Cultural What If #2: No Videogame Crash of 1983

Thande

Donor
Another cultural what if for you. Here's the question: if the 1983 Great Videogame Crash had been avoided, what would the gaming industry look like today? In simplistic terms, it would mean that American producers would either remain dominant or at least successfully competed against Japanese ones. I'd be interested in more specific ideas from people who know more about the matter than me, but I can think of two knock-on effects -

1) Japanese cultural output is considerably reduced compared to OTL and America's is, insanely, even larger;

2) A lot of the 'weirdness' that we associate with Japan seems to be more a quality of early videogames and consoles (at least that's my observation) so in TTL Japanese culture might have a lesser reputation for oddity.

Thoughts?
 
It's not the loss of Mario that's so sad--it's the loss of Zelda.

Seriously I'd agree with you, though the question is how the crash is eliminated--Japanese video games have a certain creative vitality to them American console games tended to lack, by and large, no?
 

Thande

Donor
It's not the loss of Mario that's so sad--it's the loss of Zelda.

Seriously I'd agree with you, though the question is how the crash is eliminated--Japanese video games have a certain creative vitality to them American console games tended to lack, by and large, no?

Well at the time it seemed as though the Japanese were the only ones working storylines into games, even when they were very primitive.

I don't think America will KO Japan in this scenario but the idea is that American companies remain strong competitors. It's largely about hardware rather than games themselves for the most part.
 
Well at the time it seemed as though the Japanese were the only ones working storylines into games, even when they were very primitive.

I don't think America will KO Japan in this scenario but the idea is that American companies remain strong competitors. It's largely about hardware rather than games themselves for the most part.

I`m not so sure it was all about hardware. Certainly the glut of systems didn't help things but from what I can gather it was the glut of games that really caused things to go down the tubes.

The best POD I can come up with right now is back in 1979. Have Atari decide to acknowledge video game programmers and give them royalties. This measure is copied by Atari's competitors thereby preventing the formation of dozens of third party companies and the resulting glut of video games. Without these games, the video game industry doesn't get a reputation for poor quality and the price remains relatively high (drops $5-$10).

Now this will not totally avert the crash, as it does nothing to limit the supply of consoles and competition from personal computers. In all likelihood, given this POD, a more limited crash would occur forcing some of the weaker companies to abandon the videogame industry. However Big names like Atari and Mattel survive and emerge stronger as a result of the purging of the industry making them better prepared to compete with the Japanese systems that would be introduced later on.
 
Yes--the biggest problem (epitomized by the infamous ET game) were a glut of rushed crap (in the case of ET, the programmer allegedly was not given the time to put together something worthwhile). This discredited the American systems to the point where Nintendo, at least in the early days was careful to distance itself from consoles ("Game Paks" "R.O.B" etc.).
 
I think without the Crash of '83, the entry of Nintendo has the possibility to become a defining video game moment in the 1980's. By the time they enter the scene in ATL, many of the more minor companies are probably going to be on the verge of dropping out. Nintendo's superior quality will probably result in the video game industry streamlining itself somewhat with Atari, perhaps Mattel, (others?) and Nintendo carving up the market.

Longer term, I doubt the overall progress of games would change, the only real difference would be that instead of the videogame industry being dominated by the Japanese, you'd have a spirited response by the undevastated American industry.
 
Was Nintendo that much better? Or were American companies so damaged by the crash in a broad sense they never properly marketed or developed their 3rd generation consoles" (i.e. the Atari 7800). And of course the "best" hardware doesn't "win"--the best games do. The Wii is an example, but so is the NES itself.
 
The reason Japanese games were "superior" was because American developers either focused on PC games or quit the biz entirely. Despite the crash of '83, some of the best arcade games continued to come out like Q-Bert and others. The "crash" wasn't even as large as many believed. It was more perception and ignorance that drove the American collapse.

Arcades that went under did so because they created unsustainable enterprises. I believe one Aladdin's Castle needed 10,000 players or so a week just to break even. This was simply unsustainable with small arcades popping up everywhere saturating the market and lowering market share in the areas they operated until it was impossible for anyone to turn a profit in the divided marketplace. The market gradually began to correct itself as smaller arcades picked up the business of the giants collapsing and those sites that never should have had arcades (airports, grocery stores, Chinese restaurants) went under thus consolidating the market again into something sustainable.

Atari was in dire straits for several reasons. 1) Warner Bros., who owned them at the time, was surprised when both Pac-Man and ET failed to sell well on the 2600. This led to them lowering their fourth quarter earnings which led to a panic on Wall Street which led to their stock's worth plummeting. Warner Bros. had come to rely on Atari like Sony has on Play Station: It is the majority of their business! Warner Bros. was afraid that their drop in stock would lead to them being taken over in a hostile bid by Rupert Murdoch, the man who eventually bought Fox. In a panic they sold Atari for much needed capital and to escape what they feared was a failing market. They sold the company to Jack Tramiel and that led to the second problem. 2) Jack Tramiel, former head of Commodore, bought Atari to craft a computer competitor for his former company because of being pissed off at how he was forced out of the company. He ran Atari poorly never giving much attention to the video game division and cutting jobs to the bone until it didn't exist. His mismanagement is what finally forced the company to fall in the 1990s. 3) Atari, like Sega, just didn't know what direction to go so it went every which way. It made a 5200, a 7800, a computer, and continued to support the 2600. Don't even get me started on the poorly designed joysticks for their later systems. To put it simply, Atari spread itself too thin. 4) Finally, it drove away all its talent. Nolan Bushnel, the original innovator, was forced out by Warners because they hated his lax style. Other developers left because they were angry they weren't getting paid what they were worth. Atari never really recovered, especially since their competitors scooped up most of the talent pool. Those left behind had no idea how to run a video game company.

Now, as to most American developers, they simply found other jobs after they left the business. Worlds of Wonder was created and run by numerous former Atari staff. Others also went into different fields because they thought video games were dead.

Those developers who stuck around decided to go with computers over consoles because the computer "was the future." Why would anyone spring for a console when they could buy a computer that could be used for business, games, and more? Also, computers allowed greater memory making for better, deeper games.

Finally, the crash was largely media driven. The media kept saying "the sky is falling" and people came to believe it. In truth, the market was oversaturated. There were too many systems, too many games, and too many locations. The market was readjusting, not crashing. The problem was no one believed this. They listened to the media, gave up, and the Japanese intelligently stepped in and proved that was BS. Hell, the Nintendo appeared in the US two years after the crash (1985) and made record sales. The want had never left.

If you want to prevent the crash, first you either have to stop the hyper growth of arcades (Hell, they had games in car dealerships!), next try to keep Nolan in charge of Atari (don't have him sell to Warners or make Warners keep him on) with this leading to an innovator and important designer sticking with Atari who would probably push for better benefits for his workers and also bring a cash infusion from Chucky Cheese never going independent (Warners sold the idea to Nolan after he left believing the idea would never work), and finally keep the media from blowing things out of proportion.

Another interesting fact, the price of arcade games was ludicrously high. $1000 per unit in 1979 money! Nolan Bushnel came up with the idea of instead of making completely new arcade games with each release (new cabinet, monitor, chips, etc), he would cheapen prices for site owners by simply changing the chips (like a cartridge in a NES) and making arcade cabinets interchangeable (art work on sides would be changeable panels). Thus an owner would only have to pay for the chips rather than an entirely new cabinet. He never did this because once he left Atari he was forced to sign a no compete clause. By the time he brought this idea to the gaming world it was roughly 1984. Surely if he had done this in 1979, 1980 other companies would have followed lowering arcade unit costs raising profitability
 
An equally interesting situation might be one where the Nintendo CD works out and no Playstation is developed.
 
Top