Author Archive

Branded From Birth

Posted May 21, 2007 By Earl Green

Pattie’s recent mention of the latest marketing tendril (tentacle?) to snake outward from Disney’s “Princesses” franchise struck a nerve with me. You see, I’m going to become a dad myself this fall, and even though I’m going to be spending the next few years learning baby talk and then trying to transition that into what I hope will become a solid and fluent grasp of English for my child, I’ve already been mentally filing away “lesson plans,” for lack of a better way to put it, for later, once we’ve (hopefully) established the roots of a command of English. One of the topics burning a hole in the back of my brain is trying to create some sense of awareness of marketing, and a sense of discipline and skepticism about it.

I doubt I’ll have much luck anytime before age 10 or so, of course. I remember what I was like as a kid (and what I’m like now, too, being essentially a big kid, depending on who you ask). I was four when I saw Star Wars for the first time, and five when the figures hit the stores. Oh yeah, baby. I was all over that. My young life (and, therefore, my parents’ budget) hinged on the availability of plastic wookiees and droids. (If I’m to be quite honest, my plastic-wookiee-and-droid lust didn’t abate until after I’d gotten a couple of handfuls of Episode III figures.) I have no doubt my kid’s going to be the same.

But something to keep in mind about my formative years is that the Star Wars marketing story was a bolt-from-the-blue success that nobody expected; certainly not 20th Century Fox, which allowed Lucas to hang on to the merchandising rights for himself, as they figured there was no value in it for them. These days, stuff isn’t just marketed heavily toward children – it’s marketed downright insidiously. While shopping for baby bedding a few weeks back, I snuck a glance at toys aimed more at toddlers – well over a year before I’m even going to need to be thinking about such things – and I was stunned. There have been toy cash registers since I was a wee tot myself, but not with slots to swipe a big plastic credit card. And not just any big plastic credit card, but a plastic credit card with the official Visa logo on it.

Oh, I don’t. Even. Think so.

I had already been looking at the world in a new light, having just recently found out that we’re expecting a boy, and I was already re-examining things like cartoons and children’s programming (and their various and sundry tie-ins) with a new, more skeptical eye. I’ve seen my niece’s collection of Disney princess-related gear grow steadily too, and I’m becoming aware that I’m going to be fighting the opposite number of that trend – one fueled more by testosterone than frills and fantasy. I don’t want to raise my child to be naive, but I don’t want him to be a bully either. There’s got to be a balance. But let me stray a little bit closer to the original point.

It seems that the folks marketing toward kids are sometimes ignoring the ramifications of their message in favor of getting their “brand” out there. When that brand-awareness-from-birth practice grows to include credit cards, I lose track of how many mental alarm bells go off. If you were standing next to me right now, you could catch a glint of red emergency “bubble lights” shining through my ears. Don’t get me wrong, credit cards are tools like any other, capable of helping one in a tight spot, and just as capable of being misused. But the idea that the major credit card vendors are stamping their official logos on toys, and sponsoring educational initiatives on money, aimed at the grade school crowd, the phrase “fox guarding the henhouse” springs instantly to mind, even with all of the acclaim that these efforts have won. It strikes me as being almost as laughable as the Philip Morris company’s bluster about sponsoring anti-smoking education – because all you have to do is watch an hour or so of television to see that Visa and others of their ilk are flying in the face of their own “lessons,” with one recent TV ad campaign – set to the tune of Petula Clark’s “Downtown” – all but coming right out and saying that if you’re feeling just a little blue, get out there and run up that credit card balance. Buy stuff. Feel better.

At least the tobacco companies are barred from getting their counter-education onto the public airwaves.

Even though I know I’m probably a good three years early on this, I guess my question is, to any other parents out there, how do you fight this? Everyone from major credit card vendors to fast food restaurants have already figured out how to get their names and their logos and their products under kids’ noses at school, when we can’t be there to point out the alternatives or the downsides. College age kids are having credit cards pushed to them as soon as they’re on campus, if not before.

I realize that schools seem to be under-funded just about everywhere, making these sponsorships a necessary evil to some districts. And I’m not asking public schools to shoulder the entire burden of teaching fiscal responsibility (here’s an article that makes several good cases against that, in the context of the modern American public school classroom). The American way of life shouldn’t be mom, baseball, apple pie, and consumer debt in one big package – and we shouldn’t be relying on the schools to get that message across when they’ve fallen into the same trap of debt that the rest of us have at one time or another.

Sure, we can ask for policy reforms on this issue, but it doesn’t absolve us of the need to start doing the work at home. This is a case where it looks like we’ll have to reform ourselves to set a better example for our own children.

Real World Issues in the Virtual World

Posted February 9, 2006 By Earl Green

I found this article (link) to be fascinating reading, regarding an onling game publisher’s quick action to shut down a gay/bi/transgender-friendly “guild” in a popular massively multiplayer online game, and that publisher’s reaction (or at least what’s being portrayed in the article as their reaction) to be troubling. News flash: online gaming has a social component, and will inevitably bump into some social issues. I’m sure someone will no doubt be saying “But it’s a video game, and anyone signing on to play it should know that it’s almost certainly going to be a testosterone-fest for that very reason.” (I’m assuming that anyone who would say such a thing has never ever heard of The Sims.) Online games which breed communities will have to deal with this sort of thing sooner or later, and by silencing one group trying to provide a safe gaming haven for gay, bi or transgendered gamers within World Of Warcraft, Blizzard has, intentionally or not, implicitly given its sanction to those who would harrass them. It really demands the question “So what’s the message here?” Hopefully Blizzard can be given the benefit of the doubt and will rethink this, and hopefully they just got caught flat-footed on an issue they weren’t expecting to address. And before anyone gets on my case about liberalizing the electronic landscape, take the following into account, an issue uber-conservatives should love: if, as has been charged so many times in recent years, video games are responsible for the decline of our society and for turning kids into killers, shouldn’t we be trying to police this before online harrassment turns into real-life violence…even though we’re talking about a game about hacking and slashing orcs?

Some sadistic part of me wonders why they’re banning any political or other select stripes of social interaction within the game. Just think about it. I’d rather have people who can’t let their political/social/religious differences drop beating each other up in the virtual realm rather than doing their worst to each other in real life. That way I could keep on not playing Warcraft and the real world would be a much nicer place.

Overall, though, I think the heart of the matter boils down to something even simpler:
Earl's comic

We Interrupt This Broadcast…

Posted December 5, 2005 By Earl Green

ABC News reports tonight that the 9/11 Public Discourse Project Final Report on 9/11 Commission Recommendations has handed failing grades to the U.S. government on many points of its attempts to increase the nation’s security and stabilize other parts of the world. On page 3 of that document, however, I found this interesting:

Provide adequate radio spectrum for first responders – F (C if bill passes)
The pending Fiscal Year 2006 budget reconciliation bill would compel the return of the analog TV broadcast (700 Mhz) spectrum, and reserve some for public safety purposes. Both the House and Senate bills contain a 2009 handover date — too distant given the urgency of the threat. A 2007 handover date would make the American people safer sooner.

Could it be that the constant attempts to consolidate media ownership in America (link leads to an article I originally wrote in the Not News forums in May 2003) might be backfiring on the government itself? The thought that we’re waiting for the continually-delayed NTSC-to-HDTV cutoff date to take hold before doing anything about allocating emergency communications spectrum, or researching alternative communication frequencies or methods, is frankly ludicrous. That’s like saying we’re going to wait until ten million people are driving hybrid cars before we look at the problem of dependency on foreign fuel sources.

The problem lies with the FCC, and with the erosion of ownership regulations. The FCC continues to move the HD start date back because, and this isn’t a bad reason, the realization is sinking in that HDTV is not going to be something everyone can afford anytime soon. And of course, the major media companies are loathe to give up their chunks of the standard-definition broadcast spectrum, because they’re not going to be able to command the advertising sales figures they need to keep the doors open by broadcasting only to the narrow demographic of “people who have been able to afford an HDTV set.” And you better bet that the bigger these media conglomerates are, the more likely they are to have real lobbying power with Congress and the FCC that keep sliding the HDTV switchover date back…and back…and back. It’s not going to happen in 2007. I’ll be amazed if it happens in 2009.

We’ve backed ourselves into a commercial and legislative corner. And we’ve gambled part of our national security on a deadline that has been pushed back several times. The answer isn’t to force broadcasters to give up their frequencies, however – the answer was to find a more feasible, less pie-in-the-sky solution that wasn’t at the mercy of so many other uncontrollable forces.

Chester

Posted December 1, 2005 By Earl Green

So, at about 2:30 this morning, I was standing in the parking lot at work, appraising a very low right front tire on my car. I’ve been having odd experiences lately along these lines – tires just suddenly showing up next-to-flat after being just fine when I last saw them mere hours ago. Anyway, I was trying – with, it must be said, a great degree of futility – to pump air back into the thing for the trip home when someone said “Excuse me, sir,” right behind me, which, in a not-at-all well-lit parking lot at 2:30am, has a tendency to make one jump three feet out of one’s skin, which I then proceeded to do.

Once I was resituated (and reskinned), I saw the African-American man standing behind me with a knapsack that had seen better days. He told me his name was Chester, and he needed a ride to the Motel 6, which is halfway across Fort Smith, which I was preparing to at least attempt to leave (in the opposite direction, no less). I was just a little bit skeptical, because I could smell that he’d been drinking. For some reason he then showed me his driver’s license – an Arkansas driver’s license with a New Orleans address. Things became somewhat clearer.

I was worried about the tire – this would be an extra 10 or so miles’ round trip that it would have to endure before hitting the interstate for half an hour to take me home. All things considered, it wasn’t going to have enough air in it either way. If I couldn’t make it home, I could call my wife (who would naturally be overjoyed at having to get out of bed to come rescue me), or I could call a co-worker or two (same scenario, only I don’t have to live with them), or worst case scenario, I could hoof it back to the station and spend the night there. If I didn’t help this man, he’d be walking for an hour, and he’d be walking right past the mall, in whose parking lot the police congregate at night. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with our police, but a lone black man with alcohol on his breath, on foot…I didn’t give him good odds on reaching Motel 6 instead of the drunk tank.

I thought the air in my tire was better spent on this man than on me, so off to Motel 6 we went. It was quite a lively conversation, about how the government actually had been taking care of him but he didn’t have transportation back to his room from a friend’s house (some friend, I thought silently), and how much he likes this area. And how much he wants to go home, even though he understands full well that the geographical location he knows as home bears little resemblance to what he remembers as “home.”

We drove past the mall parking lot, where there were something like half a dozen cop cars gathered in close proximity. I’d make a crack about our tax dollars being hard at work, but the mall parking lot is a fairly central location to all points of the city – unlike the downtown police station.

Finally, I dropped Chester off, gave him half of what was left of the pizza I had delivered to me at work tonight, wished him the best of luck and told him to keep the faith. I don’t think anyone’s ever thanked me that much for five miles’ worth of driving. I could’ve felt pleased with myself, but I also know that Chester’s just one man. And I’m quite sure most people wouldn’t have taken well to how he and I were introduced – 2:30 in the morning, surprised by a man you’ve never met before. (And hey, feel absolutely free to tell me I’m nuts for giving a ride to a total stranger – who had been drinking, no less – at 2:30 in the morning. I’ll admit that this may be at least partially a result of that so-called southern hospitality that people keep claiming we have down here.) There are a lot of Chesters (and Chesterettes) out there. Some of them, I’m sure, have children, spouses, and no way to get from point A to point B.

I could feel proud of myself for helping, but it was just one guy. There are so many more like him, in the same predicament. A lot of them are here – Arkansas took in more evacuees from the Gulf Coast than any state other than Texas. As their “temporary” displacement has become rather more permanent, I’ve heard stories of the novelty of charity wearing off, and some residents feeling that the displaced have outstayed their welcome. Decreased media coverage doesn’t mean that the crisis is over – if anything, when people relax their guard like that and we stop actively helping one another, that is in fact when the crisis begins in earnest.

There’s so many of them out there. And only one of me. And at some point I have to stop letting that drive me absolutely crazy and direct that energy toward doing something about it.

For what it’s worth, whether you want to ascribe it to karma, good luck, the grace of God, or the power of vulcanized rubber, my tire got me home just fine. And I can’t help but wonder how Chester’s going to get from point A to point B tomorrow.

How Not To Worry And Love The Armed Nut

Posted July 1, 2004 By Earl Green

I guess it has now been my turn to be in on the latest craze, Some Stupid Guy Going Nuts And Grabbing A Gun To Solve All His Problems. I had a doctor’s appointment on a Wednesday morning in March 2001, for which I needed to wear shorts. I planned to go back to my apartment around lunchtime and change clothes so I could go to work.

I couldn’t get into the north entrance of my apartment complex, as the driveway I have to take to get home was blocked off by lots of cars, including some police cruisers. I went the long way around to the south entrance, and found my way blocked there too. I tried to reach my apartment on foot, and met up with a police officer who told me in no uncertain terms to stay away, that there was an armed nut on the loose somewhere in the apartments.

This alarmed me. My wife was at work, but it was common for me to raise the blinds on a couple of windows in our apartment so our three cats could curl up in the window sill and catch the sights and sounds of the outside world, which we didn’t really allow them to see otherwise. If someone was looking for targets, or worse yet a hiding place to break into, that might have made an inviting sight for him. Read the remainder of this entry »

Weddings, Parties, Anything, Anyone

Posted June 1, 2004 By Earl Green

VH1 has recently been running a behind-the-scenes special on the making of Fleetwood Mac’s eagerly anticipated 2003 studio album, Say You Will. The album itself was generally well received, though that’s not much of a surprise given the veteran rock group’s enormous fan base. Many of those fans were overjoyed to see the reunion of the group with Lindsey Buckingham, the creative powerhouse whose departure after the 1987 album Tango In The Night left them wondering if there could be a Fleetwood Mac without him. What seems to have been forgotten in the interim is that there was, in fact, a Fleetwood Mac without Lindsey Buckingham. And there had been before.

Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks joined Fleetwood Mac several years into the band’s life. Stinging from the departure of moody guitar genius Peter Green, the core members – Mick Fleetwood, John McVie and Christine McVie – took on the California duo who had created something of an underground hit with their self-titled Buckingham Nicks album (and maybe that catchy combination of their surnames to create their identity found some resonance with Fleetwood and the McVies as well). Buckingham and Nicks were a couple at the time, and their addition to Fleetwood Mac propelled the band’s self-titled 1976 album to acclaim and, more importantly, airplay. But in the wake of that album, Buckingham and Nicks’ relationship deteriorated (as did the marriage between John and Christine McVie), and the resulting hard feelings informed 1977’s Rumours, still considered by many to be Fleetwood Mac’s magnum opus. And it’s the success of that album that has created, in the minds of many, the picture of the Buckingham/Nicks/McVie/Fleetwood/McVie lineup as the definitive Fleetwood Mac.

Buckingham was eager to avoid doing, as he frequently put it, “Rumours II,”and spent the group’s next two studio albums carving out an increasingly experimental niche in rock music. When Buckingham departed in 1987, the rest of the group auditioned for the best of the best, finally hiring two well-regarded sessions players who were both guitarists, vocalists and songwriters in their own right. The product of the new recruits was 1991’s Behind The Mask. Somehow, Mask – despite ample airplay and curiosity from even casual fans about how Fleetwood Mac sounded minus Buckingham – didn’t soar to the best-selling heights of its predecessors. Then Bill Clinton adopted “Don’t Stop” (from Rumours) as the theme for his 1992 Presidential campaign, and when he won the vote, asked Fleetwood Mac – with Buckingham – to perform at his Inaugural Ball. (Money, it seems, couldn’t keep the band together, but a Presidential decree could.) With Buckingham, and without Behind The Mask recruits Billy Burnette and Rick Vito, the Mac was back, and a major tour (and, consequently, a best-selling live album) ensued. Read the remainder of this entry »

Opening the Barn Door

Posted April 1, 2004 By Earl Green

It’s easy for city folk like us to laugh heartily at the antics resulting from taking a couple of millionaire heiresses and dropping them into the middle of a farm community. I have to admit, I passed up my opportunity to watch The Simple Life on Fox, but it had more to do with my general dislike of reality shows than anything. I didn’t know who the show’s two stars were, but I was more than aware of the nearby city of Altus.

Where the actual so-called simple life is concerned, though, I can more than relate to being a fish out of water. The thought of being a part of that life never occurred to me until one evening in 1998, when the woman who wasn’t even yet my fiancee’ asked me if I wanted to be part-owner of a horse. Quite innocently, my response was, “Which part?” Curiously enough, she didn’t press the matter further. (I thought it was a valid question.)

Now, six years later, I’m married to her. And I’m not the part owner of a horse. I’m the owner of four horses. And our four horses live on my in-laws’ farm with about sixteen or seventeen other horses. On Sundays, to pay off the “debt” incurred by having my wife’s parents board and feed our critters, we show up early in the morning and often stay until late that night to feed the horses, haul hay, clean stalls, do some grooming, and generally admire their beauty. Read the remainder of this entry »

Game Over. Start Again? – Part 3

Posted December 1, 2003 By Earl Green

…and Burn

Late 1984 and 1985 belonged to the home computer market, and the handful of software makers that had survived the crash. But the industry wasn’t dormant. In 1983, Nintendo had made a splash in its native Japan with the Famicom game console – short for Family Computer. Vastly ahead of anything in the American market with its processing power, the Famicom seemed like a shoo-in for the American market until the crash happened. Nintendo initially approached Atari to market the Famicom in the western hemisphere, and at first, it seemed like a done deal – both sides were eager to join forces.

Then one of the biggest decisions in the entire history of the business of video games took place, signaling the rise of one company and the fall of the other – and all because of a misunderstanding.

At a 1984 Consumer Electronics Show, Atari and Nintendo were close to inking the Famicom distribution pact. Very close. As a show of good faith, Atari had received rights to translate Nintendo’s games for the U.S. home computer market, and the future looked bright – until Atari executives noticed a new version of Donkey Kong running on an Adam computer at Coleco’s booth. Infuriated, they confronted their counterparts at Nintendo, who threatened to yank the home console rights out from under Coleco. By the time the misunderstanding was settled, there had been a changing of the corporate guard at Atari, and the deal was off. Nintendo was on its own, and by the time it made it to market with the American version of Famicom – now called the Nintendo Entertainment System – U.S. investors and consumers had turned a cold shoulder toward the video game business.

Through a series of brilliant marketing maneuvers, such as including a remote-controlled robot called R.O.B. with the system and selling the resulting package as a toy, Nintendo broke into the market and kick-started a renaissance of the game industry. But it wasn’t about to let another crash begin: Nintendo clamped down on licensing and manufacturing rights, forcing anyone wishing to make games for the NES come to Nintendo to have the cartridges manufactured. Anyone circumventing the built-in security features which would allow only licensed software to run was swiftly and aggressively sued, including an Atari subsidiary, Tengen, which battled with Nintendo over the cartridge rights to a simple Russian puzzle game called Tetris. Nintendo won the battle, and the rest – including Tengen – was history. Read the remainder of this entry »

Game Over. Start Again? – Part 2

Posted November 2, 2003 By Earl Green

No, Really – It Can Be A Computer

With the debut of broadband internet multiplayer gaming via consoles such as PS2, Xbox and Gamecube, and the introduction of keyboard and mouse peripherals edging these game machines closer to being full-fledged computers, is it possible that the video game industry has finally made good on the long-standing pledge of convergence?

