The VIC's Contribution to the Crash of '83

[Jeff-20]

There were obviously many factors contributing to the Great Video Game Crash of 1983. Certainly, Jack Tramiel was a part. I've been thinking of what role the VIC specifically may have played.

The VIC's price was reduced to under $200 in the US. Tape games were very cheap to manufacture. And I just learned, in some markets, Commodore was even offering trade-ins on popular consoles of the time for a price-reduced VIC! So these factors may have played a strong role is moving the market away from consoles to home computers.

The VIC's "limitations" may have also contributed to the idea of home computing was just a fad. The novelty would have wore off when BASIC programs on a VIC couldn't offer as much as a 2600 could at the time. Of course, things may have been different in other parts of the world. Any thoughts?

[orion70]

As the VIC-20’s William Shatner adverts declared: "Why buy just a video game?"
Sure the VIC was a factor! People just couldn't have enough from plain cartridges, they also wanted to push buttons and "program a computer", whatever it meant - me, I was a kid impressed by Pong style consoles, but never thought of buying one. Until I saw a VIC commercial, then yes, this was a REAL COMPUTER for the price of a toy , and I absolutely wanted it!

Never thought the VIC was a "fake" computer, in fact most of the buyers eventually switched to a C64 only because they wanted more from a computer, but only rarely turned back to a console.

[akator]

The North American Home Video Game Console Market Crash was inevitable. There was also Pong Market crash a few years before. These were nascent markets. Neither manufacturers nor consumers knew what was going to stick. Overproduction, over selection, over expectations.

I don't think home computers were a significant cause of the NA console crash. People were burned by all the crap being cranked out for the consoles, especially Atari's over-hyped disappointments. People still wanted to play video games, just no longer the crap that Atari was selling.

Micros were already there, having been marketed for as long as the 2600. They were already planted in consumer minds. Prices were dropping. People ditched their disappointing consoles and upgraded.

If computers weren't there, or affordable, people would have still left Atari behind. Coleco was doing very well with the ColecoVision, even outselling the 2600, until Coleco self-destructed by a triple-whammy of bad decisions:
- Banking on continued Cabbage Patch Doll demand. The invested heavily in additional manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution because they thought CPD was more than a fad.
- Discontinuing ColecoVision production, even though it was the top console seller, because they needed to retool and spend money producing:
- The ADAM Home Computer. Great concept, poor initial execution. By the time they got the problems ironed it, it was too late to recapture consumer interest and trust.

It was bad enough that Atari had burned consumers and retailers. Coleco had a top seller, then they pulled out of the console market. When the top selling company kills their top product and leaves the market while they are still on top, that sends the message to retailers that market it dead. Had Coleco continued manufacturing, selling, and producing games for the ColecoVision there still would have been a successful console on the market. Instead of a "crash," it would have been perceived as a market adjustment as consumers scrapped the old in favor of the new.

So I guess that means I don't think the VIC-20 significantly contributed to the NA home console crash of 83

[English Invader]

If anything, the VIC helped keep the industry going until Nintendo came up with the NES. Atari 2600 games just didn't have enough depth to keep the average home user occupied for more than a few hours with a group of friends; only die-hard arcade gamers will find any lasting value in them.

The VIC could do arcade games (some of the best IMO), but it could also provide more cerebral alternatives like programming, text adventures and flight simulators; it showed that there was potential for a more immersive home experience and it was just a question of finding a way to reach the home user which Nintendo accomplished with Super Mario Bros and The Legend of Zelda.

[rhurst]

Yes, I believe VIC contributed to the video game crash -- as in its small part of consumer electronics education, and certainly not from the plethora of junk being peddled. Recall everyone was spending money the 5-years heading into this cliff, so the market "supply" was attempting to keep pace with "demand"; it was just the wrong kind of supply.

I think VIC and other home computer owners like myself in 1983/1984 did not continue to spend money on video games like we did those 5-years prior. We graduated high school and were off onto other things. We were firmly educated on what this market was all about, outgrew the "toys", and wanted something more. I recall my biggest purchase between those Christmases was Pitfall II (after it went on sale), and I would scavenge a few $3-$5 carts from K-Mart. I would write Quikman as a dying tribute to VIC that Fall 1984.

And like a fire burning down an overgrown forest, the "video game" crash naturally followed; and the brief age from the promises with the "home computer" gave way to the "personal computer". Sure, personal computers played games, despite the cost and complexity in owning and operating them, so "better games" was not a factor -- it was the costs to own the hardware and peripherals that ate up all those dollars! Ah, those fond memories of (lame) copy-protection that could not keep pace with our cracking and pirating parties. Anyway, 1984 jumpstarted the (new) personal computer market with IBM PC Jr., Commodore Amiga 1000, and Apple Macintosh competing for that space, and all the greybeards here know how that story unfolded.

@akator, Coleco's products had no market space to recapture, lol, the Atari and Commodore dirty little war made certain of that. As much as I liked playing Coleco at the time, I did not see their introduction of the Adam "computer" and ensuing withdrawal from the video gaming / home computer market as a mistake -- look at it from the company-side, if anything, they made a smart conservative decision in an uncertain time. Tandy essentially did the same thing, but unlike Coleco, they immediately followed Big Blue into the PC cloning era.

[rhurst]

The novelty would have wore off when BASIC programs on a VIC ...

Yes! Not targeted at VIC specifically, but I agree with the idea that the novelty wore off contributing to the demise... which is what I meant that we (as in an educated market) were looking for something "more". And while 6502 assembly was cool, it was tedious and not going to make me any money. A compiled BASIC was easiest to enter the PC market, then there were more sophisticated languages in C and PASCAL available, and a new market in dBase and Clipper emerged in the same consumer space as storage got quicker and cheaper.

[ral-clan]

I have to tell you - neither myself nor my friends were even aware that there was a video game crash happening in 1983/84. We had just (mostly) moved onto computers from consoles in what seemed like a natural progression. We saw how the games on computers were more complex, and more available (cheaper media, games could be "traded" at copy sessions). Also we could program our own games (not that we did that much).

But perhaps the VIC-20 did contribute to the death of the first generation of consoles. I know that I had asked my parents for an Atari early on, but instead they bought me a VIC-20, which I will always be grateful for. I think they did it because they saw the consoles as a "dead end" - i.e. no room for educational growth.

[Empa Kendo]

I believe the C64 contributed way more to the demise of consoles and video game companies. Virtually ever teenager in my town with an interest in games in the mid-80ies was using a C64 with tons of pirated software. Why buy cartridges when your friends could give you a deck of disks with every game possible for "free"?
The VIC was more of an outlier here - there was no large swap scene for software, so I had to buy the odd game or two. (Or write my own).

[beamrider]

Incidentally there was UK pirate swap-by-post scene for the Vic circa 82/83. Adverts could be found in the classified section of popular computing weekly etc. I wasn't aware of the video game crash either.

[beamrider]

I think back then there was less disposable income (certainly in the UK) and a lot of parents viewed spending large sums on a game system as indulgent, frivolous and difficult to justify. A dual purpose computer that could help with "education" was a much easier sell for us teenagers.

[rhurst]

Not too suprising that, as a consumer, individual's did not realize there was a market crash going on. See if you can recall that videogame carts would retail as much as $32 in 1982. I may still have my Pac-Man receipt for $35 as an overzealous senior in high school.

$32.00 in 1982 had the same buying power as $79.34 in 2014. Annual inflation over this period was 2.88%.

Then starting in 1983, all new carts released retailed under $20; and they would all plummet after the first month. A few good ones lingered a bit longer above $12, but the many, many junk titles would sell for less than $10. From a market end, that's significant margin loss.

There was a definite "void" in demand (loss of interest), because of over-supply, quality, and disposable income: home computing was 3x expensive over videgaming, and that would soon give way to personal computing costing 5x over home computing.

But back to the question, how did VIC 20 contribute to this? I don't think it can be said that VIC 20 had over-supply and/or quality issues, but certainly the demand (loss of interest) factored in -- C64 contributed more in that regard. My belief is that the early adopters (like me) escaped the "fad" phase and got educated quickly on a more sensible consumer approach to home computing.
[youtube]IUKUHjBhb2Q[/youtube]

[Empa Kendo]

Incidentally there was UK pirate swap-by-post scene for the Vic circa 82/83. Adverts could be found in the classified section of popular computing weekly etc. I wasn't aware of the video game crash either.

Yes, I remember this "distribution channel" too. However passing on stacks of disks among direct friends was way more effective, especially given that C64 ownership spread like wildfire compared to the earlier VIC-20 adopters.

[Victragic]

The crash seems to have been caused by poor quality, rushed titles and over-supply to a 'no-longer-gullible' consumer market.

The Vic had it's share of lousy, over-priced software too. I'd bought some really terrible overpriced Basic games on cassette that weren't as good as many type-ins, so I was wary of buying without knowing what I was getting. I didn't know anyone else with a Vic so pirating wasn't an option, but neither was previewing any games I might buy so I had to be very wary. No stores I encountered would demo the games here, or accept returns if you thought the game sucked.

I recall seeing the Atarisoft titles going for $70 in my closest department store (John Martin's, Adeaide), at a time I could have bought a Vic-20 for around $150. Not trashing Atarisoft games here, but without even a screenshot on the box, there is no way I would have shelled out that kind of money for one cartridge.

On the other hand I picked up some great Commodore carts for $5 (Fort Knox, Cosmic Cruncher, Jupiter Lander) so it wasn't all bad. And I already knew the Vic was obsolete, my school had just bought C64s, which is what sensible parents were probably saving their cartridge money for.

[ral-clan]

The swap network, in 1982, in my Canadian school consisted of plastic shopping bags of tapes (and sometimes cartridges) being loaned back and forth during recess.
This honor system usually worked well, except for the one time I foolishly lent a difficult to copy game to an older bully who then refused to return it.
The game was Froggee, and you could only copy that game if you loaded it with a RAM expansion installed (which he didn't have so decided to keep the tape and tell me that I never gave to him in the first place).

By the time the C64 came around, we had learned about disk copying programs, etc.

My family did buy several cartridges for the VIC-20. There were also two cassette games I remember actually shelling out money for: "Sword of Fargoal" which was well worth it, and "Rescue at Rigel" which I bought for $9.95 at discount when the VIC-20 stuff was on the way out.

[orion70]

"Sword of Fargoal" which was well worth it, and "Rescue at Rigel" which I bought for $9.95 at discount when the VIC-20 stuff was on the way out.

RaR was cheaper than today's price on Ebay
Back on topic, I think no one really felt the "crash" in Italy: it was a soft shift from consoles to microcomputers, beginning from the VIC times circa 1982-84, and coming to a complete substitution of the installed base with the boom of C64s and Spectrums. I think this depends on the fact that consoles (and VIC-20) were for the happy few, and C64s for the masses .