Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AndarianDequer t1_j01swsv wrote

I think the biggest difference for me is that old school games, you die too quickly, the game is too hard, and for ones that you have to use quarters for, we run out of money too fast. Most of these games are actually a lot of fun and the fun is extended when you can alter the difficulty or continue with infinite lives.


FinnProtoyeen t1_j01xgi0 wrote

I think that's pretty much the purpose of arcade cabinets, they were designed to be fun enough for people to want to play it, but also to be so hard it kicks you off the cabinet so you either spend your quarters to play again or to let someone else play and spend their quarters. It wouldn't make an arcade money if some kid hogged a machine for hours off of one quarter


DetroitLarry t1_j02v9oj wrote

Arcade operators must have hated that one deaf, dumb, and blind kid.


jeepster2982 t1_j036th9 wrote

This. If you look at sales materials for old pinball and arcade machines they explicitly talk about revenue generation and returns on investments.


whyunoletmepost t1_j027ha9 wrote

Actually I finally fulfilled a lifelong dream and got an arcade cabinet. I only had it set to unlimited lives for a day and it sucked all the fun out because there were no steaks. I went back to quarter only and have a bunch of quarters lined up by the controls. This way you get unlimited lives but you still have to work for it a little which has made it fun again!


kickbut101 t1_j02croq wrote


And you are right infinite lives breaks the fun of most arcade games. For me it was the simpsons. At this point I only ever play off one credit in the game and see how far I get


joshhupp t1_j02oxs8 wrote

I once got to play at a private event at an arcade where everything was set to infinite lives. I spent the entirety of the 2 or 3 hours at one machine (I think Streets of Rage) and we didn't beat it. That was definitely a quarter sucker and I regret not taking the time to explore the other games there. Having stakes definitely changed how you play.


psychodelephant t1_j02jwhk wrote

Looking back (I was an 80s kid), it’s probably good that they cost a quarter. It slowed us down, made us really focus and prevented binge playing which is a critical consideration. Once Nintendo arrived on the scene, the binge playing lifestyle also arrived and it has only gotten worse. Some people can handle. I watched two guys in the dorms get kicked out of school (one for Starcraft addiction, the other N64 in general). It has enormously changed society, good and bad.


IgnoreMe304 t1_j04yepb wrote

Grand Theft Auto Vice City almost got me flunked out my freshman year.


detectiveDollar t1_j0mr5wf wrote

I disagree, arcades were far more expensive per hour for the vast majority of people ("Just one more quarter and I'll win"), even at prices of games back then. They were also much more addictive, consisting of short simple challenges and playthroughs but with a high difficulty curved. They were 100% engineered to get a player addicted.

With today's prices you can buy an average game on sale for like 30 attempts (25 cents is the 80's is nearly a dollar today).

You could easily bankrupt yourself from it, hell there's even a SpongeBob episode about it.

Also once you had the ability to save, you could turn it off and walk away without losing your current attempt.


nocjef t1_j02qqsw wrote

You see, I find the opposite is true. Today’s games are more story and less game, are much easier, and way too long. These older arcade games get funner when you realize you can complete them on a single credit. They are hard but that’s what makes them rewarding.


Friendlyattwelve t1_j03trhy wrote

Yes we had limited quarters and were forced to learn to make the most of them ! I was never that great but when I recently went to a bar with retro games , I beat the high score !! That deeply embedded fear that it would be over if I died again kicked right in 😂