By FRANK “the Crank” SENINSKY
With all the talk in the industry these days about “offering players something they can’t get at home,” you might think 2007 would be the “year of the simulator,” or perhaps the “era of attractions.” It’s certainly important to offer players an experience worth leaving their homes for, and motion simulators, if carefully selected and wisely placed, can help achieve that goal.
On the other hand, based on my company’s experiences in placing a variety of simulators in scores of locations worldwide, from the smallest to the largest sites, I can report that they are not a “magic bullet” that automatically creates customer traffic and healthy returns on investments. The secret to successfully purchasing and operating a simulator is understanding the precise nature of its role in the games and attractions mix, and knowing how to evaluate the pros and cons, ROI and suitability of any given product for a specific location.
FANCY FLIGHTS: One of the first buyers of MaxFlight’s original simulators in the late 1990’s was a large FEC called Adventure Island located in Orange Beach, AL. According to general manager Frank Hughes, the purchase paid for itself within a year. The facility recently acquired a new MaxFlight Dually model (shown right), which combines two software packages: the FS2000 Jet Fight Simulator and the VR2002 Create Your Own Roller Coaster (dedicated version shown at left). During the summer season, people wait in line to use the unit, Hughes said and he personally recommends the product to owners and operators of high traffic venues. Hughes singled out the simulator’s versatile range of motion for special praise, as well as the manufacturer’s technical training program
and ongoing communication and support.
DEFINING PRODUCTS
Let’s begin with some definitions. The term “simulator” (much like the phrase “virtual reality” a few years ago) is frequently applied to all kinds of products, without a hard and fast checklist of characteristics. For our company’s purposes, a true simulator is an interactive, motion based product that lets the player control at least part of the cabinet’s motion and that
synchronizes this motion with onscreen graphics to some degree. Seating is often, but not always, cockpit style or enclosed. A simulator can be small or large in size and often carries a corresponding price tag. One unit that my company frequently places in larger entertainment projects is made by MaxFlight; the two-seater Dually model combines two software packages: the FS S2000 Jet Flight Simulator and the VR2002 Create Your Own Roller Coaster.
This unit, or one with either of these software packages, requires approximately 200 sq. ft. of floor space (15ft. D. x 12.75ft. W. x 12.75ft. H.) and costs between $130,000 and $150,000, depending on the specific system and software configuration. My company has seen average earnings of $3,840 weekly during the past three years, which factors in higher earning units placed as standalone attractions in high traffic tourist destinations. There are also models that are relatively small and inexpensive (in the $8,000 range), such as Ice’s NASCAR Simulator, a kiddie ride. Just as sheer size and cost don’t determine whether a product is a simulator or a video game, realistic physics also should not be viewed as a deciding factor that determines what category a product belongs in. Some drivers, for example, offer highly realistic, enclosed
cockpit, sit down driving formats with super realistic physics programs and multiple monitors that provide widescreen graphic presentations. But machines that don’t offer player controlled cabinet motion that corresponds with onscreen motion do not qualify as simulators in my book.
Therefore, a product like Sega’s 1997 Ferrari F355 Challenge – featuring realistic physics, a semi enclosed, sit down cabinet and three wraparound monitors – is simply a very elaborate video game, not a simulator. Similarly, though Trio Tech’s Mad Wave Motion Theater certainly qualifies as a superb video game and attraction it does not fall into the simulator category because it does not offer player controlled motion, only a passive ride experience.
The definition of an attraction is less technical and more subjective. It is, essentially, any product that commands attention and draws people to a location. Sometimes an attraction might be a very large game, such as Benchmark’s Slam A Winner Xtreme.
Standing 11ft. tall, this ball shooter can be seen from a long way off, and its intriguing appearance may draw many players into an arcade or redemption area. But again, size is not necessarily a determining factor; creating traffic is all that counts in defining a machine as an attraction. When Sega’s Initial D driving video games arrived on the market a few years ago, the cabinets were not any larger than those of comparable drivers – but hardcore gamers created a buzz around this game on the Internet. Here in New Jersey, where at first only two units were available throughout the entire state, groups of kids drove as far as 50 miles to play these units, then went back home to brag online about their scores and performances.
