Slashdot Mirror
State of the U.S. Arcade Industry 2004
Gamaroo writes "1up.com has posted an article on arcade game machines, the loss of the profit margin and the future of the industry. In their words: "There was a time when an arcade operator in America could buy a Ms. Pac-Man machine for less than $1,000, let it sit in an arcade, bar or storefront, and see that game make back over 30 times the initial investment. In 2004, that kind of profit margin is little more than a pipe dream.""
The door has swung the other direction. As a child, I wasn't the richest kid in town, and I didn't play arcade games much. It was a quarter a pop, and if you aren't much good (which you can't be without experience) your quarter doesn't last long.
I remember quite vividly getting my first nintendo, and how amazing it seemed that I could play Duck Hunt for half an hour with no line, and no quarters.
Why go back?
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
First of all, games cost more now because the systems are more complicated. If you could make 30 times the current investment back on some of the more expensive games now, it would amount to over $100k. Second, Pac-Man is arguably one of the greatest games ever created in terms of popularity. Hence the reason the "game" icon on /. is what else, but Pac-Man himself. How much has Tetris made? A ton. Is there still room for profit? Yes. Does every game generate the type of profit that Pac-Man or Tetris did/does? NO!
stuff |
I remember back in the day when I'd drop a few buckets of quaters at the arcade. I could probably retire if I had all those quarters back! Now with the increase in technology and such "large" games being condensed to compact disks one would almost think that arcades "should" be obsolete. The future of the industry has changed because the technology has changed. Much in the same way the courier business had to change it's entire model in the 80's due to the big boom of fax machines. While the arcade business may independantly suffer a loss it is the end consumer reaping the benefits. That is one of the things that makes technology so wonderful.
You probably remember him as the guy who seemed to live in the arcade and was always playing the cool new game that you really wanted to try out. Eventually, you'd get up the nerve to challenge him, but he somehow selected a secret character that wasn't available from the main screen, and proceeded to unleash every special attack under the sun to dispose of you in about three seconds. Then, he looked over, sneered, and let forth a sarcastic "good game."
I know the Fighting Game Master personally drove me out of the arcade and to the home consoles.
DecafJedi
my weblog: apropos of something
One of the reasons cited for arcade losses lately is that home consoles have comparable power to the arcade machines, meaning that there's little reason to go to the arcade when you can just play the same game at the comfort of home. It's one of the same market transitions that the MPAA fears like crazy.
...things like Mo-Cap Boxing, Martial Beat, and Police 911...and big-screen fighters.
I feel that's why Bemani games like Dance Dance Revolution and Drummania are so popular - They offer a unique experience that isn't easily recreated at home without a substantial hardware investment. Sure, you can buy softpads or metal pads for DDR, but the arcade is still where it's at for both ideal configurations and the social factor.
Everyone always says that console peripherals never sell well...So, perhaps the games needing the peripherals should be tried more in the arcade. What games are really popular in arcades? Silent Scope...Bemani titles
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
If they were able to run MAME cabinets with all of our fav games from the 80's, then they'd make some coins.
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
I can see why. I have no reason to go to the traditional arcade anymore. Between my PS2 and PC I have no urging to waste quarters at the arcade. To return to the arcade I need something different. Way back when the arcade offered better graphics and range of games. I want to see something I can't do at home, be it VR helmets/pods, floating holograms, or some other new fangled contraption.
--Gentoo Baby!
Likely because the games were actually FUN back then. Sure they were simple little platformers, but you could go for as long as you had the skill to survive. Not to mention the fact that everything now is almost a dollar or more to play for 2 minutes, thanks to timers and 'checkpoint' play there's just no way to feel satisfied out of the money you put in.
I'd gladly throw $20 or more at an old quarter arcade from the early 90's (and would gladly do so again if they had some today), but today's 'arcades' simply aren't. You have a few hulking machines taking up all the space because shooters need distance from the screen, driving games need chairs and such, and heaven knows what else (silent scope et al that need rediculously large gear).
Where $20 used to go 60-80 games (some games were $.50 *GASP!*), it'll now go maybe 15-20, and anything that's still the same old cabinet type is just a fighting game with no creativity or amusement to it at all. No thanks.
I completely agree. Nowadays, the only way arcade machines get my quarters are if they are "old-school" (childhood nostalgia value, from the golden age of arcades: Pac Man, Tempest, Galaga, Robotron 2084, etc.), or Golden Tee. Home console gaming lets me play my games on my terms when I want to. Arcades these days are full of genres I generally don't care for: driving (cars, boats, snowmobiles) or fighting games, which are three minute multi-button mash-fests.
As the article alludes to, the only way the arcade industry has any hope in the US is to add the online element, and especially a way to have the player feel like they are actually competitive within the game. There's no point to have a player ranking system where there's just no possible way I'll ever be better than 2324th place. A tiered system would really help to get the player more involved. I know I'd play a lot more if it got me from 24th place to 9th place, than if it got me from 2320th place to 1387th.
So, 25c machines with simple, yet addictive gameplay, and online action for more complex games are necessary for the arcade to survive beyond 2010.
I agree with you: the old school arcades rocked. There was nothing like standing in a dark smoky room with the sounds of video war being raged all around you. The real reason those places began to collapse though is not just becuase the games got more complex (any RPG beyond Cadash would never work in an aracde) but also becuase the atmosphere of those hole-in-the-wall arcades changed. You have a bunch of teenagers running around a darkened room, their pockets filled with cash. You just knew crime would become a problem and it did. The arcades began to be populated by gangs and older kids who would steal the cash off the littler kids. Arcades became a place were children should be afraid to enter. That's what led to the rise of the family arcade places (which were no fun for teenagers.) That's what probably hurt the arcades most - they became dangerous. Then gradually as the NES and the consoles began to not only match but outdo any game you'd find in the arcades (during the atari era the console games were cheesy compared to the arcades), people could no longer justify putting $50 in machines when they could just buy the carts. So one by one the places shutdown. The only thing keeping the arcade business running now, I bet, is the children who can't afford a console, the supermarket arcade machines (play video games while I shop), and the arcades that try to recapture the feel of what the arcades were in our youths (i.e. nostalgia).
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy