作者：Nolan Bushnell

70年代末至80年代初期的投币式电子娱乐业务每年能够赚取超过180亿美元的利益（衰败前）。而在长达10年的时间里，它一直处于停滞不前的状态，如今每年只能带来60亿美元的收益了。

但这种情况正快速改变着。实际上，我相信基于定位的娱乐有可能成为一个繁荣的200亿美元市场——在极其短暂的时间内。

互联网正推动着这一改变。通过提高给公众更加多样的娱乐，进行公平的定价，并疯狂地推广它，我们能够明确的一件事，也就是人们总是会热情欢迎的原因便是他们渴望获得乐趣。

Pong(from hebei)

自从1972年《Pong》诞生以来，电子游戏市场便一直快速发展着。“创造一款成功的游戏，你自然就能获得收益。”这一策略已经应用于主机电子游戏，独立PC游戏以及现在的家庭式在线游戏中。

在很大程度上，这一策略发挥了功效。但它在街机游戏中似乎走到了尽头，并在家庭式游戏中也逐渐接近极限。在本土化娱乐中，最重要的是根据特别的用户定制快速改变的娱乐包。而基于在线技术，我们能够做到这点。

比起只面向年轻人开发游戏，我们必须接触更多不同的用户。不管是旅行者还是经常住旅店的商人。是经常去星巴克的高端人士。还是在连锁餐厅和酒吧等拥挤的地方吃饭喝酒的人。

不到10%的典型酒吧顾客会玩游戏。现在成功的秘诀同样也包含游戏，通过电子邮件和聊天等方式进行交流，购物，比赛和音乐。每种定位都必须找到自己的消费者的正确组合。

我们需要一种全新的规则

我们已经为为何投币式游戏被淘汰想到了各种可能的解释：从技术角度来看，投币式玩具不如家庭式游戏出色—-包括每秒钟的多边形数量，实时光线追踪，每秒百万条指令等等；如果我们只拥有1美元的硬币的话，情况就……如果制作商只能创造出少量的游戏，创造出较便宜的游戏，但却不能迅速将游戏带进人们的家中，那么创造游戏的时间可能需要持续100多年；家庭游戏将取代投币式业务；所有的产业都需要一些热门的内容。

但这些论点似乎都不是很合理。如果投币式游戏需要非常优秀，为何《Megatouch》在过去几年里于酒吧中所挣的收益远超《Cruising》和《格斗之王》？如果硬币类型很必要，为什么高值代币却在每次尝试时都遭遇失败？在美国市场中唯一的亮点便是nickel街机。家庭式计算机市场在这一国家超过1亿的家庭中占据了1500个。在公共场所存在一个全新的世界，我们刚刚开始去发现它。

新规则

我们将改变想法去成就它。以下是我的秘诀：

游戏的价值必须变得更高或者它的成本需要减少。比起首映的电影成本（一小时7美元或3.5美元左右），游戏每个小时的娱乐需要花费24美元的成本；街机游戏玩家在每一款2.5分钟的游戏中需要消耗1美元。

投资回报率必须源于多种渠道，而不是一时的名气。尽管灾难预言者预测电视，VCR和电报将取代剧院，但如今电影产业却并未受到影响，总是能创造年度销量高水平。但我们需要注意的是，今年是哪些电影主导着奥斯卡电影节？是独立电影们。而不是高预算工作室的电影。1996年的最佳电影只花费了6个月的制作时间，并且平均每部电影的播放时间都不到2个小时。通过减少开发成本并适应独立游戏短期循环和较低回报的现实性，我们也走上了与电影同样的道路。

还有另外一个关于电影市场营销的例子—-季节性电影和假期电影的票价。例如，一款万圣节游戏在10月出获得下载但却在11月的第一周被抛弃，这是否是个糟糕的理念？

多样性是定位生活的调味料。为什么有些人在看到一样在公共场合只需花1/4的钱便能尝试的游戏后仍愿意花60美元去购买类似的软件游戏？如果这些1/4的钱可以购买10款新游戏而不是1款的话会怎样？在空闲时间里，多样性总是比价格来的重要。为什么现在这具有差别？也许是我们还未在街机游戏中看到足够多的多样性。

我们已经将娱乐带到了人类社交性最强大的地方。我经常旅行。我会在一些体育性酒吧看到游戏，而不是在饭店大厅里。我发现一些快餐店，咖啡馆和许多连锁店也没有游戏或其它娱乐设施。在大多数这些场所里，如果出现弹球机会让人觉得很奇怪，但如果我们能够使用触屏在这些地方玩游戏便不会奇怪。

你们应该记得，《Pong》是以一个木制盒的形态进入人们并不想要去炫耀怪物的图像或标识的场所。我发现今天的我们很难购买到能够在星巴克或美国联合航空登机口游玩的游戏。所以我们当前的产业是否能够满足较年长的用户群体的需求？

找到通向新收益的桥梁

现在，伴随着在线网络，娱乐提供者可以根据意愿去改变游戏，并找到最适合特定场所和用户基础的内容，并将它们置于能够带来最多收益的游戏中。比起随着时间的发展收益不断下降的一时兴起的游戏（游戏邦注：即像早前的街机游戏模式那样），我们将会发现如果能够适应每种场所，硬件也能像软件那样赚钱。

基于网络娱乐，穿越不同国家甚至是国际性活动（拥有一些一流的赞助商），广告以及基于定位的商品促销等等，收益流将不断增长。我们并不需要通过市场营销去吸引用户，我们只需要将娱乐带到他们频繁出现并经常消费去获取乐趣的场所便可。

消费者一直都存在着。我们也并不缺少为其创造娱乐的人才。但我们必须挑战自己，努力在下一波的定位娱乐中创造出全新的规则。

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转功，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

How arcade games have come, gone, and could come again

By Nolan Bushnell

The video coin amusement business in the late ’70s to early ’80s exceeded $18 billion annually before declining. It has been stagnant for over a decade, and today brings in only $6 billion a year.

But that is rapidly changing. In fact, I believe location-based entertainment has the potential to be a thriving $20 billion market — in a remarkably short time.

The internet is driving this change. By giving the public greater variety of entertainment, by pricing it fairly, and by promoting it like crazy, we can tap the one thing that people who frequent hospitality venues have in common — the desire to have fun.

From the time Pong came out in 1972, the video game market has been title-driven. “Make a successful game and they will come.” That strategy has been applied to console video games, to standalone PCs, and now to online gaming in the home.

In large part, this strategy has worked. But it ran its course in the arcades, and is approaching its limits in the home. In location-based entertainment, what matters most is tailoring a customized and rapidly-changing entertainment package to the tastes of particular locations. With online technology, we can do that.

Rather than developing games only for young males, we must reach out to many different audiences. To the travelers and business people that frequent hotel lobbies. To the upscale “latte crowd” that frequents Starbucks Coffee Bars. To the eating and drinking crowds in restaurant chains and bars.

Games are played by less than 10 percent of typical bar patrons. The recipe for success now must also include games, communication via email and chat, shopping, tournaments, and music. Each location must find the right mix for its customers.

We need a new set of rules

We’ve used any number of explanations for why the floor dropped out of coin-op, including: coin-op failed to be significantly better than home games in terms of technology — polygons per second, real-time ray tracing, MIPS, and so on; if we only had a $1 coin…; if only the manufacturers would produce fewer games, build cheaper games, not release games into the home so fast, and build games that would last for 100 years; home games killed the coin-op business; all the industry needed was a great hit; and the number of locations has fallen.

But none of these arguments hold water. If coin-op games need to be superior, why has Megatouch (with a Z80) out earned Cruising and Mortal Kombat in bars over the past few years? If the type of coin is so essential, why have tokens of high value failed every time they’ve been tried? The only bright spot on the U.S. landscape is the nickel arcade. The home computing market comprises 15 million households out of over 100 million in this country. There’s a brave new world out there in public places, and we are just beginning to find it.

The new rules

It’s going to take a shift in our thinking to make this happen. Here’s my recipe:

The value of a game has to be higher or its cost reduced. Compare the cost of a first run movie — $7, or roughly $3.50 an hour — to the $24 it costs for an hour of entertainment; arcade players shell out a buck for every two-and-a-half minute game.

ROI must come from multiple sources, not blockbuster hits. Despite the doomsayers who predicted that TV, VCRs, and finally cable would kill off theaters, the movie industry has never been healthier, hitting record sales levels that year. But notice which movies dominated the Oscars this year — independent films. Not the big budget studio movies. The best movie of 1996 had less than a six-month run, and the average movie ran for less than two. We’ve got to go that same route by reducing development costs and adjusting to the reality of shorter life cycles and lower returns on individual games.

Let’s take another page for movie marketing — seasonal and holiday fare. For example, is a Halloween game that is downloaded at the beginning of October and taken off the first week of November such a bad idea?

Variety is the spice of location-based life. Why would someone pay $60 for a software title when a similar game could be played in a public place for a quarter? And when those quarters can be spent on ten new games instead of just one? Variety has always been more important in leisure time than price. Why is that any different now? Perhaps we haven’t seen enough variety in arcades up to now.

We’ve got to bring entertainment to the places were most people socialize. I travel a lot. I see games in sports bars, but not in hotel lobbies. I see fast food locations without games. I see coffee bars with no games, and many chain restaurants with no games or amusements. In most of these locations, a pinball machine would look strange, but a countertop web terminal with easy touch screen menus and game play would not.

For those of you who remember, Pong was in a wood-grain cabinet that went into places that didn’t want garish graphics and decals of monsters in their locations. I find little that can be purchased today that will fit the decor of a Starbucks or a United Airlines terminal. Has our industry kept current in meeting the demands of an older, more upscale crowd?

Finding the bridge to newfound revenue

Now, with online networks, entertainment providers can change games at will, experiment to find out what works best for a particular location and customer base, and put in those games that provide the greatest income. Instead of a hit game that brings declining revenues over time — the old arcade model — we will find that the hardware makes more money as the software is finely tuned to each location.

With networked entertainment, revenue streams can multiply in locations through national and even international tournament events with big-time promotional sponsors and through advertising and the sale of merchandise via location-based terminals. We don’t have to market to get the people to come to us, we are bringing the entertainment to the places they already frequent — and spend a lot of money — to have fun.

The customers are there. There’s no shortage of talent to develop entertainment for them. But we’ve got to challenge ourselves to invent new rules and jump-start this next wave of location-based entertainment.(source:gamasutra)