Don’t count on it.

The add-on keyboard and internet service may have caught the public eye when Sega brought them to the Dreamcast in 2000, but it wasn’t the first time, and almost certainly won’t be the last. The first add-on keyboards/game-to-computer upgrades actually date back to the underpowered Atari 2600. No fewer than three such peripherals were put on that market toward the end of that console’s life span, and other manufacturers tried to follow suit. Almost from the beginning, Mattel Electronics made “forward-looking statements” about the Intellivision becoming the core of a full-fledged personal computer system, but kept delaying the bulky keyboard module which would literally engulf the company’s game console. Before long, consumer complaints and truth-in-advertising advocates caught up with Mattel, and questions were asked in Congress and the halls of the Federal Trade Commission. To avoid hefty fines, Mattel rushed the Intellivision Computer Module to a somewhat limited market – and it did almost nothing that had been promised. But with a product at last delivered, Mattel was off the hook.

Another attempt by Mattel to make good on these promises was its purchase of a low-end computer/game console called Aquarius from a Taiwanese manufacturer. Aquarius burst onto the scene in 1983 with bright blue rubber keys, a casing that resembled a game console more than anything, a licensed-but-lobotomized version of Microsoft BASIC and a processor that had one of its software designers openly calling it “a computer for the 70s!” – not an auspicious start. Mattel added a peripheral of its own, the Mini-Expander, allowing Aquarius to play specially-programmed versions of such Intellivision games as Utopia and Tron Deadly Discs, though the graphics and game play of those titles paled in comparison even to their Intellivision versions. Aquarius tanked, and tanked hard. Mattel wound up begging out of its contract and selling its stock of the machine and related peripherals and software back to the Taiwanese manufacturer.

Coleco, which had won nothing but favorable press for its high-end Colecovision console (which included a near-perfect version of the arcade hit Donkey Kong with every machine), made a similar misstep with the introduction of its Adam computer. Arriving as both a stand-alone product and an expansion module so one could turn one’s Colecovision into a full-fledged computer, Adam was, like Aquarius, initially sold on the basis that it could play bigger, faster, better-looking games. A large software library was promised, but there was one problem – a large user base never quite materialized. Worse yet, many of the Adam computers that were sold turned out to be defective, and like Aquarius, the machine hit the stores just in time to be engulfed in the video game crash of 1983-84. Coleco hastily exited the game and computer business, finding great success in its next major product: Cabbage Patch Kids dolls.

Some companies did successfully launch companion lines of computer products, most notably the Atari 400 and 800 computers introduced in 1979, though they were incompatible with the 2600. But these computers only came after Nolan Bushnell sold Atari to Warner Bros. for millions. Earlier than that, Bushnell had listened to a pitch from one of his young employees; with his brilliant-minded engineer friend, this Atari worker had invented a new computer, and they thought Bushnell should buy the design from them and launch a line of Atari computers. Bushnell passed on the idea, instead pointing the two youthful inventors toward a source of venture capital – and together, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak launched the meteoric, personal-computer-industry-sparking success story of Apple Computer. Barely three years after turning down their pitch, Nolan Bushnell was kicked off the Atari board under the new Warner-owned corporate regime, and new CEO Ray Kassar ordered the creation of Atari’s first computers in an unsuccessful attempt to catch up with Apple.

Online gaming isn’t new either. Sega marketed modems for the Genesis console, but even before that there was talk of Nintendo turning the NES into the hub of its own network: imagine trading stocks, sending e-mail and ordering products online with the same “joypad” controller you just used to play a round of Super Mario Bros. 2! Those plans failed to materialize.

But even before that, an early precursor to online gaming hit the market for the Atari 2600. A memory cartridge and modem all in one, the Gameline peripheral would connect Atari owners to an online database of downloadable software – all for a monthly fee, of course. The only drawback was that the downloaded game held in the Gameline cartridge’s memory would be wiped the moment the console was powered down. Gameline met with minimal success, and its creators later turned toward the burgeoning home computer market, a demographic they felt would be more familiar with modems and downloads. Gameline later underwent a series of rather drastic changes in both name and structure, eventually becoming an upstart telecommunications service called America Online.

Sex and Violence

It seems like video games only make the news these days if there’s a major hardware innovation or if someone’s decided they’re corrupting the youth of the world. Blame for the Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, Colorado was all but laid at the feet of The Matrix and Id Software’s highly customizable first-person PC gun battle, Doom. Not long before that incident, games such as Mortal Kombat had also been singled out for violent content, and Night Trap, a full-motion video “interactive movie” released by Sega, had received bad press for violence and featuring women in skimpy clothing or lingerie. More recently, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City has been given a great deal of negative press for similar themes.

And once again, neither argument is new to the industry. The first protests against violent video games came during the infancy of the art form, thanks to 1975’s Death Race, an arcade driving game by Exidy which required one or two players to guide a pair of cars around a closed arena, running down as many stick figures as possible. Each figure “killed” would be marked by an indestructible grave marker afterward. Now, according to the game, these stick figures were zombies urgently in need of squishing. But it didn’t take long for Exidy to begin receiving complaints about the game, and Death Race even earned coverage in print news outlets and a report on 60 Minutes. Exidy wound up cutting the manufacturing run of Death Race short, and only 1,000 machines were produced. Atari founder Nolan Bushnell promptly made appearances, declaring that no such games promoting violence against human beings would ever be produced by Atari; in some ways, Bushnell’s timely play for press attention presaged similar maneuvers that Nintendo and Sega would use against one another during the vicious, backbiting Congressional hearings that eventually led to the modern video game rating system.

It took longer for the issue of sex in video games to appear, but it finally did in 1983. American Multiple Industries – actually an adult video vendor operating under a somewhat more respectable sounding name – released a series of adult-themed cartridges for the Atari 2600, starting with one which raised the most controversy of all: Custer’s Revenge. Players guided a naked American soldier across the screen, trying to avoid a stream of arrows, to reach an equally naked Native American woman tied to a pole on the other side of the screen; when the woman was reached, players hit the action button on the joystick to – as the documentation so euphemistically put it – “score.” The graphics were primitive enough that they were more laughable than erotic, but in this case it was the thought that counted – and both American Multiple Industries and Atari received numerous protests from the National Organization of Women, several Native American groups, and rape victims’ advocacy groups. Atari did its best to do damage control, pointing out that it had no control over its licensees’ game content. American Multiple Industries released a few more games, though none of them had quite the one-two punch of controversy that Custer’s Revenge carried, and shuttered its video game operations a year later when the home video game industry suffered a massive shake-out.

Crash

If the video game industry is cyclical in nature, with warm periods of public acceptance and cold gaps of public scorn, why did the crash only happen once? From a business standpoint, it only needed to happen once.

In 1983 and 1984, the home video game industry entered a steady but gradual decline. There were too many competing hardware platforms on the market, some of them by the same manufacturer: Atari software designers were frustrated that the company had refused to retire its biggest cash cow, the Atari 2600, on time. The 5200 was to be the next generation machine, but two major problems stifled it – months passed between the initial release of the console and an adapter that would allow new 5200 owners to play their old library of 2600 games. Colecovision hit the stores with such a peripheral already available, making it a no-brainer for Atari 2600 owners wishing to trade up. The 5200 was also killed by the still-profitable market for Atari 2600 games. A very few third-party manufacturers even bothered to create 5200 games – why should they when the 2600 had a far larger user base? Other consoles such as Intellivision and Odyssey 2 hung on for dear life, but they were niche systems whose user base consisted primarily of early adopters – i.e., few customers looking for a new game system bothered with those machines with a lesser market penetration, and fewer third-party software makers bothered to create games for them.

But the third-party game makers were more than happy to milk the Atari 2600 for all it was worth, hoping to ride the venerable workhorse of the video game industry straight to the bank. And this is where it all started to go horribly, horribly wrong.

In 1979, Atari lost a landmark case against the world’s first third-party video game software company, Activision. Initially, Atari had sued Activision’s four founding members – all ex-Atari employees – for misappropriation of trade secrets, but that case had been lost, and finally Atari failed to prove in court that Activision’s very existence was detrimental to Atari’s sales. At most, Atari was granted a license provision that sent small royalties its way anytime a third-part game company mentioned in packaging or sales materials that its games would run on Atari’s hardware – but that was all. The floodgates were open and anyone could make games for the Atari 2600 so long as the royalty was paid. Even if the games, to put it bluntly, sucked. Even if they were Custer’s Revenge.

To make a long story short, dozens of companies piled onto the 2600 bandwagon who had never shown any previous interest in the home video game business: 20th Century Fox, CBS, board game gurus Avalon Hill, Children’s Television Workshop (the makers of Sesame Street), and even companies hoping to tie up niche markets like Christian-themed gaming. Sega’s first home video game products were Atari 2600 cartridges. These dozens of companies produced hundreds of games, and to be charitable, many of them were substandard. (It should also be noted, however, that some of Atari’s in-house titles weren’t much better, as demonstrated by miserable adaptations of arcade games like Pac-Man and movies – namely E.T., five million unsold copies of which are buried in a New Mexico landfill.) As the consumer base shifted its weight toward home computers and high-end systems like Colecovision, Atari’s hangers-on began dumping games at bargain basement prices. Atari itself swore not to do the same, but eventually it had to – and the bottom dropped out of the stock value of virtually every video game company when it happened. Even arcade game manufacturers were caught in the undertow and went out of business.

Activision barely survived the wash-out of third-party software houses; its next closest competitor, Imagic, abandoned plans for an IPO, sold its intellectual property rights, and quietly folded. Many talented game designers found themselves out of work in a fledgling IT job market that thumbed its nose at “mere” game designers. As former Odyssey 2 programmer Bob Harris said, “I made a conscious decision to get out of video games because I would have to move to California to stay with it, which I couldn’t afford, and I was scared by the negative view game work was given when I interviewed outside the game industry. I started looking for other jobs, I remember that the general attitude I seemed to run into was ‘so, you’ve been programming games, and now you want a real job.’ It came as a little slap in the face, because the real-time aspects of game programming were more challenging than most other programming jobs I’ve had since.”

Somewhat eerily predicting the dot-com boom and bust, the video game market was brought to its knees. Programmers were out of jobs en masse. Speculators hoping to hop aboard for a sure thing were left in bankruptcy proceedings. The Atari 2600 and other system hardware and software was dumped onto the market at fire sale prices, if stores could be convinced to keep selling them at all. For all intents and purposes, the American video game industry was dead.

Coming up in part three: the video game industry resurrects itself with a different set of rules, and comes full circle. Thought the classics were old hat? Game over. Start again.

Game Over. Start Again? – Part 1

Posted June 1, 2003 By Earl Green

It began with two squares and one straight line. An entire industry grew from those inauspicious beginnings which would eclipse the music and movie industries in revenue and define whole generations. Video games are nothing new – in fact, they’re probably older than you think. And most of the controversy surrounding marketing the games is also older than you think – almost as old as the industry itself.

The story begins in the Brookhaven National Laboratory, where the need for a user-friendly public demonstration of a massive new room-filling computer system led programmer Willy Higginbotham to create a simple video ping pong game called Tennis For Two. Played not on a television monitor but an oscilloscope, this early precursor to Pong was created in 1958 – truly the first video game, even though it was part of a free public display and not for sale. In 1961, several budding hackers at MIT, led by Steve Russell, created a game called Spacewar on the somewhat less massive PDP-1 minicomputer. Still a hulking mainframe of a computer, the PDP-1 was manufactured and sold to many colleges, and Spacewar became a kind of killer-app demonstration of the machine’s abilities, distributed free of charge. Read the remainder of this entry »