Ah, I see. Well, I believe that arcades were a draw up until the mid-90s because they could legitimately offer a superior experience to home consoles. To me it all comes down to the two separate points when home consoles equaled the graphical and gameplay abilities of the larger hardware, and also when online play really got better. Not perfect online, but playable.
So the way I look at it, it’s impossible to return to what was once the main draw of an arcade. What then has to be focused on is the rest of the arcade “experience”, which is much harder to define than simply better graphics and online play.
Here are a few things I think of when I think of the basic arcade “experience” beyond just graphics:
- the space of the arcade itself
- is it comfortable
- are the basic amenities in place (bathroom)
- does the space provide sufficient “escape” from your own home
- the immersive gameplay experience
- big hardware: sit down racers, cockpit games, etc
- control options that extend beyond normal “controllers”: steering wheels, basketballs, dance pads, complex cockpits, etc
- the social factor
- is this somewhere you want to socialize?
- is this a place where you can make friends and rivals?
I’m sure I’m forgetting something, but for now let’s tackle the list above.
The space of the arcade itself is all about design and feeling. It is one thing that the home cannot take away from the arcade, because it makes the arcade totally unique as a place to be. So as long as this space is functional, attractive, and kept up to date, then score one for the arcade.
Next, we have the big hardware. The games like those semi-truck races where you sit in the cab, or games like Time Crisis where you are interacting with controllers you are not used to. Even pinball machines have unique tactile controls. So the question is, is this unique tactile control going to bring in enough players to make it worth the thousands of dollars of investment per machine? Note that I’m including the experience of being inside a cockpit as a form of unique tactile control; unique in that it is something not easily replicated in the home (since technically someone could buy one of these machines for their home).
My answer to the question above is no. Unique tactile control is not enough to bring in the players to cover the expense of the machines. Perhaps if someone developed a full immersion virtual experience that you could only experience in an arcade building due to size/power/control constraints not able to be duplicated in the home, then that could be a draw. But as you point out, if arcades aren’t doing well now, then there is no incentive to add development dollars to produce new hardware.
You also point out that, “You’re not going to find a lot of people out there who wouldn’t rather just have the money in their pocket than lose it buying games that virtually nobody’s interested in.” You are absolutely correct, and this begs the question, why is there no interest? I really can’t answer this question, because it’s all about taste, lifestyle, and a multitude of other variables/reasons. My best guess is that a piece of arcade hardware is stuck doing one thing, for one game(s), in one style. So where is the idea/development that makes control a non-issue? Hardware that can act as any style of controller? In my opinion that technology had it’s roots in things like the EyeToy, and now it is being more fully fleshed out with the Xbox Kinect device. Kinect, in my opinion, makes big, bulky hardware obsolete. Big, bulky hardware may be fun for some people, but unfortunately it is not profitable in the big picture. And worse yet for arcade hardware, Kinect works right in your home with your current Xbox 360 home console.
In short, home console entertainment has reduced to near nothingness the advantage/draw of the arcade’s unique tactile control experience. Score one against arcades.
Our score now stands at 1-1, though the impact on the actual gaming experience discussed in the paragraphs above may make it seem more like 1-2 against arcades.
We are now left with the social experience. The first thing that comes to mind is online play, conversation over. I do not believe online play is the nail in the coffin. Instead, the social experience is where I see the most potential for arcades to survive and thrive. No matter how good online gets, it won’t be able to actually put your friends in your living room. It would then cease to be “online” play at all because you would be in person.
I believe the main draw (but probably not the only one) of online gameplay is convenience. It makes connecting with friends faster. It gives you the ability to more easily connect with people you do not know.
I obviously love analogies, so here I go. Why do people go to concerts when they can enjoy the music at home, or better yet, at home over an online connection with their friends? In my opinion it is the concert experience and all that entails. That is the draw. So arcades too must bump up the “experience”. Keep things up to date. Rely on home consoles and PCs if you have to. Invest what you can into unique tactile hardware, but focus overall on making the arcade a unique place to be.
I’d like to retract an earlier statement: arcades have to die. What I’d like to do is rephrase it: arcades have to evolve. Arcades must evolve beyond the idea that unique tactile experiences are their main draw for customers. Arcades have to embrace their unique space, flavor, style, and also the social experience. Arcades can do one thing that online cannot, and that is bring people together in a unique atmosphere centered on one of their favorite things, that being videogames. Arcades must give people a reason for wanting to leave their homes and pay money, and I now believe those reasons are mostly to be found in upgrading the social entertainment experience.
