Email: Arcade and PC

Hello Malstrom. I’m writing today in an attempt to get you to write about
far more interesting things than that silly 3DS. Hopefully it’ll work.

Anyway, it’s about the separation between Arcade and PC gaming. In your
posts it always goes back to “tactile” and “non-tactile” which, I’ll be
honest.. isn’t all that helpful of a definition for me. I noticed other
people are repeating things which imply that they don’t understand the
definitions, too (and as a result they reach fallacies). They constantly
send you such emails (at least, of the ones you upload).

So I was wondering if you could try and put it better into words. We can
all very easily sense what you are talking about (the difference between
Arcade Gaming and PC Gaming), they are indeed different at the core. But
it is still hard to put into language. I was hoping you could try again to
fully explain it.

While the word ‘arcade’ is correct, people incorrectly categorize arcade to mean ‘blistering hardcore’ like Robotron or Mortal Kombat (arcade games are actually better defined by female friendly games like Pac-Man and Donkey Kong). Arcade also has a connotation with ‘retro’ which wasn’t the point I was trying to get across.

Everyone who lived through those times understand what is meant by the arcade. The arcade game assaulted the senses unlike any PC game ever could. You were playing a game whose hardware was integrated with it. Every arcade game’s controls were unique and differentiated from one another. But they were all made for the game. There were no interface issues because every game had its own interface. The different feel of the controls contribute much to the game experience. A shooting game would give you a gun. A racing game actually put you in a driver’s seat with a steering wheel and brakes. When was the last time you played a racing game with a steering wheel and brakes? I thought so. You’re missing out. The arcade is the pinnacle of video game user interface. No console game and no PC game has ever gotten close to it. Except, perhaps, arcade first party console manufacturer games such as Sega and Nintendo. Since they controlled both the hardware and software, their games could end up being extremely precise.

Arcade games assaulted the sense in other ways such as adopting a Vegas style stimulation with lights, sound effects, demo reels, to the configuration and construction of the cabinets.

My challenge was how do I relay the arcade experience by fighting all these wrong images that arcade gaming brings? (arcade is retro, arcade is ‘hard games only’ like Robotron, etc.) And how do I do that succinctly with a single word?

Instead of saying ‘arcade game’, I say ‘tactile game’. That presents the meaning better and makes people’s brains light up figuring out what ‘tactile games’ mean when saying ‘arcade games’ didn’t do that.

DS and Wii were very arcade like, true. But I can also say they presented a tactile experience (which is saying the same thing but communicating it better). Tactile experiences are something Microsoft and Sony are unable to offer because they are computer companies, not arcade companies. Both Kinect and Move show they don’t understand what is going on. The market not jumping on them shows that the conventional wisdom for the success of the DS and Wii is wrong. What was the DS marketing campaign? “Touching is good.” What about the Wii? It was about putting the controller into people’s hands, and they knew it was good because they were playing it.

Remember how the Wii was presented at E3 2006

The Wii did make a push for ‘light gun’ games. There was a steering wheel with Mario Kart Wii. The Balance Board created another type of control. People loved this. Why?

Why do people shell out hundreds of dollars for a quality arcade stick to plug into their console?

The connection is obvious. People still desire game consoles to be the ‘arcade experience at home’ even if there are no arcades. People hunger for that tactile feel that PC gaming cannot provide.

If Iwata appeared on Jeopardy and chose ‘making game consoles for 500’, he would see on the screen:

“Integrated hardware and software”

Iwata answers, “What is Nintendo?”

He would be found incorrect. Integrated hardware and software is not Nintendo. The correct answer is…

Above: Malstrom answers the Jeopardy question for $500.

“What is the arcade game?” Ding! Ding!

Integrated hardware and software can be only defined as the arcade game. Nintendo is an integrated hardware and software company not because of Nintendo DNA but because of Arcade DNA. Sega used to be an integrated hardware and software company too because they once made arcade games.

Nintendo has reversed the horse and the cart. They think that being a hardware and software integrated company means they get to do zany stuff with the hardware and the configuration of the console. That is incorrect. They are confined to the arcade experience. When they go outside the arcade reservation (Virtual Boy, N64, Gamecube, 3DS), not only do sales suffer, but a huge amount of hostility comes at the company. Contrast this with the DS and Wii where there was a huge amount of love and advocating coming at the company. Nintendo’s sick 3d obsession is not compatible with the DNA of the company. One could even argue that the 3d obsession destroyed arcades in America.

This ‘integrated hardware and software’ Nintendo pushes is just an excuse for Nintendo to sell us their science experiments. Is it any coincidence that the only time Nintendo’s hardware ‘innovations’ last and are adopted by the industry are those that revolve around the tactile experience? The D-Pad, the analog sticks, the rumble pak, the motion controller, the balance board, and the touch screen? There’s a reason why people did not jump on connectivity, on disk drives, 3d output, and other various ‘innovations’.

Next we come to the chicken and egg scenario with arcade gaming. I can hear Nintendo asking, in a beseeching tone, “But if we are not allowed to be creative and are confined to the arcade space, how did the arcade gaming begin in the first place? It began through creativity.”

No. Arcade gaming was a market unlike any other that exists in gaming. It was more competitive than ever (today, the game market is less competitive due to their being more ‘hardcore gamers’ and increased development costs eliminating most competitors). The reason why it was so intense was because the customer could literally take two steps to the left and be in front of your competitor’s game. The crazed environment of the arcade forged a unique type of gaming. That market environment designed much of the gameplay. For example, arcade games are short, challenging, and addictive because of the arcade business model. They are flashy and have demo reels to lure in people from across the room. None of that can be duplicated in a pure console or PC context.

Nintendo is a crappy PC gaming company. Sony and Microsoft are much better. However, Nintendo is the last surviving arcade roots company. Nintendo has an absolute market monopoly on this which no competitor, not even Apple, can ever succeed in. The closer Nintendo gets to being Nintendo, the arcade experience, the tactile experience, the better is their fortune. The further away Nintendo goes (like to pursue 3d obsessions and virtual reality), the market drops Nintendo cold. It’s as simple as that.

What I protest most vigorously is the idea that Nintendo should make games to satisfy themselves. A cook does not make a meal for his appetite. He makes it for the appetite of his diners. I have an appetite that needs to be filled. Instead, Nintendo is cooking up some other dish no one else wants. “But it is so much more fun to cook! Here,” as Nintendo shoves the food into your throat, “you will learn to like it.” That is no way how a diner would operate but that is how Nintendo operates. It is their appetites they make games for, not the appetites of the mass market. Who is going to buy Pikmin 3? The mass market of the Gamecube audience!?