Space Invaders returning to arcades..

I actually did some coin-op design and hardware consultation in my youth, as an independent contractor, and the economics there have some different aspects from your so-called "normal" computing world. :) Even in the "boom" of video arcade games, around 1981-1984 or so, a production run of a mere 10,000 machines was considered a noteworthy success story. Most machines were lucky to see a sales mark of around 2,000 units. With that in mind, the manufacturers had to price their units in such a way that they could recoup the costs of design, artwork, retooling, marketing and overhead with a relatively small number of sales. There was also a "novelty factor" - when a new game was released, even if it caught on and was successful and popular, the manufacturers still had a window of only about six months (at longest) when the game would still be popular enough to sell in great numbers. This meant that the number of units a maufacturer could crank out in a short period of time was an important factor in their odds of success or failure - even if you had a wildly popular game, if you could only manufacture ten per week you'd never be able to recoup your investment before the sales window closed and some _other_ game became the hot new trend. :) So manufacturers, in order to survive, not only had to have facilities for building a game, they had to have enough facilities to build a _lot_ of units of the game in a short time. The overhead of keeping a large manufacturing capacity meant, yes, you had to charge more per unit to keep your business viable. There were some constraints on manufacturing as well which bear consideration. It's been noted that you'd be likely (in fact, you'd be _certain_) to have some irate gorilla pounding the hell out of the machine at some point, so joysticks, controls, and so forth had to be built _extremely_ heavy-duty. (To the poster who suggested using cheap joysticks and simply replacing them, the problems that would develop time; B) that the machine, when broken, generates no income but does take up valuable space while you're waiting for the repair guy to come by on his next trip; C) those repairmen charge a lot, too, and you'd be sitting there with your machines generating no income to pay them; and D) you don't sell a lot of machines when they have a reputation for being broken a significant portion of the time.) But other manufacturing constraints were noteworthy as well. For example, the systems had to be accessible for easy repairs while _at the same time_ they had to be completely inaccessible to hackers (yes, coin-op hackers do exist) and also thieves who want the machine's earnings (and, yes, I've examined machines which have been broken into for the loot). It's also worth noting the liability issues [1] for big heavy machines put out in public for children to play with and climb on and yank by the joysticks and... Well, you get the idea. :) So $3,000 for a coin-op "Space Invaders", even without some of the marketing costraints above, doesn't surprise me all that much. Hell, adjusting for inflation from the time of its original manufacture, it's actually not a bad price. :) [1] - And it seems to me that we Amurrkins, at least, have actually become _more_ litigation-driven than we were in the '80s. I'm wondering if a "Space-Invaders-wrist" class-action suit will be inevitably coming along about a year from now. :/ [2] [2] - Which begs the question: do you think the new "Space Invaders" cabinets will be festooned with warning labels? "CAUTION: May cause epilepsy. People with susceptibility to carpal-tunnel syndrome should avoid playing this game. Product may lead to addiction. Manufacturer is not responsible for player's loss of income. Behavior of alien beings in this game is not intended to stereotype, represent or disparage actual alien entities. No alien life-forms were harmed in the manufacture of this product..." -O.-