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

分析社交游戏现状及未来的发展思路

发布时间:2011-06-02 16:47:48 Tags:,,,

作者:Jon Radoff

我可以称得上是企业家,因为我乐于打破陈规。打破陈规首先要提出恰当的问题,揭露可供创新的新领域。因而,尽管本文看似宣言,其实更多的是对我曾经喜爱和厌恶过的市场提出问题。这个市场便是社交游戏。

现在,如果你同游戏业中任何人(游戏邦注:包括游戏玩家)交谈过,就会轻易察觉到这些人分为两个阵营。一方可称为“社交游戏军团”,另一方是传统游戏派系。假设这是个中世纪的战场,你可以想象的到耀眼的阳光正照耀着传统游戏集团昂贵的盔甲上,他们的盾牌上装饰的是Bioware和暴雪之类的纹章。社交游戏军团正如同维京人般身处堡垒之外,占领郊外的领地,侵占那些未受保护的土地。尽管他们并不友好而且在早期胜利光环的祝福下英勇前行,但他们也可称得上是老兵,在称为“社交媒体”的遥远土地上时常引发战争。他们有着丰富的经验和雄厚的战争资金,所以不需要昂贵的盔甲或马匹。双方都因对方的蔑视而恼羞成怒,无论何时接触都会爆发战争。

于是我产生如下问题:真得存在两个对立的阵营吗?两者间是否可能存在调和点?

问题的细化

我萌生的所有想法都源于某个简单的前提:如果我们做些不同的事情来改变现状会发生什么事?我创立的首个公司(游戏邦注:上文中作者将自己比喻为企业家,这里的公司指代作者的想法)提出的问题,是能否不将游戏看作是游戏,而当成程序化娱乐,就像电视节目那样。这种想法导致网络上出现首个商业化实时游戏。当所有互动代理初创公司通过以客户为目标的手动更新来奋力抓取金钱时,我创立了软件公司,提出能否制作出简单的软件,这样人们都可以自行处理事务而无需通过代理。事实证明我们的想法是正确的,随后我们将公司公之于众。最后一个公司GamerDNA的创立想法,是玩家和游戏社群可以共享他们的游戏经验,这些信息比职业评论员提供的更好。我们设法将其积聚成容纳逾千万玩家的社群社区。

对于社交游戏市场,我提出的“简单”问题,是它能否发展得比现在更好。这个简单的问题又产生出许许多多其他问题。

社交游戏

首先,让我们来看看什么是社交游戏。我个人对此类游戏的定义与Techcrunch提出的有较大差别,对我来说,《Farmville》、《大富翁》(游戏邦注:指桌游版游戏)、《摇滚乐队》和《魔兽世界》有着共同的特征,它们都是你与其他人(通常是朋友)一起玩的游戏。但是,行业内人士提及“社交游戏”时,通常指代的是利用社交关系圈来获取用户的异步游戏。

farmville(from best-farmville-farms.blogspot.com)

farmville(from best-farmville-farms.blogspot.com)

无论下述说法你是否相信,异步社交游戏最早是网页游戏,它们的原型是信件游戏。(游戏邦注:人们曾经通过信件来玩游戏,玩家填写纸上的表格然后寄给协调者,后者根据所有规则处理信件后将更新通过寄回给玩家。这里指的是普通邮寄信件,并非电子邮件。)

我们能开辟哪些新途径呢?如何才能做出新事物?让我们先提出几个假设的问题。

假设问题

假如我们不再让你招集500个陌生人来建成最大的黑帮、家族、城市和农场等,而更关注的是让你与5-10个关系密切的好友产生更深层次的联系,情况会如何呢?

假如我们将“虚拟商品”的想法加以扩张,这样它们就不再只是物品的虚拟模型,而含有更多人性、性格特征、故事和冒险,情况会如何呢?

假如我们不急于在6周的时间里制成游戏,而更关注体验质量,情况会如何呢?

假如我们想要改变市场对“最小化可行性”社交游戏的需求,不再只制作某些极不可行的游戏,情况会如何呢?

假如我们不再利用社交关系圈来获取用户,情况会如何呢?假如我们更多地依靠产品质量和真正的口碑传播,情况会如何呢?许多人跟我说,我的这个想法甚为愚蠢。有人告诉我Zynga已经证实这种模式极其有效,不模仿是十分愚蠢的行为。我认为模仿无异于自杀,此刻定有上百个公司正尝试制作下个《Farmville》。我想要证明他们的想法是错误的,尽管他们在不断制造着同类的社交机器。

假如我们将游戏的目标玩家定为现在的1/10,但让游戏的用户留存率提升至目前的10倍,情况会如何呢?

