位于英国格拉斯哥的Huzutech团队此前发表了一篇关于社交游戏领域数据分析和参数运用情况的文章，这里我们将针对此内容展开说明。

旧金山社交游戏巨头Zynga于2011年末进行的首次公开募股（IPO）充分凸显大家对于这一新游戏领域的两极化态度。

去年是社交游戏显著发展的一年，市场上出现了各种不同种类的游戏，涉猎范围从简单的填字和益智游戏到大型多人冒险游戏。

而这一显著发展带来了大量的玩家，并因此为开发者创造了巨大的利益，主要来自游戏订阅，虚拟产品的销售以及广告收入。

Zynga IPO from industryleadersmagazine.com

2011年末，Zynga在首次公开募股中获得10亿多美元的资金，这将社交游戏的发展带入巅峰。对于一家创建不到5年的公司来说，这真的是一个非常不错的成绩。

graph from scottishgames.net

尽管取得了巨大的成功，但是还有许多人对于社交游戏未来的发展以及游戏本身的长期价值持怀疑态度。

当前游戏产业中的许多开发者和发行商也对社交游戏中的众多元素表示怀疑。

的确，在很多人眼中，基于免费模式的社交游戏难以获得持续性发展，且也会破坏游戏本身的价值。在他们看来，如果玩家不必为游戏花钱，那么他们就不会懂得珍稀游戏。

而依赖于各种社交平台（如Facebook）的社交游戏也将自己的未来紧系于平台的发展。如果网站出现问题（如用户隐私泄漏），开始遗失大量用户，或者改变对游戏的支持态度，那么依赖于该网站的游戏也必然会陷入困境中。

再来就是具体的游戏内容。这是社交游戏领域最具争议性的地方（游戏邦注：这在创意产业中司空见惯）。有人认为社交游戏缺少艺术价值；它们只是市场营销工具，它们通过运用心理手段吸引更多玩家回到游戏中进行消费。也就是说社交游戏缺少创造性及乐趣，没有像掌机、PC甚至是手机游戏那般“精心设计”，只是一种受数据驱使的游戏。

这些观点是否正确？在某种程度看来有其道理。但不可否认的是，某些观点的确丑化了社交游戏，其中原因可能在于社交游戏给更广泛的游戏产业带来巨大改变。

社交游戏市场是一个新兴市场，从兴起到现在还不足5年时间。而它之所以能有今天的发展主要归功于Facebook开放其应用程序界面（API），允许全世界的开发者在此为快速发展的社交网站创建游戏。

在任何支持玩家尝试各种软件的新设备、新技术或新平台中，游戏迅速成为了其中最受欢迎的内容。从iPhone和苹果App Store到数字互动电视再到社交网站，游戏都是用户能够轻松获得，无需花费较多成本的短暂娱乐方式。

然而这些新兴游戏市场的运作方式也与现有的掌机和PC游戏市场大不相同。在新兴社交、休闲和手机市场中最成功的游戏都采用免费模式。起码最初是免费的。那些瞄准小型简单游戏的玩家不会在还不了解游戏是否有趣的前提下支付30英镑/40美元的费用。尽管现在市面上也出现了一些平价游戏（0.99美元），但是事实证明最成功的游戏还是那些可供免费下载的游戏。

这种商业模式要求开发者采用完全不同的方式创造并销售游戏。在“传统”游戏市场中，玩家一旦购买游戏，无论他们后来是否喜欢游戏或者是否愿意完整体验游戏都与开发者毫无关系（除非他们打算制作游戏续集）。但是如果你开发的是免费游戏，你就必须不断鼓励玩家回到游戏，反复体验游戏，这样你才能将新的游戏内容，虚拟商品以及功能展示给玩家，或者鼓动他们在游戏中“购买”这些内容。

许多公司很好地推动了这种模式。比如通过向忠实玩家销售新关卡、新道具，角色定制以及稀有道具而获得丰厚收益（和游戏预先销量的收益相当）。还有一些公司通过让玩家预先付费并在游戏内部进行消费而从中获利。除此之外，也有些公司仍然坚持采用完全的免费模式，但会在游戏中植入广告链接。

虽然所有这些模式都还处在初级阶段，但种种迹象表明玩家非常愿意持续购买新内容。

但这些付费模式在更大的游戏行业中备受争议，这主要和社交游戏公司从玩家身上所收集到的数据有关。与PC和掌机游戏市场（玩家与开发者/发行商的互动非常有限）不同，社交游戏通常基于服务器运行及进行互动，所以玩家就能够频繁地同游戏背后的公司进行沟通。

这给予社交游戏公司更多有关玩家在游戏中的表现情况的信息——主要根据鼠标操作、游戏进展及所运用的道具。

通过这种互动，社交游戏公司能够使用所收集的数据不断完善自己的游戏，让游戏变得更加具有吸引力，甚至是让玩家更加沉浸其中。这样，游戏便能够吸引玩家持续体验游戏，甚至确保他们在几个月后仍然愿意回到游戏中，让游戏公司能够从中获利。

但是这种侧重点却招来大范围游戏行业的非议，他们认为社交游戏市场更看重数据分析和市场营销，而不是创造性和设计。很多开发者认为这是一种负面元素，会影响其它游戏类型的创造性和“艺术性”。

但是不管怎么说，总是没有绝对的公正之说。针对于“休闲”玩家的游戏就必须通俗易懂，让玩家容易理解游戏。这类游戏依靠玩家持续回访，这样玩家就会在游戏中购买虚拟商品，此外，游戏还要有较大的吸引力——让人诧异的是，这种游戏不一定要“趣味横生”。

关于玩家何时或如何加入游戏的数据能够帮助社交游戏开发者吸引更多新玩家，以及留住玩家，鼓动玩家进行消费。而且，理解这些数据就等于把握一定的规则和机制，这样社交游戏公司就能够将其用于新游戏的开发，以此创造出更有吸引力的游戏体验并从中获益。

而如果是掌机和PC游戏公司获得了相同的数据，他们也将采取类似的方法开发并设计游戏。一般来说，创造一款掌机游戏需要花费上千万，甚至是上亿美元的成本。但是这类型游戏的发行商并不是拿这些资金开玩笑，他们也和社交游戏公司一样，会专注研究哪些游戏元素更有吸引力以及玩家更愿意为哪些内容花钱。

但是这是否就意味着游戏设计中的数据分析能够完全取代人为元素和创造性？当然不能。数据分析的作用至此而已。因为社交游戏市场还很年轻，所以并不存在基于长期体验或长期用户反馈的数据。并且数据分析也不能预示一些还未出现的问题。尽管许多主流社交游戏已经获得众多用户，但是还有许多用户还没有玩过游戏。我们又该如何应对这些未来的潜在游戏玩家？

数据分析是一种非常有效的工具；它能够帮助开发者明确游戏中的问题，从而让他们更有针对性地完善游戏，但是它却不能用于创造一些具有吸引力、创造性的全新独特体验。

关于社交游戏公司所采用的新型商业模式，同样其中也不存在真正的有效长期数据。然而，据其它平台以及相关信息显示，全世界的玩家都将虚拟产品和用户内部购买当成是一种有趣且有价值的内容。

苹果和Android的手机市场提供各种各样的应用，而不只是游戏，因此在这两大平台上，应用内部的虚拟交易、订阅、广告资助游戏及虚拟产品都占据着非常重要的地位。如果消费者觉得平台值得信赖，其收益模式足够方便且它所提供的内容具有价值性，他们便会愿意为其掏腰包。甚至在线电影、音乐及出版物领域也开始出现了“租赁”模式。但前提是，创造者能够确保他们所提供的内容具有价值。

一些在线虚拟社区如Moshi Monsters（游戏邦注：英国儿童社交网站）和Club Penguin也表示，新收益模式更适合年轻用户。

总之，不断有公司持续尝试着摆脱传统零售模式，而且颇有成绩——包括来自在线、手机、社交以及休闲游戏市场的各大公司。这对于品牌所有者、媒体公司以及知识产权所有者来说真的是个好消息，因为他们开始将目光转移至这个能够带来新收益和新机会的新娱乐领域，并不断尝试以新的更具互动性的方式与用户进行交流。

最后，关于依赖于单一平台，如Facebook，确实是一个大问题。尽管社交网络是块新领域，但许多实据证明这些网络的寿命都很短，就像早前兴盛的社区如Bebo和MySpace都已迅速衰弱；但是，Facebook却改写了社交领域的这一潜规则。不论是开放式API还是大量的用户基础都预示着这一网站在未来很长时间内仍将继续兴盛发展。

然而Facebook也不是游戏能够依赖的唯一平台。越来越多用户开始选择适合自己的网络平台；有些玩家变成了Twitter的忠实用户，而他们之前从未玩过Facebook；有些则选择Google+。在全球很多国家中，Facebook并不是主流社交网站。

大型社交网络之外的领域每天都会持续出现新的机会，而新渠道、新社区、新网络及新营销途径也层出不穷。所以，尽管现在Facebook仍然保持着自己在社交游戏中的“巨头地位”，但是开发者、媒体公司和品牌所有者应进一步采取措施，从中获得更多的用户。

这个全新“主流”游戏市场的本质是“用户就是上帝”。你必须在用户所使用的渠道中保持活跃；你必须创造出用户真正想要的游戏；你必须找到能让用户信赖并安心使用的收益模式。

如今用户逐步已不再偏好具体的平台。他们希望能够在所持有的所有设备中看到自己所喜欢的内容，希望各种设备所存在的人为障碍能够逐渐消失，也就是说，允许Facebook用户与iPhone用户、Android用户、Google+用户甚至是连网电视用户进行游戏对抗。

社交游戏市场的兴起并不是个泡沫现象，相反，它的发展告诉我们，未来的互动娱乐将更加开放，更具有挑战性，更具有吸引力。

不管你选择了何种平台、瞄准什么设计方法论、商业模式或市场营销方法，都将能够在游戏领域大有作为。我们相信，不久的将来行业将出现更多更有趣的新内容！（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Data Driven Analytics – What Social Games Do

The team at Huzutech in Glasgow posted a fascinating piece on the use of data analysis and metrics in the social gaming space on their blog last week.

We checked it was OK to re-post the piece here and present, for your pleasure and delight, Huzutech on social gaming and designing by data analysis…

You can find the post over on the Huzutech blog – and we’d recommend checking it out.

The IPO of San Francisco social games giant Zynga at the end of 2011 highlighted just how polarised opinion is when it comes to this new area of gaming.

The social games scene exploded in last year.  The number of games on the market increased beyond all expectations, as did the variety of games – from simple word and puzzle titles, through to massively multiplayer adventures.

This expansion drew in huge numbers of players and led to massive growth in revenues, from subscriptions, the sale of virtual goods and advertising.

It culminated in late 2011, with Zynga’s initial public offering which valued the company at over one billion dollars.  Not too bad for a company which is not yet five years old.

Despite all of the success however, there remains a lot of cynicism over the future of the social games sector and the long-term value of the games themselves.

Many developers and publishers working within the existing games industry have expressed doubt over many aspects of social gaming.

The fact social games are free-to-play is seen as unsustainable and damaging the value of the game itself.  If a player does not have to pay for a game, the argument states, then they simply don’t value it.

The reliance of social games on the various social platforms (such as Facebook) ties their future into the ongoing success of that platform.  If the network runs into problems (over issues such as privacy), starts to lose large numbers of users, or makes major changes to its support for games, then titles using that network can run into problems.

Then there are the actual games.  Perhaps not surprisingly for a creative industry, this is one of the most fiercely held contentions regarding the social market.  Social games, it is claimed, lack any sort of artistic merit.  They are cynical marketing tools, which use psychological tricks to keep players coming back for more, in order to get them paying.  In short they’re not creative, fun or ‘designed’ in the same way as console, pc or even mobile games, but designed and driven entirely by numbers.

Are any of these claims valid, or even fair?  In part, yes.  However, some of these issues are being viewed in the worst possible light, possibly thanks to the sweeping changes and huge differences social gaming has introduced into the wider games industry.

The social gaming market is something entirely new.  Less than five years ago, it did not exist.  The fact it does now is down to Facebook opening it’s Application Programme Interface (API), which allowed developers worldwide to go and create their own content for the rapidly growing social network.

On any new device, technology or platform which supports consumer facing software, games have very quickly become the most popular type of content.  From the iPhone and Apple App Store, to digital interactive television to social networks, gaming it seems that users are discovering the joys of simple, short and low cost ways to play.

However, the market for these new forms of gaming operate very differently from the existing console and PC sectors.  The most successful games in new social, casual and mobile markets are free.  At least initially.  Users who are looking for smaller, simpler forms of gaming are certainly not going to pay ￡30/$40 up front for a game they don’t know they’ll enjoy.  While much lower price points ($0.99) have appeared on some markets, the most successful games are those which allow users to download and play them for free.

This business model requires an entirely different approach to creating and marketing a game.  In the ‘traditional’ games market, once the player has bought the game, whether they enjoy it or finish it is almost irrelevant (until you come to release the sequel).  The free-to-play (F2P) model, has to encourage players to return, to play the game again and again, so that new content, new virtual goods and new abilities can be unlocked or ‘sold’ from within the game itself.

Many companies are pushing ahead with this model to great effect.  New levels, new items, character customisation and rare/exclusive items can be sold to enthusiastic players and generate as much, if not more than simple up-front game sales.  Other companies have found success with an up-front payment and then in-game purchases.  Others still have made their entire game free-to-play but have included advertising links within the game.

All of these models are still in their early days, but indications so far are that with care and attention to when and how players are approached, they are willing to buy new content on an ongoing basis.

These points of payment however, have become contentious within the wider games industry, thanks to the data which social games companies can gather from players.  Unlike the PC and console market, where a player’s contact and interaction with the developer/publisher is limited, social games run and interact on a server, so the player is in almost constant contact with the company behind the game.

This gives the social games company far, far more information on how their players act within the game – down to individual mouse clicks, progress through the game and items used.

Many social games companies are using this data to refine and hone their titles, to make them more appealing, more compelling and dare we say – addictive.  This allows them to look for revenue on an ongoing basis, keep users engaged and make sure their players are still their players in the months to come.

This focus has lead to some criticism from the wider games industry that the social market, rather than being creative or driven by design, is actually being driven by data analysis and marketing.  Many developers are looking upon this as a negative thing, taking away much of the creativity and ‘art’ of other forms of gaming.

None of which is strictly fair.  A game which relies upon more ‘casual’ players has to be accessible, simple to pick up and easily understood.  A game which relies upon players returning many times, so that in-game purchases can be made, has to be compelling and addictive – though oddly enough it does NOT have to be ‘fun.

The data on when and how players take part in games, gives social developers the opportunity to really focus on getting players into the game, keeping them playing and encouraging paid transactions.  In turn, this understanding gives social games companies certain rules and mechanisms which can be used in new games and built into experiences which should keep players even more engaged and offer more opportunities for revenue.

There is a case to be made that the console and PC games companies, given access to the same data, would be adopting broadly similar approaches to development and design.  Major console games cost tens of millions and increasingly, hundreds of millions of dollars to create.  The publishers behind those games are not gambling with those sums of money.  They’re focusing just as much on what worked, what was popular and what players will pay for as the companies working on social games.

Does this mean that data analysis can replace the human element and creativity in game design?  Clearly not.  Data analysis can only take you so far.  Since the social games market is still so young, there’s simply no data on long-term use or user response.  Nor can data analysis reveal what isn’t yet on the market.  While many of the leading social games have pulled in millions of players, many more have yet to give games a try.  What is it going to take to address these potential gamers of the future?

Data analysis is a useful tool.  It can help make identify problems in games and allows developers to refine and polish their titles, but it won’t necessarily help create exciting, innovative and unique new experiences which don’t yet exist

As for the new business models being explored by social games companies, again there’s no real long-term data.  However, there are other platforms and indications that virtual good and in-app purchases are being accepted by users worldwide as interesting and valuable.

The mobile markets from Apple and Android feature a variety of apps, not just games, which feature in-app purchases, subscriptions, advertising funded titles and virtual goods.  If the platform is trusted, the revenue model convenient and the content perceived as having value, then consumers seem willing to pay for it.  Even ‘rental’ models for online movies, music and publications are beginning to make an appearance.  Its up to the creators to ensure that their content is seen to have that value.

Online, existing virtual communities such as Moshi Monsters and Club Penguin have also shown that new revenue models can work – even for audiences of a much younger age.

In short, it seems that the opportunities to move away from the traditional retail model is being explored – successfully – by a large number of companies across the online, mobile, social and casual markets.  Which has to be good news for the brand owners, media companies and intellectual properties now looking seriously at these new areas of entertainment for new revenue streams and opportunities to interact with consumers in a new and more interactive ways.

Finally, the concern about relying on a single platform – such as Facebook – is a valid one.  While social networks are still a new phenomenon, there is already substantial evidence that all networks are transient.  Previously booming communities such as Bebo and MySpace have shrunk to a shadow of their former selves.  Yet, Facebook has in many ways rewritten the rules for social spaces.  The open API and critical mass of users suggests this network will be around for a significant time to come.

Which does not, however, make it the only platform in town.  Users are increasingly choosing their own entry point to the Internet.  Some people are Twitter fans and never touch, Facebook.  Others have migrated to Google+.  In many countries around the world, Facebook is not the leading social network by a large margin.

There are opportunities outwith the world’s biggest social network and new channels, communities, networks and routes to market are appearing on an almost daily basis.  So while Facebook may currently by the ’800lb gorilla’ in social gaming, developers, media companies and brand owners need to take a step back and ensure they’re addressing the broadest possible audience.

The bottom line in this new ‘mainstream’ gaming market is that the consumer is king.  You need to be active in the channels they’re using.  You need to be creating games they want to play.  You need to find revenue models that they trust and are comfortable using.

Consumers are increasingly technology agnostic.  They want their favourite content on all of their devices and the artificial barriers created by different devices will start to disappear even more quickly, allowing Facebook users to compete against iPhone owners, Android users, Google+ members and even the new generation of Internet connected televisions.

Far from being a bubble, a fad or a niche, the rise of the social games market is revealing a future for interactive entertainment which is more open, challenging and exciting than it’s ever been before.

Regardless of the platforms, the design methodology, the business models and the routes to market, the future promises to be all about games.  Who knows, there may even be room for fun!(source:scottishgames)