They don't make them like they used to..." I found myself thinking that recently, as I listened to a masterful presentation by veteran operator Dave Kamen (K&K Games). The occasion for Dave's insightful talk was a meeting of the Wal-Mart Coin-Op Advisory Board, held in Bentonville, Ark., near the Wal-Mart home office.
A bit of background: this advisory board is a group of operators that gathers a few times each year to exchange ideas and assist Wal-Mart Director Chris Wade and the Manager Iliana Chavira to identify new opportunities that will enhance the coin-op operations in Wal-Mart vestibules and Family Fun Centers for all Wal-Mart operators. Board members include myself and Randy Fagundo from Sugarloaf, Lee Batson from Sunshine Enterprises, Dave Jackson of Pachinko Palace, Fred Simon of Amusement Factory, Tony DeMarco of Game Plan and - of course - the aforementioned Dave Kamen. Chris Wade is the Director of the Other Income Department for Wal-Mart.
To our latest meeting, Dave brought a bag full of video game parts that he used for an eye-opening "show and tell" session. His information was important enough that I want to repeat it here. In addition to appearing in this column, the following information will be forwarded to AMOA and AAMA. Perhaps the issues raised can be further addressed by their Industry Standardization Committees.
Dave's basic message is simple but disturbing: the quality of the components found in today's video game manufacturing process has been compromised. Perhaps we've all heard (or sensed) this before, but Dave stepped up and provided easily-understood, concrete examples to demonstrate that new and smaller isn't necessarily better. Judging from Dave's presentation, in fact, in appears that new and smaller may often be fragile, less durable, and prone to breaking down during regular usage in our marketplace. No one has ever accused me of being a technical guru, or even a technical novice; but I understood his presentation and will try to do it justice here.
SWITCHES:
The first photograph shows three switches that represent most of the evolution in video game switch technology over the last 20 years. The first switch (far left) came out of a Donkey Kong type game in the early '80s. It was a simple, durable switch that failed very infrequently. The second switch (middle ), a blade type switch, was the next evolution and that too was considered reliable for our usage.
Today we have that tiny looking micro switch on the far right of the photograph. No good. It's small, fragile, and breaks frequently. It's more appropriate for a home video game, but not an industrial commercial application such as a coin-op video game. Most times service people will service the games and not even notice that the switch is not working properly unless it's specifically checked. Ideally you would change this switch out with a more durable type, like the other switches, but that's not to be.
Even if Happ Products, which makes the gear shifters for most of the industry, could redesign the shifter to where we could replace the broken switch with a more durable model, that would be an improvement. Putting a reliable switch in the shifter in the first place is the best option. In a time where we need every advantage we can get in video operations, this seems like it could be in part a reason why earnings are weak. As we all know, you only get one chance with a customer and if the game doesn't work, you've likely lost the player. Switch failure is the number one service problem with video games.
POTENTIOMETER:
As Johnnie Cochran might put it, "if the steering wheel doesn't turn, the game won't earn!" Today's potentiometers have a high failure rate. The version that was used in games prior to four years ago were superior to today's product. For every dollar saved in the manufacturing of the game, the operator is spending hundreds of dollars over the lifetime of the game servicing it.
MONITOR:
In my life as a salesperson it's of no surprise that I hadn't noticed that today's monitors have a much thinner and longer neck, or yoke. This makes monitors less heat-resistant, because thinner tubes have less area over which to disperse the heat. Result: these monitors are failing at an alarming rate. About one-half of the tubes found in today's coin-op games have these thinner yokes. This should be addressed with adoption of a new standard in the industry that all game manufacturers should adhere to.
Also, Dave points out that the transistors used on the monitor boards are not as durable as those used in the past. Upon inspection they appear flimsy and fragile. The bright spot with the transistors is that when they fail, you can replace them with higher quality transistors of your choosing. This is a step that we as operators shouldn't have to take.
It's no shock to learn that when the opportunity presents itself, many manufacturers choose to try to build a less expensive product. Let's hope they would do this and pass the cost savings on to the operating customer. OK, I'm not holding my breath either, but it could happen. I'm sure that operators would pay a few dollars more if it could be shown that the components would hold up better on the street. This is a call to manufacturers. These parts aren't holding up. We need something better. We thought you should know.
Well, there you have it: the first technical article I've written in
20 years. I hope it does some good. Thanks to Dave Kamen for the education
I've received on this topic in the last few days.