some facts from the Computer and video games article:

• Console and portable software sales: $6.2 billion, up 8% from 2003 [1]
• Console and portable hardware and accessory sales: $3.7 billion, down 35% from 2003 [2]
• PC game sales: $1.1 billion, down 2% from 2003 [3]

As one can see, console games are clearly the leading seller but I'd say that the computer "as a major platform for retail games" has far from "faded from view". If noone has a problem, I'm going to go ahead and removed that line.

I agree completely that the recent edit that said this was inaccurate. Your phrasing sounds good to me. Coll7 23:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Home Computers

Wasn't this just a case of technology moving from "video consoles" to "home computers"? The home computers released at this time (Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum etc.) were really the "next generation" in that they were on a par with the "8-bit era" of consoles. Why is this referred to as a crash? The arrival of cheap home computers was considered to be a massive boom - video games had never been so popular! I don't undersatnd why such a distinction is made - surely these home computers are just "programable video consoles" with keyboards? Similarly, shouldn't the Amiga and Atari ST home computers be classed alongside the "16-bit" era of consoles? Gp100mk 08:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In North America it was a crash because the surviving computer game business in 1984 was a small fraction of the size of the prior video game industry in 1982. The number of jobs dropped from many thousands to many hundreds. The biggest game companies had $40M in software sales instead of over a billion. In the UK I understand it was different, but in the US 1984-87 was a very tough time compared to 1980-83. Should we edit the article to make this more clear? Coll7 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to provide some hard numbers, according to this, video game sales in 1983 reached $3.2 billion USD. Three years later, they bottomed out at $100 million. A decrease of $3.1 billion in sales is certainly a crash. There are also numerous circumstantial events that support the claim that what was going really was a crash, such as Nintendo's two year odyssey to get any major American distributors interested in the Famicom after two major redesigns and two years at CES, and the well-documented lengths to which Nintendo ultimately went to distance the NES from earlier game consoles. Though the C64 and the Spectrum were influential, they were less than a drop in the bucket compared to the major pre-crash consoles (the 2600, the Intellivision, and the Colecovision), or the NES after 1987 or so. Overall, these were important years for personal computing (the first hard disk-based IBM PCs were hitting the scene, as was the Macintosh), but for video gaming in particular, it really was a significant and prolonged dry spell. – Seancdaug 01:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think that "crash" should remain in the title. However, you make a good point about systems like the Atari ST and Amiga. None of the articles on the history games really talk about them, while they were noteworthy gaming systems. jacoplane 01:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In North America the Atari ST was a disaster -- I don't believe ANY game made money for its publisher. The Amiga's potential drew great passion, but when the Tramiel's bought it and rushed it to market on the cheap they doomed it with an unstable OS ("Guru Meditation Mode" was a line that would make you scream whenever it crashed, which was a lot) that broke the hearts of users. By comparison to C64, NES or Genesis they fell far short of success... despite the wonderful power they displayed. Dunno about the UK and Europe results, however. Coll7 22:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In the UK, the period 1981 - 1985 was known as the "Home Computer Boom", reaching it's height in about 1983/1984 hence my assumption that the video game crash was simply a move to home computers (although I am now aware that things in the US were different). I don't have any information regarding sales figures etc, but this is the time when lots of home computer and games stores started opening in the UK, with some computer hardware such as the C64 tape drive selling out due to the huge demand (showing evidence of a boom), and the time that lots of people became interested in video games for the first time. Gp100mk 09:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should this appear in "History of..." menu

As we have established that this was a North American only event, why is it still important for "Video game crash of 1983" to appear in the "History of..." menu on the Right Hand Side in between "Second generation" and "third Generation". Whilst the crash certainly needs to be mentioned in lots of places, surely it is only important for each generation to appear in this list, given that the crash was irrelevant to the rest of the world?

Although the sales battle occurred in North America, the effect of the crash was to erase the American manufacturers and clear the field for Nintendo, Sega and later Sony to inaugurate the next era, which was/is indeed global. The percentage of electronic entertainment dollars spent by consumers during 1978-83 was also much smaller in Europe compared to North America during this era (in much the same way that Europe now leads North America in mobile acceptance), so the percentage of global sales and jobs erased by the crash was very large when taken on a worldwide basis. Coll7 20:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Predatory Pricing" Description Changed

I removed the "predatory pricing" language from the The Impact of Home Computers section because I don't think that term accurately describe Commodore's behavior.

If they actually intended to literally drive all other competitors from the market and then jack up their prices again, and if they had some plan to keep competition from reentering the market once their prices were raised to super-competitive levels, that would indeed be a predatory pricing scheme. Using vertical integration to reduce prices and capture additional market share, without something more, is just normal old price competition. Dhf 01:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC) DHF

[edit] Changed ET's description

ET DID sell well, today it's the most common 2600 game. The problem was that they produced more cartridges than there were consoles.

It's funny how I disproved both of those beliefs in my research for E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600). I do need to get a good list of Atari's 2600's top 10 selling games though. --SeizureDog 21:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the amount of ET's in the landfill part from 'thousands' to 'millions' since atari only sold about 1.5 of 4 million games, and dumped the rest in the desert, as is also mentioned in the linked article.

[edit] Delisted as a Good Article

I've gone through a lot of research in bringing the E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600) up to snuff, so I'm pretty well up to date about what did and did not actually happen around this time. This article is a horrible mess of lies, rumors, and mistruths. This is the sort of article that needs to be sourced out the ass to be reliable and yet only has 2 true citations. If I have time, I'll probably get around to working this article up to a decent standard, but as it stands it is horrid.--SeizureDog 22:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The article claims that one of the causes of the crash was the marketing of home computers as an alternative to video games. Yet on this talk page, someone pointed out that the home computer market was much smaller than the pre-crash console market. Is this one of those inaccuracies? Obviously both of these can't be true. Ken Arromdee 07:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not often participate on Wikipedia, but here is a statement that needs a source: "A similar campaign occured in the U.S. without the same effect, where instead the personal computer industry grew because of the crash and is not seen as directly causing it."

--red daly

Red, see the rest of the discussion below and in the last section on this discussion page for sources. We just got done discussing everything. ;) --Marty Goldberg 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I went in and cited sources for many of its facts. Still more can be done, but this is a start. Coll7 07:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd tend to agree about the Computer claim beeing an inaccuracy. If anything, the growth of the home computer market and its agressive advertising came about *because* of the video game market crash. Many video game companies (initially) survived the crash by moving exclusively over to home computer games until the console market was revived in '86. --Marty Goldberg 19:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you go back and look at the marketing campaigns of that time, you see that the "buy a computer, not a video game" campaign started when consoles were still healthy. The number of games sold per C64 was lower than for consoles, and for all their success the aggregate installed base of computers was far lower than for consoles, in part because the computers were so much more expensive. In North America that double whammy meant the home computer games market was a pale shadow of the console games market, so none of the major players survived such an attempted move, though several tried. Activision of today is a new company that bought the name from the ashes of the old Activision along with some game rights, but the early '80s Activision lingered for years only because they had Tax Loss Carryforwards so the government wrote them big checks for a few years to balance the taxes they paid during the glory times. Same for Atari, whose name was bought by Infogrames. Where Atari alone sold over $1,000,000,000 in games in North America to lead the industry in 1982, as I recall Broderbund as market leader sold about $35,000,000 (about 3.5% of Atari's revenue) as computer game industry leader in 1984. So whoever tells you that consoles died and then C64 rushed in or that computer games were a safe haven in 1984 didn't live through it. The tiny percentage of people who kept jobs in games in North America in the mid-80s were like dazed survivors and counting themselves lucky. Hope the eyewitness account helps! Coll7 05:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me sir, but I *DID* live through it. You are applying hindsite to push a *theory* that no other published author or professional historian subscribes to, nor people in the industry. Nobody said "consoles died and the C64 rushed in", and accusing me of saying that is being irresponsible. What is clearly stated and commonly accepted is that the home computing gaming market was much more limited until the console crash, in which it *grew* to fill the void ("the personal computer industry grew because of the crash"). Computer games, as stated were an *attempted* and temporary safe haven until Nintendo revived the market. You wouldn't by chance happen to be the same guy that was trying to push this theory over at the AtarAge forum that everyone disagreed with? And as a side note - you're incorrect about Activision. Activision changed its name to Mediagenic in '88, declared bankrputcy protection in '92 (but did not go out of business), merged with The Disc Company (Activision actually aquiring them) and then changed its name back to Activision. It is the same company, not a new company. --Marty Goldberg 13:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. The "buy a computer instead of a game" campaign could only reduce the size of the game market by increasing tyhe size of the computer market. If the computer market was small even after the crash, then it couldn't have reduced the size of the game market by much. Ken Arromdee 16:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point completely, and thought I had answered it. The computer market in the U.S. was much smaller compared to the console market before and during the crash. Some companies (such as Texas Instruments) actually exited the home computer market during the video game crash (not saying that it was because of the crash, just showing that it doesn't show strong growth of the computer industry as a factor for the video game crash). It started growing towards the end of the crash and just after. The crash itself actually started in 4th quarter of 1982, picking up steam in 1983. The C64 was first released that August of '82 and would have hardly been some sort of a "killer computer" to help crash the video game market within a few months. Interestingly, here's an article from Time Magazine at the time (December 20th, 1982) which talks about the troubles starting then and what would come during the following year. It also mentions about the glut of console competitors, and much of the problems third party game houses were having as well - [4]

--Marty Goldberg 18:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Marty, I apologize if my tone sounded snotty or rude -- not intended that way. (Writing late at night can create too much shorthand.) I agree with you that Activision technically never fully died on paper -- I think 5 jobs came with the rights when Bobby Kotick acquired it. So as a big company it died but the entity squeaked through. As I recall, when Intellivision "died" about 5 out of 1,200 jobs survived with the new entity, which lasted something like 6 more years. Lot of that going around! Finally, I'll restate in one sentence what I saw happening at that time: 1) The "fad" started to level out just as 2) the C64 and other PC's found the price/function sweet spot and 3) the C64 launched an effective attack for market share, 4) at the same time as the bankruptcy of the small publishers flooded the market with bargain-bin games, and 5) at the same time as some especially bad mainline products had given the industry a black eye. So the C64 et al contributed to the demise and then also got a shot in the arm from the whole console apparatus being dismantled. And if I'd stated it that concisely the first time maybe I'd have started fewer arguments!  :-) Coll7 23:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Coll7 - No apology needed (I didn't take it personal, just seemed like my own professional credibility was being called in to question). Your clarification makes your position a bit clearer, and I could even agree with you after reading it that the low cost "gaming" computers helped put the "final nail in the coffin" during the second half of '83 in to '84. Maybe we can work together to come up with something along those lines? --Marty Goldberg 18:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd enjoy that! Coll7 00:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fake headlines changed

I hope I'm not overstepping my boundries, but I changed the part with the two fake headlines (Video Game Market Booming!, Video Game Market Crashing!, or something to that effect) because headlines rarely use exclamation points. If someone has an ACTUAL SOURCE of a media outlet that used those headlines, rather than some Wikipedia user just making the headlines up, it should be changed. But I think now the paragraph has a more encyclopedia-like, less cartoonish feel to it. 65.30.45.235 19:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation of Major Header for European Market 1983-85

A recent edit mixed new data about European games from this time in with what previously described itself as an article about a North American event (as per the opening paragraph). This created some inaccurate content.

To preserve the European data while fixing the problems I created a new major header for The Games Market in Europe 1983-85 and took the new European part of the text and re-inserted it pretty much verbatim there. I know a lot about North America during this time, but need others to clarify the situation in Europe. We can flesh this out with help from informed editors.

I'll go looking for sources to cite on the North American events, though I believe that once we do so the content will hold up pretty much as currently written (though how the fatal soup of blame was proportioned between the various factors listed can be debated endlessly). We could also ask for a peer review by people involved in the industry at that time so we go directly to primary sources.

Please post comments and suggestions below. Coll7 06:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The creation of a seperate Euro section is a good idea, however see my comments in the previous section regarding your push of the computer market as the cause of the crash. No other major reference (Game Over by David Scheff, Ultimate History of Video Games by Steven Kent (based on direct interviews with people who were in the industry at the time), Phoenix: The Rise and Fall of Video Games) makes mention of your theory (and it is theory - something that it clearly states in the Wikipedia guidelines that is not to be included in entries.) They do however talk about the contributing factors that are in the commonly accepted version, which was presented in the edit I reverted back to. I am a professional in the industry, and I am also a professional historian that is paid to interview people in the industry from the time, write articles and publish said material. Not one person I have interviewed from the time (and the list is lengthy) has ever stated what you're pushing. Nor has any of the other people interviewed by other professional authors of the time (including Steven Kent and Leonard Hermann, who I also have talked with) ever stated that, and that fact is correctly reflected in their books - which are considered the standard references on this subject. Likewise, citing a reference to a stub about the reasoning behind a cover of a computer magazine is not a reference to support your case. 1)It did not state anywhere about the crash being caused by computers (in fact it lended credence to the original position). 2) It is an intro written by the editor of a magazine promoting his magazine and its (then) new format for commercial purposes, hardly a historical reference other than possibly a discussion on marketing. Your Artie Katz written electronic games source (where it discusses its change back to that name) also does not support your position. And in fact the co-founder of that magazine (Bill Kunkel) wrote an entire chapter in his book Confessions of the Game Doctor, based around the very "renaming" subject that covers the whole crash period and its factors . Nowhere does it state what you're trying to, and in fact once again states material regarding the commonly accepted view of the video games crash.--Marty Goldberg 14:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The campaign to get people to buy computers instead of video games was absolutely used in the USA, and was very prominent (there were even TV commercials from Commodore). The way the article is written suggests that there wasn't much marketing in America, rather than that it was just ineffective. Ken Arromdee 16:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ken, I can agree with your viewpoint. Certainly minor advertising campaigns (I say minor because it was one of several campaigns running at the same time) by companies like Commodore to switch occured, nobody was denying that. The issue currently is that rather than just being presented as ineffective (which you are stating should be done and I totally agree with), Coll7 is promoting a switch to computers as a major root cause of the crash. This was not the case in the U.S. (where households with game consoles vs. personal computers were far askew until well in to the late 80's/early 90's), though I am aware it was a large contributing factor in the European market (which is why there's been a defined difference noted in the entry). I'll add your point right now, and thanks for mentioning it. --Marty Goldberg 17:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sensationalized

The news media sensationalized both the boom days of 1980 and the problems of 1982–83. In particular, the story of Atari burying thousands of E.T. cartridges in a New Mexico landfill shifted the outlook of the video game market in the eyes of many media outlets.