That’s an example of “an attraction in action.” Or at least, it’s an attraction until so many units flood the market that it no longer creates unique excitement.
With these definitions in mind, let’s establish some guidelines for evaluating simulators and attractions, and for deciding whether or not they would make good choices for particular locations.
In evaluating simulators, important factors to consider include (after price and estimated revenue earnings): solid engineering; the longevity and reputation of the manufacturer; availability and cost of service and replacement parts; depth of the software library; and safety features. Inevitably, all of these are closely related. Companies that build reliable, safe and well engineered products, and support them with fun and plentiful software, excellent service and affordable parts, last long enough to develop a good reputation.
Regrettably, the history of simulators demonstrates that only a handful of companies pass these tests. Consequently, only a few products qualify for serious purchase consideration. It’s a depressingly familiar experience for FEC and park owners/managers and large operators to go to trade shows, see an exciting looking simulator, and perhaps even test it in a premium destination site…only to find that the unit performs well at first, then interest dies.
Even if a simulator succeeds, its manufacturers may change technologies
abruptly or discontinue models altogether; others may go out of business. All of
this makes experienced industry buyers extremely cautious about investing large
amounts of capital into simulators.
SAFETY COUNTS
A word about safety: don’t overlook this vital consideration when purchasing and installing a simulator. Because these products frequently involve large, moving masses of metal, the opportunity for accidents and injuries is always present. A well engineered simulator should include plenty of safety features to stop the motion instantly.
These should begin with automatic shutdown functions that engage whenever an unauthorized observer touches the machine or moves underneath the frame while
it is in motion. For simulators that offer more extreme motion, player controlled turn off switches may also be good (in the event of motion sickness).
Installing a fence around a motion simulator is often required as well. This can help prevent onlookers from standing too close and possibly being struck when the machine suddenly lurches in one direction or another. And, because people have a habit of ignoring fences and signs, and of doing things they aren’t supposed to do, assigning a fulltime attendant to monitor simulator use is often not just advisable, but a requirement to ensure safety.
One more safety factor to keep in mind: some FECs have a policy of banning totally enclosed units because they are concerned about player safety or misbehavior. Whether the issue is couples that become over amorous behind closed doors or the threat of pedophiles lurking in arcades, locations may have legitimate reasons for this stipulation. The operator should discuss this issue with the location and the manufacturer early in the process of evaluating simulators.
Notice that the above list of considerations does not “draw the line” on the acceptable cost of a simulator or attraction, nor does it discuss play pricing. That’s because economic factors should not be evaluated in a vacuum.
THINK BEFORE YOU BUY
Instead, economic factors relate more to proper linkage between products and locations. You can’t automatically say that a certain product is “too expensive” just because its cost exceeds a certain arbitrary figure. In the right location, even a high priced unit may more than justify its cost.
For example, a $130,000 two-seater MaxFlight simulator with two-person
throughput may be an excellent investment in a location with high foot traffic,
appropriate demographics and an environment that will support $4 or $5 per person per ride (and as much as $10 per person in a standalone setting).
Our company has installed more than a dozen MaxFlights in high traffic spaces, as have other large FEC operators. These products often perform extremely well. Some of our locations include The Tree House Arcade at Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut, and the Main Event FEC chain in Texas.
On the other hand, a simulator that costs one fifth of that amount may not be the wisest investment – even if it’s produced by a famous, reliable, long known manufacturer, and is beautifully designed, solidly engineered and offers thrilling experiences to the player.
SIMULATOR PLACEMENT REQUIRES CAREFUL PROFIT ANALYSIS
How can this be? Unfortunately, certain simulators price themselves out of the market, not only with the cost of the unit itself, but with the cost and availability of replacement parts. Having a unit down for several days or weeks is a certain way for negative information to flow quickly throughout the industry.
For example, a fairly small, one person, sit down simulator may cost $30,000 or $50,000. Despite its solid engineering, the machine may require constant maintenance and part replacements because its mechanical complexity results in frequent breakdowns over the course of normal operation.
If parts are priced too high, the operator realistically may have to add 50% to the original cost of purchase to cover expected maintenance requirements during the anticipated five to seven years of operation. Even at a $2 or $3 vend price in a high traffic location, a one player unit of this description can quickly price itself out of consideration.
A GOOD MATCH
To decide whether or not to install a particular simulator or attraction, the operator should first establish the model’s required square footage, potential revenues and length of time needed to recoup the investment. The operator should then compare these figures with those of alternative machines (redemption games, for example) that could go into the same space.
Once again, let’s use a $130,000 MaxFlight simulator as our example. To
estimate the likelihood that this machine would recoup the cost of the investment within a year, most operators quickly divide the purchase cost by 50 active weeks of use yearly to estimate the unit’s needed weekly earnings.
By this measure, a $130,000 simulator must earn $2,600 each week to pay for itself within 12 months. However, keep in mind that a large attraction piece such as a MaxFlight unit will remain in service for many years. Accordingly, it may make more sense to allow a two year span to recoup the investment, in which case $1,300 per week ($65,000 annually) would be the required revenue.
As stated previously, the average MaxFlight is producing $3,840 weekly or
$200,000 annually. This revenue is similar that generated by other traditional FEC type attractions, such as laser tag, but those options may actually take up more space. Operators must also consider the added values of attraction pieces. A simulator can serve to drive higher volumes of traffic to a location and “hold” them there longer. This traffic will consist of players who will not only ride the simulator, but also those who will simply stand by and watch (and with a good simulator, there are many people in both categories). Often, these customers will spend money on other games and food/beverage offerings in the center; thus the simulator should be credited with generating indirect revenues.
So the question is, if you spend $130,000 and take in $65,000 a year, is it worth the investment? Is a payback time of almost two years a wise allocation of capital?
The answer may be “absolutely yes” for a location that enjoys heavy traffic and draws players likely to spend $3 or $5 per person to experience the simulator. Locations ranging from arcade and FECs to destination theme parks and major casinos could fall into this category.
In the universe of typical FECs, arcades and game rooms, my observation is that today’s game operators (who place machines on a revenue sharing basis) will spend as much as – but usually not more than – $20,000 for a top earning game, simulator or attraction that drives traffic and fulfills the criterion on my list (solid engineering, a respected manufacturer, sufficient variety of software, etc.). Our company has recently exceeded this cost barrier by operating mini bowling and shooting galleries on a revenue sharing basis with some top tier locations. These attraction units are in the $50,000 price range.
SIMULATORS: WORTH THE INVESTMENT
Where do simulators and attractions fit into this picture? In general, these products can provide additional elements to create the basic opportunity for entertainment and socialization sought by today’s players. But just because they’re often big and flashy, simulators and attractions are not necessarily a surefire solution to the industry’s need to outperform the player’s Xbox, or to beat the performance of a home theater.
However, I have no doubt that when simulators and attractions are wisely chosen by the operator and installed in the right locations, they can play a valuable
role in creating player excitement and driving more traffic to the site.
They can earn quite well on their own and generate incremental revenues for other games in the location, as well. The secret of successful operation of simulators and attractions, then, is a careful calibration of the many complex factors that go into the effective mix of hardware, software, the customer and the environment.
FRANK SENINSKY is president of the Alpha Omega group of companies, which includes a consultancy agency, Amusement Entertainment Management LLC, and a nationwide revenue sharing equipment provider, Alpha Bet Entertainment; all are head quartered in East Brunswick, NJ. During his 33 years in coin-op. Seninsky has spoken at nearly 200 seminars and penned more than 750 articles.
He served as president of the Amusement and Music Operators Association from 1999 to 2000 Seninsky can be reached at tel. (732) 2543773 or by emailing fseninsky@aol.com.
Last updated:
Monday, October 10, 2005 02:17:03 PM