DoA Creator Says Online Is New Arcade

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to this interview with Dead Or Alive creator Tomonobu Itagaki at Gamespy. The discussion covers the forthcoming Ninja Gaiden, as well as the new Dead Or Alive Online title we've previously mentioned, but the most interesting part of the interview may be Itagaki's assertion that "When you look at arcade culture, it's pretty much dying. I feel that it needs to be replaced with something else, and that is online gaming. Online connects the homes around the nation to create an arcade-like experience without going to an arcade."

Comments

The New Arcade With More CHOICE

[Babbster]

The biggest problem with arcades, IMO, is the annoying people who inevitably show up ("I was waiting for that game," "Yes, those are my 15 quarters on the machine," etc.). Add into that the fact that arcade goers are always going to skew young, and we "old folks" (I'm 31) just aren't going to feel as comfortable in an arcade anymore.

While it's true that you can find as many kids and other annoying people online, you get to choose. You don't have to play against someone just because they happen to be there and you don't have to listen to someone's inane prattle if you don't want to (yummy Xbox Live mute button). Plus, you don't have to be stuck waiting in line for a machine to open up since every machine - or every two machines for online - is it's own arcade box.

Arcade culture as a byproduct of distribution

[cgenman]

Arcades have traditionally been a distribution medium for new software, not a cultural medium facilitating communication. While there were cultures of PacMan, Super Mario Brothers, and Q-bert players, the games were very solitary in nature. The lone guy with a row of quarters playing space invaders is a perfect example of this. Games in those days were single-player affairs on jamma-compatible boards, utilizing a 4 position joystick and two or (gasp) three buttons. Because such hardware was so expensive to own personally, people needed to go to the arcades to have the best play experience, and to play a wider variety of games.

That is no longer the case.

During the NES / SNES period, arcade conversions were getting to be "good enough" that one didn't really need to go to the arcade to play excellent games. While the 2600 may have choked on Pac Man (and don't even bring up Q-bert), the Genesis could reasonably approximate NARC, and the SNES did a great job with Teenage Muntant Ninja Turtles. It was during this time that arcades transitioned from distribution centers to competition centers, thanks in no small part to the phenomenon of fighting games. The 4-player TMNT: Turtles in Time and the 6-player X-Men were all hits in the arcade, as were a plethora of multiplayer shooting games, fighting games, and car racing games (polygons were an arcade-exclusive back then).

But that changed with the Voodoo 3dfx and the rise of the computer as a competitor to the console, as well as the coming of networked gaming. Not only were computers capable of delivering compelling realtime 3D to rival (though not, at the time, beat) arcade gaming, but it also could connect separate players to people across physical boundaries. At first this led to neighborhood games of Bolo, later to direct dial-up competitions, and finally to the remote multiplayer frag-fests and Massively Multiplayer Role Playing worlds we see today. The anonymous instant competition with strangers of similar skill levels previously provided by arcades is now available right at your desk. Likewise, the graphical advantage once held by arcade machines has eroded to nothingness... To reduce overhead the machines are based heavily on existing console and computer equipment, which in turn leads to low acquisition costs and very low porting expenses, but leaves little to differentiate the two platforms. Add in direct competition with rental industries, and you have very little reason to go to the arcade.

The arcade does remain, however, and with one last, best reason. Hardware. Light-gun games, dance mats, digital batting cages, etc are prohibitively expensive for the average person to afford, yet can provide fun and unique experiences. Likewise, they are intuitive enough to be picked up and used without instruction by the casual or incidental gamer, the kind that is not likely to have access to many other distribution options at home (consoles or up-to-date graphics cards).

Sadly, as a distribution medium the arcade is faltering badly, in no small part due to the inefficient economic model behind it. 'Core gamers often go to the arcade looking for the "latest and greatest" in entertainment, but find perhaps one or two first run games, with a smattering of older games they don't wish to play. This would be like a movie-goer wanting to see Die Another Day, but only being able to watch Tomorrow Never Dies because the movie house couldn't afford to buy a new reel of tape from the studios. Game distributers still sell boards to the arcade owners, who in turn try to recoup their investment from the gaming public. This is a very inefficient way of going about making the highest profit, as the distributers feed from the arcade owners, who (in their financially weakened state) attempt to feed upon the customers. But it is the customers who bring money into the system as a whole, and it is they whom both the producers and the providers should be focusing upon.

For example, a Capcom vs. SNK machine may lay dormant in an