So Atari not only produces way more cartridges than it has machines, it freakin' buries thousands of unsold products in a landfill -- but this is the news media's fault? For covering the fact that they've BURIED a bunch of cartridges? When a company is taking its product out to the dump, yeah, that will change my outlook of the video game market. Call me crazy, but I don't think that's sensationalism.--Idols of Mud 15:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious Problems

This article has zero citations and is rife with original research. Several editors have disputed the factual accuracy of this article, and I have no way of verifying any of the claims made in this article. I'm going to slap OR, Unreferenced, and Disputed tags on the article. Unless someone can provide sources for the many claims made, I think this article should be nominated for WP:AfD. That being said, extensive work has been put into the article -- we just need to know if it's true and verifiable. Can anyone save this work? /Blaxthos 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I went through your notes and several of the items listed as original research are simple verifiable facts for which we should be able to provide citations: the consignment business model for the toys and video game business is well known, as is the typical manufacturing cost for a console disk. The number of companies, products and jobs in North America before 1983 and after 1984 is known. The fact that G4 did a television program called "The Crash" about this period is known, so any claim of it being insignificant appears countered.

This article has been pretty stable for a while, now, and a lot of the debates got worked out. The fact that there was not a crash in the UK at the same time has created some editing problems when people missed the "...in North America..." In general, editors have tried to stay very open to UK comments since there is a pattern of UK editors in game articles feeling that only American and Japanese events are chronicled. Given that many editors worked on and stabilized this article and that there are references for many areas of content, what are the places that caught your eye and caused you to start talking about deletion? Thanks. Coll7 01:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The article could, of course, use more references. But that is no reason to consider it for deletion. It is a relevant encyclopedia topic. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem is sourcing. The factual accuracy of this article may be perfect, but we're talking about a substantial article that almost completely lacks verifiable sources. I think special attention needs to be paid in distinguishing primary sources, secondary sources, and synthesis of thought (original research). Look through the article... within the first bullet point of the first section is what I would call original research:

Marketing research for both sides tracked the change as millions of consumers shifted their intention to buy choices from game consoles to low-end computers that retailed for similar prices. At the same time, a strong culture of playing and writing video games for these personal computers arose in Europe, making the European crash more of a platform shift than a total collapse of the industry.

Likewise under the Flood of products section, the article identifies the business model as a key cause of the crash. Where does this come from? Who says? If you are identifying the cause of the crash, then that is most certainly original research. If not, it needs to be properly attributed to an acceptable secondary source.

Truth be told, I could pick apart this article and find unreferenced claims that appear to be original research in almost every paragraph. I'm not trying to be difficult -- I make no claim as to the correctness of this article (although other editors have raised concerns -- but I can comfortably say that this article needs serious attention before being appropriately sourced and cleansed of original research. I'm gonna throw it up for a request for comment to see if I'm off base.

The basis for deletion would not be due to unencyclopaedic content, but because this article has almost zero sources and appears to be unverifiable synthesis of thought (original research). Note I'm not nominating for deletion (at present); I'm simply bringing to light very serious problems that, if unresolved, may lead to deletion. I think it's a problem much deeper than an article that could "use more references". See WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:VERIFY. /Blaxthos 15:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, a lot of the comments you're refering to are mine and not from "personal research". The material comes fom mainline resources (Game Over, Ultimate History, interviews, other) that I'd be happy to work in the citations for. You'd be incorrect in stating that the problem is much deeper than simply lack of provided references. However, nominating it for deletion is way, way, out of line and akin to swatting a nat with a nuclear bomb. There are plenty of other well known entries that suffer from lack of citations (such as the Atari entry I've been working on providing references for) where a simple request for references are all that is needed - not a request for deletion. That's what the unreferenced tag is for. Likewise, one single person throwing up 4 different tags on a hunch is also way out of line. Just because he thinks (in his *opinion*) there might be original research (because under his own admission he's not familiar with the material), doesn't make it so. All you've done is mention sections you think may containt it, but not actually provide a reference as to why it may be original research - its all on a "hunch". Likewise, to dispute factual accuracy (as you did when you put up that tag) you need to provide evidence its not factual - not just throw up that because a reference wasn't given so it may not be factual. That's an abuse of the factual accuracy tag when once again you're simply asking for sources. I don't see many contributions on your end to the video game related field, on the other hand I see 2 years worth of you jumping across topics to various entries doing exactly what you're doing now. There's nothing wrong with wanting the accuracy of entries (I'm invested in that as well here). But blowing in and bombarding tags and making claims on a hunch goes overboard. If these other "editors" feel the same, let them post here as well and talk in the discussion. So far there's been three people who've expressed opinions contrary to yours. --Marty Goldberg 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I can track down some more citations to help, although the time may come later in December. Like you, Marty, I'm not worried about the facts checking out, and I'm happy to spend some time helping cite sources. Coll7 20:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm not even sure where to begin. Let's try some civility first.

1. It's no hunch that this article is severely lacking in appropriate citations. Furthermore, since you're the author of much of what's under discussion I'm going to overlook the overly-defensive tone. Please assume good faith in that it's my intent to improve (but wholly within the guidelines and policies of the Wikipedia).
2. My edit history is of no consequence here. The issue is this article, not what I've done in the past. I suggest you look up Wikistalking -- attacking an editor instead of the merits of his argument is clearly not acceptable.
3. This article was not nominated for deletion, or proposed for deletion, or anything like that. My intent is to start a pre-deletion discussion based on a wholly unreferenced article that appears to be full of original research. To that end, I was successful.
4. I will begin to compile an extensive list of what appears to be original research. If you can cite reliable secondary sources (instead of throwing in content analysis), it should stay; if not, it must go. Please note I'm definitely not the first to note these problems. If a list is what you want, I'll do my best to provide it.

More to follow! /Blaxthos 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your first two points, ironically, answer each other. Your edit history does matter--what you've done in the past affects whether we need to assume good faith. The rule isn't a blank check that says we must assume good faith no matter what. "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." If you have a history of doing this, that's evidence to the contrary.

And your claim that the article was not nominated for deletion is disingenuous. You haven't put the article on Articles for Deletion, but you've clearly announced your intent to delete the article unless it is changed the way you want it. Deleting an article because you don't think it references sources well is *not appropriate*, and it doesn't become appropriate just because the deletion is still in the planning stage.

And your unfamiliarity with the subject is leading you to make grandiose claims that aren't really true. The article *does* have sources for the supposed original research, even if the statements aren't individually footnoted. But since you don't know the subject, you don't know how to distinguish between original research and ideas that aren't footnoted because they are basic knowledge about the subject that is referenced, just not referenced on a per-sentence basis. Ken Arromdee 21:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So now you claim that my edit history is such that it causes you to suspend WP:AGF? What, exactly, has caused this? This seems as much as personal attack and stalking than it does answer valid questions about the foundations of this article. The to-do list for this article mentions as much (long before I got here), and several talk page discussions center on these problems. How in the hell did this turn into an attack-the-critic as opposed to cleaning up the article? I feel like I should be mixing a metaphor involving circling wagons and momma bears and cubs. /Blaxthos 21:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK people, let's all take a step back. I changed the header of this section to try to cool it down, and focus on content, not personality. Blaxthos makes valid points. This article does read like original research, because it is largely unsourced. Marty seems very familiar with the material, and thinks he can source the claims. If the sourcing problem were taken care of, this would be a pretty good article, better than most. Marty, start digging through your magazines. If good sources start appearing, there's no reason to AfD this article. Just my two cents, butting in uninvited. - Crockspot 23:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just changing the title doesn't change all that much. It's still making the implied threat that if people don't do what he asks, he's going to make his best attempt to delete the article.

He's also misrepresenting Wikistalking. The Wikistalking page specifically says that "reading a user's contribution log" is not Wikistalking. Wikistalking is defined as following a user around; neither myself nor as far as I know Wgungfu was even familiar with his old edits until now, and could not possibly have followed him from there to here. Ken Arromdee 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Something ironic I found. Look at this edit of his: [5]

this article needs a lot of work, but it seems to be rife with redundant cite-needed tags. i interned and worked for IBM throughout the early and mid-1990's and can vouch for the validity of almost everything that is said. WP:OR not withstanding, it seems someone is trying to use the tags as a blunt instrument. pending no objection, i'm going to yank most of them out. /Blaxthos 10:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that that's exactly what going on here, except the shoe's on the other foot. This time he's the one who's using the request for citations as a blunt instrument, and this time it's other people who are familiar with the subject and can vouch for the validity of what is being said. Ken Arromdee 04:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Recalling quotes without context shows your willingness to go to great lengths to try and defame the critic instead of simply fixing the problems with this article. Instead of explaining the differences between situations, I think time is better spent addressing the problems identified (by myself and several others). It should also be noted that following the discussions on this very talk page show the PROCESS of original research. You guys discuss what you remember, decide what is fact, and are now trying to find sources to jusitfy. Now, you may be correct (I don't know), but I do know that isn't how an encyclopedia is written. When it is, this is the result -- an article without appropriate citations that seems to be a mix of recollection, speculation, and analysis. Now, how about dealing with that instead of character assassination. /Blaxthos 06:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, the quote isn't out of context. You, personally, objected to requests for citations, despite the original research policy, on the grounds that you already knew the material was true and the request for citation was being used as a "blunt instrument".

That's exactly what's happening here. Ken Arromdee 14:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sigh. You guys are still attacking reacting to each other, rather than dealing with the subject matter. I don't care about the personality issues here. Maybe Blax came on a bit strong, but his main complaint is valid. The article needs sourcing. No matter how much those who are familiar with the material claim that it is all verifiable, until it is verifiable to the casual reader who knows nothing, it still looks like OR. So let's get to work verifying the claims, and stop arguing about personalities. Any editor has the right to nominate any article they choose for AfD, for whatever reason they can come up with. But I can tell you from experience that this article would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting deleted through the AfD process. The bickering is pointless. Improve the sourcing, and there will be nothing to bicker about. Capisce? Crockspot 15:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not going to justify your actions by pointing out the obvious differences. I will re-iterate that if you would make as much effort addressing the deficiencies of this article as you have spent trying to find a way to challenge my credibility we wouldn't even be talking. I remind you that I came across an article that appears to be noncompliant with wikipedia policies. I noticed several other editors have commented on such, and I noticed that the talk page reads like a textbook case of massive original research (a mix of recollection, speculation, and analysis -- let's recall what happened, and then find sources to back it up). No amount of character assassination will change the problems with this article, especially since I'm not the first (nor the last) person to point out these problems. /Blaxthos 15:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the issue

If my approach (language) was too harsh, understand it was only to give it a sense of urgency -- the OR/reference to-do list has been sitting for a while with no progress. Now, let's analyze the fact and or tags I added:

The news media sensationalized both the boom days of 1980 and the problems of 1982–83. In particular, the story of Atari burying thousands of E.T. cartridges in a New Mexico landfill shifted the outlook of the video game market in the eyes of many media outlets.

Sensationalized is a strong word. According to Merriam-Webster, a quick, intense, and usually superficial interest, curiosity, or emotional reaction. Who characterizes it as such? The editor doing his own anaylsis, or some (suitable) third party source? Who decided the media's outlook was shifted, and that it was due to the landfill story (which should be sourced)? If it's you, the editor, then that is original research. My intent here was simply to get some context as to WHO thinks this is true.

Research by Atari and Mattel confirmed that these television ads badly damaged both their machines’ images and sales.

I simply want to see this research, or know how the article arrived at this statement. A fact tag is not necessarily asserting it is incorrect, it's simply a request to verify a claim presented as truth.

Video games, like toys, are sold through stores on a model that is close to one of consignment. If a title does not sell, it is returned to the publisher for credit, and the store gets a different title in return. The process is repeated until the goods are sold. This business model—which persists today—is a key root of the Crash of 1983.

This is probably the best example of original research I marked. Who decided that the business model was a key root of the crash? If it's you guys, then that is your analysis and blatantly constitutes original research. If not, you need to cite what primary or secondary source decided this was the cause. Wikipedia is not a place for editors to synthesize or analyze information.

I was the author of that line, and based it on the facts described elsewhere in the article.

* Step 1: Many companies entered the market ina rush for what was seen as easy profits. (Documentable).

* Step 2: They sold to the toy stores and department stores under the consignment model (Documentable).

* Step 3: The games did not sell well. (Documentable).

* Step 4: When the stores sought to return the mertchandise for credit, companies like Games by Apollo and US Games went bankrupt or were closed. (Documentable)

* Step 5: Unable to return the merchandise, the retailers either sold it in discount bins or bulked it to jobbers who then provided such bins to other retailers, selling a wide range of titles at sharply reduced prices. (Documentable)

* Step 6: The news media picked up on all this and switched from "Covering the Video Game Fad" articles to "The death of the Video Game Fad" articles. (Documentable, but a pain in the butt to go find these since it was long pre-internet.)

* Step 7: Unit sales of games in the discount bins were fantastic, and in the spring and summer of 1983 sales of full-price games fell to a small percentage of previous levels. (Documentable)

* Step 8: That choked off the big stream of money that had fueled the boom, and many retailers stopped carrying games altogether. (Documentable)

* Step 9: As retail sales and then outlets dropped dramatically, the core manufacturers who drove the industry had catastrophic financial losses. (Documentable)

* Step 10: Those manufacturers went bankrupt (Coleco), withdrew from the industry (Mattel), were sold off in tatters (Atari) or lived off their income-balancing tax refunds as they tried to move to computer games (Activision).

