Computer games, and market share, through the 1980's

[Streck]

I'm sure some of you are aware of the excellent Computer Gaming World archive, but for those of you that aren't, there it is. It has many amazing snapshots of computer gaming history, some of which challenge popular notions of what gaming was like, which games were the most popular, and which companies ruled the roost.

 

For many years, CGW published a little poll of its readers called "Reader Input Device," hidden away at the very end of the magazine. I thought I'd share a few excerpts.

 

 

July-August 1982

 

Apple II users easily dominate the readership, with Atari a healthy second. The TRS-80, despite having basically no graphical capability, is decently represented. Wizardry is the big hit, and Strategic Simulations has more titles in the list than any other publisher:

 

 

 

July-August 1983

 

A year later, Atari has caught up fast, now just 10 percentage points behind Apple. Note that the Commodore 64 has been out since January of 1982, but has yet to catch on with CGW's readership. I've also included CGW's explanation of their rating system:

 

 

Despite Atari's increased presence among readers, Apple is still the platform for most of the titles that they like. The winner is still Wizardry, and second place is a text adventure! Reflecting the reader demographic, chess is in a respectable sixth place. In addition to SSI and Avalon Hill, you see other well-known companies like Epyx and Broderbund asserting themselves:

 

 

 

May-June 1984

 

Seven years after its introduction, the Apple II has finally fallen, as Atari edges it out. The Commodore 64 is beginning to show a presence. CGW has also included information on the age and spending habits of its readers:

 

 

The list of hit games is showing increased diversity in platforms, though Apple still has an extremely strong presence. You see a few C-64s and IBMs, and the TRS-80 has vanished (except possibly where it is covered by "Many"). Ultima has displaced Wizardry, and the second and third-place games have nothing at all to do with the Apple II, though Archon would be ported later. Note how SSI has been pushed further down the list compared to 1982 - traditional wargames are very slowly being supplanted by other genres:

 

 

 

January 1988

 

We finish at 1988. The heterogenization of gaming platforms is complete; Apple, while still around, is now little more than an additional platform to which a game can be ported, if its publisher feels like it. "Many", IBM, and Commodore are everywhere. You also see the Amiga and the Mac. This is an exciting point indeed - it is impossible to have one computer and expect to play all the hits. PCs running MS-DOS are years away from winning out as the computer gaming platform of choice.

 

CGW apparently decided that gaming could be split up into only two genres: strategy and action-adventure. Though SSI still has a formidable presence in strategy, other companies nip at its heels. The top three "action-adventure" games are all RPGs, the big three: Ultima, Wizardry, and Might & Magic. In fact, only three of the top ten action-adventure titles aren't RPGs.

 

Also note: for the top ten strategy titles, there were 458 respondents total. For the top ten action-adventure titles, there were 544 respondents. As we know, non-strategy titles will continue to become more and more popular in later years, and today, many of them have left the PC for consoles, while strategy games stay snugly in their original home.

 

 

Questions? Comments? Angry rebuttals? I'd be very interested to hear opinions on the causes of all these trends - or on whether I've even identified trends correctly.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Streck

[high voltage]

Starting in 1981 CGW was the best US strategy (gaming) mag.

I remember them trying to cover consoles, especially NES, after a few issues dropping it, saying consoles are way inferior where (real) gaming is concerned.

Edited September 1, 2010 by high voltage

[carmel_andrews]

The upshot of all that is....retro computing and gaming is where it's at...who needs modern tat

[BydoEmpire]

Wow, it's really cool to see those charts change over the years. Thanks for posting. Great times for computer gaming.

[Streck]

I was surprised to see that it took so long for the Commodore 64 to establish itself in the computer gaming market, until I remembered that the Apple II came out in '77 and didn't really start to dominate until '81 or so, as programmers figured out how to exploit the hardware. And since the Atari 800 didn't come out until '79 (and didn't have nearly the level of documentation that the Apple had), I suppose it makes sense that it would have lagged behind for quite a while despite having superior graphics and sound.

 

It's also cool to see how quickly the various computer-gaming genres appeared, once designers/programmers (often the same people, I guess!) realized what the platforms were capable of. So many highly inventive games that weren't just adaptations of board games, and beyond what was possible on the consoles of the time.

Edited September 2, 2010 by Streck

[Bill Loguidice]

I was surprised to see that it took so long for the Commodore 64 to establish itself in the computer gaming market, until I remembered that the Apple II came out in '77 and didn't really start to dominate until '81 or so, as programmers figured out how to exploit the hardware. And since the Atari 800 didn't come out until '79 (and didn't have nearly the level of documentation that the Apple had), I suppose it makes sense that it would have lagged behind for quite a while despite having superior graphics and sound.

