(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); The vast majority of gamers here are far too young to remember the video game crash of '83. Hell, even I'm to young to remember it, 1983 was almost 29 years ago after all... but like with many areas of human existance, history is repeating itself.

The video game crash of '83 was an important time in the industry, one that drastically changed the way video games where made, marketted and changed who the power players where in the industry. Here's a brief history lesson for people...

Video games in the home really hit mid 1970's with a multitude of pong consoles and the Magnavox Odyssey which many claim was the first true games console. Personally I disqualify it as a games console as many of it's games where really board games played with a TV screen, they included cards, dice, and some even had boards and counters. Still most call this and the pong consoles of the time the first generation of video games.

The second generation of games consoles where in the late 1970's, with the most well know console being the Atari 2600 in 1977 in USA, and 1978 here in Europe. The Atari 2600 was by far the most popular console at the time in USA, but there where loads of other consoles released around the same time. The Odyssey 2, Intellevision and Fairchild Channel F where all released in the late 70's in USA, although none would see a worldwide release until 1982. PC gaming started up in the UK with the Acorn Atom in 1980 although the old Apple II computers from 1977 could play some games. These where later followed by the Commodore VIC-20, BBC Micro, and Sinclair ZX81 in 1981. Games such as the first Ultima game started to push gaming beyond just arcade games. In 1982 the number of consoles skyrocketted with the Vectrex, Colecovision, Atari 5200, Coleco Gemini, Balley Astrocade, Sega SG-1000 and Emerson Arcadia. There where also two new personal computers the ZX Spectrum and Commodore 64. Compare that to todays market, we have 5 consoles including handhelds... PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, PSP and Nintendo DS. As well as that we have PC and Mac. In 1982 there where 11 consoles and 7 major brands of personal computer. By the end of 1983 both Intellevision and Colecovision had add-ons that would let them play Atari 2600 games, Atari tried to sue for copyright but lost. 1983 also saw the Adam PC and Aqaurius Home Computer released.

This was the first cause of the video game crash of 1983. USA especially was bogged down. It had so many different consoles and computers that it simply couldn't survive as an industry. This wasn't helped by the fact that there where literally hundreds of games being made and released every week. There wasn't enough shelf space in shops for them to store up to date libraries of games, a variety of games, and games for every system and in the end many shops lost patience with video games entirely. But the worst strike was for the Atari 2600. It was the most popular console by a far margin and as it's games where compatable with the Coleco Gemini (which was basically an Atari 2600 clone with different controllers), the Atari 5200, and the Intellevision and ColecoVision with there expansions, so the games where easily the most popular. When Pac-Man, the most popular arcade game at the time; and ET, a massive blockbuster movie at the time; where both released for the console people went nuts for them. Both games where TERRIBLE! They where genuinely bad games and they sold poorly. People even sent the games back to Atari demanding a refund. In the end Atari was so damaged that their company downsized considerably. The millions of unsold cartriages, mostly of ET, where burried in a massive landfill in Nevada.

This crash effected pretty much all consoles. Americans gave up on gaming and the early 1980's kids instead got obsessed with music as the music cassette industry grew and the cinema saw increased use. It was an ecconomic boom at the time, so home entertainment stopped being as needed, as people would go out instead. Outside of USA the console industry was growing in Japan where the Sega SG-1000 was becoming popular and the Arcade was becoming a big pastime. Nintendo released the Famicom just in time for Christmas 1983 but overheating was an issue and it was recalled and redesigned with a new motherboard, lucky for Nintendo this wasn't a big issue and the company managed to recover. In Europe little changed. Consoles never really caught on over here, with PC gaming being much prefered, as the PC companies also made business PCs they found themselves largely immune to the gaming crash, unfortunately gaming didn't seem as important to these companies anymore so they focused on making their computers into better computers over the next decade rather than better games platforms.

So that's the history lesson over. That's pretty much how the crash went down... it was confusion due to too many consoles and games, consoles/computers that where too expensive, big law suits, and games that where of very poor quality.

Look at today. We have confusion with the consoles. Everything seems unfocused with both the PS3 and Xbox 360 trying desperately to push their failed motion control crap on people. The Wii being the only really successful console financially has more shovel-ware than ever and even experienced gamers dismiss it due to not knowing about it's more hardcore titles (yes, it does actually have some), it's almost as though Nintendo are embarrassed about them. The few innovative games on the Wii like 'The Last Story', 'Pandora's Tower' and 'Fatal Frame IV' took literal protests to get a release outside of Japan and even then they're still refusing to release them in USA, and the English releases are simply "planned 2012" despite them being 2009 games... When it comes to handhelds both the PS Vita and the Nintendo 3DS have been commercial bombs selling far less than anyone could have imagined. The PSP is currently outselling them, yes I'm dead serious. Movie tie-in games and quick cash cow games seem to be the only games produced and games are routinely being made shorter, often as short as 4 hours long for a full price AAA game. Online passcodes and day one DLC try to gouge yet more money out of the consumers, and incomplete games with micro-payments for additional levels, weapons, characters etc. ofter work out to over $100. Games are frequently released incomplete and then newer versions are released only months later (Mavel vs. Capcom anyone?), and DRM measures are forcing PC gamers to install invasive monitoring programs just to play their games. At the same time that this is happening, all major games companies where in SUPPORT of bills like SOPA, PIPA and ACTA to try and weed out their competition and control the media. Does anyone else see another impending crash.

Everyone I know now spends more time playing small indie games, mobile phone games, retro gaming or facebook games than they do the AAA titles currently out. Games like Super Meat Boy, Minecraft, Dungeons Of Dredmor, Angry Birds and World Of Goo seem to be the norm now, with only one or two games jumping out of the crowd. In all honesty, with the exception of Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, I can't think of a single high profile game that people where really excited about. I was quite looking forward to Deus Ex: Human Revolution myself but the internet as a whole barely gave it a second thought, and that's Deus Ex, it's pretty much the PC gamers cocaine... well that and Half-Life.

I personally think we're going to see a big change over the next few years. A retro-revival is coming as cheap games similar to the 16-bit and 32-bit games of the SNES, Mega Drive and original PSOne become the norm, released on Xbox Live Arcade, Steam, iOS/Android App Store, WiiWare Virtual Console, The Playstation Network and even though Facebook. AAA titles will loose funding unless it's an obvious money cow like Gears Of War, Call Of Duty etc. because a cavalcade of stupid kids will all pay rediculous amounts to play yet another game of cyber-paintball with a few new maps. The RPG, Strategy and Adventure genres will die off... but don't panic, they will be back. Like a phoenix raising from the ashes, gaming will make a comeback. Gaming will live on through indie developers and pioneers who will reform it into something new... I hope... because if it doesn't, gaming goes the way of the comic book, an obscure niché hobby aimed largely at children. Oh and yes, I mean Call Of Duty in that. Call Of Duty is a kids game, as much as it's players don't want it to be. It's just a more sophisticated way for 12 year olds to pretend to shoot eachother than running around the park with bits of tree branch shouting "BANG" at eachother.

So. What do people think. Do they agree? Disagree?
Do you think, I'm on to something and that gaming is due for a major upheaval or do you think I'm just being paranoid? I'd love to hear other peoples take on this.

I don't understand why you class the Move & Kinect as motion control crap(which they are) but then go on to defend the Wii. Hypocrisy?

You must login or register to view this content.

Because Move and Kinect are nothing but motion control crap. Every single game made for the Move or Kinect will be focused entirely on motion controls because if it's not it'll just be a standards PS3 or Xbox 360 game. The Wii on the other had is a console in its own right and therefore many of it's games are not just games made to show of the motion controls, a lot of them are, but a lot are not. The Wii has some incredible games on it that many people purposely overlook because they're on the Wii, that pisses me off. Sure the Wii has more shovelware and crap out in centre stage but unlike Move and Kinect it actually has other games. After all, do you think a 40+ hour long jRPG would come out on the Move or Kinect... no. It did for the Wii, "Xenoblade Chronicles". One of the best games of last year and the gaming community online pretty much ignored it because it wasn't on the PS3 or Xbox 360.

There's no hypocrisy here. I'm just being honest. I'd also like to dispell something here, I'm not a Nintendo fanboy. I don't even own a fúcking Wii. I don't like the console, it puts motion controls in games that don't need them like "Donkey Kong Country Returns" and "New Super Mario Bros. Wii", games designed to be retro-revivals ruined by executives who think they must use the damn Wii mote when the Classic Controller is one of the best controllers EVER MADE! No, actually, the Wii pisses me off. What pisses me off most though is that people on this forum scoff and laugh at the Wii when they know nothing about it. They've probably never even played one. Both my sister and a close friend of mine both own Wii's and I've played more Wii games in the last year than I have Xbox 360 or PS3 games. At the very least I can say I've experienced the console which is more than what most people here can say, and I think NGU is pathetic for writing off the Wii as a "kids console" just because they THINK they wouldn't enjoy it. But yeah, actually I'm not a Nintendo fan, in fact, I hate Nintendo fanboys. Just watch how much I rip into the N64 when the fanboys start creaming their pants. I was a SEGA kid, and Nintendo has always been second place. As I grew up, I matured and started to appreciate games on their own merits rather than worrying about the platform they where on. Nowadays I'm a PC gamer, and I have been for a long time. I don't own a modern console, and while I do own a PS2, Xbox (original not 360), Gamecube and Dreamcast, the only one set up at the moment is the Xbox and that's only because I was playing Star Wars: KOTOR 2 last month. Does this mean I hate consoles, not at all. I intend to buy a PS3 once my cheque clears, (I have a couple of hundred £'s ready). I like consoles, but while I'm prepared to look at all the different consoles and consider them all based on their merits, others seem to want to dismiss the Wii because it's easier to pretend it's not important to gaming for them, than to actually give it a chance.

Honestly, I'm shocked, especially you Clutch Hunter. I expect people to troll and compare the Wii to the Move/Kinect as though they're the same but I don't expect it from people in the debate section. I wrote out a long and, I thought well thought out post and I got nothing but crap and spam from everyone.... speaking of which.



You're a global moderator. You should be fúcking ashamed of yourself.

Fair enough, I assumed trolling because I tend to get a lot of it, especially if I dare to mention Nintendo (seriously, NGU members heads would explode if they ever met a real Nintendo fanboy... seriously, go on Racketboy, I'm considered a Nintendo hater on there).

Honestly, the whole point of this thread was to point out that gaming in general is on a downslide. If anything Nintendo less than most. While I won't deny Nintendo are not doing well at the moment, with the 3DS flagging and Wii sales dropping off, there's obvious reasons for this. Most people who want a Wii already own one. Other companies however are suffering much more.

Microsoft are finding that Kinect is failing, despite it's good sale in UK (yeah, I don't know why, but the UK went mad for the Kinect). The biggest game of recent times was Skyrim which shows that no-one cares about motion controls. Xbox 360 has no real first part powerhouses anymore with both Halo and Gears Of War having pretty much run their course. It almost seems like Microsoft have given up at this point especially as almost every single 360 exclusive title they're releasing in 2012 and currently announced for 2013 are all Kinect games. Xbox 360 is becoming more targetted at children than the Wii now and at more than double the price.

Sony are doing even worse, which is a major pity as I've grown rather interested in them of recent. The PS3 while, I would argue, the better modern console, is pricing people out of the market during a recession of all times. While PS Move is easier to implement than Kinect, in order to get the best out of Sony's consoles they're now pushing 3D HDTV's as the next step and making the gamed intergrated with the Playstation Vita in order to compete with Nintendo's WiiU console due to come out Christmas this year. All together a Playstation 3, a 3D Capable HDTV, a Playstation Move, a Playstation Vita, the 3D Glasses, and a selection of PS3 games and Blu-Ray movies will cost a small fortune. On top of that the PSN hack has made people nervous about using the service and the lack-lustre reviews of the PS Vita has made it bomb sales wise.

While Nintendo are doing better than the others, the 3DS has had awful sales and cost the company a lot as many see the 3D elements as gimmicks, much as they did with motion controls. Nintendo have also had major problems with fans leaving in protest due to their shoddy business practices and treatment of third party developers. The Wii's hardcore fanbase is pissed because Nintendo refuses to localise and many refused to buy the 3DS and are boycotting the WiiU in protest because so many decent Wii games are made "Japan Only" while shovelware always seems to get an international release. Nintendo is still at a stronger point now than it was during last generation with the Gamecube, but back then there was a small ecconomic boom (around 2003-2005) to help drag Nintendo back to a position of power. That doesn't exist now.

So what I'm getting at is I think all three console companies, and for that matter many large developers as well (particularly people like Activision, Square Enix, Capcom, and EA) are facing some trouble in the near future. Do people agree or am I seeing it far bleaker than it really is?

Not necessarily. I think it may have been Heavy Rain & LittleBigPlanet 2 for the Move that integrated motion controls in such a way the games were still superb with the standard controller. Unfortunately I must fault Microsoft here though. For the past few years they've been trying to shove Kinect down everyone's throats, especially at E3 - a convention for "hardcore" gamers. Sony have meanwhile been much less of a nuisance and as I said they have applied Move support to games in a much more positive manner.



Such a game would come out on the PS3 or 360 though, with additional Move/Kinect support if it was deemed necessary. And with better graphics, and in the case of the Move much more precise control than the Wii can offer.

Also plenty of excellent indie games on the PC are ignored by the majority every year, the Wii isn't unique in this way. Heck, even the PS3 & 360 have some great games that sometimes just won't sell to the casual or core audience. Alan Wake is a good example.



Isn't that what you accused the Move & Kinect of doing above?



Bad graphics, inaccurate motion control that's forced onto most games, bad online system, very few if any multi-console releases and even fewer new exclusives. The Wii was a failure in terms of gaming but a success in terms of selling a fad of a product to kids at a price the parents could afford. This isn't me speaking out of my ass- I've played plenty of the Wii and I know plenty about it. This also isn't me being biased- if Nintendo actually made a great console I'd be right behind them. Unfortunately this is not a great console and I doubt the Wii U will be either.



I wasn't trolling and I'm not now. Don't accuse me of trolling for merely disagreeing with you. Besides, I'm no theist, I will actually back my thoughts up and change my mind if I'm "defeated" :fa:

Yeah, E3 isn't a convention for "hardcore" gamers, it's the Electronics Entertainment Expo. It's an Expo, not a Convension. This is a major annoyance of mine, because so many people think it's a damn convension and it's not. If you're not a journalist, producer, developer or trader you're not even allowed to attend. Technically you need to be INVITED to E3 and have to request invites. E3 is intended to show potential investors and publishers what the company is working on and how they intend to make money, it's not so they can so they can show trailers and advertise games to gamers.

This is from E3's own website - You must login or register to view this content.
"No, E3 is not open to the general public. E3 is a trade event and only professionals from the industry will be allowed to attend. Individuals who are not able to document their direct and current professional affiliation to the interactive entertainment industry are not qualified to attend E3. All E3 attendees are required to show government-issued photo ID (such as a driver's license or passport) upon request."

Sorry to have to jump on this, but I hate it when people make this claim. E3 isn't for you, or me. E3 is for developers and producers to attract investors, and investors don't give a shit how "hardcore" a game is, they care if it makes money.

Now to read the rest of your post.

You're forgetting that it's recorded by places like G4 and streamed to thousands of people online.

Move & Kinect are JUST motion controls though. That's my point. I don't want motion controls at all, I can't use them. The Wii however isn't just about motion controls. There are loads of games released that don't use the motion controls and that's why it's not hypocrisy. The Wii has games. The PS3 and Xbox 360 have games. Move and Kinect have shit... that's all. There isn't a single game that would make me want to buy a Move or Kinect, not one. There are plenty of none motion control games, and quite a few light-gun games too, that make the Wii very much worth it. Hell I even made a "Top 10 Reasons To Own a Wii" thread a while back, pointing them out.


Really? Alan Wake? I found it extremely dissapointing. But yes, I agree indie games are usually ignored and PC games in general are ignored by the media, especially online. The thing is they're not dismissed anywhere near as readily as the Wii... the only thing dismissed quicker than a Wii game is a facebook game.



No, the Wii puts motion controls in some games that would be better without them. The Move and Kinect games are all based entirely around motion controls so much so that removing the controls would make the game not exist anymore. Show me a game on Move or Kinect which is a perfectly fine game but just happens to have one move that you have to shake the controller to perform... everything else though is not motion controlled. You can't. Hell the PS3 did that once or twice with the Sixaxis Controller. With the Wii theres often games like the new Mario and Donkey Kong platformers, which are good games, but insist on making the special moves or powerups into Wii Mote waggles rather than button presses. This ruins otherwise good games. The Move and Kinect don't have games. They have endless collections of mini-games, Wii sports rip-offs etc, and really bad unplayable shit where everything is motion controls. Oh, and they have dance games, apparently they're OK. But you know what, Kinect is a pretty expensive add on if it's the dance games equivalent to a Guitar Hero controller.


The Wii does not have bad graphics. Get off your HD empowerment craze and come and meet me in the real world. Please explain to me how the Wii's graphics are "bad". I'd love to hear this. Personally I don't think it'd make all that much of a difference to be able to make out Mario's fúcking nosehairs. I personally care about gameplay, story, art direction... you know, important shit. Do graphics matter, sure. Bad graphics, like in 'Alpha Protocol' or 'Risen' can ruin a game (oh yeah, both those games are in HD), and decent graphics with a strong art design can make a game really stand out, like in 'Shadow Of The Colossus' or 'Half-Life 2' (both of these where PS2 games, neither where HD). To claim the Wii has bad graphics is to dismiss it without consideration, yet you claim to not be baised... I disagree.


I agree that is true in probably most of the Wii library, but it's got plenty of games that don't use Motion Controls and some like Mario Kart for example that do it really well, and with the gun controller, rail shooter are extremely atmospheric. There are plenty of good games like 'The Last Guardian', 'Metroid Prime Trilogy', 'Xenoblade Chronicles', 'Mega Man 9', 'ead Space: Extraction', 'Sonic Colours' and more which use no intrusive motion controls.


I don't need to be online to play an RPG, Adventure Game, Survival Horror, Platformer, Brawler, Rail Shooter, or even an FPS. In fact, the only time I'd need to be online is to play the multiplayer of an FPS (which I don't give a shit about), an MMO, or a game specifically designed for multiplayer, in which case I have friends to invite over. The only people who really care about online gaming are people who play FPS games online. First Person Shooters are not the be-all and end-all of gaming and honestly, I'd rather I wasn't online. I don't need the immersion or atmosphere broken when I'm playing an RPG or Survival Horror by constantly seeing little green boxes telling me who's signing in and out of Xbox Live or getting messages popping up in my games. Sure a bad online system matter if you're specifically looking to play multiplayer online, but honestly, who does that outside of Call Of Duty, Battlefield and MMO's... no-one.


So... that's kind of the point of the Wii... it has a unique game library. The PC, Xbox 360 and PS3 can fight over the multi-platform releases. The Wii has it's own stuff.


This is an outright lie and you know it. Almost every game on the Wii is exclusive to the Wii. What you're basically saying is, "they don't make games for the Wii", which is absurd. Super Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Donkey Kong, Monster Hunter, Mega Man, Kirby, No More Heroes, Smash Bros, Mario Kart, Red Steel... these are all Nintendo exclusive franchises that release a new game about once every 2 years. Then theres; The Last Guardian, A Shadow's Tale, Xenoblade Chronicles, The Last Story, Pandora's Tower, MadWorld, Sonic Colours and loads more which are Wii exclusives. In fact I can name more Wii exclusives than I can Xbox 360 exclusives.