I believe this 10-step sequence establishes that the business model was in fact a major contributor to the crash, and it's a traceable financial story rather than a "what's popular" subjective argument. That said, some of the steps are sourcved and some are not in the current article. Many of us who have worked on the article lived through that time and are familiar with the facts, but we all agree a sourced article is a far better one. I'm happy to work over time at getting more nailed down -- the 1st edition of Russel and Johnny's book covered this in more detail than the 2nd edition and I have to see what's in each one. Coll7 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Some game enthusiasts consider 1983 a peak time in the history of arcade games, the home video game consoles’ bigger, stand-alone brethren located in diners, shopping malls, and video arcades.

Here we go again... are you guys the "some game enthusiasts"? If so, that's original research. If not, who is saying this? Also note this bumps up against WP:WEASEL, but that's a guideline that's highly contested (and I don't much care for myself).

I'd suggest tracking the sales numbers for coinops, which peaked about that time and then fell off dramatically. We could then tie the subjective evaluation (which I've seen many places) to empirical data about popularity. Coll7 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The hardware manufacturers of 2005 routinely receive $9 U.S. or more for every licensed software product sold by authorized third party publishers, and defend their legal rights aggressively.

Where did these numbers come from? How can one verify that they receive $9, or that they use aggressive tactics? Also note I didn't drop the fact tag on this one.

For people in the industry this is the standard number used as an average for PS2 and Xbox and is used in many companies' cost estimation spreadsheets. As such, I should be able to find it somewhere for a citation -- just don't have time to do it today. Coll7 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This allows console manufacturers to cash in on the success of third-party publishers, and it also gives the console manufacturers control over shoddily produced, pornographic, or otherwise controversial third-party games such as Custer’s Revenge that could taint the console’s reputation.</bockquote>

Who analyzed the control it gives to companies, and to what ends they use it? Apply same scrutiny and questions from above.

Actually, every video game on a console has to be submitted to the hardware manufacturers (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) for approval, and has to go through a "certification" process. Only "licensed" publishers and developers are allowed to create games for each machine, and they all must buy their disks from the hardware manufacturers. Part of being licensed is agreeing to play by the rules of this system, with heavy penalties for non-compliance. Among the lists of "Unapproved" content are features of Custer's such as pornographic intent, male frontral nudity etc. These processes were actually implemented in a conscious effort to prevent a repeat of the Crash of '83, and Nintendo (which pioneered these measures) did so very deliberately as part of introducing the NES. Hope this helps. Coll7 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In the end, I just want to make this article better. How about focusing on these problems instead of trying to attack another editor? In any case, at this point it will be finding supporting evidence for existing claims (as opposed to researching and writing an article), but either way the end result will be a better article. /Blaxthos 17:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope my comments took some pieces that may have seemed confusing and clarified them. Coll7 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The ten steps

Hey Coll7, thanks for taking the considerable time to document and explain that example. I agree completely with your logic (assuming all the underlying facts are correct). I lived through all of this too (though I didn't pay much attention) and I have never once doubted the correctness of the conclusions drawn. Here's the rub: it's still original research. You yourself said it -- I believe this ... establishes. That is synthesis of ideas (analysis of past events), and no matter how correct you are (and you make a very strong case) I would still say that is in violation of one of the three most important policies on Wikipedia. Isn't that sort of analysis reserved for secondary sources, which can then be incorporated into the article? I'm not even saying we should remove it, I'm just trying to find some way to reconcile WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:CITE, and this article. As I said from my very first post, there's a lot of good information and a lot of work that has gone into this article... I just want to see it brought into alignment with WP policies and guidelines. Thanks for sticking with it and putting the time in, Coll7. /Blaxthos 00:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the big question and a proposal. When it comes to defining OR, if you read the policy generally the concern applies to people pushing their own theories for complex systems, events etc. In general, Wiki editors are far less concerned about cases like:

• The sun is hot and heats the earth [6]
• The sun comes up in the morning [7]
• Mornings are generally warmer than the nights that preceded them. Is that Original Research? Do we really need to take the time to go find somewhere that someone else wrote it down? In OR theory, absolutely. In practice, we all as volunteers could use that volunteer time better than sourcing every single sentence in every single article, leaving out the issue of readability.

That said, if I look over the 10 steps I cited and think about the last couple of years of work a number of editors have put into writing, evolving and stabilizing this article, not all of the sections in the article were uncontroversial and broadly accepted -- since lack of controversy among editors would place content lower on the "track it down" priority list. Specifically, debate surrounded:

* Step 6: The news media picked up on all this and switched from "Covering the Video Game Fad" articles to "The death of the Video Game Fad" articles. (Documentable, but a pain in the butt to go find these since it was long pre-internet.) Editors have said they never saw such articles. Others have said the article exaggerrated the influence of these articles. Verifying their existance is very doable, but defining their influence in absolute terms feels like a bag of worms.