 

It's also cool to see how quickly the various computer-gaming genres appeared, once designers/programmers (often the same people, I guess!) realized what the platforms were capable of. So many highly inventive games that weren't just adaptations of board games, and beyond what was possible on the consoles of the time.

 

It's important to keep in mind, however, that this is not necessarily reflective of the industry at large, just a sub-section specific to the magazine's readership. The best selling computer into the early 1980's was not the Apple II, but the TRS-80, though the Apple II's library still beat out the TRS-80's. In regards to the Atari 400/800, true, when released in 1979, they had audio-visual superiority (though the early software didn't necessarily reflect this), but they were not priced nearly as low as they would come to be by the mid-80's, which didn't help their momentum. Beyond the C-64 having the relative total package (64K RAM, excellent sound and graphics), it's quickly dropping price (due to Commodore's supply chain advantages back then) was a major factor in its success and in ushering other popular computers (like the TI-99/4a) out of the market (not the mention the also-rans).

[Streck]

I was surprised to see that it took so long for the Commodore 64 to establish itself in the computer gaming market, until I remembered that the Apple II came out in '77 and didn't really start to dominate until '81 or so, as programmers figured out how to exploit the hardware. And since the Atari 800 didn't come out until '79 (and didn't have nearly the level of documentation that the Apple had), I suppose it makes sense that it would have lagged behind for quite a while despite having superior graphics and sound.

 

It's also cool to see how quickly the various computer-gaming genres appeared, once designers/programmers (often the same people, I guess!) realized what the platforms were capable of. So many highly inventive games that weren't just adaptations of board games, and beyond what was possible on the consoles of the time.

 

It's important to keep in mind, however, that this is not necessarily reflective of the industry at large, just a sub-section specific to the magazine's readership. The best selling computer into the early 1980's was not the Apple II, but the TRS-80, though the Apple II's library still beat out the TRS-80's. In regards to the Atari 400/800, true, when released in 1979, they had audio-visual superiority (though the early software didn't necessarily reflect this), but they were not priced nearly as low as they would come to be by the mid-80's, which didn't help their momentum. Beyond the C-64 having the relative total package (64K RAM, excellent sound and graphics), it's quickly dropping price (due to Commodore's supply chain advantages back then) was a major factor in its success and in ushering other popular computers (like the TI-99/4a) out of the market (not the mention the also-rans).

 

Yeah, I have to keep reminding myself about that when interpreting all this data. All we're really seeing here are the people that (1) cared enough about computer gaming to subscribe to CGW and (2) the subset of #1 that cared enough to mail back CGW's Reader Input Device. Plus there are more subtle demographics, like the probability that the people buying Commodore 64 systems and their games had a lower average income than Apple II buyers (a decently-outfitted Apple II was, what, $1200 in early '80s dollars?), and would therefore be less likely to spend the extra money for a CGW subscription.

 

I'm well aware, though, of the TRS-80's huge non-gaming popularity; heck, even the PET sold more units than the Apple II, in the early years. But it's remarkable that the Apple II managed to have the largest software library - gaming and non-gaming - despite its initial sales deficit.

Edited September 2, 2010 by Streck

[Bill Loguidice]

I'm well aware, though, of the TRS-80's huge non-gaming popularity; heck, even the PET sold more units than the Apple II, in the early years. But it's remarkable that the Apple II managed to have the largest software library - gaming and non-gaming - despite its initial sales deficit.

 

This is true. The Apple II series was never a sales bonanza, but it did have the advantage of being widely used in schools (eventually), being the easiest to expand of the original "big three" mass market systems (which includes the TRS-80 and PET), and having the cheapest (ironic for an Apple product) and most widely available disk drive option only one year after its initial release. I think those three factors combined with the fact that it had color graphics and sound (no matter how relatively primitive) made it a desirable development platform. This is why a "shocking" number of games and game series were originally created on and for the Apple II and ported to others afterward. So all of those factors beyond just straight sales certainly worked in the Apple II's favor. Certainly the raw popularity of the Commodore 64 did much to change this, but the Apple II series seemed to remain the dev platform of choice through roughly the latter part of the mid-80's (especially for many of the titles that we would consider that era's classics).

[desiv]

All we're really seeing here are the people that (1) cared enough about computer gaming to subscribe to CGW and (2) the subset of #1 that cared enough to mail back CGW's Reader Input Device.

 

True, not sure how many C64 gamerz bought CGW...

 

Now, if CGW was electronic at the time and could be pirated/copied and THOSE people responded to the form, I think all the top games would be pirated C64 games...

 

desiv

Edited September 2, 2010 by desiv