I went to a local arcade recently with two purposes in mind. The first was the obvious one: I wanted to play some games. The second was a little stranger. I wanted to figure out how much those games actually cost.
That turned out to be harder than it sounds.
When I was young, arcade economics were wonderfully simple. You walked up to a machine, put in a quarter, and played. Some premium games eventually cost fifty cents, but the basic relationship remained obvious. Money went into the machine and a game came out. There wasn't much calculating to do.
Modern arcades can work very differently.
At this particular arcade, I didn't put money into the machines at all. I put money onto a card and received credits. The games then charged credits rather than dollars. And the more money I put onto the card, the more credits I received.
The pricing went like this:
$20 bought 100 credits.
$40 bought 208.
$60 bought 320.
$100 bought 560.
And $150 bought 840.
There is genuine value here. Spending more lowers the cost per credit. At $20, each credit costs twenty cents. At $40, it falls to about 19.2 cents. At $60, it falls to 18.75 cents. At $100, it reaches about 17.86 cents.
Then something interesting happens.
At $150, it is still about 17.86 cents.
The $100 and $150 options offer exactly the same rate.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that. If I'm taking several kids to an arcade and expect to spend $150 anyway, loading the card once might be more convenient than stopping to reload it later. That's real value, even if it is only convenience.
But visually, the options appear to form a ladder. Spend more, get a better deal. Spend more again, get an even better deal. The pattern continues until the last step, when the improvement quietly disappears.
Unless, of course, you do the math.
And that little experience introduced me to a useful concept: decoupling.
In commerce, we can think of decoupling as separating things that were once experienced together. In this case, it is the separation of spending money from consuming what the money purchased.
The old arcade transaction was tightly coupled:
Quarter → game.
The modern arcade transaction is something more like:
Money → card → credits → bonus credits → game price in credits → game.
Every additional step creates a little more distance between the original dollar and the experience being purchased.
Again, this isn't automatically deceptive. Decoupling can be extremely useful. Nobody wants to feed 28 quarters into a sophisticated modern VR machine. Cards are convenient. Digital payment is convenient. Buying a larger block of credits can be convenient. Offering a legitimate volume discount can benefit both the customer and the arcade.
But something else happens at the same time.
The price becomes harder to feel.
One of the games at this arcade was a very enjoyable VR Godzilla game that cost 28 credits. Using a simple baseline of 25 cents per credit, that's seven dollars for one play. At the best bulk rate offered by the arcade, it's about five dollars.
"28 credits" simply doesn't sound like "five to seven dollars."
Another racing game cost 18 credits. At the 25-cent baseline, that's $4.50. I swiped my card, raced, did very well, won the race and even earned the number-two position on the day's high-score board.
Then the game ended.
If I wanted to race again, I had to swipe again.
That was particularly jarring to me because it violated an old arcade convention I had internalized over decades of playing. In many older racing and arcade games, performing well could extend your play. Skill had economic value. A talented player could sometimes make a quarter last much longer than a beginner could.
The modern machine didn't care.
Win or lose, the transaction was over.
There are perfectly legitimate business reasons for doing this. An arcade cabinet occupies physical space. It costs money to purchase and maintain. A player who remains on a machine for twenty minutes after paying once is generating less revenue than four players who each pay for five minutes.
But notice how far we've travelled from the quarter.
And arcades are hardly alone.
Casinos have long used chips partly because chips are easier to handle than constantly exchanging cash. Amusement parks have used tickets and tokens. Gift cards allow us to spend money at one moment and consume it much later. Credit cards separate purchasing from the physical disappearance of cash. Online stores can remember our payment information so thoroughly that purchasing something requires little more than touching a button.
Then came proprietary digital currencies.
Coins. Gems. Gold. Points. Tokens. Credits.
Video games have become particularly fond of these.
Instead of buying an item for $7, perhaps you buy 1,000 gems and then spend 700 gems on the item. Maybe the company sells gems in quantities that don't line up neatly with the prices of the things being sold. Perhaps there are bonus gems for buying larger packages. Maybe after the purchase you're left with 300 gems—not enough for the next thing you want, but enough that buying another package feels more reasonable.
The mathematics may all be available.
But the experience of spending has changed.
The dollar has been decoupled from the purchase.
Subscriptions accomplish something similar across time. Rather than repeatedly deciding whether something is worth another $15, we make the decision once and allow the transaction to recur automatically. Again, there is enormous legitimate value in this. I don't particularly want to reconsider my Internet service every thirty days.
But automatic renewal also separates using something from deciding to pay for it again. That creates the familiar experience of discovering a subscription we've barely used for months but have continued paying for.
Decoupling, then, is not necessarily the problem.
What interests me is what businesses do with it.
There is an important difference between reducing friction for the customer and reducing the customer's awareness of what is happening.
My arcade card is easier to carry than a pocket containing forty dollars in quarters. That's useful.
Giving me extra credits for committing more money upfront is a legitimate discount.
Allowing me to load $150 because I don't want to keep returning to the kiosk is convenient.
But if the system becomes more profitable because I no longer know what a game costs, something has changed.
If 28 credits causes me to spend more readily than "$7 PER PLAY" would, then part of the system's effectiveness comes not from increasing the value of the game but from decreasing the salience of its price.
And if a progression of increasingly attractive bulk discounts trains me to assume that the $150 option must be a better bargain than the $100 option when it actually offers exactly the same rate, the system is benefiting from something other than the games themselves.
It is benefiting from my failure to calculate.
That doesn't necessarily make it a scam. The prices are displayed. The credits are displayed. I can pull out my phone, open the calculator and work everything out, which is exactly what I did.
But I think there is a useful question consumers can begin asking:
Is this system making my life easier, or is it making the price harder to see?
Sometimes the answer will be both.
That is what makes decoupling so interesting.
A credit card is tremendously convenient and also makes spending psychologically easier. An automatically renewing subscription saves us from repeatedly paying a bill and also saves the seller from repeatedly having to convince us to buy. Arcade credits eliminate the hassle of coins while making the dollar cost of individual games less obvious. In-game currencies make complicated virtual economies possible while also placing psychological distance between a cosmetic outfit and the real money used to buy it.
The same mechanism can simultaneously create value and weaken price awareness.
Perhaps the answer isn't to eliminate these systems. I certainly don't want to return to carrying rolls of quarters everywhere.
Maybe the answer is recoupling them in our own minds.
When I returned from the arcade, that's essentially what I did. I translated the credits back into dollars. Suddenly the games looked different.
Eight credits became $2 at my baseline.
Eighteen became $4.50.
Twenty-eight became $7.
Then I applied the bulk discounts and calculated the lower prices.
Nothing about the arcade had changed. The games hadn't changed. The prices hadn't changed.
My understanding of the bargain had changed.
And that matters because I like arcades. I want them to exist. I understand that machines cost money, employees need to be paid, buildings require heat and electricity, and a modern VR installation is a vastly more complicated piece of equipment than the arcade cabinets I played in the 1980s.
I'm willing to pay for fun.
What I'm becoming increasingly reluctant to pay for is confusion.
This may be one of the most useful little habits we can develop as commerce becomes increasingly digital and abstract: every once in a while, translate things back into ordinary money.
How much did that game actually cost?
How much am I paying per month?
What does that become per year?
What is one "credit" worth?
Does buying the larger package actually improve the rate?
Am I receiving more value, or merely spending more money at once?
Those aren't revolutionary questions. They're almost embarrassingly simple.
But modern commerce has become remarkably sophisticated at creating distance between the moment when money leaves us and the moment when we experience what we bought.
Video games and arcades happen to provide particularly vivid examples because they have travelled almost the entire journey.
We started with a quarter in our hand.
We put it into a machine.
We heard it drop.
And we played.
Forty years later, I can tap a plastic card containing hundreds of invisible credits purchased through a sliding schedule of bonuses to activate a machine displaying a price in a currency that exists nowhere outside that building.
That's quite an evolution.
Some of it is progress.
Some of it is convenience.
Some of it is genuinely better value.
And some of it may work precisely because we don't stop long enough to figure out what we're actually paying.
So perhaps the quarter still has something to teach us.
Not that everything should cost twenty-five cents.
Just that there was something valuable about knowing exactly what the bargain was.
No comments:
Post a Comment