From the Editor
After having attended the recent industry-related
exhibitions and having inspected a vast amount of new
equipment , I find myself faced with a truly disturbing
question -"Whatever happened to good old American
ingenuity?" The proliferating Japanese influence on new
American games is awesomely evident. And it is sad to
note that the copycat syndrome is still very much with us .
Where's all that good old American know-how? That
imagination? Has the engineering talent of our industry
been lured away by the glamor of the vastly expanding
consumer electronic game market? Or has that talent
eroded to a point where it is now easier to simply
manufacture a game under license or copy an existing
piece through reverse engineering?
Operators pay a high price for new games these days .
It is also true that games today are earning more money
than ever before . The microprocessor is generally given
credit for the high prices as well as the high earnings. It is
interesting to note that this industry is one of those rare
instances where the introduction of microprocessors
coincided with prices going up . In other industries such as
the computer field and the consumer electronics games
industry , microprocessors brought prices down .
Why didn 't solid state technology reduce the cost of
new games? Research and Development, manufacturers
will tell you . According to them , vast amounts of money
have been invested into the design and development of
the various RAMs and PROMs and other complicate<;i
circuitry that go into the making of microprocessor-
oriented games . Surely , a similar amounLof R&D had to
go into the manufacture of home video games, yet
anybody can buy a new home video game out of the
Sears catalog for under $40 (with twenty game options ,
no less) . We all know what an operator pays for one
game . The difference is truly startling . Granted coin -op
games have to be built in smaller numbers and according
to much higher standards. You have to include a strong
attractive cabinet , a television monitor , and a credit
system ; and this all adds greatly to the cost of the coin -op
unit. But one still has to conclude that the cost is even
higher than that because it has to cover the Research and
Development costs . It's a considerable amount of money ,
and the operators deserve something more in return than
copycat engineering and licensing agreements.
The point I'm making is that a licensed game should
sell for substantially less than a game that was privately
engineered . If, in fact , research and development
contributes greatly to the cost of a new game , then it
stands to reason that a new game that does not require
research and development costs should sell for
considerably less .
Don 't get the impression I'm against licensed games .
Had it not been for a licensing agreement between Taito
and Midway , the United States would never have seen
Space Inuaders .
What I am against is wasted en~ineering talent. It is
e mbarrassing to see the country that originated the video
game now following the lead ot another country . Are the
American manufacturers afraid to take the first step?
Where is the inspiration and leadership going to come
from ? Who will emerge as the forerunner in the industry?
What company will set the pace for the rest?
Will Japan win out in the long run or will it be good old
American ingenuity?
Who's to say? My only hope is that one day real soon
we'll begin to see lower prices and more imaginative
games . There are no cheap imitations in this
industry - only expensive ones . So let's keep the
imitations to a minimum and let's make innovation our
primary concern .
~~
----
Ralph C. Lally II
Editor and Publisher
'A licensed game should sell for substantially
less than a game that was privately engineered ... It stands
to reason that a new game that does not require research
and development costs should sell for considerably less.'
6
PLAY MET ER, December, 1979