作者：Nolan Bushnell

在衰退前，也就是在上世纪70年代末到80年代初，硬币电子娱乐业务每年的收益都能超过180亿美元。而在过去十年里它则处于停滞阶段，直至今日该业务一年只能创造出60亿美元的收益。

但是这种情况也迅速发生着改变。实际上我认为以场所为基础的娱乐业务具有在较短时间内发展成200亿美元市场的潜力。

而互联网正在推动着这一改变。通过适当定价和有效推广而提供给公众各种类型的娱乐，我们可以确定的是人们都希望玩得开心。

从1972年《Pong》诞生以来，电子游戏市场便一直都是头衔推动型市场。“创造一款成功的游戏你便能赚取收益。”而该策略也同样适用于主机电子游戏，独立PC游戏以及现在的家庭式在线游戏。

在很大程度上该策略是可行的。但是它在街机平台只是自然发展着，并且在家庭在线游戏中更是不断接近局限。在以场所为基础的娱乐业务中，最重要的还是针对特殊场所的用户喜好去定制专门且不断变化的娱乐包。而我们便可以使用在线技术做到这点。

比起只是面向年轻男性开发游戏，我们必须触及更多不同的用户。即面向那些需要经常住酒店的旅行者和商人。面向经常去星巴克的高端“拿铁人群”。面向那些总是在连锁餐厅和酒吧吃饭喝东西的人。

只有不到10%的酒吧顾客会玩游戏。所以现在的成功秘诀必须包含游戏，通过电子邮件和聊天进行交流，购物，比赛和音乐等元素。即每一款基于场所的游戏都必须为消费者找到这些元素最适当的组合方式。

我们需要一套全新的规则

我们已经解释过为什么投币式游戏会被淘汰，即从技术上看投币式游戏远远不如家庭式游戏—-即关于每秒多边形数，实时光线追踪，每秒百万条指令等等。如果我们只有1美元硬币，如果制造商所创造的游戏越来越少并且越来越廉价，并且较缓慢地将游戏带向每个家庭，如果我们所创造的游戏能够维持100年，那么家庭式游戏将会彻底扼杀投币式游戏机；所有的产业都需要一次巨大的成功；而基于场所的游戏数已经大大减少了。

但其实所有这些论断都是说不通的。如果说投币式游戏需要优秀游戏的支撑的话，那为什么在过去几年里Megatouch的收益远超过《Cruising》和《Mortal Kombat》？如果投币类游戏如此必要，为什么每次当这类型游戏再次尝试发展时又屡遭失败？在美国唯一较受欢迎的是五美分硬币街机。而在这个国家家庭计算机市场却包含了1500万的家庭。公共场所中存在一个全新的世界，我们只需要去寻找它便可。

全新规则

我们将转变自己的思维去成就这种改变。以下便是我的诀窍：

需要提高游戏价值或降低其成本。让我们比较第一次运营的电影（游戏邦注：7美元，或者是一小时3.5美元）与一个小时24美元的娱乐方式；街机玩家会为每一款2.5分钟的游戏支付1美元的费用。

投资回报率（ROI）必须是源自多个资源而不只是几款热门游戏。就像尽管有人曾预测电视，VCR和有线电视最终会完全取代电影院，但其实现在的电影产业却仍然稳步发展着，甚至创造出了更高的销售记录。你是否注意到是哪种类型的电影主导着今年的奥斯卡大奖吗，是独立电影。而非那些基于高预算的电影。就像在1996年的最佳电影的运营时间不到6个月，那时候电影的平均运营时间都不会超过2个月。而在独立游戏领域我们也采取了相同的方法，即减少开发成本，适应较短的生命周期以及较低的回益这样的现实。

对于基于场所的游戏来说，多样性其实就是调味料一般的存在。为什么当玩家能在公众场所只花四分之一的钱玩一款相似游戏时，还有人愿意支付60美元去购买一款软件？什么时候玩家会愿意花同样的钱去购买10款全新的游戏而不只是一款游戏？在空闲时间，比起价格，多样性往往更加重要。而为什么这种情况现在发生了便会？也许是因为现在的我们还未在街机平台看到足够多的多样性。

我们已经将娱乐带到了那些人们经常用于社交的场所。我经常出去旅行。我曾在一些运动型酒吧看过游戏设备，但在酒店大堂却从未看过。我还发现一些快餐店，咖啡馆以及许多连锁餐厅都没有游戏设置或娱乐场所。虽然在大多数这些场所中设置弹球机会很奇怪，但如果是带有简单触屏菜单和游戏设置的桌面网页终端的话便不会奇怪了。

Pong(from zol)

你们是否记得早前的《Pong》以一个木纹橱柜的形态出现在一些并不需要花俏的图像和怪兽贴标的场所。而我发现今天很少有游戏能够匹配星巴克或美国联合航空公司候机大厅的装饰。我们的产业是否能够继续满足较年长且较高端的用户群体的需求。

寻找全新的收益来源

现在基于在线网络，娱乐供应商能够按照自己的意愿去改变游戏，并尝试着找出最适合特定场所和用户基础的内容，然后投入于那些能够创造出最多收益的产品。比起一款随着时间的发展收益也会随之递减的热门游戏（即早前的街机模式），我们将找到能够赚到更多收益的硬件并面向不同场所去调整它。

基于网络娱乐，收益流可以伴随着国家，甚至是国际比赛（拥有大型赞助商）和广告以及产品的促销而不断增加。我们并不需要通过市场营销的方式去吸引人们的注意，我们只需要将娱乐内容带到用户经常出现的场所（且在那里会花很多钱）并提供给他们乐趣便可。

消费者一直都在。我们也不缺少为他们创造娱乐的人才。但我们还是需要创造一些全新规则并再次掀起下一波基于场所的娱乐热潮。

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转发，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)