represenratives at the sho w, while inri-
mating that legal action would be taken
against the copiers, offered no official
commenr during my stay there. (Regret-
tably, I was not therefor the last day of the
show to see what action was tak en by your
company against Competitive Video.)
The subject of my article, however, was
not about the attitude of the major game
manufacturers on copyrights. It was on th e
attitude of the rest of the industry toward
the copyright problem. And, quitefrankly,
they didn', see it as a problem. The remark
by the BA CTA official whom I quoted in
the article-wherein he stated the national
association wanred to remain "neutral" on
the matter for fear it would offend some of
its members who are copiers-indictes the
lack of support the major game manufac-
turers are experiencing in your country.
The result of this laissez-faire attitude by
the industry as a whole (and, by that, I do
not mean to include the major game manu-
facturers who are obviously try ing to
protect their own interests) is a drastic
decline in video game activity.
That's what the article was all about.]
David Pierson
"Short"- gevity
the p roblem
After be ing in th e video a musement
business for a co uple of years, a few cold
hard facts are becoming more and more
obvious to me and I a m cert ai n to most
other operator . To state the problem
si mply- the co mbinati o n of increasing
costs of new machines (a nd expen e ). th e
popularity longevity of a machine, a nd
decreased trade-i n va lue are making the
bottom line look more and more unattrac-
ti ve to the operator. The longevity of
machines like Asteroids made them we ll
worth the investment , but there are few
machines that will never enjoy that kind of
longevity. Unfortunately, the "short "-gevity
of all other "once popular" games is the
primary factor affecting the bottom line.
We can only look to the designers and
research communities to improve the
"short"-gevity problem , but the manufac-
turers can reduce the cost of new games by
a do pting, in part , the retro-fit concept. I
am usi ng the word retro-fit to distingui sh it
fro m the term convertible wherein one
bu ys a new whole game with the optio n to
bu y additional plug-in kits that change the
ga me from game A to game B.
A retro-fit kit on the other hand is a kit
designed to change an existing game (s uch
as Space Invaders or Asteroids) to a new
game. The obvious main adva ntage to the
operator is that he can now transfo rm hi
graveyard into new games without th e
additional cost of the cabinet, video , power
suppl y, wiring harness, and other hard-
ware . The ave rage kit would consist of the
boa rd , new marquee , new (or altered)
player panel , front plexiglass, (in some
cases) and a few decals. Other items ma y be
required depend ing on the desig n concept.
I have discussed th is concept with a fe w
manufacturers a nd di stri butors and I will
share so me of their comments and my
reaction to them with yo u.
" When a ne w game hit the market , it
should be brand new and shiny to attract
the pla ye r ." All well and good, but my
new game maintain their brand new and
hin y appearance for the better part of two
weeks . th e n the scr ubbin g operation
begins. Furthermore, if retro-fit kits were
avai la bl e, most operator are sma rt
enough to realize th a t the ca binet would
have to be totall y repainted to remove all
indication of the old ga me.
"The co pyright laws a re so co mplex that
manufacturers will not risk it." I agree th a t
if manufacturer A sold retro-fit kit to
modify manufacturer B's garnes, there may
be some copyright problems. But in my
mind , there shouldn't be because it's the
game that is protected by copyright laws
(and properly so) but not the cabinet, etc.
Anyway, I cannot believe that there is a
copyright problem associated with a
manufacturer retro-fitting one of his own
games. Brand name manufacturers selling
retro -fit kits for their own games through
existing distributors will not open any
additional doors to the knock-off artists or
garage shops that already exist.
Although none disc ussed profit with me,
I am sure that it is a concern . But the facts
of life ma y be impl y that a larger and
larger demand for retro-fit kits is growing
a nd so mebod y so mewhere will satisfy that
need . Wh y not incorporate it into the
existing system where it can be controlled?
Furthermore, this ma y soo n be the only
market unless the problem associated with .
the cost of new machines a nd longevi ty
discussed earlier are resolved . A decent
profit for manufacturers and distributors
can still be e njoyed .
I can foresee two addit ional advantages
to the ma nufa cturer. First. simpler and
c hea per market research . Man y more
games cou ld be placed acro the country
to determine the degree of popularity if
do ne in kit form rather than whole
mac hines . Second , I am sure this concept
would greatl y reduce the animosity that is
growing betwee n the o pera tor a nd manu-
facturer beca u e of home game production
a nd recent legislation concerning speed-up
kits. This indu try i not immune from the
importance of develo ping good custo mer
rela ti o ns. An y manufacturer th a t ass umes
that the custo mer' need s are not vital to
th e success of the ind ustry will eve ntua lly
learn th e ha rd way.
Robert J. Skerrett
Western Amusement
Coeur D 'Alene, Idaho
VAN BROOK OF LEXINGTON, INC.
P.O. BOX 5044, LEXINGTON, KY. 40555
606/231-7100
12
PLAY METER , June 15, 1982