Location-based entertainment
Why overseas experience content
does not reach Japanese venues
Not because the content is weaker.
Because the two sides are describing different purchases.
Location-based entertainment
Not because the content is weaker.
Because the two sides are describing different purchases.
Japanese experience venues are chronically short of content. VR sites, amusement operators, mixed leisure complexes, fitness. All of them say they want something new.
Overseas, there is content available for venue licensing. The two sides rarely meet. The reason is not quality — it is that the terms do not line up.
Overseas developers usually open with revenue share: low entry cost for the venue, split the takings. Japanese venues strongly prefer a buyout.
The reason is unglamorous — a buyout has no monthly reporting. Tallying admissions and takings each month and sending them to the licensor is pure overhead for floor staff. At the same total amount, "pay once and then use it freely" wins.
Deals that would pass on a change of terms
are stalled on the terms.
"It plays fine in English, the atmosphere carries it" is not an answer the venue can use, because floor staff cannot field customer questions.
That said, the required scope is often narrower than developers assume. In many cases, Japanese on the text that governs interaction is sufficient, and voice dubbing is not requested. A number of companies have written off the Japanese market as too expensive to localise without ever establishing which of the two they were being asked for.
Japanese venues commonly sell in ten to twenty minute slots. An experience that does not fit that window cannot be put on the shelf at all, regardless of how good it is.
Does it need a PC or will it run on a standalone headset? Does it need a room or will a small booth do? The installed cost changes by an order of magnitude between those answers.
"Contact the developer in English, in a different time zone" does not pass. Whether there is a contact point inside Japan will be asked every time.
Venue evaluation criteria are startlingly operational. How many people per hour. How many staff attend it. How many minutes before and after the experience itself. Being good is the entry condition; being runnable is the decision.
The material overseas developers bring is almost always built to convey how compelling the experience is. For a Japanese venue, half the document should be about operations.
One thing is unambiguous: venue staff decide from video. One or two minutes showing the actual experience moves a conversation faster than a long deck. With that, plus a single page summarising the four points above, the first exchange is essentially covered.
A buyout price. Japanese on interaction text. Whether the duration can be adjusted. Hardware and floor area. A contact point in Japan.
Throughput per hour. Staff required. Available capital for hardware. Who has to respond within how long when it fails.
None of the conditions above is difficult. They fail to line up because the two sides are negotiating directly while holding different assumptions and different vocabulary. The overseas developer does not know how a Japanese venue is run; the Japanese venue avoids negotiating in English. With someone in between to translate the terms rather than the words, most of these deals move. That is the part we do.
For venues looking for content, and developers looking at Japan
Tell me the experience length, the hardware it needs and the contract form you have in mind. I will give you an honest read on whether it can be made to work.