Game Dev Quote of the Week: Playing For Quarters Edition

Posted by Rampant Coyote on February 7, 2014

I love digging out the old quotes about video games from the 80s and 90s. So much has changed, and so much seems quaint in retrospect, but the fundamental truths are usually still there once you strip out the technology and assumptions of the era. This one comes from the 1996 Computer Game Developers’ Conference (before it changed its name to GDC).

“The difference between home and coin-op games is simple, but it is critical to understand, because it overshadows everything else there is to say about this subject. It won’t really matter how many polygons your hardware can generate, how much (or little) blood you splash, how beautiful your cabinet packaging is, nor how much you spend on advertising– the bottom line always comes down to fun. (Coupled with proper tuning, of course.) In the home game world, many purchases are the result of advertising which leads the consumer to believe the game will be fun to play. In coin-op, where only extensive repeat play can justify the game’s existence, the appeal of the game must speak for itself. When a home game is sale is made, the customer hands over $50, whether or not s/he ends up enjoying the game. When a coin-op sale is made the customer puts up 50 cents. If s/he didn’t have fun, that’s all the money you are going to get from him / her. Operators will not, cannot, buy games which earn this poorly. And news on how games earn always gets around in this business.

“And what’s more, the customer must begin having fun immediately, without consulting any rules – sensing what to do intuitively. He cannot be made to feel intimidated or frustrated, and must want to pay to continue after playing for only 2 or 3 minutes. The challenge offered by the game must increase as the player’s skill increases, constantly balancing on the fine edge between frustrating him by killing him too quickly, and allowing him to live too long on a  credit, which will reduce the game’s earning power. It is challenging, expensive, and extremely risky, but also potentially rewarding beyond measure to be a coin-op video game developer.” — Jeff S. Brown, CGDC, 1996

To be honest, I really don’t know Mr. Brown’s credentials. He seemed knowledgeable about the business, though. I don’t know if he realized just how badly the coin-op arcade game business was drying up (although he did mention how 7-Eleven had recently announced it would no longer have arcade machines in their stores).

But aside from being a snapshot of history, there are some pieces that are still very true – particularly in markets where the “race to the bottom” in terms of pricing has now become a wasteland of free games begging for small change once you play them. But even above that fray, there’s still a lot less emphasis on up-front purchases. I think this situation may have some parallels to the old coin-op industry, except you have an even tougher time getting noticed. The same may apply to those of us doing the traditional demo / full version model.

Even the whole “living too long on a credit” idea, sadly, has a parallel in the “pay to win” side of the game monetization fence. I think the arcade games handled it a bit more honestly, but that’s just me.

The key points I pulled out, though, may sometimes be difficult to apply to certain genres (like RPGs), but still entirely valid goals for a designer to pursue:

1. Players need to be able to play without reading instructions. (*sigh*)

2. Players need to start having fun immediately – at least by the time 2-3 minutes have elapsed

3. Prevent players from feeling frustrated  or intimidated by the game.

4. Make a game that keeps a player entertained and challenged for every minute of play, so that if it *were* a coin-op, people wouldn’t ever want to quit pumping quarters into it. While it’s okay to have logical break-points where the player can save their game and come back tomorrow, designers should endeavor to keep the minute-by-minute gameplay fun, challenging, and varied.

 

Filed Under: Quote of the Week - Comments: 6 Comments to Read



top