By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Nintendo ruined gaming-official (so did Apple)

thismeintiel on 07 March 2011
LordTheNightKnight said:
thismeintiel said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
thismeintiel said:

They contributed to it greatly.  Atari's bad decisions about those 2 games cost them millions, probably billions by today's standards, and caused the largest gaming company of the time to go under.  This just left a bad taste in people's mouths about gaming in general.  The oversaturation of consoles (I believe there were around 10 at the time, some by the same company) didn't help this situation, either.  I'm not sayin unlicensed games didn't play a factor, but the largest blow was Atari's poor business decisions.


People stop buying games because they are bad, not because a company loses money (that's confusing cause and effect). And two games would not be enough to make people turn away.

That's true.  However, the two biggest contributors to people shunning gaming as a whole were 2 licensed games, Pac-man and E.T.  Not only were they horrible games, but Atari ordered WAY more to be produced than demand warranted.  With Pac-man they produced 12 million copies and only 7 million were ever sold.  They didn't push it too far with ET, but they still produced 4 million copies and only sold 1.5 million.  Now, I'm not arguing that companies forcing 3rd parties to license games is necessarily a bad thing.  It does allow you to control oversaturation to an extent.  But, don't think that unlicensed game equals bad game.  Tengen, for example, released some really good unlicensed games for the NES.


They could not be the biggest contributors. At most they would cause turning away from the 2600, not all available consoles, and the arcades.

Not when it was Atari that was failing.  They pretty much had a monopoly back then.  There may have been more systems on the market than there were now to choose from, but there wasn't really much to distinguish them from one another.  And Atari had sold over 30 million units, while the runner up had only sold 3 million.    In other words, to the very small community that did game, Atari was all they knew.



 

Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight on 07 March 2011
thismeintiel said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
thismeintiel said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
thismeintiel said:

They contributed to it greatly.  Atari's bad decisions about those 2 games cost them millions, probably billions by today's standards, and caused the largest gaming company of the time to go under.  This just left a bad taste in people's mouths about gaming in general.  The oversaturation of consoles (I believe there were around 10 at the time, some by the same company) didn't help this situation, either.  I'm not sayin unlicensed games didn't play a factor, but the largest blow was Atari's poor business decisions.


People stop buying games because they are bad, not because a company loses money (that's confusing cause and effect). And two games would not be enough to make people turn away.

That's true.  However, the two biggest contributors to people shunning gaming as a whole were 2 licensed games, Pac-man and E.T.  Not only were they horrible games, but Atari ordered WAY more to be produced than demand warranted.  With Pac-man they produced 12 million copies and only 7 million were ever sold.  They didn't push it too far with ET, but they still produced 4 million copies and only sold 1.5 million.  Now, I'm not arguing that companies forcing 3rd parties to license games is necessarily a bad thing.  It does allow you to control oversaturation to an extent.  But, don't think that unlicensed game equals bad game.  Tengen, for example, released some really good unlicensed games for the NES.


They could not be the biggest contributors. At most they would cause turning away from the 2600, not all available consoles, and the arcades.

Not when it was Atari that was failing.  They pretty much had a monopoly back then.  There may have been more systems on the market than there were now to choose from, but there wasn't really much to distinguish them from one another.  And Atari had sold over 30 million units, while the runner up had only sold 3 million.    In other words, to the very small community that did game, Atari was all they knew.


Arcades crashed as well. Plus you're basically impying people thought "Two games on that system sucked, therefore I don't like any of these systems." That doesn't make sense.

You can't cause a crash of public interest with two games. You can bankrupt a company, but it takes more than that to make people turn away.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Acevil on 07 March 2011
LordTheNightKnight said:
thismeintiel said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
thismeintiel said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
thismeintiel said:

They contributed to it greatly.  Atari's bad decisions about those 2 games cost them millions, probably billions by today's standards, and caused the largest gaming company of the time to go under.  This just left a bad taste in people's mouths about gaming in general.  The oversaturation of consoles (I believe there were around 10 at the time, some by the same company) didn't help this situation, either.  I'm not sayin unlicensed games didn't play a factor, but the largest blow was Atari's poor business decisions.


People stop buying games because they are bad, not because a company loses money (that's confusing cause and effect). And two games would not be enough to make people turn away.

That's true.  However, the two biggest contributors to people shunning gaming as a whole were 2 licensed games, Pac-man and E.T.  Not only were they horrible games, but Atari ordered WAY more to be produced than demand warranted.  With Pac-man they produced 12 million copies and only 7 million were ever sold.  They didn't push it too far with ET, but they still produced 4 million copies and only sold 1.5 million.  Now, I'm not arguing that companies forcing 3rd parties to license games is necessarily a bad thing.  It does allow you to control oversaturation to an extent.  But, don't think that unlicensed game equals bad game.  Tengen, for example, released some really good unlicensed games for the NES.


They could not be the biggest contributors. At most they would cause turning away from the 2600, not all available consoles, and the arcades.

Not when it was Atari that was failing.  They pretty much had a monopoly back then.  There may have been more systems on the market than there were now to choose from, but there wasn't really much to distinguish them from one another.  And Atari had sold over 30 million units, while the runner up had only sold 3 million.    In other words, to the very small community that did game, Atari was all they knew.


Arcades crashed as well. Plus you're basically impying people thought "Two games on that system sucked, therefore I don't like any of these systems." That doesn't make sense.

You can't cause a crash of public interest with two games. You can bankrupt a company, but it takes more than that to make people turn away.

Nah, but those two games weren't just the only bad ones, they were just the biggest impacts. Atari was littered with horrible games some that were "same" or very "similar" to games done by companies. It was pressure building within the industry, and ET just threw it over the edge. 



 

noname2200 on 07 March 2011

Ah, Trip Hawkins.  Twenty-five years and still bitter.



okr on 07 March 2011
Soonerman said:
okr said:

Trip Hawkins can say whatever he wants, he's a legend who made some big mistakes but also contributed hugely to the industry. He's a member of the Hall of Fame of videogames for a reason. Inferior versions of EA games on Wii is not Hawkin's fault.

Natalia Luckyanova can say whatever she wants, she's pretty, has a sexy name and creates apps with cute icons no one knows.

By the way: Why are Nintendo fans/system owners often posting anti-Nintendo news? Must be masochism.

What the hell are you smoking? Natalia is ugly as fuck

I'm smoking Lucky Strike and you are quite the charmer, aren't you?



Around the Network
bannedagain on 08 March 2011
okr said:
Soonerman said:
okr said:

Trip Hawkins can say whatever he wants, he's a legend who made some big mistakes but also contributed hugely to the industry. He's a member of the Hall of Fame of videogames for a reason. Inferior versions of EA games on Wii is not Hawkin's fault.

Natalia Luckyanova can say whatever she wants, she's pretty, has a sexy name and creates apps with cute icons no one knows.

By the way: Why are Nintendo fans/system owners often posting anti-Nintendo news? Must be masochism.

What the hell are you smoking? Natalia is ugly as fuck

I'm smoking Lucky Strike and you are quite the charmer, aren't you?

Now she's hot





Alby_da_Wolf on 08 March 2011

Not happy of just d0ming itself, Ninty d0mes the whole gaming too.    How disappointing that it need Apple's help, though!   



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!