* A "Step" I did not mention precisely because of controversy: To what degree did the arrival of home computers in general and the Commodore 64 in particular accelerate this process, or even push it to the tipping point? We've worked hard to get to the current tries-to-be-balanced text, and the issue leaves lots of room for opinion. There was a major influence, but editors vary from opinions of "One more torch added to a conflagration" to "Perry Mason couldn't get them acquitted for the murders of Atari et al... they did it in the livingroom with a C64! Aye, 'e was an 'ealthy lad 'e was, would ha' lived to 103 but they cracked 'is skull for 'im!"

* Another one with controversy: How do we balance this historical narrative with what was going on in the largely separate games market in the UK, where 1983 was a boom year?

* Another one with controversy: Did Atari 2600 Pac Man and ET materially help to precipitate the Crash, or were they merely another symptom that the patient had a temperature of 105 and was fading fast? This parallels the C64 debate.

So here's what I would suggest to the various editors involved in this article:

* We give ourselves about a month to work on this, which gives us some time over the holidays.

* We ask for volunteers NOW to track down at least one area of controversy to a) look to cite facts or conclusions that have sparked debate, and b) make sure that conclusions that are not obvious are either sourced or cut as OR. If Marty, Blaxthos, Frecklefoot and I each took one sub-topic that could be four complex sections we improve a lot, and we could cross-critique each other. Hopefully others will join us.

* I'll also volunteer to do an additional reference pass so that even some of the facts that have been non-controversial over the years are sourced. That's just a matter of taking time.

If this makes sense, can I get some volunteers? Coll7 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to be a policy purist (as I believe we must be), then yes, your analogy about morning and night is absolutely original research. Now, if you could find an appropriate secondary source (ie a reliable source that publishes "Mornings are generally warmer than the nights that preceded them.") then you could absolutely include said info (and appropriately attribute it).

Now, here's the rub... when you're talking about common sense things I think that there are some objective facts that do not need qualification... however, when you start trying to insert your analysis of events (like the major causes of the video game crash) then you are venturing into prohibited waters. Now, I make no claim that you're not right, but you're definitely violating WP:OR. A lot of this article is synthesized and analyzed by the authors themselves -- no matter how intimate and correct their knowledge or valid their personal experiences, until it is published by reliable sources, it is original research. In any case, the cart is before the horse -- editors have decided what is fact, and now (per my request to bring this article into compliance) people are going to try and find reliable sources to validate their claims (however correct they might be). Being the devil's advocate, I expect I'll catch plenty of flame and hate. Sorry.  :-( /Blaxthos 05:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

The following sources may assist you guys in properly referencing this article:

• The New York Times. "Atari Parts Are Dumped". 28 September 1983 (p. D4).
• Cohen, Scott. Zap! The Rise and Fall of Atari. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984. ISBN 0-07-011543-5.
• Kent, Steven L. The First Quarter: A 25-Year History of Video Games. Bothell, WA: BWD Press, 2000. ISBN 0-9704755-0-0.

/Blaxthos 13:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ET Development Time

"Unfortunately, the game had been rushed to market after only six weeks of development time."

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600) lists this as five weeks, and both articles cite sources. Which is correct? --HappyDog 09:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next-Gen Confusion

I recall that there was also a certain amount of consumer confusion and backlash as the Atari 5200 and Colecovision were introduced to the market. As this was the first time there was a "generation leap" in the console market, some people had difficulty understanding that there were two different Atari systems or a Colecovision that could also play Atari 2600 games.

Atari themselves didn't help the matter by marketing the same games for both the 2600 and the 5200, leading some to believe that they were being double-charged. They also had no plans to twilight the 2600, IIUC.

I think this could probably be sourced with popular news articles of the day, but I don't want to add any more unsourced "conventional wisdom" to this article. 64.171.162.77 17:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. What may be obvious to some familiar with the industry isn't always "common sense" or otherwise WP:Verifiable/WP:ATTributable. /Blaxthos 09:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apple Computers?

I see mention of Atari, Commodore, TI, and a bunch of other computer companies, but what was Apple doing during this time period? I know that this predates the Macintosh, but the Apple II series was around during this time period. --Powerlord 07:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Apple wasn't really a video gaming machine. We all played spy hunter and oregon trail, but I think Apple's core business has always been other niches -- I doubt the crash affected them at all. They released LISA in 1983, but that was a business oriented GUI driven personal computer. /Blaxthos 09:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effects on industry

One of the last paragraphs currently shows:

"The hardware manufacturers of 2005 routinely receive $9 U.S. or more for every licensed software product sold by authorized third party publishers, and defend their legal rights aggressively. ^{[citation needed]} This allows console manufacturers to cash in on the success of third-party publishers, and it also gives the console manufacturers control over shoddily produced, pornographic, or otherwise controversial third-party games such as Custer’s Revenge that could taint the console’s reputation.^{[original research?]}"

I'm removing this because not only is it uncited but it's talking about 2005 like it's the present and it sounds very biased in favor of such controls.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Every name is taken12345 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)