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

开发商需寻求Facebook之外的新发展契机

发布时间:2011-07-06 16:05:48 Tags:,,

作者:Tadhg Kelly

如果将Facebook游戏间的竞争比作是一场赛跑,Zynga显然已经取得了胜利。该公司目前的用户数比位列其下的9大竞争者的用户总数还要多,交叉推广的效能无人能敌。只有Zynga才能时常制作出逾2000万用户的游戏,而且他们正统治着能占领的所有渠道。

与此同时,竞争者们只能眼睁睁地看着自己的财富逐步缩水。这家公司统治着其余开发商,即将首次公开募股数十亿美元,成为足与动视匹敌的大公司,而那些竞争者们对此却束手无策。

Zynga (from mashable.com)

Zynga (from mashable.com)

Zynga在Facebook获胜缘由

Facebook与苹果应用商店、Amazon网站或Chrome网络商店不同,它并没有显而易见的店面。它扮演的角色通常是公正无私的平台而不是积极的店主,开发商需要自行解决曝光率问题。对开发商而言,这意味着需要使用广告及其他公共渠道来获得和留存用户。因而,精明的开发商逐渐意识到,要长期在Facebook上获得成功,需要建立起用户间互相联系的网络。

Facebook中呈现出的是梅特卡夫定律,即构建起庞大的用户网络并让其价值呈指数化增长。如同Google、Amazon和Groupon,有价值的网络能产生垄断般的优势。然而不同之处在于,那些网站上的用户网络是终点,但Facebook中的用户网络可用来交叉推广应用。

Zynga的成功之道就在于,该公司很早便懂得利用病毒性渠道和广告来获得用户,构建起有价值的网络。关键不在于游戏(游戏邦注:很多Zynga游戏都是公司从其他竞争者处借鉴而来的),而在于游戏中存在的用户。他们利用游戏构建起无形的交叉推广平台,疯狂地为游戏做广告,尽量利用所有的平台功能。所以,他们的网络比其他公司发展得更快,价值也呈指数化增长。

他们发现平台中农场游戏的发展趋势,于是制作出《FarmVille》,将其融入这个迅速发展的平台中。他们不断利用这项战略,而竞争者们却似乎愿意袖手旁观让他们的游戏日益盛行。

Zynga在这场竞赛中跑在前头,而且从未停止过前进的步伐。他们继续快速掌握市场走向,运用同样的投资和交叉推广过程来获取大量的用户,其竞争者们正处在进退两难的境地,即使他们能够成功做出轰动市场的巨作,Zynga也会快速响应并且风头可能超过原作。

美国人认为,Zynga已使Facebook变得闭塞,难容新事物。

第二梯队和第三梯队公司

Zynga的垄断现象并不意味着其他人就需要卷铺盖回家了。3200万的用户数仍足以让Zynga以下的第二梯队竞争者(游戏邦注:如EA和Crowdstar等)盈利,即便他们只能在很小的范围内操作。同样,许多像Funzio之类的第三梯队开发商的数款游戏也能有所盈利。甚至连第四梯队的开发商(游戏邦注:月活跃用户小于50万的游戏)都能从中分一杯羹。

然而,这些公司产品的用户数无法保持稳定增长。虽然60 Photos和Badoo之类的社交应用的用户数有所增长,但Playdom和Digital Chocolate等公司产品几乎没有成长。事实上,多数第二梯队发行商的用户数正在下滑。

以EA为例,他们的头牌游戏仍然是《Pet Society》。《Restaurant City》的用户已减少数百万,这段时间他们所做的似乎是将逐渐缩小的用户群体从《FIFA》转移至《Monopoly Millionaires》。Playdom的《Gardens of Time》表现确实很不错,但其他游戏几乎已濒临死亡(游戏邦注:《City of Wonder》用户量减少87%)。Crowdstar的《Happy Aquarium》过去曾有2800万的用户,现在只剩下600万。

happy-aquarium(from happyaquariumcheats.net)

happy-aquarium(from happyaquariumcheats.net)

尽管这些公司仍值得关注,但他们似乎不再积极开发新游戏。虽然开发新游戏的想法很棒,但从运营角度上看,他们在做的难道不是拆东墙补西墙吗?如果他们将注意力放在维持现有受众之上,结果会不会更好?

我这么说并非表明这些公司都不想开发新游戏。Wooga和Kabam仍然在成长,而Funzio在近期投资潮之后显然也萌生出大计划。Applifier正努力解决曝光率问题,现在似乎正想建设起推广站点。

我想说的是,Facebook可能已经不再是发布新游戏的最佳平台。将它视为已有游戏的留存市场似乎更为恰当,应把多数甚至全部的开发工作投入到对这些已发布游戏的支持中。如果你有个新游戏想法,可能要将目光转向别处了。

投资者需将视线从Facebook转移

众多风险投资者并没有意识到Zynga已经获得了胜利。他们不断地将资金投向Facebook开发商,希望能利用平台的病毒性和社交性构建打败Zynga的运营模式。

这些开发商至多只能成为第三梯队公司。尽管第三梯队公司的效益也很可观,但多数开发商并不满足于此。他们希望自己的产品能迅速增长并获取10倍的回报,直到现在,他们仍寄希望于Facebook的病毒性替他们实现目标。

但是结果并非想投资者们想象的那样美好。去年依然有许多人将资金投向社交游戏开发商,但只有极少数获得成功。Zynga压倒性的势力已经使市场态势发生改变。

Zynga就像只孟加拉虎。孟加拉虎是丛林之王,所有其他的物种进化的方向都是逃避老虎。它们无法同老虎搏斗,因而唯一的选择便是逃跑和留意老虎是否就在身旁。这样,老虎丛林之王的地位不会受到动摇,它可以自由选择自己的食物,而其他物种的生或死完全取决于老虎的动向。

那些将资金投给Facebook游戏开发商的投资者并不希望自己落在别人后头(游戏邦注:事实上他们确实已经落于人后),而且很多情况下并不清楚Zynga便是这片丛林中的老虎。他们并没有意识到即便游戏战略很棒,Zynga也可以做出回应将其击败。于是《Army Attack》遭遇《Empires and Allies》,《Social City》遭遇了《CityVille》。

empires-and-allies-army-attack-face-off(from empiresallies.blogspot.com)

empires-and-allies-army-attack-face-off(from empiresallies.blogspot.com)

Zynga有着庞大的网络,梅特卡夫定律重心在他们那边,而不是那些估值只有500万美元的小开发商。与Zynga战斗有失败的可能性,而且你必须花大量金钱。那么,为何不避开他们呢?

开放网络的社交游戏

BigPoint上周的注册用户达到2亿,《Tap Zoo》是iPhone上增长最快的游戏,有着忠诚用户的《eRepublik》正默默前进,Jagex运营《Runescape》数年之久且雇员已超过400人,《Moshi Monsters》正风靡全球,甚至连《Rail Simulator》都有着大批热情的用户,这些你都知道吗?

Facebook高墙外有着一副完全不同的景象。其他网络完全可以考虑,包括网页应用商店、即将与iPhone整合的Twitter、亚马逊应用商店、平板电脑平台等。

上述这些平台都非常合适,而且都是开放网络。正是由于所有的平台都是围绕同一个中心建起,因而社交游戏可以在各种平台中生根发芽,包括Facebook。

开放网络与Facebook不同,交流渠道操控起来并不容易。你无须利用“通知”来推广,搜索引擎更容易找到你的页面。游戏网站地址简单易懂,方便人们分享和搜索。盈利解决方案的手续费只需10%,而不是30%。用户完全属于你自己,无须通过平台这个中介获取。你无须将游戏界面宽度定在760像素,也无需为Facebook上的规则感到心烦意乱。而且,你也可以利用“Connect”式的社交图谱来添加好友。

开放网络的目标在于长期吸引真正热衷于游戏的用户,而不是在短期内满足绝大多数人的需求。它有可能聚齐起同趣用户,使得游戏持续成长。《Mafia Wars》之类的游戏需要不断为自己做广告,但《Runescape》运营数年来很少将大笔资金投入到广告上。

构建开放网络也需要更勇敢的想法。Facebook会自动分享并将消息转化成有效广告,但开放网络的游戏需要让用户愿意自行分享。这意味着游戏需要更好地贴合目标群体的需求,才能使《Realm of the Mad God》之类的游戏在开放网络上获得成功。如果以Facebook为平台,它完全没有成功的机会。

平台未来发展趋势就是网络本身,而并非马克·扎克伯格的小巢。开发商和投资者都应该认识到,社交游戏并不一定等同于Facebook游戏。你是否希望自己的游戏不在丛林中同老虎居住,或者是否希望通过用户自行传播而不是广告来获取用户?如果是这样的话,那么就忘掉Facebook吧,它并不是你想象的那样美好。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

I THINK FACEBOOK IS OVER

Tadhg Kelly

If Facebook games are an arms race, then Zynga have clearly won it. They have more users than their next nine competitors combined and a lock on cross promotion that can’t be beaten. Only Zynga is able to regularly make games that will acquire more than 20 million users, and they have been tenacious to a fault in dominating every channel they can find.

Meanwhile their competitors can only look on and stare at their own (mostly) declining fortunes. One publisher really does rule them all, and is about to IPO itself a couple of billion dollars to become as big as Activision. And there’s nothing they can do about it.

Why Zynga Won Facebook

Unlike the Apple app store, the Amazon home page or the Chrome web store, Facebook has never had storefront. It has always played the role of disinterested platform rather than motivated shopkeeper, and lets developers figure out their discoverability issues on their own. For developers, this means advertising and the use of publishing channels to acquire and retain users. Smart developers realise that the key to doing well on Facebook in the long term, therefore, is to establish a network of users that will interconnect with each other.

Metcalfe’s Law is what Facebook is all about. It’s about building the biggest user network and watching it become exponentially more valuable than your competitors. Like Google, Amazon and Groupon, more valuable networks tend to accrue monopoly-sized advantages. The difference, however, is that on the web those networks are destinations, but in Facebook they are a web of cross promotions between apps.

Zynga grasped early that the use of viral channels and advertising to grab users and build valuable networks was what mattered. Not the games (which they happily copied from competitors) but instead the presence. They built an invisible platform of cross promotion across a number of games, advertised them like crazy and took advantage of all of the platform features as much as possible. And so their network grew more quickly than anyone else’s, becoming exponentially more valuable.

Then they found the trend for farm games, built FarmVille, plugged it into this platform that they had been scrambling to grow, and exploded. They followed this strategy again and again while their competitors preferred to sit back and let their games do the talking, and in some cases cashed out.

Zynga raced ahead and built an unstoppable lead. They have continued in that vein, seizing on trends in the market quickly and applying the same process of spend-and-cross-promote to acquire massive numbers of users. They now have more monthly active users than their nine closest competitors combined and each of those competitors is stuck in the awkward position that if they do manage to make a breakthrough hit, the Zynga response will probably overwhelm it.

Zynga have, as the Americans say, locked Facebook up.

Second and Third Tier Blues

That doesn’t mean that everyone else should pack up and go home. 32 million users is still plenty, and many of Zynga’s second tier competitors (EA, Crowdstar etc) are profitable even if they are operating at a much smaller scale. Similarly, there are a number of third-tier developers like Funzio doing perfectly well with a single great game. Even some fourth-tier (small sub 500k MAU games) developers are happily chugging along.

However none of those tiers are experiencing sustained growth. You still see social applications like 60 Photos and Badoo achieve strong, if cheap, growth. But the likes of Playdom and Digital Chocolate are not really growing any more. Most of the second-tier publishers are actually in decline, in fact.

To take EA as an example, their number one app is still Pet Society. They’ve lost millions of users from Restaurant City and all they seem to really be doing these days is shuffling a declining user base around from FIFA to Monopoly Millionaires. Playdom’s Gardens of Time is doing really well, but almost every other game that they have is dying (City of Wonder is down 87%). Crowdstar’s Happy Aquarium used to have 28 million users. Now it has 6.

While each of these companies can certainly function as a going concern, they don’t make a great case for actively pursuing new game development. While new games are always great to make, from a business standpoint are they really doing anything other than stealing from Peter to pay Paul? And would they be better served if they focused on retaining their existing audiences?

What I’m talking about is not defeatism. Wooga and Kabam are still growing incrementally, for example, and Funzio apparently have big plans off the back of a recent investment round. Applifier is trying to solve the discovery problem, even going so far as to build a storefront.

What I am saying is that perhaps Facebook is no longer the best venue for launching a new game. Perhaps it is better viewed as a retention market from hereon out, and most or all new development work should go into supporting those games that have already launched. Maybe if you have a new game in mind, it’s time to look elsewhere.

Investors: Forget Facebook

A lot of VC-type investors don’t really get that Zynga has won. They continue to pour money into Facebook developers, each with essentially the same supposed Zynga-beating business model of virality and leveraging social blah blah blah.

Each will probably go no further than becoming a third tier developer at best. There’s a perfectly respectable business to be had in the third tier, but most investors are not looking for that kind of boutique payoff. They want explosive growth and ten-timed returns, and up until now the conventional wisdom was that Facebook’s virality was the ticket to achieving that.

It’s not. Over the last year there have continued to be many investments made in social game makers, but few successes to show for it. The conditions in the market have changed because of the overpowering presence of Zynga.

Zynga is like the Bengal tiger. In the jungle, the Bengal tiger is king and every other species has evolved to get out of the tiger’s way. They can’t fight the tiger, so the only option they have is to run and alert others when the tiger is near. So the tiger remains king and gets its choice of meals, and every other species lives or dies by the movements of the tiger.

Investors throwing money into Facebook game makers don’t want to feel left behind (but they already are) and in many cases are misunderstanding that Zynga is the tiger. They don’t have the war chest needed to really take Zynga on (and especially won’t after the IPO) and don’t realise that even if their game strategy is great, Zynga will probably respond. Army Attack, meet Empires and Allies. Social City, meet CityVille.

Zynga has the network. Metcalfe is on their side, not the plucky little developer with the $5m that could. To get into a fight with Zynga is to probably lose, and you will have to spend a lot of money to do so. So why get in that fight?

Open Web Social Games

Did you know that BigPoint registered their 200 millionth user last week? That Tap Zoo is the top grossing game on iPhone? That eRepublik is trucking along quietly with a very loyal user base? That Jagex has been running Runescape for years and employs over 400 people? That Moshi Monsters is taking over the world? Or that even little old Rail Simulator has a hugely passionate audience?

It’s a different landscape outside the walls of Facebook. There are other networks to consider. There are browser-based app stores. There is the forthcoming Twitter integration into the iPhone. There is the Amazon app store. There are tablets.

Each of the above platforms are perfectly valid venues for you to ply your wares, but really it’s all about the open web. It is the hub around which all platforms are ultimately built, and so it is the hub from which games will seed themselves into many platforms. Facebook included.

The open web is different to Facebook. The communication channels are not as easily manipulated. You don’t really have access to the Notifications layer. However you are far more findable on search engines. Your game sits on an easily-remembered dotcom address that people can share and discover. Your payment solutions more likely take 10% rather than 30% of your sales. You own your customer completely rather than working through an intermediary. You don’t have to work within a 760-pixel width and have your game enclosed by the permanent distraction that is Facebook. And you can use ‘Connect’ style social graphs to still plug into friend lists etc.

The open web is more about long term building toward niches than short-term building toward muggle appeal. It tends to facilitate tribes of users building around a passionate interest rather than a passing one, which translates to sustained growth. A game like Mafia Wars has to permanently advertise itself or be destroyed by ambivalence, but Runescape has been running for years with very little need to aggressively advertise in the same way.

The open web also needs bolder ideas. Whereas Facebook automates sharing and effectively turns it into bland advertising (which rewards broad concept games), open web games need users to want to share them. That means they’re better suited to communities that want to form, so games like Realm of the Mad God can succeed on the open web. It would have no chance in Facebook.

The new frontier is the web itself, not Mark Zuckerberg’s house. For developers and investors alike, that means taking a step back from the assumption that social games automatically means Facebook games. Think instead about whether the games you want to make need to live in the jungle with the tiger, and whether they really need to find their audience rather than mass-advertise their way into one. If so, forget Facebook. It is not the El Dorado that you think it is. (Source: Games Brief)


上一篇:

下一篇: