This first of a two part feature reprinted from a recent report in the amusement and attraction industry newsletter

Along with the redevelopment of old arcade game ideas, one of the most attractive of these re-approaches is to look at ‘Interactive Attractions’! However, before we wander too far down this well-trodden path, we need to ensure we do not make the same mistakes – In this two part feature, The Stinger Report looks at the issues that need to be considered in making the right games for this emerging market. We seem to be reliving the 1990’s – a period that saw the birth of the Location-Based Entertainment (LBE) initiative, and a drive towards creating “amusement attractions” – with examples such as the then NAMCO Cybertainment and Village Nine Leisure investment over $150m in the ambitious ‘Magic Edge: Hornet’ fighter jet simulator centers (1993) providing a perfect example of the high hopes that just placing the player into a simulator environment with a loose game element would act as enough of a draw to generate success. Developers of Amusement Theme Park (ATP) projects were learning that the ROI (Return on Investment) for an Interactive Attraction, in the end would need a much more comprehensive game development approach than just dropping in a poorly devised game in order to survive.

Jump forward to today, and after the crash in LBE, we see a rebirth of interest in a new overarching ‘Interactive Attraction’ (IA) – the reduction in the cost of the technology to power these systems, and a familiarization with the ability to represent lavish virtual environments, has fuelled interest by operators and developers looking at a means to attract an audience to their facilities. Many of these new developers are new not only to the interactive entertainment sector, but to working in the attractions sector. But fueled by enthusiasm we are seeing a rebirth, if not a ‘Re-Boot’, of the idea of this digital attraction technology. However, lurking in the shadows the spectre of ROI still looks on, yet to be effectively vanquished. Return On Investment is calculated as the number of people an attraction will have to facilitate before its installation cost has been paid for. With the attraction industry this ROI is the amount of throughput (usage) the system generates, while in the application of an Interactive Attraction as a standalone. This ROI can be more tangibly measured by the amount of revenue generated, and the profit made after the system has paid for itself. It is these hard business facts that will chart this latest drive for IA will be successful. Editor’s Notes – The reality of true Return On Investment (ROI) was rammed home during the last attempt to establish the interactive attraction. Now seen most recently in the installation of 4D and 5D theaters into venues. The Business Plan (ROI Calculator) is seen to include the key elements of Number of seats, Number of visitors per day, Overall operational days, Space rental costs, Promotional costs and Operational costs (including staffing); with this all calculated a “real” ROI can be created and monetized. An example of this calculation is that in a good location a non-interactive four-seat 4D theater can generate a ROI of $11,600 per month.

– The Interactive Medium

It has to be understood that though the “Digital Native” audience of the modern entertainment facility comprises sophisticated game players in general, the ability to offer a compelling interactive experience is not achieved by just ‘bolting-on’ a game narrative; but requires a much more complicated process of developing an experience to suit this unique of all game mediums. To get to grips with what is meant by an ‘Interactive Experience’, we first have to understand that there are two types of attraction. The current most popular is the linear or ‘passive’ attraction, the rider boards the system and is traversed through the experience exiting at the end (be it a rollercoaster or a 4D ride film) – an experience that is unable to be altered by interaction by the riders. This was seen as a suitable approach that had been the norm since the first Ice Sledge rides of the 1600’s, mirroring the narrative experience, and was equally familiar to the audience found with cinema, and television.

However, with the advent of interactive game narratives in first amusement and then home games, it was seen to be necessary to offer a compelling game environment. First attempts were made to find a compromised middle ground with ‘Branching’ narratives, as seen most spectacularly with the 1995 ‘Indiana Jones Adventure’ (Disneyland) enhanced-motion vehicle dark ride that offered a selection of paths to encourage repeat riding – though not influenced by the rider. It was not until the late 90’s that cost-reduction in computer technology allowed for the consideration that large audience style attractions (E-Tickets) could consider a true ‘Interactive’ narrative. Early attempts saw vast sums spent at creating game-like experience for groups of players, but a mixture of expense and poor performance dogged the application, and the ideas fell by the wayside. But with the explosion in computer power, cost-reduction and a hunger for game narrative from the new visitors to the facility, interactive game experiences are on the menu again.

– The Pitfalls of the Consumer Path

In considering the development of game narrative for the ‘Interactive Attraction’, there is a far-reaching danger of mistakenly considering that what is needed is a simple transplantation of what is seen in the consumer game industry into an attraction. The road to ‘Interactive Attractions’ is littered with the bodies of companies that attempted this path and failed to grasp the folly of this approach. To avoid this danger we need to understand the Digital Interactive Narrative (DIN). Since the 1970’s when the first video games emerged initially in the arcade and then across the microcomputer, console game platforms, mobile game-deck (phone and tablet) and inevitably via online play; we have seen three core game play formats:

– The first has been the ‘casual’ game, simple to play, but offering a compelling entertainment, their simplicity has seen them mainly employed on mobile game decks (Gameboy, mobile phones, tablets, etc.,) as well as offered as online “freemium” content; even having migrated into the amusement sector in the shape of Videmption content. Best illustrated by the phenomenally success ‘Fruit Ninja’ – a rudimentary swipe and slice play style perfect for a casual mobile phone game generating over 300 million downloads. – The second is the more ‘standard’ game format, following one of the traditional genres, and offering a strong enjoyment value. These games have also been married to the online networking to offer network play and establish large followings (as seen with ‘World of Warcraft’ and ‘World of Tanks’, the latter with a registered player base estimated at being some 60 million regular gamers), where a fundamental game idea is expanded by a sandbox open-world approach. – The third, and last…for now (as the market is still in its infancy), is the ‘AAA’ [Triple-A] game content; the game equivalent of the blockbuster movie, seeing a development resource of over a thousand contractors, where a standard game would see only 10 or 20; with lavish development resources creating a cinematic quality of gameplay that is developed for over 30 hours of continuous play to complete. Best illustrated by the mega-blockbuster success of ‘Grand Theft Auto V’, a game estimated to have cost $265m to develop and market, (the most expensive game made to date) – but which has recouped in just the first three days of release some $1billion! Editor’s Note – It has to be remembered that the majority of AAA titles now see their business model augmented by the inclusion of a Downloadable Content (DLC) element. The physical game sales are supported by an online downloaded extension pack offering additional levels and content. And in the case of mega releases like ‘GTAV’ and fps ‘Battlefield 4’, the player can play a networked (multiplayer) sandbox game, all linked to a subscription model. An example of how AAA titles are offering a new revenue model to their publishers.

Though a phenomenally successful industry now surmounting that of movie and the music record industries combined, the consumer game arena is a harsh environment, and in recent years we have seen the independent development studio star system decimated by the closure of countless developers. The previous game console life-cycle has been seen to have last too long without change – Generation Seven (Gen-7) consoles such as the Xbox360 and Playstation 3 lasting over eight years without upgrade, the public becoming tired of formulaic releases on a tired architecture. Even with the recent launch of Gen-8 consoles (Xbox One, Playstation 4 and Wii-U) the market cannot withstand the vast expense of AAA title development and where numerous release were made each year, the market has seen game sales slow to a handful of releases from a dwindling number of development studios – the market has become “too big to fail” but also “too big to sustain”! For those looking to develop Interactive Attractions, the danger is to be blinded by the consumer game sector’s overt success and make use of a seemingly readily available resource of recently laid-off game developers. However, it is not the ability to cut code or render stupendous images that is the main need in these attractions, but the ability to create a narrative and experience that will suit the requirements of the Out-of-Home entertainment sector.

Where a AAA console game looks for over 30 hours of play from their release, the video amusement industry on average needs just some two minutes of play, while interactive attractions (not including pre and post-show) needs to be able to entertain audiences for durations of four minutes at a time, offering a strong Return On Investment to pay for the installation and generate a repeat visitation. It is this need for regular and measurable ‘throughput’ that drives the development of games for this emerging sector – and has proven an elusive target to hit for the majority of developers. “Gamification” has become a contentious buzz-word, describing the employment of game style mechanics (achievements, scores, progression, etc.) to serious tasks that would normally not incorporate such elements. But in creating an Interactive Attraction it is much more than bolting the game narrative to existing platforms, but honing a brand new approach to the deployment and operation of attractions in an entertainment facility. But what are the fundamentals for games for this sector?

