作者：Regina Leuwer

Trip Hawkins是游戏行业中极具影响力的人物。他最早在苹果工作，随后成立了EA公司，后来又转向3DO。现在，他担任自己新成立的手机和社交游戏公司Digital Chocolate首席执行官。他在最近采访中讨论为何他倡议开发者选择浏览器作为开发平台，以及有关游戏曝光度和平台分裂性的话题。

trip_hawkins(from socialgamesobserver.com)

Trip，你曾经说过在这个注重便捷性的时代，浏览器将最终胜出。但是，像主机或App Stores这样的封闭式平台难道不是因为便捷性才获得如此成功的吗？

私人俱乐部的关键要点在于，并非每个人都能够进入，而且并非所有人都想要进入同一个俱乐部，所以它们最终会成为精英机构。如果你仅仅想成为某个机构的成员，那自然没多大关系。但是如果你是个游戏开发者，那么你想要接触的是更庞大的用户群体。现在，每个人都能够熟练地使用浏览器。这是个很稳健和实用的平台，而且当人们使用浏览器时，他们也相当于使用所有的社交渠道。

我认为，我们选择产品的方式发生了重大改变。我们之前处在这样的时代里：走进商店时要由其他人决定我们可以看到什么东西，但事实上他们并不了解我们，甚至不关心我们的想法。他们看重的是品牌影响力和经济收入，以及能够控制货架空间的商家。

如果你看看网络上的曝光模式就会发现，店面是由用户创造的。用户采取的方式之一是看看好友的选择。就我个人而言，我更重视好友推荐的商品，因为它来源于更加了解我的人。第2种方法是搜索，很显然搜索是在根据自己的需求选择呈现的商品。对我来说，搜索的结果与我自己更有关联性。

但是，对于那些不主动搜寻游戏的人来说，难道不是诸如Facebook或App Store等封闭式环境将大量人群转变成游戏玩家，让普通用户接触到了游戏？

对于这种情况，我不认为系统封闭性是其重要因素。苹果所做的事情是，他们变革了手机设备的用户体验，让其变得更新鲜且更具吸引力。这迅速让很多人开始产生新的想法：我之前都没有意识到自己需要的是手机内容平台，但是现在我终于知道自己的真实想法，我想要这种产品。他们在使用Java功能性手机时可能并没有意识到自己的需要，但当他们看到iPhone时，他们很快意识到它的有趣之处。Android便是个绝佳的反例，在这个更加开放的平台上，有许多不同的设备制造商、不同的手机，带有一定的分裂性。如果Android设备的图像处理能力和运行性能能够赶上iPhone，那么也会对用户产生同样的吸引力。这才是更多用户变成游戏玩家的根本原因，而不是因为系统的封闭或开放性。

是否觉得浏览器能够完全取代原生应用？

游戏行业对游戏运行表现、图像和动画有很大的偏见。它们的作用总是被高估，而且行业内依然保持这个势头。当你查看其他媒介时，你就会发现它们已经抛弃了这种做法。这种趋势在游戏中发展的较为缓慢，因为游戏的数据类型更为复杂。但是，其他媒介的改革势必将蔓延到游戏行业中，日本的情况便是个例证。在日本，功能性手机浏览器的游戏市场飞速成长。主机市场已经没落，智能手机刚刚登陆日本，但是他们已经断定浏览器是个更好的发展平台，甚至为此开发适合功能性手机的产品。

智能手机上的浏览器将完全替代App Store现在的位置，这或许是件很难令人相信的事情。但是如果我们换成平板电脑又如何呢？平板电脑的屏幕更大，用它来访问浏览器内容更加容易。许多人喜欢将它们当成普通的移动设备来使用，而且平板电脑的电池寿命也要长于手机。如果我的手机电量耗光，那么我也就无所事事。如果我的孩子在车上玩平板电脑时电量耗光，我们还有其他可用来打开浏览器的设备。平板电脑的性能也将获得提升，屏幕会变得更好，它们也将可以运行更好的浏览器。

best-christmas-gifts-tablet(from itabletpcshop.com)

那么，你的看法是平板电脑将成为网页游戏的未来？

当iPhone问世时，谷歌还并没有Android系统。该公司耗费了3年的时间来制作这个系统并说服人们接受Android。但是苹果在iPad产品上并不占有先机，因为它发布时市场上已经有了Android，制造商可以迅速制造出Android系统产品。对于所有在智能手机市场中发生的事情，平板电脑市场的情况会更加极端。

