作者：Colin Campbell

为何会出现游戏发行商？他们作用何在？我们为何要受其雄心和“贪婪”控制？我们难道就不能摆脱他们？

换而言之，游戏发行商的作用和游戏本身关系不大，他们负责发行任务。他们和昔日维多利亚时代的出版商没什么两样。他们从杰出人士那里收集资源，重新包装，打造成艺术品，卖给零售商，主要通过广告宣传新作品。

虽然游戏并非采用实体形态。精英人士可以将制作内容直接推向用户，而用户则会通过联系密切的社交渠道“推广”作品。

如今游戏无需借助发行商或非制作且从中抽成的中间零售商便能为开发商谋福利。我们难道就不能完全跳过这些公司？想想发行商和零售商从中分成多少利润（游戏邦注：支撑其自身发展及维护股东利益）。为什么呢？

就让我们团结一致站起来，勇敢越过这个障碍，高声歌唱，走上光明大道。瞧，我说到哪里去啦！

游戏发行商不会消失。他们控制内容制作者和内容消费者的联系纽带。这和促使他们过时的技术没有关系。这无关社交和推广技术。而是涉及用户行为和实力本质。认为游戏发行商会消失的观点其实是个谬论。

当然，思考游戏发行商存在（他们本无需存在）原因会令人我们受益匪浅。以下是我同顶级分析师共同探讨总结的其存在理由。

营销目的

覆盖大量用户的品牌公司的推广面要比影响力相对较小的公司广。不一定大公司才有广阔覆盖面，但其规模确实作用不小。

社交网络表现卓越。它们促使世界发生变化，但其速度和深度都不及其庞大粉丝基础。虽然相比广告，我们更愿意相信好友建议，但这并不表示未来会出现广告真空时代：广告牌会空无一物，电视网络土崩瓦解。

大众市场广告仍然非常重要，虽然社交媒介创造和推广大量文化和娱乐畅销作品。而且和空想人类力量不同，社交网络也开始变成大众市场工具。众多营销机构（游戏邦注：例如游戏发行商）已明白发挥自身主要优势（公司规模、专业知识和广泛用户覆盖面）才是关键所在。

我们或许能够以《Minecraft》为例，认为我们无需依靠发行商也能够创造力作，但最成功的新平台发行公司当属Zynga，其借助雄厚资金、市场主导地位和品牌影响力不断推出新热门作品。

Cowen Group资深分析师及副总裁道格·克鲁兹表示，“若你直接向用户推广作品，就不会低估营销的重要性。若你希望获得真正的商业成功，你就需要寻找合作伙伴，他们会斥巨资帮你推广产品。”

竞争优势

市场逐渐趋于垄断，这让小型公司更是举步维艰。

源自小型开发商公司和独立开发者的偶然畅销作品实在是少之又少。未来将会越来越少。为为什么呢？因为市场日趋成熟，更多用户进入市场是受大众营销影响，而非内部联系，因此若没有雄厚资金，作品很难在拥挤市场中脱颖而出。

任何公司都会进行系列重组树立自身地位，他们打败竞争者，招贤纳士，抢占大量市场份额。换而言之，他们实力越来越雄厚，而小公司则逐渐销声匿迹。游戏或电脑软件行业人士都知道行业先驱早期的雄心抱负都迅速被大公司（游戏邦注：例如微软、EA和Zynga）的雄厚实力所吞没。

行业风险

大公司能轻松应对风险。小公司则难以驾驭。

出自大型游戏发行商之手的成功作品大多是意料之中。我们不难预测EA游戏未来的成绩。但若换做独立开发商推出的iPhone作品。前者我们能够预测，后者却难以把握。这和质量毫无关系。

克鲁兹表示，“为何《愤怒的小鸟》能够在众多质量不相上下的作品中崭露头角，售出1亿份？Rovio下款作品是否依然能够获得如此成绩？口碑好，依靠病毒式传播的产品还是难敌质量普通，但营销预算丰厚的作品。这更多凭借策划，而非单凭游戏成功的病毒式传播。”

专业技能

将制作完成的作品推向用户需要特定专业技能。这些技能是发行商日积月累的宝贵经验，是我们很难从某些吹牛宝典中获得的真传。

有时候，致力推广和营销领域的开发商也会变身发行商，这是他们不擅长的领域。我们可以选择聘请外部代理，但这需要专业知识方能有效运作。总之，开发商通常都不擅长发行工作，而发行商却有更多资源购买专业技能，进军开发领域，虽然其中不免需克服诸多困难，付出些许代价。

电子娱乐预设研究中心副总裁和分析师杰西·迪夫尼奇表示，“行业最佳运作状态是开发商和发行商各司其职。Take-Two和Rockstar就是典型例子，它们都发挥自身优势。”

克鲁兹表示，“发行商擅长发行工作。他们知道何种渠道能够让作品变得畅销，他们知道如何制作优秀预告片，如何引起轰动。《荣誉勋章》不算大制作，但其也售出500万份。为什么呢？因为他们进行大量宣传工作。”

零售环节

传统实体公司依然重要，但发行商作用亦不容忽视。

零售业关注的是销量，鲜少注重创新。既有模式的理想状态是能够顺利运营至各产品当中，带来可观营收。发行商或许会对零售商反复销售其二手产品持不屑态度，但他们欣赏零售商的坚持不懈态度（游戏邦注：相比野心勃勃者，零售商更具有竞争优势）。

克鲁兹解释道，“我们有幸能够同敬业零售伙伴合作。这是一大竞争优势因为他们有足够影响力，能够争取到优惠条件和有利货架位置，而小公司则无法办到。是吧？他们熟悉业务，具有竞争优势，所以尽管二手游戏业务令他们处在不利地位，但他们不希望浪费自身竞争优势。”

产品曝光度

数字领域并非开放零售环境。其模式和传统零售行业类似。

如今每天都有新曝光技术和UI出现。但我们还需付出诸多努力，方能实现这样的目标：未来零售商和营销人员能够引领消费市场。

苹果App Store窗口会展示少量内容。这必不可少。亚马逊会根据用户选择进行推荐。微软Xbox Live每天也会提供少量选择。

这和零售业的主导模式大同小异，零售商会根据反馈参数、用户期望以及用户利益推荐购买商品。大型公司通过帮助零售商创造营收提高自我收益。

杰西·迪夫尼奇表示，“登陆Xbox Live，屏幕会出现5-6个用于市场营销的方形展位。其中两个显示微软推广内容。其余两个为DLC提供服务。另一个则用于新品展示。要在Xbox Live获得曝光度很困难，特别是对小公司而言。”

已经成功售出游戏的公司在数字零售营销渠道最吃香。Facebook很可能最先向用户推荐Zynga游戏，而非那些自出小型开发商之手的出色游戏。数字推广的开放性使其依然偏好大公司。

专业人才

专业人才会离开大公司，但他们迟早都会回来。

这是大家熟悉的故事。杰出人才离开大公司自立门户。他们取得成就，日益壮大，野心扩张，开始出现资金不足，于是他们把尚处在成长期的公司出售给大公司。然后回到从前。

这个循环表明虽然大公司常出现人才匮乏（游戏邦注：通常是由于它们不愿承担风险，工作氛围单调），但他们总能够通过收购获得新鲜血液。

反过来，精英人士开始意识到只有充足资金方能实现令他们热血沸腾的项目。但他们不愿意冒险制作高预算游戏。

尼尔·杨离开EA成立Ngmoco，而Ngmoco最后被DeNA收购。Bungie放弃同微软合作，但随后就投靠动视公司。而Infinity Ward则跳脱动视，投入EA怀抱。

Janco Partners高级分析师Mike Hickey表示，“自立门户，筹集4000万-5000万美元资金开发游戏是个不小挑战。这也是为何很多人转投开发休闲游戏。但若你希望制作大型作品，你就需要赢得大型发行商支持。”

克鲁兹表示，“若你希望制作下款《光晕》，下款《侠盗猎车手》，你就少不了寻求帮助。”

合作机会

跨平台、跨媒介机会瞄准的是那些涉猎多项投资的综合公司。

即使小公司努力获得新游戏风投资本（游戏邦注：例如技术初创公司），合理将资金分配至营销和推广方面，其还是无法享有那些发行商享有的机会。

EA希望其作品能够搭载尽可能多的平台，因为这是营销良策，能够推动销量增加。但很少有公司能够同时瞄准手机、社交、掌机、PC和平板电脑，且同玩具厂商、运动品牌公司、电影工作室、出版公司和媒体建立长久合作关系。

Mike Hickey表示，“跨媒介能够推动市场涌现搭载众多平台的大型作品。发行商不仅能够提高产品曝光度和销量，而且还能够提供资金和专业知识，帮助开发商针对手机、掌机、PC甚至是电影制作游戏。很多营收来自合作机会，他们因此能够接触富有见地的杰出团队，享受充足资金和专业知识，促使作品顺利推向更多新市场。”

熟悉性

如今随新平台的产生，新作品也不断涌现。但这不过是个过渡。传统游戏会重新主导市场。

新平台孵化新游戏。即便传统游戏市场也不例外，该市场也出现新型掌机。更别说手机和社交平台，这些平台促使游戏领域出现大量游戏、游戏机制、艺术风格和人物角色。

但传统平台倾向保守路线。而且偏好创新的早期用户也希望体验熟悉作品（游戏邦注：不妨参考3DS游戏目录）。而后期用户则更倾向购买熟悉品牌，不论是新作品，如Zynga游戏，还是老牌迪斯尼作品。

Mike Hickey表示，“对大型发行商而言，其不仅要推广新作品，还要把现有作品推向新平台。”

适应性

大公司不喜欢调整，但若毫无选择，他们也会迈出这一步。

世界变革的有趣之处不是其会清除现有参与者，而是会他们带来难以克服的挑战。

实体推广的淡出、用户及营销变化迅速的特性是发行商不容忽视的趋势。同样，这需要这些公司具备过去没有但现在急需的技能。

同其他所有公司一样，游戏发行商会毅然抛弃陈旧知识，转而学习目前所需技能。要稳居宝座的经理们就得适时做出调整。

发行公司管理人员会比公司走得快。所以游戏行业人士不得不坦然接受：动态市场的变化速度不符合预期，其变革是逐年显现，而非数以天计。游戏公司要想获得生存就必须进行适时调整。它们不像其雇员那样拥有众多选择。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Opinion: Why Do Games Publishers Exist?

by Colin Campbell

[In the age of digital distribution and social marketing, do we need these inflated, expensive, inefficient organizations? Business editor Colin Campbell gets ready for the revolution.]

Why do games publishers exist? Seriously. What is the point of these dictatorships? Why are we at the mercy of their ambitions and their avarice? Couldn’t we just rise up and get rid of these ayatollahs?

Put it another way. The function that games publishers perform has little to do with games, and everything to do with publishing. What they actually do is no different from a book publishing house in the smoky Victorian cities of yore. They source content from the talent, repackage it, create a physical artifact, sell it to retailers and try to get the word out about their new thing, mostly via advertising.

And yet games require no physical form. Talent can — and does — create content that is sold directly to consumers who are able to “market” the product through super-connected social channels. (Exhibit One: Minecraft.)

Today, games make money for their creators without the aid of a publisher, or even of those other non-producing, value-extracting middle-men, the retailers. So couldn’t we just lose them all together? Imagine how much money the retailers and publishers take out of the market in order to sustain themselves and their shareholders. Why?

Brothers and sisters let us rise up, stride heroically to the barricades, sing joyfully of sunlit uplands. The future is… oh wait… hang on… what the hell am I talking about here?

Games publishers aren’t going anywhere. They control the nexus between the content creator and the content consumer. That technology has rendered them (theoretically) obsolete is irrelevant. This isn’t about social and distribution technology, it never was. It’s about human behavior and the nature of power. The idea of games publishers disappearing is a straw man.

Surely it would be useful to ask ourselves why games publishers exist in a world where they don’t actually need to exist. Here are ten reasons I recently discussed with leading analysts. There are certainly more. Please add your ideas in the comments section.

Marketing

A brand that’s already connected to lots of consumers is going to have a far longer marketing reach that one that isn’t. You don’t have to be huge to have a long reach, but it helps.

Social networks are awesome. They are changing the world, but not nearly as fast nor as profoundly as their biggest fans would like. Even though we trust the opinions of our friends more than we trust advertising, that doesn’t conjure a coming world in which billboards stand naked and TV networks implode due to a vacuum of advertising.

Mass market advertising still matters, even while social media creates and distributes cultural and entertainment hits. More, social networks are becoming mass-market vehicles as opposed to utopian examples of people-power. Large marketing-led organizations, like games publishers, are finally figuring out how to make their key advantages – size and expertise and consumer connectivity on a massive scale – really count.

We might look towards Minecraft as proof that you don’t need a publisher to have a hit, but the most successful model for new platform publishing is Zynga which uses its money, its dominance and its branding to impose new hits on the market.

Cowen Group senior analyst and VP Doug Creutz, says, “If you’re distributing direct to the consumer, you don’t want to underestimate the importance of marketing. If you’re trying to achieve real commercial success you’re going to have to go with somebody that can spend the big money to get your message out there.”

Competition

Markets tend toward monopoly, which makes it ever-harder for the small guy.

Unexpected hits that bubble up from the morass of garage-developers and indies are rare. And they are likely to get rarer. Why? Because as the market matures, as more consumers come in who are enticed by mass-marketing rather than by expert connectivity, it becomes more difficult to stand out from the crowd without the aid of big-money marketing.

As any business settles down after the chaos of formation, companies mop up competitors, bring talent into the fold, and begin to create notable market-share. In short, their voice gets louder, while the little guy’s is muted. Any student of the games industry or the computer software industry will know that the feel-good aspirations of early pioneers is quickly overcome by the economic power of aggressive companies whether they be Microsoft, Electronic Arts or Zynga.

Risk

Big companies manage risk well. Small operations, taken as a whole, do not.

The success of games released by big games publishers is largely predetermined. It is possible to predict, to a reasonable degree of confidence, how many copies every EA game will sell for the rest of the year. Try doing that with games from indies that appear on iPhone. One market is predictable, the other is not. Quality is barely relevant.

Creutz says, “Why did Angry Birds sell a hundred million units when there are so many other games out there that are no better or worse from a quality point of view? Is Rovio’s next game going to sell a hundred million units? This notion that you can be successful virally is not as convincing as the notion that you can take a not great product, put a lot of marketing dollars behind it and have it do reasonably well. That’s a more likely scenario than a great game being successful virally.”

Expertise

It still takes certain skills to move a product from the point of creation into the consumer’s hands. These skills have been hard-won by games publishers over a long period of time, and are not easily learned from a Bluffer’s Guide.

At some point, the creator who focuses on distribution and marketing actually becomes a publisher, which is something he or she might not be very good at. Outside agencies can be hired in, but they require expertise in order to be managed effectively. In short, developers are generally not very good at publishing while publishers, with much larger resources to buy in expertise, learn to become developers, though not without a lot of trouble and expense.

Jesse Divnich, VP and analyst at EEDAR says, “The best way our industry operates is when developers do what they’re good at and the publishers do what they’re good at. We can see that a lot in Take-Two and Rockstar where each exploits its own strengths.”

Creutz adds, “Publishers are really good at what they do. They know what channels to hit, they know how to make good trailers, they know how to generate buzz and excitement. Medal of Honor was not a great game by any means but they still sold five million units of it. Why? Because they did an incredible job of cranking the hype machine.”

Retail

Bricks-and-mortar is still important, and the publishers like it that way.

Retail is a by-the-numbers business that cares little for innovation. It’s perfect for established systems that flow smoothly from one SKU to the next, oiled with money. Publishers may despise retailers for selling their used games over and over again, but they like that retailers represent stability and that they offer a competitive advantage over arrivistes.

Creutz explains, “Having a dedicated retail partner is great for them. It’s a competitive advantage because they have enough clout that they can get favorable terms and favorable shelf placement, whereas a small guy can’t, right? So they understand that business, they have an advantage in that business, so as much as the used game business is a thorn in their side, they don’t want bricks and mortar to go away.”

Discoverability

Digital isn’t really an open retail environment. It works on an economic model much like traditional retail.

There are new discovery technologies and UIs appearing every day. But we are still a long way from where we need to be in order to fully replace the world in which retailers and marketers tell us what content to consume.

If you go to the App Store, Apple’s store window offers you a relatively small number of options to choose from within a huge universe. That is necessary. Amazon tells you what to buy based on the choices you already made. Microsoft’s Xbox Live gives you a tiny number of choices on any given day.

This is no different from the model that dominates retail in which the retailer chooses what you buy based on its metrics and expectations, and on its own self-interest. Large companies can and do influence that self-interest by offering the retailer benefits.

Jesse Divnich says, “When you log into Xbox Live you have maybe five or six different squares on your screen that are available for marketing opportunities. Typically two of those go to something Microsoft driven. And then two of them go to DLC. Another one goes to a new demo. It’s hard to gain visibility on Xbox Live, especially if you’re not a big player.”

Digital-retail marketing favors companies that have already sold you something. So you’re much more likely to be targeted via Facebook by a Zynga than you are by some little company that just made a really cool game. The ‘open’ nature of digital distribution still favors large-mass organizations.

Talent

Talent leaves big companies, but sooner or later, it always comes back.

It’s a familiar story. Talented individuals quit Big Corp to strike out on their own. They make good. They get bigger, their ambitions expand, they start to think about cashing out. They sell the fledgeling company back to Big Corp. And so it goes on.

What this cycle means is that although big companies suffer talent-drains, often due to their risk-averse nature or soul-destroying mission-statement culture, they are able to re-inject creative excellent through acquisition.

In turn, the talent realizes that money is required to create the kind of ambitious projects that light their fire. But they are not willing to take on the risk involved in creating mega-budget games.

Neil Young quits EA to launch NgMoco. NgMoco gets bought by DeNA. Bungie cuts ties with Microsoft and cozies up to Activision. The Infinity Ward guys break free of Activision and jump into bed with EA.

Mike Hickey, senior research analyst at Janco Partners says, “Going off on your own and raising $40 or $50 million to self-develop your own game is a considerable challenge. It’s one thing for guys to go off and make casual games, but if you want to make big games, you still need the big publishers to back you.”

Creutz adds, “If you you want to make the next Halo, the next Grand Theft Auto — and the guys who really have the big talent want to do those things — you aren’t going to get there without a lot of help.”

Opportunity

Cross-platform, trans-media opportunities require complex companies with wide-portfolio interests.

Even if a small company managed to persuade VCs to invest in their great new game – as if it were a technology start-up – and spent the money wisely on marketing and distribution, it would still be missing out on opportunities that publishers realize as a matter of course.

EA is dedicated to making sure its IP carries across to as many platforms as possible because that’s good marketing and it’s a smart way to increase sales. But very few companies are able to create games for mobile, social, console, PC and tablet as well as enjoying long-established links to toy manufacturers, sports companies, movie studios, book publishers and the media.

Mike Hickey says, “Trans-media offers powerful development of IP over an increasing number of platforms. A publisher can help with initial awareness and sales but also provide new sources of capital and expertise to develop that IP for mobile, console, PC, maybe even film. A lot of the margin comes from partnership opportunities where they can realize a talented group of people with a good vision of a game and provide them capital and expertise to take that to fruition, to take it to the market and beyond to new markets.”

Familiarity

Right now, new IP is flourishing as new platforms emerge. But it won’t last forever. Old IP is waiting its turn.

New platforms spawn new IP. Even in the traditional games market, we welcome this phenomenon with each new console generation. And more so with platforms like mobile and social which have spawned an amazing proliferation of IP, gameplay paradigms, art-styles and characters.

However, older platforms tend towards conservatism. Consumers who adopt early and favor innovation are also happy to play that which is familiar — check out the 3DS roster. Less daring consumers who jump on board later in a platform’s life are more than happy to buy the brands they know, whether that be something relatively new, like a Zynga, or something very old like Disney.

Mike Hickey says, “For big publishers it’s not just about creating new IP, it’s about taking the existing IP and putting it into new channels.”

Adaptability

Big companies don’t like change, but they are capable of making the move when they have no other choice.

What’s interesting about the way the world is changing is not so much that it will sweep away incumbents, but that it will offer them a challenge that some will be unable to meet.

The decline of physical distribution and the rapidly changing nature of consumers and of marketing are trends that no publisher can afford to ignore. Equally, they require skills that these companies have not developed in the past, but which they badly need now.

Games publishers, like all companies, are necessarily ruthless about replacing the obsolete with the needed. Managers who wish to last will be required to make the changes necessary to stay employed.

The people who manage the publishing companies will go, long before the publishing companies themselves. And so there are many in the games industry who must be quietly relieved that our dynamic industry isn’t changing quite as fast as it might, that the revolution is counted in years and not days. Games companies are able to become whatever is required of them in order to survive. They have no more choice in this matter than we do.（Source：gamasutra）