A True Scary Story in Pachislot—The Story of the Pachislot 'Sakura Wars' Suspension

Hello, this is Sakura.
Today, I'm going to dig up an old event and tell a slightly scary story. The subject is that famous incident—the suspension of operations for 'Pachislot Sakura Wars 3: Is Paris Burning?'. Many of you may remember that at the time, there was a large discrepancy between the manufacturer's announced values and the actual payouts, leading to chaos in parlors across the country. This time, while looking back at the facts of that time, I will write about the fact that 'there were still parlors that continued operations.' Knowing this should give you a glimpse into the 'scary' nature of the parlor business.

That machine 'paid out too much'—Organizing the facts

Introduced in 2011, 'Sakura Wars 3' saw a series of reports from various locations immediately after its introduction suggesting that 'the payout rate might be significantly higher than the announced value.' In fact, media reports and testimonies from parlor staff pointed out that 'even at setting 1, the machine's payout percentage was about 5% higher than the announced value,' and it was reported that parlors suffered consecutive losses.

It was a machine where even at the lowest setting, customers would win and go home.
The manufacturer (Sammy) also acknowledged the defect, and there is a record of them providing free replacements and business compensation.

If it were just this, it might end as a 'blunder story' in the industry. However, the problem is how the parlors responded afterward.

'Parlors that removed it' vs. 'Parlors that continued operations'—Divided decisions

According to reports, many parlors stopped operations early on. This is because a machine that 'pays out too much' not only affects that parlor but also disrupts the balance of surrounding machines, negatively impacting the overall business balance. Even with compensation from the manufacturer, short-term losses were unavoidable.

However, surprisingly, not all parlors removed it immediately. Tracing testimonies from the field and records on bulletin boards, there are reports that some parlors continued operations—or hesitated to stop them. Why? From here on, I will layer reasonable inferences based on the reported facts.
Why was the option of 'continuing operations' possible?

Parlor management is a business that goes beyond simply 'placing machines and letting customers play.' Balance management, machine cost recovery, replacement costs for the entire store, the balance between regulars and new customers... all of these are severe.
With manufacturer compensation and the arrangement of replacement machines being delayed, the possibility that 'some parlors secured sales for that day and that month by continuing operations, even if only for the short term' cannot be denied. Looking at reports and industry posts from that time, the fact that the formula 'suspension of operations = zero sales + replacement costs' cornered the parlors is clear.

What is important here is that there was an 'incentive for parlors to delay their response.' If they continued to operate a machine where customers kept winning, customer traffic would increase in the short term, and the parlor would look prosperous. But at the same time, this could lead to criticism that 'the parlor is deceiving its customers.' In reality, it is reported that parlors that continued operations drew scorn.

An act as if the parlor is declaring that it 'can do whatever it wants'

I have to choose my words carefully here. I will avoid definitive slander, but the impressions derived from the facts are harsh.The fact that there are parlors that continue to operate machines that clearly produce payouts deviating from the manufacturer's announcements cannot help but be perceived as disregarding the customers. For customers, a parlor should be a 'safe and fair playground,' and if it is not, it becomes an ethical issue.

In a sense, continuing operations is like publicly declaring that the parlor can do anything at its own discretion. It is close to an act of insulting customers and was an act that damaged the trust of the entire industry.
There was a parlor near Sakura's house that was operating it, but it was a notoriously bad parlor that had been arrested for remote control manipulation, and it was not a good place at all.

Even so, I want you to remember that there is also 'the struggle of the field'

However, it is one-sided to just condemn the parlors here. Parlor management is connected to the region in many ways, not just through profit-seeking, but also through employment, the local economy, and taxes. If a parlor falls into a management crisis due to the suspension of operations for compensation, the lives of its employees will also be in danger. While a prompt and transparent response from the manufacturer is required, there must have been the struggle of store managers forced to make immediate decisions on the ground.

Even so, the choice to 'continue operations' can sometimes lack the minimum sincerity toward customers. The industry needs to learn from this type of incident.

Finally—there were indeed scary parlors

If you line up only the facts, the Sakura Wars 3 incident followed the flow of 'design error → payouts become abnormally sweet → parlor suffers losses → manufacturer compensation → convergence through removal or compensation.' However, behind that, parlors that continued operations actually existed. This simultaneously poses the ethical problem of how a parlor treats its customers. I recommend that readers, when choosing a parlor, 'do not choose based only on the number of machines installed or the appearance.' Management convenience and customer fairness sometimes conflict.

Looking back at that time, that event is also a lesson showing 'how fragile the industry is and how much it depends on human ethics.' Remember the fact that there were scary parlors, and play wisely.

Even though this industry has become cleaner, there are likely still dark parts to it.