非苹果平板电脑的发展很快而且势头强劲。还有个需要注意的事情，苹果引进App Store系统，吸引了全世界的关注。平板电脑问世的第1年，所有评论探讨的都是屏幕大小、电池寿命和App Store。没有人谈到浏览器。但我向你保证，在今后1年的时间里，许多平板电脑评论将聚焦浏览器，大众会意识到互联网上的内容总是多于任何应用商店。而且，幸运的是，浏览器的开放性并不会被特定企业所控制。

出于运行表现等问题，许多开发者在采纳基于浏览器的HTML5这一点上仍显得犹豫不决……

许多游戏类型都不需要高端的运行表现。通常情况下，如果游戏有更休闲化的外观和风格，它会吸引更大的用户群体，因为人们不会对此类内容望而生畏。有些游戏类型中根本不需要策略、资源管理或者查看数据来做出决定，博彩行业就是如此，而且盈利很不错。其他游戏也可以遵循同样的设计原则和方法。

当然，行业内仍不乏高端游戏的市场。但是，我对这个问题的看法是，游戏行业还很年轻，它刚刚出现数十年而已。这有点像人类对飞行的掌握过程：在飞机刚刚问世的前数十年里，根本没有民用航空业务。民航业务的出现至少是在飞机发明30年之后。刚开始，每个能够乘坐飞机的人都必须是飞行员，因为驾驶飞机是件很危险的事情，需要大量的技巧。游戏行业已经度过了最初的阶段，现在我们已经准备好接收普通乘客，也就是迎接之前并未出现的大众市场机遇。

但游戏行业中的许多人依然执拗于他们的旧观点。现实情况是，多数人并不想学习如何驾驶飞机，也不需要这么做，因为他们只是乘客而已。

我认为，高端产品所承载的硬核市场将逐渐变得更像是种爱好，变成适合特定玩家群体的市场。大众市场将打开门户，但是进入这一市场的唯一选择是让游戏更具休闲性，否则用户会害怕，他们也就不会选择体验游戏。如果游戏更注重休闲性而且每个人都能够体验，那么就会产生很高的社交价值。

我觉得，将用户直接引向浏览器是种较为简单的做法。我认为Facebook的成功之处在于，它总是相当休闲化，而且像是个俱乐部。每个用户都是Facebook会员，推动他们登录Facebook.com的动机是查看社交图谱或上传照片。Facebook的任务是让用户每天回到网站上花数分钟的时间来实现上述动机，多数用户根本没有时间来关注游戏，这就是多数Facebook游戏逐渐失败的原因所在。

Facebook用户对于愿意花时间来体验的内容是很挑剔的。于是，他们就会对那些可能被好友看到的内容变得很敏感。他们可能想要尝试些东西，但是想到“我不想让老板看到自己正在做这件事情”或“我不觉得好友能够理解我的做法，他们会觉得我很奇怪”时，他们或许会放弃，这也正是造成多数产品失败的原因。在Facebook上，偶尔会出现些许能够吸引大量用户的产品。这些游戏的形式都以社交图谱为中心。如果你开始想要转向体验硬核游戏，那么或许你找错了平台。

如果你是个硬核玩家，你可以将Facebook视为同好友交流的方式，或许还可以将更多人带入该游戏中。但是，硬核游戏玩家与游戏间有着更深的联系，他们需要的不仅仅是社交图谱赋予的社交便利性，某些好处只能在Facebook之外获得。

也就是说，在Facebook上获得成功的仍然只会是休闲游戏？

从现在的情形来看，这是显而易见的。如果你认真调查，就会发现Facebook上的硬核游戏都未能获得大量用户。我觉得，所有制作硬核游戏的人应该都逐渐意识到这点。可以说，硬核游戏在iPhone上的表现可能还更好。

App Store是用户购买iPhone的部分原因。因此，如果用户对某些类型的游戏感兴趣，他们就会在应用商店中寻找。而且，iPhone是个高端设备，人们愿意炫耀他们的游戏，这样就形成了很强的口舌效应。但是，该市场仍然带有一定的限制性，比如游戏曝光度和病毒性传播难以实现，而且这个市场上的用户规模无法与浏览器相提并论，后者拥有30亿用户。

你很热衷于制作运动类游戏，而且也创造了很多成功的产品。为什么你不认为会有更多的运动游戏在Facebook上获得更大的成功呢？

运动游戏确实是个很大的市场，但因为它们已经存在，所以Facebook再涉足也就没有多大的价值。如果运动游戏还未转移到电脑上，那么Facebook可能将成为引领者，这些游戏也必然会将Facebook作为目标平台，因为运动联盟本质上就是个社交产物。体验运动游戏的人多达6000万，但是他们已经在其他地方成立联盟，根本不需要通过Facebook来实现目标。而且，在运动游戏中很难创建能够让用户购买大量虚拟商品的商业模式。这个行业就是这样。在我的职业生涯中，我制作了许多运动类游戏，所以我对此领域有一定的了解。尽管此刻运动游戏是个拥有大量用户的巨型市场，但是并没有适合的成功运营模式。（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）

Trip Hawkins Interview Pt.1: Discovery, the Browser and Why Non-Apple Tablets Could be the Future

Regina Leuwer

Trip Hawkins is one of the game industry’s most prolific and influential people. He worked for Apple before he founded Electronic Arts, and later 3DO. Currently he is CEO of his latest venture, mobile and social gaming firm Digital Chocolate. We got the chance to sit down with Trip and discuss why he advocates the browser as the platform of choice for developers, as well as some other topics around gaming, discovery and disruption.

SocialGamesObserver: Trip, you said in the era of convenience the browser is going to win – but isn’t a closed ecosystem, e.g. a console or App Stores so successful precisely because they are most convenient to use?

Trip Hawkins: The thing about private clubs is that not everybody can get in, and not everybody wants to join the same club, so they end up being elitist institutions. It’s OK if you’re one of the members but if you’re a game developer you want to reach a larger audience than that. And pretty much from this moment forward every human being that’s going to be born is going to know how to use the browser by the time they’re five years old. It’s a very solid, very capable platform, and when people are using the browser they’re also using all the social channels.

I think this is a big change in how we’re going to decide what to try because we come from this history of going to a shop and somebody else has decided what we see in the front of this shop – but they don’t really know me or care about me that much. They’re responding more to brand power and financial leverage and whoever has got a chokehold over controlling that shelf space.

When you look at the discovery model on the internet, the storefront is created by the consumer. One way the consumer is looking is ‘What are my friends doing?’ Anything that comes with a recommendation like that has more meaning to me because it’s from a trusted source that knows me. The second category is search – clearly that’s me designing my own store that has sponsored sections where somebody paid to respond to that search, and it has an organic section where the search engine has decided who deserves to be there purely on their own merit. That’s a relevant source to me because I’m looking for something specific and here are the people that really want my attention.

SGO: But what about people who aren’t searching for games. Doesn’t a more closed environment like Facebook or the App Store turn a lot of people into gamers because it brings games to the attention on regular users?

Trip: I don’t think the point is the fact that it’s closed. What Apple did, in a very inspiring way is that they reinvented a user experience on a mobile device that was really fresh and appealing. It immediately caused a lot of people to think ‘Oh I didn’t realize I needed a mobile content platform but now that I can do it that way, I want it’. They didn’t want it in a Java feature phone but when they saw an iPhone they went ‘That looks like fun’. Android is an example where there is a more open platform because there are different manufacturers, different handsets and fragmentation. If an Android device has as much graphic processing power and capacitive touch display, it’s going to have a lot of the same appeal and positive characteristics of an iPhone – and it’s about that and not the fact that it’s a closed system.

SGO: Do you think that the browser can replace native apps?

Trip: The game industry has a huge bias towards game performance, graphics and animation. It’s always overrated, and the industry continues to overrate it. When you look at every other medium you see that it’s been disrupted in this fashion already. It’s a little slower to happen in games because they’re more complex data type. But inevitably it’s going to happen – and Japan is an example where it’s already happened. In Japan the big high-growing game markets are in the browser on feature phones. The console market has declined and the smartphones are just beginning to arrive in Japan, but they had already decided that the browser is the better way to go and they were doing it even on the feature phone.

Maybe it’s harder to believe that the browser on a smartphone, maybe the Android smartphone, will blow the App Store out of the water. But what about tablets? A tablet has a bigger screen, it’s much easier to access World Wide Web content on it and be able to use it. A lot of people would like to use them as mobile devices but something like battery life I think is more mission-critical for a phone than it is for a tablet. If my phone goes dead, I go dead. If my child’s tablet goes dead in the car – it’s not the end of the world. The tablets are going to improve in performance, screens will get better, they’ll be able to run better browsers.

SGO: So tablets will be the future of browser-based games?

Trip: When the iPhone was introduced, Google didn’t already have Android. It took three years for them to make it and convince people to adopt it. With the iPad, Apple didn’t have a lead because Android was already in the market and manufacturers were building Android products. Whatever happened in smartphones, it’s going to be more extreme in tablets.

The volume in non-Apple tablets is going to get so big so fast it’s going to make your head spin. The other thing is that when Apple introduced the App Store, they caught the fancy of the world because it was very clever. The first year of tablets coming to market every review talked about screen size, battery life and App Store. Nobody talked about the browser. I guarantee you within a year a lot of the reviews of tablets will talk about the browser and the public is going to figure out that the World Wide Web will always have more content than any app store. And thankfully there are no corporate profit interests that can prevent the browser from existing.

SGO: Many developers are still hesitating to adopt the browser-based HTML5 because of performance issues…

Trip: There are a lot of games that don’t require high performance and generally if a game has a more casual look and feel it’s going to attract a larger audience because people won’t be intimidated. In many game categories it’s more about tactics and resource management or looking at simple statistics and making choices – the whole gambling industry works that way and it monetizes quite well. There are a lot of games that can follow that same formula.

There will always be a category of very high performance games. But the way I look at it is that the game industry is very young, it’s only been around for a few decades. It’s a little bit like flight: when the airplane was invented, for the first few decades you didn’t get in a plane as a passenger. There was a good thirty years before there were passengers, in the beginning everybody was a pilot, it was very dangerous and required tremendous technical skill. The game industry has worked its way through those customers and now we’re ready for all the passengers. We’re talking about mass market opportunities for the game industry that just did not previously exist.

And it’s obviously going to change things but a lot of the guys in the game industry are clinging to their old viewpoint. The reality is that most people don’t want to learn how to fly an airplane, and don’t need to because they’d rather just be a passenger.

I think that the hardcore market for really high performance stuff will over time feel more like a hobby, niche market and there will be this enormous mass market that opens up, but the only way you get it to be a mass market is that the games have to be casual, otherwise users will be intimidated, they won’t play at all. And if they are casual and everybody can play, then there’ll be a lot of social value. So it’s going to be more about enabling everybody to play and having social value.

Trip: I think it’s easier to just get them directly into the browser. I think the truth about Facebook is that it’s always been very casual and it’s a club. Everybody who is in there is a member of Facebook; their motivation in launching a session on Facebook.com is checking in on their social graph, maybe putting a few photos up. Facebook’s mission is to have the customers come back every day for five minutes and those users don’t really have the time to give either intention or attention to a game – that’s why most games on Facebook just flat out fail.

The Facebook audience is very selective about what they’re willing to allow even a little bit of time to go into. And then they’re very sensitive about what they think their friends will engage with. So, they might try something but think ‘I don’t want my boss to see me doing this, or: I don’t think my friends can handle this, they’ll think I’m weird’ – all these reasons why they won’t do something, so most things fail. And then there’s occasionally a formula that works and then takes off on Facebook. It’s a form of gaming that is really driven around what the graph is about. If you start to move towards core gaming, you’re just barking up the wrong tree.

You can think of Facebook as a way to communicate with your friends if you’re a core gamer and maybe lure some more people into a core game. There’s a symbiosis because the same game can exist in both places and then you’ve got the best of both worlds, and there’s a way of communicating through the social graphs with the convenience Facebook offers. But core gamers have a deeper relation with a game and there are certain benefits they can only have outside Facebook.

SGO: So successful Facebook games will stay casual games?

Trip: That’s the evidence right now. The idea of core games on Facebook, if you take a close look, you won’t find one that has a very big audience. So I think everybody that makes core games is realizing that. I would say there are more of them that are performing well on the iPhone.

Everybody that bought the device bought it partly because of the App Store. So if they’re interested in games they’re going look for them. Also, the iPhone is a high status device – so people show off their games so there is very strong word-of-mouth effects. Then again there are some limitations on the market because discovery is difficult, viral spread is difficult and it’s not a market with three billion people in it – but there’s 3 billion people using a browser.

SGO: You are very passionate about sports games and created some of the most successful ones. Why do you think there aren’t more sports games doing better on Facebook?

Trip: Fantasy sports are a really big deal, and since they already existed, Facebook didn’t have that much value to add. If fantasy sports had not yet moved over to computers and Facebook would have got there first, those games surely would have targeted Facebook because a fantasy sports league is an inherently social thing. There are 60 million people doing fantasy sports but they already have their leagues set up somewhere else. They don’t really need to do it on Facebook. Also, in fantasy sports it’s harder to create a business model that would generate a lot of virtual goods spending. It’s a very interesting holy grail. I’ve build a lot of sports games in my career and I do think about it. But at the moment fantasy sports – even though it’s an enormous market with a lot of customers – doesn’t have a great business model. (Source: Social Games Observer)