> I don't see all the millions of very, very bad games killing the PC or mobile platforms
Firstly, unlike a PC or phone, an Atari 2600 isn't useful without games.
Secondly, without ubiquitous reviews freely available on the net, players essentially had to choose new games based on the name, box design, and copy.
Beyond that, the games weren't necessarily low-quality in the QA sense, i.e. sloppily manufactured or buggy-- most of them just sucked, were ugly, and weren't fun for your average player. Keep in mind, these weren't targeted at video game enthusiasts: they were competing with home video as an entertainment device. You have to compare their appeal with movies, rather than then-current computer games or maybe even board games.
I worked in back-end web dev roles for over a decade, but more recently got an art school education in design (concentrating in a few disciplines,) and work in games in both design and technical capacities. Many old Atari games suck because they're either fundamentally bad ideas as games or disastrously implemented. Video game design wasn't really a thing back then, so all of the design work ended up being done by the developer that made the game. Though many developers get annoyed by my saying that design is a learned skill that you don't automatically gain by being a developer, I assure you that not having any designers involved ensures that these games will be more miss than hit. To make matters worse, Atari's success essentially created a gold rush condition. Everyone who was technically capable of making a game was trying to-- probably not even realizing that's exactly what everyone else was doing. It was like 2000 people on a beach saw 3 talented people surfing a wave, so they all grabbed the nearest flat object and jumped in to disastrous effect.
Poor retail strategy was obviously a problem, as others have pointed out, but if people buying games could be reasonably assured they were good, I doubt it would have had any more effect than any other big retail miscalculation.
Firstly, unlike a PC or phone, an Atari 2600 isn't useful without games.
Secondly, without ubiquitous reviews freely available on the net, players essentially had to choose new games based on the name, box design, and copy.
Beyond that, the games weren't necessarily low-quality in the QA sense, i.e. sloppily manufactured or buggy-- most of them just sucked, were ugly, and weren't fun for your average player. Keep in mind, these weren't targeted at video game enthusiasts: they were competing with home video as an entertainment device. You have to compare their appeal with movies, rather than then-current computer games or maybe even board games.
I worked in back-end web dev roles for over a decade, but more recently got an art school education in design (concentrating in a few disciplines,) and work in games in both design and technical capacities. Many old Atari games suck because they're either fundamentally bad ideas as games or disastrously implemented. Video game design wasn't really a thing back then, so all of the design work ended up being done by the developer that made the game. Though many developers get annoyed by my saying that design is a learned skill that you don't automatically gain by being a developer, I assure you that not having any designers involved ensures that these games will be more miss than hit. To make matters worse, Atari's success essentially created a gold rush condition. Everyone who was technically capable of making a game was trying to-- probably not even realizing that's exactly what everyone else was doing. It was like 2000 people on a beach saw 3 talented people surfing a wave, so they all grabbed the nearest flat object and jumped in to disastrous effect.
Poor retail strategy was obviously a problem, as others have pointed out, but if people buying games could be reasonably assured they were good, I doubt it would have had any more effect than any other big retail miscalculation.