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

游戏授权三面观:其优,其劣,其丑

发布时间:2011-08-03 10:54:20 Tags:,,,

作者:Edward DelCastillo

电子游戏的天空刚刚露出黎明的曙光,授权游戏就闪亮登场了。无论是Atari 2600 的《 E.T. 》和《星球大战》,还是Xbox的《黑客帝国》,游戏开发商高明地利用著名的品牌和既有的市场,争取让自己的游戏从同类作品中脱颖而出。

对于游戏而言,印象占有率尤其重要。游戏是投资,不只是关于时间,还离不开研究。每一款游戏都以不同的方式吸引我们,所以我们必须好好研究。那种预热动作能降服大多数人,所以开发商倾向于选择特定人群所熟知的内容。

任天堂红白机的《Friday the 13th 》(1989)的结果(from gamasutra)

任天堂红白机的《Friday the 13th 》(1989)的结果(from gamasutra)

授权与游戏内容存在着共生关系,这就解释了为什么Liquid喜欢边做原创项目的同时,也不忘开发改编游戏。在他们的全盛时期,像Arkham Asylum(游戏邦注:《蝙蝠侠》系列中的一家精神病院),我们目睹了一款加入改编行列的游戏如何抬高身价。但是,当发行商脱离原作,放手大干时,我们看到的总是老一套的“坏电影游戏”。

现在让我们来见识一下授权的真实威力,以及糟糕电影游戏的诞生。

优势

品牌的威力是不容质疑的。

定律1:几乎所有情况下,如果有两款同类产品,知名品牌绝对压倒无名产品。为什么?简单地说就是,熟悉。大品牌暗示着质量保证,这是不知名品牌的缺陷。

定律2:当今,来自四面八方的成千上万种产品(手机就更多了)汇聚在一个市场,买家看得眼花缭乱,所以实际上,他们看什么产品都没有差别。

把定律1和定律2相加,你得出以下结论:

当买家无法区分产品时,根据他们自己的优点,品牌产品总是能够打败不知名产品。缺少差异是一个问题:市场上的产品太多,买家并不熟知他们各自的真正价值,也没有足够的特定功能的相关信息……不幸的是(对授权方,幸运的是),这些定律显然对当今的电子游戏市场生效。

《黑客帝国》(2003)竭力复制电影的感觉(from gamasutra)

《黑客帝国》(2003)竭力复制电影的感觉(from gamasutra)

我在Westwood、Origin和Liquid工作的时候,《狮子王》、《大富翁》、《命令与征服》、《红色警戒》、《黑暗王座》、《文明》、《创世纪》、《银河飞将》、《指环王》、 《地下城与龙》、《绝望主妇》、《雷神托尔》、Sid Meier和Jane’s等品牌,我都有所接触。所以,论在电子游戏中的影响力,我绝对是品牌的信徒。

我曾对微软的执行官们如此解释授权的力量:我们认为游戏是“不确定的”。对于外行人,游戏是很难定量的。就像一个“耐用品”,我们可以对它们列出功能清单(大多数人不理解这些是怎么转化为乐趣的)——与传统娱乐方式类似,它们必须传达一种体验(可能与功能不符)。结果就是,把不谙世事的买家搞得困惑不解。为了解决这个问题,我们的惯用招术就是在产品中放置尽可能多的名头,比如一个知名商标。对于一种不确定的产品,品牌就是一种重要的标识。如,把“吸血鬼游戏”的字样放到你的产品盒上,就算是资深玩家也不能完全确定里面到底是什么。我们得翻看盒子,到网上一遍遍搜索相关信息。这真的是恐怖游戏?还是冒险游戏?是精品还垃圾?把“暮光——游戏”的字眼标在盒子上,一时间,一堆人就自以为知道内容,什么也不问就买下来了。我的儿子还不会读,但只要让他看到图画上有“风火轮”标志(世界著名车模品牌),他就嚷着要。这就是力量啊!

我们总是好品牌抱有过多的情感。因为买家对你的产品带着先入为主的期望,所以你可以保证这类人会喜欢你的产品。然而,不喜欢某种品牌的人为了防止惨痛的购物悲剧发生,可能会对某个产品退避三舍。

买家获得一种直接的归属感——他们是某个团体的一部分。不玩游戏的人也会为了某个品牌而购买游戏(有时甚至开始玩了!),就这样,“休闲”玩家在游戏的道路上越走越远,在剧情的进程中越陷越深。所有这些“软”观念都在“附带电影”的宣言中大肆蔓延,但这是真的,也是非常非常重要的。

劣势

品牌价值流失应归咎于授权。对于外行人,授权是指品牌“租借”给另一方,被授权方允许借该品牌开发产品并注明。例如,日本世嘉获得了《钢铁侠》的改编权,所以世嘉可以使用原作中的人物作为电子游戏的角色。被授权方往往要预付版权费用,加上一些不间断的承诺或协议(游戏邦注:如当品牌商品发售时,支付品牌所有人/许可方一部分资金或版税)。