假如我们更关心的是如何让玩家享受6个月、12个月、24个月甚至是50个月的游戏体验,而不是数天就玩腻,情况会如何呢?参与度、A/B测试、转化率分析和用户体验等我们看待游戏的方式会发生何种改变呢?

假如虚拟道具的作用是收集绝妙的收藏品、个性化玩家体验以及解锁新内容和故事,而并非为了减少令人烦扰的事物,情况会如何呢?

假如我们更愿意公开讨论想法,而并非为惧怕抄袭而悄悄实施,情况会如何呢?围绕这些想法创建社群,然后争取最早做出产品,这种做法有价值吗?

假如我们更关注为那些在其他平台上玩游戏的玩家提供乐趣,情况会如何呢?

如何才能制作出极具吸引力的社交游戏,让其具有“真正的社交化”,即便人们站在饮水机旁也会讨论游戏内容(游戏邦注:指游戏深入玩家生活,无处不在)?假如我们更多地思考如何将现实世界和现实生活方式融入游戏中,情况会如何呢?

假如我们思考在社交游戏年代,产品对“发行商”意味着什么,情况会如何呢?是否有可能创造出帮助制作者更好地经营、传播和营销产品却无需承当所有风险的平台?是否有可能令发行商架构解体,创造出让整个游戏生态系统的财富值和健康程度最大化的新模式?

让社交游戏更具社交化

近期,许多社交游戏公司谈论的话题是让“社交游戏更具社交化”。公正地说,《摇滚乐队》和《魔兽世界》之类的游戏已经比“社交游戏”更具社交化了。因而事实上,这片领域上的突破并不会令人感到惊奇。反之,我更喜欢去思考社交圈的新使用方式。我们应该提出的问题不是如何让社交游戏更具社交化,而是如何让其更具创新性。下文将列举我对某些社交游戏还未充分探索的领域的想法。

社交游戏中可供创新的七大领域

创意

游戏可以让你发挥自己的创意,无论是角色制作、城市设计、动作解谜游戏制作或其他冒险设计等过程。然而,创意驱动力恰恰是我们鲜在游戏中探索的领域。假如以全新的创意形式利用社交圈,将“群体智慧”的概念转化为“群体创意”,情况会如何呢?我们如何才能将游戏玩家和游戏设计师二者统一起来?

故事

回想20世纪30年代,Walter Benjamin曾撰文阐述说故事的人都是曾经有过相关体验的人。旅行诗人、行吟诗人、返战士兵,他们都可以成为篝火丛中的那名老者。尽管我们有构建故事的人(游戏邦注:如编剧、小说家和游戏设计师等),但却不像以前那样有真正适合于说故事的人。说故事的人和听故事的人间的互动中存在特殊的联系,似乎我们缺了些什么。我们如何才能让人们分享他们的经验(游戏邦注:包括现实世界或游戏模拟环境中的经验),成为篝火丛中的那名老者呢?

想象

故事、角色、想象,这三者是多数艺术作品和好游戏所包含的事物。我们如何才能在社交游戏中真正引发想象和求知欲呢?

情感

好故事会让我产生某种情感,好游戏也是如此。到目前为止,我不觉得社交游戏有让我产生某种情感。我们能够做得更好吗?

融合现实

我们有实时数据感应器和移动设备,随时随地都可以触及社交数据。同时,居住在城市的人数比以前更多,自行组织起的人际网络在社交圈之外不规则地发展着。我们已经有Foursquare之类的现实解说系统,可以更方便地将先进技术随身携带。我们已有实时处理和消化大量新闻的技术。多年以来,人们在思考的问题是“如何将游戏制作得更具现实性?”。然而,我更感兴趣的问题是“如何将现实处理得更像游戏?”。游戏能否以新颖的方式将社交体验和现实结合起来?我们能否以新方式将文化思潮融入游戏中?

Foursquare(from sev7en.com)

Foursquare(from sev7en.com)

学习

人们通过观察来学习其他人的做法。难道社交环境不是个教授行为和技能的绝佳地点吗?社交游戏能否让人有各自的职责?我们能否将绝妙的内容与学习结合起来,而不让人产生“被学习”的反感念头?

个性化和结果

游戏已经在决定和结果方面有所探索。比如,我可以选择在《旧共和国武士》中扮演好人或坏人。如果有游戏让你思考行为的社交结果会怎样?如果在游戏中没有可供读取的存档,你只能决定选择贪婪的行为还是自我牺牲的行为,又会发生什么事呢?

更深的友谊

18年前,我在网游《Gemstone》中邂逅妻子。当然,这在当时并不常见,但现在《魔兽世界》等MMORPG中经常发生此类事情。而且,许多友谊因为MMO游戏中的互动而产生。我认为“社交游戏”市场带来的婚姻或现实世界友情几乎为零。我们如何才能做出改变呢?

行动号召

我确信上述想法是自己创业生涯中最重要和最大的事情。如果你对我感兴趣的东西有着同样的激情,我想听听你对社交游戏市场提出的问题和答案。如果你不同意我在此处提出的任何看法,那我想要和你谈谈。如果你觉得我提出的问题是错误的,那么我想听听你的看法。如果你想加入这个随时提出这些问题和相互挑战的团队,那么我们应该马上谈谈。无论你是游戏制作者、玩家还是商人,我们都可以谈谈某些特别且很棒的东西。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

A Social Game Manifesto

Jon Radoff

I’m an entrepreneur because I like to break things. Breaking things starts with asking the right questions—questions that expose new areas for innovation and disruption. So, while this is a sort of manifesto—it is really more about asking questions about a market that I’ve come to love… and hate. That market is social games.

If you speak to anyone in the game industry today—as well as many gamers—you’ll quickly perceive that there are two camps. On the one hand are “social game companies.” On the other are the traditional game companies. If this were a medieval battlefield, you could imagine the traditional game companies, the sun flashing on their expensive armor, their shields emblazoned with names like Bioware and Blizzard. Outside are the social game companies—these are the Vikings, conquering the territories on the outskirts, finding unprotected lands. They’re a surly bunch, emboldened by the halo of their early success—but they’re also grizzled veterans who have often done war in distant lands called “social media.” They have experience and war chests overflowing with new treasure, and they don’t need expensive armor or horses. The two sides bristle with a contempt for each other that sometimes boils over whenever the two sides come into contact.

Is it really two camps? Or might there be a middle path?

Being Disruptive

All of the businesses I’ve ever started emerged from a simple premise: what if we shook up the status quo by doing something different? The first company I started asked whether we could treat games—not as games—but as programmed entertainment, more like television. That led to one of the first commercial real-time games on the Internet. I started a software company when every interactive agency startup was raking in dollars by performing manual updates for all of their clients—and we asked whether we could simply create a piece of software so people could do it themselves. It turned out that we were right, and we took that company public. My last company, GamerDNA, was started with the idea that gamers and game communities could share their game experiences better than professional reviewers. We managed to aggregate it into a community-of-communities of over 10 million gamers.

The “simple” question that led me into the social game market was whether they could become a lot better than they are. That, in turn, led to an awful lot of other questions.

What are social games?

Let’s start by looking at what a social game is. My personal definition is a bit different than the one that Techcrunch might use; to me, Farmville, Monopoly (the board game), Rock Band and World of Warcraft all share a common denominator: they are all games you play with other people (often your friends). However, when someone in the industry refers to a “social game,” usually they are referring to games that (a) leverage the social graph (usually Facebook’s) for customer acquisition, and (b) are played asynchronously.

Believe it or not, asynchronous social games predate the Web. Their original incarnation was play-by-mail games. [Wikipedia] (once upon a time, people used to play games where you filled out a form on paper, mailed it to a central coordinator, who processed all the rules and sent you back the next update in the mail. Yes, I’m talking about postal mail here!)

What are the ways we can disrupt? How can we do something new? Let’s ask some of the what-if questions:

What if we were less concerned about getting you to recruit 500 strangers to get the largest mafia/clan/city/farm/etc and more concerned about enabling a *deep* connection with 5-10 of your closest friends?

What if we explode the idea of “virtual goods” so that they are no longer just virtual equivalents of objects—but expanded to include personalities, character traits, stories, adventure pathways, etc.?

What if we’re less concerned about cranking out a game in 6 weeks and more concerned about the quality of experience?

What if we want to shift the market’s requirements for a ‘minimum viable’ social game rather than simply creating something minimally viable?

What if we were less concerned about using the social graph for customer acquisition? What if we relied more on real word-of-mouth—real product remarkability—rather than spam? No less than a dozen people have told me that this is my most stupid idea. One person told me that Zynga already proved “the model” and I’d be foolish not to copy it. I think imitation is suicide and I think there must be a hundred companies trying to making the next Farmville at this very moment. I intend to prove them wrong while they continue to produce the equivalent of social slot machines.

What if we focused on games with a target of one-tenth the players but ten times the retention?

What if we are more concerned with how someone will enjoy a game experience for 6, 12, 24, 50 *months* rather than days? How does that change the way we look at things like engagement, A/B testing, conversion analytics, user experience?

What if virtual items were more about collecting cool collectibles, customizing your experience, unlocking new content and stories—and less about eliminating annoyances?

What if we’re willing to talk about our ideas publicly, rather than operate in “stealth” because we’re convinced there are like-minded folks out there? Is there value in creating a community around these ideas, and being the first to sound the clarion?

What if we are concerned about entertaining people who also play games on other platforms?

What would it take to make a social game so engaging that the way in which they become “really social” is that people are talking about them around the water-cooler? What if we thought more about how the real world (and real-world lifestyles) could intersect with our games?

What if we think about what it means to be a “publisher” in the age of social games? Would it be possible to create a platform that helps creators finance, distribute and market their products a lot better—without needing to “own” everything? Is it possible to deconstruct the whole idea of the publisher and create a new model that maximizes the wealth and health of the whole gaming ecosystem?

Social games more social?

Recently, a lot of social game companies have talked about making “social games more social.” Fair enough; but games like Rock Band and World of Warcraft are already a lot more social than “social games.” That’s not really an area for amazing innovation. Instead, I’d like to think about ways to use the social graph in novel ways. The question we should be asking is not how to make social games more social, but how can we make them more innovative. Here are a few thoughts on areas that aren’t fully explored in the domain of games:

Seven Areas for Innovation in Social Games

Creativity

There are games that allow you to be creative—whether it’s making a character, designing a city, creating action-puzzle games or designing adventures for others. Nevertheless, the creative drive is something we’ve barely begun to explore within games. What if the social graph enabled whole new forms of creativity—turn the notion of the “wisdom of the crowds” into the “creativity of the crowds”? How can we blend the distinction of game-player and game-creator?

Storytelling

As far back as the 1930’s, Walter Benjamin wrote about how the storyteller was once a person who related experiences. Traveling bards, troubadours, soldiers returned from war; the elder at the campfire. Although we have story-crafters (screenwriters, novelists, game designers, etc.) we don’t really have many story-tellers like we used to. There’s a unique connection between the interaction of a story-teller and the story-listener, and it seems like we’ve lost something. How can we enable people to share their experiences (either from the real-world, or simulated within the environment of games)—to become that elder at the campfire?

Imagination

Stories, characters, imagination—this is the stuff of most art and most of the better games. How can we truly engage imagination and a “sense of wonder” within social games?

Emotion

A good story makes me feel something. The same for a good game. I’m not sure social games have made me feel much so far. Can we do more?

Reality Blurring

We have real-time data, sensors, mobile devices, ubiquitous access to social data. At the same time we have more people in urban centers than ever before; we have self-organizing networks of people that are growing like fractals out of the social graph. We have reality-annotation systems like Foursquare because technology is getting easier to take with you. We have real-time technologies that digest and process massive amounts of news. For years, people have asked “how do we make games more like reality?” Instead, I’m interested in asking, “How can we make reality more like a game?” Can games weave social experiences and reality together in novel ways? Can we merge the cultural zeitgeist with games in a new way?

Learning

People learn by observing and watching what other people do. Isn’t a social environment a perfect place for teaching behaviors, skills, etc.? Can role models emerge from within social games? Can we integrate cool content in ways that enable tangential learning—without the drudgery of “being taught”?

Personality and Consequence

Games have explored decision-making and consequences. For example, I can be good or evil in Knights of the Old Republic. What about games that made you think about the social consequence of your actions? What happens in a game where there’s no save-game to return to after you’ve made the decision to do a greedy versus a self-sacrificing act?

Bonding

I met my wife in an online game called Gemstone about 18 years ago. OK—that was a little unusual back then, but it’s now a frequent occurrence in MMORPGs like World of Warcraft. Likewise, a lot of friendships have been formed because of an interaction that happened within an MMO. My hypothesis is that close to zero marriages and/or real-world friendships have emerged out of the “social games” market. How do we change that?

My Call to Action

I’m convinced that this is the most important—and largest—thing that I’ve initiated in my entrepreneurial career. If you share a passion for the same things that interest me, I’d like to hear your questions (and answers!) about the social game market. If you disagree with anything I’ve said here, then I especially want to talk with you. If you think I’m asking the wrong questions, I want to hear from you. And if you want to be part of a team that is going to ask these questions and challenge each other all the time, then we should talk immediately. Whether you’re a creator, a player, a business-person—we’re on the verge of something special and great. (Source: Jon Radoff’s Internet Wonderland)


上一篇:

下一篇: