Would the Intelly & CV still be with us today if they survived the 84 crash

[carmel_andrews]

Seeming as though Atari were starting to 'loose ground' in the home gaming market to the likes of the intellivison, colecovision etc upto the 1983/4 crash and given that only Atari actually survived relatively intact (so far as their consumer products part of Atari is concerned)

 

If coleco and MB had the money to invest in their home gaming products like atari did, would the CV/Intellivision, vectrex etc have survived the crash... would they have been a better competitor to the nintendo/sega onslaught and lessen the effect that sega/nintendo had on the US gaming scene (albeit helping out Atari somewhat)

 

Just curious....

Edited September 5, 2007 by carmel_andrews

[Rybags]

No.

 

I might be wrong, but both companies (well, Mattel at least) were bigger than Atari and Commodore and could have held their own.

 

Intellivision had a superior product to the 2600 from the start, but was let down by poor titles, bad marketing and pathetic controllers.

[A Sprite]

Seeming as though Atari were starting to 'loose ground' in the home gaming market to the likes of the intellivison, colecovision etc upto the 1983/4 crash and given that only Atari actually survived relatively intact (so far as their consumer products part of Atari is concerned)

 

If coleco and MB had the money to invest in their home gaming products like atari did, would the CV/Intellivision, vectrex etc have survived the crash... would they have been a better competitor to the nintendo/sega onslaught and lessen the effect that sega/nintendo had on the US gaming scene (albeit helping out Atari somewhat)

 

Just curious....

 

Colecovision was carried into the market on the back of Donkey Kong. Barring a miracle of licensing, if it had survived the crash it would have been the first casualty of the next generation...assuming it could convince anyone to part with shelf space for a new console, following both the crash and the high rate of failure in their Adam computers.

[A Sprite]

No.

 

I might be wrong, but both companies (well, Mattel at least) were bigger than Atari and Commodore and could have held their own.

 

Intellivision had a superior product to the 2600 from the start, but was let down by poor titles, bad marketing and pathetic controllers.

 

Huh? Intellivision was famous for it's marketing. The sports titles commercials alone opened up a new market the 2600 couldn't reach. It may not have won the war, but it gave a good fight.

 

And it didn't hurt for good titles, bad as they've aged to modern eyes.

Edited September 5, 2007 by A Sprite

[Pixelboy]

It's hard to picture Coleco NOT failing... The ADAM was undoubtably their greatest mistake, because they clearly didn't know how to properly support it after initially releasing it. Had they survived the crash, they probably would have continued supporting the ADAM, which would have led to their demise a year later at most, regardless of the state of the rest of the video game industry at the time. However, if Coleco had chosen to discard the ADAM and concentrate on gaming, perhaps we would have seen the ColecoVision's successor, something closer to the NES technologically, possibly backward-compatible.

 

As for the Inty, I have no idea how it could have evolved beyond what it was. With its slow processor, its unusual controllers and its so-so collection of games, it seemed frozen in time.

 

I believe that if either the Inty or the CV had survived, it wouldn't have made much of a difference. When we think of the crash, we mostly think about companies going backrupt, but we tend to forget that a shift in consumer interest towards home computers (like the C64, the Mac and the emerging home PC) happened around the same time. The video game consoles of the time seemed unable to evolve, so consumers went for the newer machines which happened to be computers with keyboards and disk drives.

[Prodos8]

The Intellivision system did survive the crash and was sold until 1991 in the states. INTV corp. bought the left overs from Mattel, when they bailed, and even released a few new games. I recall seeing them for sale for around $60 at TRU in the mid to late '80s. It was odd seing that thing sitting next to a NES and a TG-16 at the time.

[Captain Beard]

When we think of the crash, we mostly think about companies going backrupt, but we tend to forget that a shift in consumer interest towards home computers (like the C64, the Mac and the emerging home PC) happened around the same time. The video game consoles of the time seemed unable to evolve, so consumers went for the newer machines which happened to be computers with keyboards and disk drives.

 

I agree. I was only vaguely aware of the console crash at the time because by then, my brother and I had moved on and invested in a Commodore 64 (quickly followed by a 128) which provided much better games (which, not coincidentally, were also easily copied, thus increasing our library for only a fraction of the cost of new Intellivision games.)

[rockman_x_2002]

I think they would've stuck around a little longer after 84. It's possible they could've released new consoles.

 

I think Coleco would've more likely dropped out of the console business, but remained as a mid-tier third-party game developer studio which would likely still be with us today.

 

Mattel, on the other hand, would've likely continued their game console development up until about the SNES / Genesis era, where they would have partnered with Nintendo or Sega as well. They might, however, have continued making in-house software.

 

At least, that's what my Magic 8-Ball says...

[rjchamp3]

I think they would've stuck around a little longer after 84. It's possible they could've released new consoles.

 

I think Coleco would've more likely dropped out of the console business, but remained as a mid-tier third-party game developer studio which would likely still be with us today.

 

Mattel, on the other hand, would've likely continued their game console development up until about the SNES / Genesis era, where they would have partnered with Nintendo or Sega as well. They might, however, have continued making in-house software.

 

At least, that's what my Magic 8-Ball says...

 

 

I agree

[thomasholzer]

Maybe Nintendo would have turned to Coleco to market the NES in the USA instead of asking Atari, and Coleco would have said 'yes'.

After Intellivision Mattel did indeed market the NES in UK (badly though).

Edited September 5, 2007 by thomasholzer

[Pixelboy]

Maybe Nintendo would have turned to Coleco to market the NES in the USA instead of asking Atari, and Coleco would have said 'yes'.

After Intellivision Mattel did indeed market the NES in UK (badly though).

You know, that's actually a very likely scenario. Coleco already had ties with Nintendo (DK and Dk Jr. on the ColecoVision and Atari 2600, the DK and DK Jr. tabletop games, etc.). Nintendo could even have asked Coleco before asking Atari. I'm not sure if Coleco's CV software department would have survived this deal, however, because Nintendo might have insisted that all NES games be programmed in Japan, with Coleco being strictly a distributor.

[deadmeow]

The Intellivision and Colecovision would have at least been around a little bit longer. Plans were made for an Intellivision 3 & 4, which would have been interesting. Colecovision with its expansion port, had many possibilities, and who knows if a gaming only version of the Adam would have come out. A "super" Colecovision with 80k of ram, and a imagine being able to hook up an Adam disk drive to a "super Colecovision", and buying games on disk for a home system.

 

But that is where the problem comes in, computers stole the thunder of the game systems. The game systems had better arcade type games, but the computer had text games, and more strategy oriented games, and Castle Wolfenstein, etc...

 

Then you had the computers that sort of doubled as game systems, C64, Atari, which could use traditional cartridges, or tape cassettes, and later disk drives. Had home computing come along 10 years later, the crash would have come 10 years later as well.

[Dave Farquhar]

I thought the whole reason for the NES coming into being was because Nintendo wanted to license the Colecovision to sell in Japan and Coleco wanted too much money, so Nintendo said they'd develop their own system instead. Then once the Famicom was either reality or very close to it, along came the botched Atari deal that led to Nintendo marketing the NES in the States itself.

[+Psionic]

Maybe Nintendo would have turned to Coleco to market the NES in the USA instead of asking Atari, and Coleco would have said 'yes'.

After Intellivision Mattel did indeed market the NES in UK (badly though).

You know, that's actually a very likely scenario. Coleco already had ties with Nintendo (DK and Dk Jr. on the ColecoVision and Atari 2600, the DK and DK Jr. tabletop games, etc.). Nintendo could even have asked Coleco before asking Atari. I'm not sure if Coleco's CV software department would have survived this deal, however, because Nintendo might have insisted that all NES games be programmed in Japan, with Coleco being strictly a distributor.

The scenarios that you guys propose are unfortunately very unlikely to have occurred. As much as I hate to say it, any situation where Coleco would have survived in any form (much less as a video game developer) borders on crazy. Furthermore, I don't think you guys really understand fully the relationship between Atari, Coleco, and Nintendo and why the crash affected those companies in the way it did. Let me explain...

 

Nintendo first became interested in marketing a home video game system circa 1981 after the success of Donkey Kong. Nintendo's interest was piqued when they were shown the ColecoVision prototype. Nintendo was immediately interested in purchasing the ColecoVision technology from Coleco, but the Greenbergs knew they had something good and weren't going to sell cheap. In the end, Nintendo was not able to meet Coleco's asking price...Coleco went ahead with the ColecoVison on their own (they did license Donkey Kong from Nintendo for the pack-in) and Nintendo decided to build their own machine (which eventually became the Famicom). Coleco had limited production facilites and was not able to distribute the ColecoVision outside the United States. Had Coleco inked a deal with Nintendo, Nintendo likely would have ditributed the system in Japan. Instead, Coleco reached a deal with CBS, who marketed their products in Europe and Australia, and the system was never released in Japan.

 

Nintendo, of course, eventually released the Famicom in Japan and it was a success. Plans were made to export the system to America (this still being pre-crash), but at the time, Nintendo of America was very small and Nintendo felt they needed someone to help them break into the American market. Nintendo's old buddies at Coleco weren't interested since they were working on a new computer (the ADAM) and were still selling ColecoVisions at decent rate, so Nintendo brought the Famicom to Atari and they were entering preliminary negotiations for Atari to market and distribute the Famicom (NES) in the U.S. in mid-1983.

 

Then, at 1983 CES, the infamous meltdown occurred...Atari CEO Ray Kassar walked by the Coleco booth and saw a demo of Donkey Kong running on Coleco's new ADAM computer. Kassar flipped out (since Atari had the computer rights to DK and Coleco only had console rights) and tore into Coleco. He then accused Nintendo of double-dealing with Coleco (an accusation which was understandable, given Coleco's past relationship with Nintendo). This caused a major rift in relations between all three companies and stalled the negotiations between Atari and Nintendo. In the months following CES, Kassar left Atari. Shortly thereafter the crash happened, Atari split up, and the consumer division was sold to the Tramiels, who put on a freeze on console game development. The deal with Nintendo was never made, and Atari was never the same after that.

 

After the crash, Coleco pulled the plug on their video game division and bled red ink for about five more years before the Greenbergs finally decided to cut their losses and liquidated the company. Nintendo, of course, went on to great success with the NES and is still with us today.

 

So basically, Coleco would never have distibuted the NES for three reasons:

 

1. Coleco already had a chance to market a system jointly with Nintendo and blew it. By 1985, Nintendo had already decided to market the NES themselves.

2. After the crash and the ADAM debacle, Coleco thought there was no future in video games.

3. Even if the crash had never happened, Coleco Industries had been having financial difficulties for many years, and by 1985 the long-term viability of Coleco as a company was in serious doubt. Coleco would likely have just marketed the ColecoVision until their eventual demise.

 

In all honesty, Atari, Coleco and Mattel probably could have all survived and avoided the crash altogether had any of them made any serious headway in Japan, where the crash really never happened. Of course, none of them ever did.

[Bill Brasky]

Seeming as though Atari were starting to 'loose ground' in the home gaming market to the likes of the intellivison, colecovision etc upto the 1983/4 crash and given that only Atari actually survived relatively intact (so far as their consumer products part of Atari is concerned)

 

If coleco and MB had the money to invest in their home gaming products like atari did, would the CV/Intellivision, vectrex etc have survived the crash... would they have been a better competitor to the nintendo/sega onslaught and lessen the effect that sega/nintendo had on the US gaming scene (albeit helping out Atari somewhat)

 

Just curious....

 

Colecovision was carried into the market on the back of Donkey Kong. Barring a miracle of licensing, if it had survived the crash it would have been the first casualty of the next generation...assuming it could convince anyone to part with shelf space for a new console, following both the crash and the high rate of failure in their Adam computers.

 

If in this alternate universe where CV could've survived the crash, they never would've developed the ADAM. The ADAM was reaction to the shift to computers. If they could survive off the CV, why make the ADAM?

[2600Lives]

If Coleco DID market the NES, it wouldn't have taken Nintendo long to realize they had a breakaway hit on their hands and pulled out of the contract to market it themselves.

 

The thing about the NES is that it absolutely captured the imagination. While the Atari and Intellivision were old-fashioned looking (the Coleco less so, but not by much), the NES looked like a piece of space age technology, with unique controllers and AMAZING games. Nintendo would have crushed both Coleco and Mattel in the game industry within 2 years, and both would likely either fade or end up actually making games for their rival. Nintendo was absolutely merciless and cutthroat in those days.

[lhfreak]

Also, wasn't there talk of an expansion module for the Colecovision that was gonna play Intelly games?

[Artlover]

the NES looked like a piece of space age technology

Huh? It looked like a big gray box. How was that space age?

[+Psionic]

Also, wasn't there talk of an expansion module for the Colecovision that was gonna play Intelly games?

Yes, supposedly it reached the prototype phase, but it was never released.

 

the NES looked like a piece of space age technology

Huh? It looked like a big gray box. How was that space age?

I think he's referring to the overall package with the Zapper and R.O.B. more than the console itself.

Edited September 6, 2007 by PingvinBlueJeans

[shadow460]

I'm one the bandwagon with those who believe Nintendo was Coleco's only chance. If the CES show had been different, then perhaps Coleco would still be around, or perhaps we'd have the Atari Wii in stores now.

 

More likely, though, I think anyone who produced post crash games simply cut into Sega's and Atari's market. At the time, Atari had been around a while and deserved to have to defend its position. I believe Sega was a bit stronger in that time frame than Atari was. Without competition from NEC, Phillips and 3DO for new games and the Intellivision for older games, Atari might have made it--maybe.

I daresay that everyone mentioned above cut into Sega's market share as well. Both Atari and Sega would still be out of the console business by now, but we would have more Saturn/Dreamcast games, and we'd have had at least one more Atari console and more Jag games to boot. I think the Jag CD would be a little more common today and it would have a few more games. It might have actually outsold the Sega CD.

 

Like in the 2600 days, though, several people hopped on the video game bandwagon in the early '90's to turn a quick buck. Atari was indeed right there with them in the 2600, 7800, and Jaguar consoles. Sega survivedbut later succumbed to self inflicted wounds. Panasonic/3DO could have pulled it off if they wanted to and crushed anyone but Nintendo, but they pulled out when Hawkins pulled the plug.

NEC didn't make it. Atari didn't make it. Philips didn't make it. The Blue Sky Rangers did, and thanks to some very dedicated folks we still have Inty and Atari (Atari Age folks) games coming out today.

Look familiar? Look at how many companies went under during the crash of '83.

 

For the record, all of the deciding factors above were before Sony's and Micro$oft's time in the console market. It also is assumed that Nintendo and whoever they might have inked a deal with would still have been the gaming juggernaut they were during that time period.

 

How would it have affected the current console lineup? I think only one way...and that's that Nintendo's marketer in the USA would have their name on the Wii. The only exception is if Panasonic had thrown money from their bottomless bank account at consoles like Sony has, then we'd have Nintendo, Micro$oft, and 3DO. Sony would have left the console business and we may or may not have had the PS2. Sony would have picked up what Panasonic left behind, meaning we'd probably have the PSP but there would be no slim coming out next week due to Sony losing still more market share to Panasonic and Nintendo (and maybe Micro$oft if they'd got into the portable market).

[2600Lives]

Yeah, I was referring to the original NES set with all the other stuffs with it, but the system itself was VERY (and still is) unique. The little door that kept dust out of the cartridge slot, the whole "toaster" thing with the carts (which looked cool at first, but I still find the old black original Atari carts to be just brilliant in their simplicity). It was something so different that people just liked what they saw. The first time I saw Super Mario Bros. in action, I was dumbfounded, it was just so AMAZING. Before we had these blocky little dudes running around, and now, we had things that actually looked sorta like little people, and little mushrooms and turtles. No longer did you have to use your imagination to imagine the little square in Adventure as a mighty warrior, Link actually looked human (well, sorta), and had a sword he could thrust around.

[Pixelboy]

Nintendo first became interested in marketing a home video game system circa 1981 after the success of Donkey Kong. Nintendo's interest was piqued when they were shown the ColecoVision prototype. Nintendo was immediately interested in purchasing the ColecoVision technology from Coleco, but the Greenbergs knew they had something good and weren't going to sell cheap. In the end, Nintendo was not able to meet Coleco's asking price...

To be honest, this is the first time I've ever heard that particular part of the story, so please don't take it the wrong way if I'm a little skeptical. Can you cite sources to corroborate? AFAIK, Coleco just used off-the-shelf parts for the CV, and made their own BIOS to "glue" everything together. Also, the CV was very similar to the MSX computer and the SG-1000, so it's surprising that Nintendo wanted to market a system that wasn't all that different from the competition in Japan...

 

Also, I read somewhere that the NES was actually designed by someone in America, and Nintendo bought it. I'd have to browse the net to determine where I read that...

[A Sprite]

It also is assumed that Nintendo and whoever they might have inked a deal with would still have been the gaming juggernaut they were during that time period.

 

How would it have affected the current console lineup? I think only one way...and that's that Nintendo's marketer in the USA would have their name on the Wii.

 

Mattel destroyed Nintendo in Europe. Tonka destroyed the Master System in America. Atari shot itself in the face, sawed off it's limbs, then, just to make sure nobody made the mistake of continuing to buy it's products (how dare we!?) jumped off a cliff and blew itself up. Of the three, only Atari managed to survive into a second generation.

 

I think Nintendo would have decided to sell the Wii themselves.

[thomasholzer]

Funny turnaround though: MCA sued Nintendo and was gonna sue Coleco (King Kong=Donkey Kong), MCA was gonna buy or invest into Coleco instead. Coleco settled with MCA, Nintendo won the courtcase, MCA paid Nintendo damages, and MCA Video Games became LJN, making NES games.

 

Game Over the book says that Nintendo planned the Famicom from early 80s onwards but they examined and studied many other consoles to try to make their own the best.

Edited September 6, 2007 by thomasholzer

[Artlover]

Funny turnaround though: MCA sued Nintendo and was gonna sue Coleco (King Kong=Donkey Kong), MCA was gonna buy or invest into Coleco instead. Coleco settled with MCA, Nintendo won the courtcase, MCA paid Nintendo damages, and MCA Video Games became LJN, making NES games.

Nintendo didn't win persay, the case was thrown out on the basis "kong" was a generic term that MCA had no exclusivity to.