世嘉的《钢铁侠》(2008)的背后是一部大获成功的电影(from gamasutra)

世嘉的《钢铁侠》(2008)改编自一部大获成功的电影(from gamasutra)

这通常是第一个挑战。这里,最普遍的错误是为品牌支付得太多。改编方急于借助电视节目、著名的或即将上映的电影大捞一笔,所以支付的费用往往超过品牌原本的价值。这就给项目增加了压力:这要求团队在预算更少的情况下做出质量相当的产品。

(节俭的我同意在公司或个人资金有限的情况下,在预算中贯彻“一钱包”理论。当投资一个方向上时,其他方向的花费必然要减少。)

有时候,改编会从其他项目中抽预算,但以我的经验来看,这是个例。资金通常来自一个与品牌相关的项目(或一类项目)。

这时候,授权的劣势就露出了丑恶的嘴脸。想像一下,一个发行商已决定在一个项目上投资1千5百万美元。此外,市场竞争激烈,所以最容易的“先声夺人”之法就是改编。这时一切都还好。计划在游戏上投入1千万,剩下的5百万分别用于市场营销、销售和发行。下一步是联系品牌方。对方开口3百万美元预付资金,附加不间断的版税承诺。这个大品牌是一部明年上映的电影,所以开发商说:“好吧。”现在,他们开始为改编权筹钱了。

品牌持有方开心地看到项目的顺利运转,可能试着进一步限制他们的投资。“电影快上映了,就像市场营销,我们把市场营销的费用减少到3百万、游戏开发预算下调为9百万。”就是这样,你没看错。就在这么一段话里,我们就从1千5百跌到1千2百万了。

我知道这个例子不难,但这种事发生得如此经常,超乎你的想像。现在,这个故事发生了一些预想不到的情况:

1、电影票房大跌(这种事不少见,你懂的)

2、电影不好

3、发行商惨遭财政危机

4、开发商没有按时交付

你看吧,这个故事很快就变成一出血淋淋的悲剧了。如此之多的活动版块可能在动荡中走向崩溃,所以,不要为改编支付过多费用可能是最佳先决。有意购买改编权的人记往了。

第二个问题是隐藏在品牌之下的质量差额,许多游戏都栽在上面了。有些授权作品是无法产生好游戏的,我们的行业就是这样被搞乱的(据游戏评论网站Metacritic所称,其失败比例达80%以上)。我在这个行业呆了21年了,游戏被有意糟蹋的故事我是听过的。我自己就曾经接手一家不知名公司的授权,该公司想要在短期内将原作改编成游戏。当我们表示游戏的质量可能受损,他们说:“我们只是需要在产品盒中装点东西,管它是什么。只要有这个品牌,就有人会买。”就这点看来,借助一个不算太粗糙的新品牌的东风,在硬核市场上发布一款好游戏,现在已经非常困难了,但个人认为这是普遍现象。我真的不怪玩家。他们已经受到半成品和烂产品的一次又一次的打击。我们所有人都受到伤害了。

丑陋面

最后,许多授权游戏都受到财政不足的损害。近几年,成功的AAA级游戏机游戏公然宣称其预算介于4千5百万至1亿美元。这是一个巨大的跨度。除了《The Force Unleashed》(我不是很熟悉),我个人并不知道还有哪一款授权游戏机游戏会有这个范围的预算。对公众来说,这意味着1至2千5百万美元预算的游戏与4千5百万至1亿美元预算的游戏放在相同的或事实上相同的价码上。这种游戏是怎么做出来的?玩家应该购买59美元的《MegaBeast:The Game 》(制作投资2百万美元),还是59美元的《战神》(预算是4千5百万美元)?这里,最惨的是,在开发的过程中,压力从授权所有者肩上稳稳地落到了开发商的肩上。谈判的主题从“我们知道做不出一部《战神》”变成“为什么不是《战神》?”,几乎谈了一通宵,最终还是得开发商自己想办法用一半的资金和时间完成一款斥资4千5百万、耗时4年的游戏。这太困难了。许多紧张的商业关系和合作惨败就是这样产生的。

品牌产品并不是做出一款资金不足的产品的挡剑牌。如果开发商想有效地利用所购买的品牌,仍然必须考虑市场竞争和可比较的经验。品牌应该是一股打开市场的推动力,而不应该像个柱着拐杖的古稀老人,慢吞吞地拖累开发商。

许多业内人士认为《GoldenEye 007 》(1997)是最佳改编游戏之一(from gamasutra)

许多业内人士认为《GoldenEye 007 》(1997)是最佳授权游戏之一(from gamasutra)

结论

现在,“授权无用”才是大势所趋。不只是授权本身的问题,这种商业模式也需要调整。只有授权改编运用得当时(以《GoldenEye 007 》为榜样吧),原作的力量、效力和吸金实力才能发挥出来。

授权方必须把改编权购买方当成自己本身的延伸、当成患难与共的同船人……因为他们本来就是。不要费尽心思去抬高授权费用,而是考虑什么才能让双方互利共赢,因为任何长期损害品牌价值的行为,短期内也会惹恼玩家。另一方面,被授权方不应该把品牌当成通向AAA天堂的终极捷径,而是使自己的游戏从激烈的市场竞争中脱颖而出的额外推动力。

高品质的授权游戏总是有市场。我们只是需要合理地对待品牌和相应的预算,然后给工作室足够的时间去制作一款令我们引以为豪的游戏。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Working with Licensed IP: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

by Edward DelCastillo

Shortly after the dawn of video games, video game licenses made their debut. Whether it was E.T. and Star Wars on the Atari 2600 or Enter the Matrix on the Xbox, game makers have always sought to have their games rise above their counterparts through the clever use of well-known brands and pre-existing marketing.

For games, mind share is particularly important. Games are an investment, not just of time but of learning.  Each game speaks to us in a different way and must therefore be learned. That takes convincing for most, so developers may opt for content near and dear to a specific audience.

The ending for Friday the 13th (1989) on NES (Nintendo Entertainment System)

Licenses have a symbiotic relationship with content in games, which explains why Liquid likes to have a licensed game in development alongside its original IP. When at their best, like Arkham Asylum, we see a game that adds to the world of the license and raises its value. But when publishers leave the license to do all the heavy lifting, we invariably end up with the stereotypical “bad movie game.”

Let’s now take a deep dive into the real power of licenses and why (and how) bad movie games are born.

The Good

It’s difficult to argue with the power of a brand.

Rule #1:  in almost every case, if there are two identical products, the one with the known brand will beat the one with the unknown brand.  Why? In one word, familiarity.  The big brand carries with it an implied promise of quality and care that the unknown brand seems to lack.

Rule #2:  in a market where buyers can’t differentiate between hundreds of products launched every quarter (thousands in the case of mobile), most of them are effectively identical to the buyer.

Add rule #1 to rule #2 you have the following:

When a buyer can’t differentiate between products, based on their own merits, then a branded product will beat its unbranded competition every time. Possible scenarios where this lack of differentiation is an issue: too many products in the marketplace, buyers lacking the knowledge of the true value offered by each product, not enough information about particular features… The list goes on and on.  Unfortunately (or fortunately for licensors!), these rules are definitely in effect in today’s video game market.

Enter the Matrix (2003) went all-out to replicate the feel of the movies in which it was based

During my time at Westwood, Origin, and Liquid, I’ve worked on or around brands like The Lion King, Monopoly, Command & Conquer, Red Alert, Land of Lore, Sid Meier, Civilization, Ultima, Wing Commander, Jane’s, Lord of the Rings, Dungeons & Dragons, Desperate Housewives, Thor and others. I’ve definitely become a believer in the power of brands in video games.

I once explained the power of licensed IP to some Microsoft execs like this: we have to think of games as “slippery.” To non-industry folks, games are difficult to quantify. Like a “hard good,” they can list a feature set (which most people don’t understand how it translates into fun) — and like traditional entertainment, they have to convey an experience (which may be at odds with a feature set). The result is confusing to the unsophisticated buyer. To address the issue, we often need put as many handles on the product as possible. Like a known brand. As it turns out a brand is a significant handle for an otherwise slippery product. Put “Vampire Game” on your box and even a veteran gamer isn’t completely sure what’s inside. They have to probe the box and do multiple searches on the Internet. Is it a survival-horror? An adventure game?  Do I play a good guy or a bad guy?  Put “Twilight – The Game” on the box and immediately a large segment of the population thinks they know what they are getting without asking a single question. My son can’t read, but he looks for the Hot Wheels logo on every miniature he gets. That’s power.

There are lots of touchy-feely aspects to a good brand too. Buyers may have a preexisting set of positive expectations, so you naturally speak to buyers who are predisposed to like your content. Furthermore, people who don’t like that particular IP may steer away altogether, preventing a painful purchasing mistake.

The buyer gets an immediate sense that they belong — that they are part of a club.  It gets people who don’t play games to buy them (and sometimes even play them!) and can lead “casual” players to go deeper, getting more involved in the story and gameplay. All of these “soft” concepts are often swept under the powerful “there’s a movie attached” thinking but they are true and very, very important.

The Bad

Where brands fall down is in the licensing. For the uninitiated, licensing is when a brand is “loaned out” to another entity for the sake of creating a product with that brand name on it.  For example, Iron Man was licensed to Sega so that they could create video games with characters from the Iron Man universe.  The person who buys the license (licensee) typically pays an upfront fee for the right, plus some ongoing commitment like an agreement to pay the brand owner (licensor) some portion of the money that the branded item makes when it is sold (royalties).

Sega’s Iron Man (2008) had a hugely successful movie behind it

More often than not, this is the first challenge. The most common error here is paying too much for the brand.  Eager to make loads of money on the back of a TV show, famous movie, or upcoming release, licensees will often pay way more than they should. This puts pressure on the other aspects of the project: to deliver the same quality under a less-than-ideal budget.

[As an economist, I subscribe to the “one wallet” theory of budget spending where a company or person has a finite amount of money. When they spend in one direction, they are required to spend less in another.]

Sometimes, the licensee will take from the budget of another project but, in my experience, this is the exception to the rule. The money will often come out of a project (or projects) related to the brand.

This is where the bad may show its ugly face.  Let’s imagine that a publisher has decided to put 15 million toward a project.  Furthermore, it decides that the market is crowded and so the easiest way to “rise above the noise” is to attach a license. Good so far. The idea is to spend 10 million on the game and 5 million on marketing, sales, and distribution. The next step is to approach someone with a brand. They want 3 million upfront, plus ongoing royalty commitments. It’s a great brand with a movie coming next year so they say “yes, please.” Now they have to find the money for the license.

The licensor, happy to see the project moving forward, may try to limit their investment even further. “The movie is coming, that’s kind of like marketing, so we’ll cut the marketing budget to 3 million and the development budget to 9 million.” Yes, you read that right. We just went from 15 million down to 12 million in a single paragraph.

I know the example is simple but this kind of thing happens more often than you might realize. Add to this any unforeseen circumstances like:

The movie slipping (not a rare occurrence as you know)

The movie not being any good

The publisher going through financial difficulties

Developer not delivering on time

You see, this can become a bloody mess very quickly. There are so many moving parts that can go wonky that not paying too much for a license is probably the best first decision a potential license buyer can make.

The second issue is the quality shortfall that many games take while hiding under a brand. Our industry is littered with licensed products that didn’t result in a good game (80 and above on Metacritic). I’ve been in this industry long enough (21 years) to have heard the stories right from the horse’s mouths about how many games were intentionally made poorer. I myself have been approached by an unnamed company with a license they wanted to make into a game in a very short timeframe. When we indicated that the quality would suffer they said, “We just need something in the box, it doesn’t matter what it is. People will buy it for the brand.” At one point, it was so common that now it is difficult to put out a good game to the hardcore market, under a new brand without getting, in my opinion, an unduly harsh once over. I can’t blame gamers, really. They have been burned again and again by products that were put to market unfinished and broken. It hurt (and hurts) all of us.

The Ugly

Finally, there’s the financial shortfall that many licensed games suffer from. In the last few years, successful AAA console titles have publically announced budgets between 45 million and 100 million.  While that’s a big range, I don’t personally know of a single licensed brand console title that has gotten a budget in that range with the exception of The Force Unleashed (more might exist, I’m just not familiar with them).  What this means to the buying public is that games that had 1-25 million dollar budgets are put alongside games that had 45-100 million dollar budgets at the same or virtually the same price. How can they compete?  Should players buy the $59 MegaBeast: The Game that cost 2 million to make or the $59 God of War budgeted at 45 million? The worst part here is that somewhere during the development the burden seems to completely fall off the license holders’ shoulders and land firmly on the developers’. Conversations go from “We know it won’t be a God of War” to “Why isn’t it God of War?” almost overnight and the developer is left to figure out how to make a game that took 45 million dollars and 4 years with less than half the time and money. It’s tough. It leads to a lot of strained business relationships and little success.

A branded product is not an excuse to make an underfunded product. Licensees must still consider the market competition and provide a comparable experience if they are to effectively use the brand they have purchased. That brand should be a boost to blow past the competition, not a crutch to catch up to them.

Many in the industry regard GoldenEye 007 (1997) as one of the best licensed games ever made

Conclusion

It’s currently in fashion to say that licenses “don’t work.” It’s the business model that needs adjusting, not licensing IP per se. Licenses do work.  They are powerful, effective and profitable when used properly – like in GoldenEye 007.

Licensors need to see their licensees as extensions of themselves. Treat them as if they were on the same side… Because they are. Rather than overcharging them for a brand, figure out what will make money for both parties, because anything less hurts the value of the brand in the long-term and annoys gamers in the short-term. On the other side of the fence, licensees should stop seeing a brand as a short cut to AAA heaven. Instead, see it as that extra push your game needs to crush the competition.

There will always be a market for high-quality licensed games. We just need to treat the brand with respect, budget accordingly and give the studio enough time to build a game we can all be proud of. (source:gamasutra


上一篇:

下一篇: