游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

业内观察者称传统游戏开发者应正视社交游戏的存在

发布时间:2011-03-31 15:42:57 Tags:,,,

游戏邦注:本文原作者是businessinsider撰稿人David Radd,他认为传统游戏公司应该转变观念,正视社交游戏已成行业新兴力量这一事实。

David Radd称他直到最近才发现,游戏领域是一个规模较小,可亲可近的行业,它不像好莱坞总是以高高在上的姿态示人。不过游戏玩家则是另一种情况,他们喜欢将自己划分为索尼vs.微软、运动控制vs.标准控制、日本游戏vs.西方游戏等数个相互对立的阵营。玩家都很坚定地捍卫自己拥护的游戏类型,仿佛这种忠贞对他们来说至关重要,但这种现象至少表明,他们真的很在乎游戏行业。

在作者看来,硬核玩家敌视“社交游戏玩家”的情况并不令人意外,毕竟这类游戏并非针对“真正的游戏玩家”而设计,它们是为开发商所追求的价值而存在。更令人沮丧的是,这类游戏一般没有多少技术含量,有时候甚至网页设计公司都能创建一款游戏,所以社交游戏在网站论坛中的口碑并不理想。除此之外,社交游戏的运营模式也备受诟病,曾有Zynga前员工爆料该公司宁愿抄袭竞争对手的设计,也不愿自主创新。

cityville-facebook-game

cityville-facebook-game

不过作者同时也指出,游戏行业正在打破这种僵局,就算还没有完全“接纳”社交游戏,至少也已经是“不排斥”社交游戏了。游戏邦认为我们可以从今年的GDC大会上看出这一迹象,当主持人Margaret Robertson抛出社交游戏是否“邪恶”这一问题时,现场展开了一场围绕社交游戏的激烈辩论。Ian Bogost声称社交游戏破坏了人们之间的社交方式,Daniel James则将其比作剥削用户的老虎机,而Zynga公司的代表Nabeel Hyatt也迅速回击称“传统游戏”总是充满大量的暴力元素。尽管这场辩论充满火药味(而且双方最后并未达成共识),但真正令人印象深刻的却是任天堂CEO岩田聪所发表的手机及社交游戏廉价论。

游戏邦获悉岩田聪曾在GDC大会上公开表示,社交及手机游戏可能给整个行业带来威胁,这种新兴的平台不利于捍卫高质量游戏的价值,这种游戏开发会走向绝路。他甚至指责社交游戏并不具有社交性,社交游戏行业完全是靠数量取胜。在他看来,任天堂、索尼和微软才能代表高质量、有价值的游戏,人们不应该贬低游戏的价值,同时也悲观地表示,“我担心游戏行业的这种分裂局面,已经威及我们大多数人的饭碗。”

岩田聪的这番话真是一针见血——社交游戏有可能抢走传统游戏开发者的饭碗。所有失业者、害怕被裁员或者看到工作机会流向海外的人都会深有感触,这种滋味真不好受。再加上AAA游戏行业是一个高风险/高回报的领域,所以大家都不免对自己不可预测的前途感到恐慌。

这里我们要先退一步思考,这些传统游戏元老的观点是什么,他们发表这番言论的背景又是什么。岩田聪曾发誓,在自己执掌公司大权期间,绝不会让任天堂游戏在非任天堂的硬件平台上现身。这就是任天堂一贯的作风——如果他们决定不做某事,就会事先在口头上放出风声。(在上个世纪90年代中期,这家游戏巨头还曾经发表过CD游戏需要大量的装载时间,这对他们来说是不可行的;玩家最终会对那些只有画面华丽的游戏感到厌倦之类的言论。)

另一方面,Facebook其实和其他平台一样并没有什么不同。虽然人们很重视设备的晶体管和与电路,但Facebook也完全有理由成为一个很可行的游戏平台。许多传统游戏玩家可能对此很反感,因为Facebook已经成了一个主流文化现象——游戏领域中仍存在一种“朋克摇滚”情节,即让自己在其他游戏类型面前显得特立独行。同时也有人认为,Facebook一直在不断增势,已经成为游戏行业巨头无法忽视的一个平台。Facebook目前在全球有6亿多的活跃用户,而游戏平台Steam却只有3000万左右,二者之间的差距好比是海洋和湖泊。

不过也有一些开发者已提前看到Facebook的发展机遇,开始进军社交游戏领域。Rebellion公司就专门成立了一个社交游戏部门,而《Doom》的游戏设计师John Romero也创办了自己的社交游戏工作室Loot Drop,并表示将由此带领非游戏用户进入游戏的世界。除此之外,Richard Garriott(Origins Systems,NCsoft),Brian Reynolds(Firaxis),Raph Koster(Origins Systems,SOE)等传统游戏元老也纷纷倒向社交游戏的阵营。

由此可见,Facebook并没有阻断传统游戏元老的后路,反而是向他们开启了新的发展机遇,让他们创立新公司并推出新作品。投入Facebook怀抱并不意味着人人都得复制Zynga模式——但同时也可以理解,有许多人都梦想开发出下一个《FarmVille》。不过这些行业元老只有真正深入挖掘Facebook的潜力,才有可能让社交游戏转变为高质量的作品。在游戏邦看来,仅因为自己对Facebook不熟悉,就无视这个平台的存在,那是一种很不高明的运营策略。开发者至少应该放宽眼界接纳这一现象,因为最精明的商人都知道得去顾客最经常出没的地方吆喝,而拥有最多潜在用户的地方显然就是Facebook。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,转载请注明来源:游戏邦)

Facebook Gaming Is Here to Stay

Up until recently, I was under the impression that game developers more-or-less got along, regardless of their discipline. The games business is a small, intimate industry that doesn’t have quite the level of brazen egocentricity that, say, Hollywood often displays. Gamers themselves are another matter – they love dividing themselves into polemic groups: Sony vs. Microsoft, Motion Control vs. Standard Control, Japanese Games vs. Western Games, etc. Gamers shout themselves horse , as if fighting over these distinctions makes a difference, but at least it shows that they do care about the industry.

It didn’t surprise me then that most of the hardcore gamers I knew actively hated “social games.” After all, most of these games aren’t designed for “gamers” – they’re designed (quite literally) for their mothers. Much more passive, less skill intensive and sometimes designed by web companies instead of game designers, social titles are often publicly put down in online forums. Business practices have come under scrutiny too; in fact, Zynga’s way of doing business has been roundly blasted by former employees.

Regardless, I figured the industry in general was, if not “for” social games, at least not “against” them… that was until GDC 11. One of the more heated debates at the conference took place over social games, with Margaret Robertson asking if social games were “evil.” Ian Bogost argued they are damaging the way we relate to people and Daniel James compared many social games to slot machines that exploited people – all things that Zynga’s Nabeel Hyatt hit back against, decrying the violence in many “traditional” games. Despite the contentious nature of the debate (which never really reached much common ground) it was comments by Nintendo CEO and president Satoru Iwata that really caught my attention.

Iwata aimed his sights on social (and mobile) games as potential quality threats to the industry. He said that the rising platforms had no incentive to maintain a high level of quality and that game development was “drowning.” He even accused social network games of not being particularly social and that the social game industry is backed by quantity. Iwata tacitly threw his lot in with Sony and Microsoft, saying that the value the industry offers should not be undersold and said in dire terms, “I fear our business is dividing in a way that threatens the continued employment of many of us.”

Whoa. That’s a pretty clear line in the sand – social games might cost you your job. Anyone who has lost their job, felt the fear of cutbacks or seen their job go overseas can tell you it’s no fun. Considering that the AAA games industry is very high-risk/high-reward, people are probably feeling a little edgy right now about their own standing.

Let’s take a step back, though, and consider what’s being said and the circumstances in which they are said. For Iwata, he has vowed that no Nintendo games will ever release on a non-Nintendo hardware platform so long as he is running the company, so his cards are clearly on the table. It’s a stance not atypical to what Nintendo has done in the past: if they’re not doing something, they tear it down verbally (see the mid-’90s when the Kyoto-giant said the loading times of CDs made them impractical or that gamers were getting bored with games that merely looked better not five years ago.)

On the other hand, when it gets right down to it, Facebook is just a platform like any other. People attach significance to transistors and circuits, but there’s no reason that Facebook should not be as viable as any other platform. It’s perhaps an anathema to many gamers because it is so mainstream – there’s still a lingering “punk rock” attitude in gaming that tends to separate it from other hobbies. Still, as my compatriot James Brightman argued, Facebook is gaining new capabilities all the time (like movie renting) and shouldn’t be ignored by the heavy hitters in the gaming industry. Facebook has 600 million active users worldwide, and by comparison, Steam has about 30 million; that’s like the difference of breadth between an ocean and a lake.

Some developers have already seen the opportunities on Facebook and squarely turned their focus towards that platform. Rebellion opened up a division solely for social games and Doomdesigner John Romero has set his sights on the social sphere with Loot Drop, saying, “Our opportunity is to teach the rest of the world how to play games.” He’s not alone, with notable industry veterans Richard Garriott (Origins Systems, NCsoft), Brian Reynolds (Firaxis), Raph Koster (Origins Systems, SOE) – to name just a few – also going over to the social side.

So clearly Facebook does not close off opportunities for industry veterans – it might even empower them to found new companies and create new titles with control that’s hard to get elsewhere. Embracing Facebook as a platform does not mean accepting the Zynga model of doing things – it’s understandable if anyone would cringe at the thought of making the nextFarmVille. But quality isn’t going to change unless industry veterans keep getting involved with the platform; simply ignoring Facebook because it’s unfamiliar is about as stupid a business tactic as I can think of. We have to remain at least open minded, because one of the oldest tenants of business is “go where your customers are” and they are most certainly on Facebook. It’s something that those in the industry denounce at their own peril.(source:businessinsider)


上一篇:

下一篇: