• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    I think the problem was a lack of foresight about the potential of the technology because of limited awareness of what was going on at the time. If you had looked over at games for computers that weren’t affected in the crash like the Apple II, you’d see that they were gaining increasing complexity. But, of course, a lot more kids had, at the very least, a pong console in their home by 1982, so this person probably was only familiar with those cheap 2600 games.

    • Beefalo@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Even an Atari 2600 was too expensive for the average family in 1982, about $1000 in today money. The 80s were not a great economy for most people, Reagan’s fuckery and I believe really high interest rates thanks to 70s inflation meant that even the cheapest home console was wildly unreasonable. It was 1982. Colecovision was on shelves. Television was still a very pricey home luxury in 1982, not a universal yet, so never mind the game console. The VCR wasn’t really a thing yet. People were still using radio a lot at home. You could afford radio.

      Video games looked like they were always going to cost too much money to see really mainstream adoption. That thought isn’t even wrong, people just try harder to find the $1000 for a new console now, because it offers more. Sharon thought video games looked like shit, and she was right, they did. They didn’t look exciting, they just looked like a weird side technology.

      For her, video games were a thing in a dark corner of the amusement park, they were literally Pong, and cost quarters to play, 80 cents today, for a five-minute experience or a lot less.

      Pac-Man was the current gold standard of games in 82. Did kids like it? Sure. But remember Pogs? Fidget spinners? Those snap bands for your wrist? How many things have been wildly popular with children and then into the trash they go, forever? Did Pac-Man look like something that nobody would ever grow tired of, forever? Or did it look like an excuse to sell toys? Because it very much was, they sold a lot of Pac-Man toys and merch about it, just like the 80s cartoons that faded into obscurity once they were also done selling toys.

      Sharon didn’t have a lot of evidence before her that would show any other outcome. She couldn’t see 2023 while staring down at the Pac-Man quarter muncher at the local pizza shop in 82. It’s miserable, because a proper fad and the wave of the future both look the same in the present.

      Sharon was a “word processor” in 82, she was well ahead of the curve, working with computers - or at least their precursors - when most people hadn’t even seen one. Somebody shoves a mic in your face, asks for a quote, and you give them an opinion, which haunts your fuckin ghost decades later. Maybe five years later she thinks oh, I was wrong on that, but it’s too late now.

      This is why we don’t try to predict the future any more than we have to. Today’s information is never good enough.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think it kinda depended on your interests as well, my grandfather, great uncles, and great grandfather were all guessing that games would become a big thing. My grandfather even started to program his own by 83 sadly he passed in 84, but yeah they all gave an I told you so to their wives once wolfenstein came out. But these are also men who had pinball and arcade cabnits in their dens.