The average modern gamer is 31 years old and the most common console of the current three by a long way is the Wii. The Wii sells far more to adults in their late 20's and early 30's than any other console because it has a great back catalogue of games with the Virtual Console, it's back-compatable with the Gamecube, and it has exclusives that they care about such as Mario, Zelda, Metroid etc. Not only that, the average person in their 20's/30's is also a PC gamer at which point the Wii is the only console really worth getting unless you specifically want PS3 or 360 exclusives. The vast majority of games on consoles now are also on PC, and they're cheaper on PC. What this means is the Wii is the only console not actively competing with the PC, which makes it the perfect console for an adult. In fact, if anything, the "fad", that's selling to kids at the moment is the FPS craze. The average Call Of Duty player is 14 years old at best, just look at this forum if you need any further proof. All you're doing here is showing your ignorance. You act, like the majority of "hardcore" gamers, as though the Wii is a kiddie console, when every Nintendo forum or site I go on is filled with people in their 20's and 30's, yet your "adult* games on you "adult" consoles are played almost exclusively by children, so much so that most adult gamers would rather lie than admit they play CoD because it's that looked down upon, and adults that do play CoD are often accused of being pedophiles because they're always online with kids, despite them playing a mature rated game.


I'm sorry, but it is you speaking out of your arse. You're showing your biases more than ever and you're as polarising in this post as the Nintendo fanboys who never shut the hell up about fúcking Zelda as though it's the greatest series ever made. If you've played "plenty of Wii", why do you talk like someone who's never even touched the damn thing, and your dismissal of the Wii U just goes to show your biases as the console is specifically designed for hardcore gaming. They've even got EA and Activision involved for fúck sake. The fact is, you're not prepared to give Nintendo a chance because it's Nintendo and that's really rather sad. Sadder still though is you're proving yourself to be just a Nintendo hater so much more because twice I've made posts BASHING all three consoles, and you've taken my posts to be pro-Wii wherever possible in a desperate attempt to make Nintendo out to be worthless. I'm trying to claim gaming as a whole have entered a rut and you're more focused on trying to demonstrate that the Wii is inferior.


You say you're not trolling. Fine. I wasn't accusing you of intentionally trolling, but damn you're doing a good job of unintentionally trolling. You seem to think I'm debating the position that the Wii is best in some way, when actually I'm trying to argue that the Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360, are all flawed and failing. You're acting like I'm calling you out for disagreeing with me, when you're not disagreeing with me at all, you're having an argument with someone who's not even here.

You seem to be arguing with someone who's saying "The Move and Kinect suck, and the Wii rocks" where as I'm saying "The PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii are all flawed in different ways (one of which being that motion controls such) and it looks like they're on roads to cause a crash in the gaming market". You state you'll change your mind if you're "defeated" and back up you're thoughts, but we're not even having the same debate here.

If you want to debate "Wii vs. PS Move vs. Kinect", I'd happily debate that and the Wii will win hands down. If we're debating "Wii vs. PS3 vs. Xbox 360" at that point I'm on the PS3's side anyway so I'm not even sure who you'd be debating with. Perhaps you should consider the discussion more. You're able to debate properly, you've shown it multiple times when it comes to politics, philosophy and religion, but somehow when it comes to video games you fall back to tired biases and opinion rather than justifying your position, and you don't even seem to acknowledge the original point of debate.

Well Clutch, I look forward to your response. It's nice to be arguing against you rather than along side you. It means I'll be arguing against some decent posts rather than the usual of me fighting a blind quadripalegic holding a slingshot in his teeth and I'm armed with a bazooka.

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:41 PM ----------



No, I'm not. So what if it is? Just because you're watching their tech expo doesn't mean it should be catered to you. MAGFest, BlizzCon and GSC are games conventions and should cater to what the gamers want, but E3 and PAX are tech expos and the companies are there to attract investors not customers.