– The Interactive Attraction Game

We first have to understand that we are at a point at the embryonic establishment of attraction-based gaming – as the amusement industry was some 40 years ago with the launch of ‘PONG’. Much of the genres and language that will shape the development of interactive narrative have not been developed, and much of the tools needed to build the environment needed have yet to be visualized. But there are some basic elements that we can work towards. a. Play – The fundamental reason why people will “pay-to-play”. Not just the graphics, not the controls, but the achieving of an enjoyment of exploration, learning and wonder that defines the youngest individuals’ needs to interact with their world of entertainment. Missed by many developing games for the first time, the need to create a strong play environment, no matter the ability of visuals, is essential to driving interest. b. Storyline – The need for a means to set the scene is much more important in attraction based gaming as the players are on the whole coming fresh to the experience and want to be immersed. Complicated monologue and instructions are superficial to the games in this medium that have to be intuitive. c. Scoring – This is a fundamental; the ability for the players to see success of their endeavors within the virtual environment, represented in a score that can be placed next to those of their competitors, numbers, distance traveled or items collected all represent the same and do not have to be just numeric.

d. Interface – The ability for the player to control their progress and interactivity with the virtual environment is varied, from the latest Augmented Reality displays or motion tracking units representing the players’ body movement, a shooting interface, or to the more traditional steering wheel and joystick. e. Levels – The need to be able to not just have a start and an end, but also to be able to have a progression of different environments, so that a player can select what environment they are to compete within, rather than force to one environment. f. Skills – Along with a progression of levels, the ability for players of different ability to be exercised by the game experience (not too easy not too difficult based on the players abilities) needs to be incorporated, be that selected by the player or automatically by the game. Remembering the valuable arcade theorem, “easy to learn, hard to master”! g. Lustre – The major consideration for attraction development is the fact that unlike the consumer game sector, the developer of an attraction has an unlimited pallet to work from and should strive to create an experience that visually, audibly and in its play is unlike that achievable on a home console or the latest hopped up PC. The ability to create an “unachievable-at-home” vista to play within is a factor in engendering a repeat audience – want to see more! h. Achievements – What would have been called ‘Bonus Features’ in the language of the amusement game. The ability in an attraction game to collect hidden elements, some of which will impact the performance of their character through the game, is an element that draws players of varying skills along – and if these achievements can be combined and accrued all the better, and be linked to new technology so that this can be a takeaway, or downloaded to their Social Media portal. i. Customization – Finally a new element to the thinking of Interactive Attractions is the ability for the group or individual to personalize their representation in the game, for their interface to be unique to themselves and also configured to suit their preferences goes to establishing ownership and so repeat interest – married with Social Networking, it also can be used as a means to promote their involvement building the bond with the game. All these elements married in a game that will last only a few minutes and has to be able to work with a full-compliment of players or with only one! A tall order even for the best designer, and the danger to avoid the difficult and just create a scaled-down representation of an arcade or console game is a road to disaster. But we are seeing a new breed of developers wanting to dive into this new opportunity as we see a number of new approaches gaining ground. Editor’s Note – For the first time it will be possible to read more about this and other aspects of the Digital Out-of-Home Entertainment (DOE) sector, from its birth to current day, in a brand new book. Entitled “The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities”, the book, co-authored by the founder of the DNA Association, and well-known market research consultant, is to be published by Gower in paperback and e-book format, and contains over 60 interviews with leading executives in this sector. This will be the first book of its kind charting the emergence and establishment of the interactive entertainment migration into the public space, and the diversity of markets and technology being employed. To order a discount copy of the book, please go here The Stinger Report feature continues its coverage of this important aspect of the Digital Out-of-Home entertainment sector in the following report. For part 2 please click here

Comments

comments