作者：Joost Rietveld

“我们没有制定营销计划，这缺乏可行性。”——独立开发者。

谈到在数字推广渠道发行自己的游戏作品，独立游戏工作室倾向不寻求发行伙伴。自己发行蕴含着“独立”标签，而且存在若干益处，如创造性自由及更多收益分成。随着Kickstarter的出现，同价值链条当中其他公司进行合作的必要性日益降低。小型公司应该采取的推广方式如今变成战略管理领域的热门话题。跳过发行商，向玩家直接呈现游戏在如今的数字时代变得轻而易举。但发行合作模式存在若干优点，这里我将加以陈述。本文主要阐述若干发行商没有“消亡”的理由。

journey game from gamasutra.com

通过认可及互补性创造附加价值

“我们有300多家媒体的邮件地址。显然其中只有2%会就我们的信息给予回复，所以这其实价值不大。”——独立开发者

杰出游戏作品每天层出不穷，无论是iOS、Android，还是Facebook平台。但游戏之所以取得成功是因为高效落实某些互补性，例如营销能力和可靠信誉（游戏邦注：让玩家无需体验游戏就对其质量满怀信心）。App store每月会收到4000多款游戏，遗憾的是，商业成功并非仅取决于谁的游戏最优秀。用户在选择适当的游戏作品时，会遇到明显的信息不对称情况。你作为开发者，无疑清楚知道自身作品的质量，但你的潜在用户或相关信息传递媒介（如评论网站和平台所有者）则就不是如此。和可靠的发行公司合作能够有效降低用户的不确定性，他们是你最终成败的主宰者。

潜在用户或信息传递媒介的质量认知会受到开发者/发行商的影响。若你的信誉很低，例如你之前没有推出过任何排名前3的作品，最好还是和广受好评的伙伴合作。伙伴信誉的折射效应体现在两个方面。首先，上述用户和信息传递者会将合作关系看作是发行商给予的认可，该公司信誉可靠，所以游戏定是高质量内容。当你的游戏被Chillingo（《愤怒的小鸟》发行商）看中时，在玩家和评论网站看来，游戏就是获得他们的预先肯定。其次，杰出游戏的信誉会转移到开发者身上，因为用户如今会将此成就同其背后的公司联系起来。成功游戏作品的正面信誉折射效应可以运用至公司随后推出的作品。OMGPOP目前正利用其大型热门游戏《Draw Something》的信誉将用户吸引至他们其他鲜为人知的作品中，如《Boom Friends》和《Puppy World》。

基于信誉和互补性的营销路线 from gamasutra.com

但单凭信誉并无法取得成功。很多独立开发者似乎都存在这样的观念，由于发行障碍已被消除，知名发行公司不再创造任何附加价值。事实上发行商会通过自身的资源开发能力继续创造附加价值。这些互补性根植于战略方向，同信息传递平台的关系及知道如何高效利用他们，手头有众多能够进行交叉推广的游戏作品及能够以最佳方式呈现游戏的营销沟通技能当中。有300多家媒体的联系方式是个好的开始，但知道如何处理同这些人士的关系能够让你获得较高曝光度。事实上，发行商能够提高你获得较高评分的几率；获得媒体的深入报道；得到平台所有者的推荐；及更高的单位创收率。就后者来看，在游戏完成前同潜在伙伴建立关系非常重要，因为关于商业模式的战略开发问题会给你的营收带来决定性影响。

从收益分成中获取附加价值

“我们不和发行商合作，因为他们无法保证万无一失。我们可以考虑进行合作，但前提是他们要提供令人满意的协议。”——独立开发者

遗憾的是，发行商通常不是免费效劳。在多数情况下，他们会利用自己的信誉及互补能力，索取10%-50%的收入分成，通常还会在合同中约定成本补偿条款。开发者通常选择独立经营，因为他们忽视发行商的附加价值，只是一味着眼于自己需要放弃的收益。开发者不应眼红不成比例的高收入分成，而是应该考虑合作带来的附加价值：有望售出更多作品，取得更高的单位创收水平。这些都是重要的附加价值（想想在如今的市场环境中，85%的游戏作品销量无法超过1500份）。接下来就是进行简单的计算，合作关系的附加价值抵消每份游戏的收入分成。

合作创造的收益及收入分成 from gamasutra.com

下面来看看一个假设案例。开发商X决定独立发行游戏。游戏售价0.69英镑，扣除平台费用后，开发者从中获得的收益约是0.5英镑/份。游戏共售出2万份，开发者从中获得的收益约1万英镑，因为其中不存在收益分成。另一假设情况是，此开发者选择和发行商合作。发行商信心满满，承诺将在项目中投入时间和资金，同时索取30%的收益分成。现在扣除平台和发行商费用后，开发者只从中获得0.35英镑/份的收益。但通过合作，开发者从高效发行和信誉保证中获得更多附加价值。最终游戏共售出4万份，创收2万英镑。开发者从中分得1.4万英镑，尽管每份游戏分成比例有所减少，但开发者的总收益比独立发行高出40%。

总结

上述内容是从高层面探讨发行伙伴如何给游戏的发行带来附加价值。毋庸置疑，寻找“合适”的发行合作伙伴及处理实际营收分成问题相当复杂。尽管复杂，但我们不应跳过在独立开发者看来日渐“消亡”或价值不高的发行公司。我们偶尔会在数字推广领域看到诸如《Tiny Tower》或《Triple Town》之类由独立开发者自行推出的杰出作品。但不要忘记这些只是数字领域的一小部分内容，在此很多作品都投入巨额营销资金，旨在获取互补性。（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）

Partnering vs. self-publishing: how independent should you really be

by Joost Rietveld

“We do not write a marketing plan, marketing doesn’t work.” – Indie developer in recent email conversation

Independent game studios have the tendency to revert from publishing partners when it comes to commercializing their games on digital distribution channels. Doing it yourself is implicitly assumed by adopting the label ‘independent’ and has certain obvious advantages such as (creative) freedom and greater revenue per unit sold. Further, with the advent of Kickstarter funded development projects, the need to work with other companies within the value chain is shrinking every day. The routes to market small firms should take to commercialize their innovations is a hotly debated issue in strategic management research. Bypassing publishers and offering your game directly to the gamer seems like a no-brainer in this digital era. However, there are some significant benefits to partnering that I will try to shed light over here. While not trying to turn my back towards the indie community, in this article I will put forward some reasons why the publishers aren’t ‘dead’ yet.

Adding value through certification and complementarities

“We have 300+ email addresses from press contacts that we can contact. Obviously, only 2% of those people react on your message, so this is not valuable.” – Indie developer in recent email conversation

Great games are being released every day, whether it’s on iOS, Android, or Facebook. What makes games successful however is the effective deployment of certain complementarities such as marketing capabilities and a solid reputation that signal to gamers the quality of the game without having to play it. With over 4,000 games submitted to the App store every month commercial success unfortunately doesn’t rely solely on whose game is the best. Consumers are confronted with huge information asymmetries in selecting the right games to download. You as a developer perfectly know the quality of your game, yet your players-to-be, or relevant gatekeepers such as reviewing media and platform owners for that matter, do not. Partnering with a reputable and/or capable publisher can be a valid way to reduce this uncertainty with the people that eventually determine the success of your game.

Perceptions of quality with prospect consumers or gatekeepers are positively influenced by the reputation of the developer/publisher. When your reputation is low, i.e. you did not have any Top 3 games before, you do wise by teaming up with a reputable partner. The positive spill-overs from your partner’s reputation work two ways. Firstly, the aforementioned consumers and gatekeepers alike see the act of partnering as an endorsement from the partner and since his/her reputation is at stake, the game must be of high quality. When your game is picked up by Chillingo, the publisher behind Angry Birds, this is a relevant pre-selection in the eyes of gamers and reviewing media. Secondly, a successful game’s reputation is transferred back to the developer since people now associate that success with the companies behind it. Positive reputational spill-over effects from a successful game can be used for subsequently (independently) commercialized games. OMGPOP is now using their reputation from the massively popular Draw Something to attract attention to some of their other, less well-known games such as Boom Friends and Puppy World.

Reputation alone won’t do the trick though. Many independent developers seem to live by the perception that, now that barriers to publishing have been eroded, established publishers don’t add value anymore. Publishers add value through their exploitative capabilities. These complementarities are embedded in strategic direction, relationships with gatekeepers and knowing how to use them effectively, a large portfolio of content through which cross-selling of content can occur, and marketing communication skills for presenting games in the best possible light. Having 300+ press contacts is a good start, however knowing how to approach and maintain relationships with these persons is what gets you good coverage. Practically, publishers enhance the chances for higher review scores; in-depth coverage by media; features by platform owners; and, a better capitalization per unit sold. With the eye on the latter it is important to involve a potential partner well before your game is finished as strategic development issues regarding business models can have a critical impact on your income.

Capturing value from sharing revenue

“We don’t work with publishers because they cannot guarantee success at all. We can consider it, but then they have to come with a very good deal!” – Indie developer in recent email conversation

Unfortunately, publishers don’t work for free. In most cases they capitalize on their reputation and complementary capabilities by demanding a revenue share anywhere between 10 and 50% and possibly want to include a cost recoupment clause in the contract. Developers often operate independently because they neglect the added value of the publisher and merely focus on the revenue they have to give up instead. Rather than being envious of the seemingly disproportionately high revenue share, developers have to take into account the additional value created by partnering: a greater chance of selling more units in addition to higher monetization per unit sold. These are valuable additions in an environment where 85% of the games don’t manage to move more than 1,500 units. What is left is a simple, albeit difficult to accurately perform prior to commercialization, calculation where the added value from partnering is offset by the loss in value appropriation per unit sold.

Consider the following hypothetical example. Developer X decides to independently commercialize her game. The game sells for £0.69 GBP throughout its lifecycle, grossing approximately £0.50 GBP per unit sold after platform fee deduction. The developer sells 20.000 copies, appropriating £10,000 GBP since 100% of the value created is captured by the developer. Now, in a hypothetical scenario, the developer reverses the wheel of time and decides to commercialize the game through a partnership with a publisher. The publisher is confident and promises to dedicate time and money to the project, and in returns asks for 30% of all value created. The developer now only receives £0.35 per unit sold after platform and publisher fee deductions. However, by pooling capabilities more value is created through effective publishing and reputational signalling (on top of that great game). As a result the game sells 40.000 copies grossing £20.000 GBP cumulatively. The developer appropriates £14,000 GBP, 40% more compared with the independent strategy despite a lower value captured per unit sold.

Final thoughts

These are top-level indications of how and when a publishing partner can add value to the commercialization of your game. Needless to say, there are complexities in finding the ‘right’ partner and dealing with the practical issues of revenue sharing. Notwithstanding these complexities, I believe there are solid reasons not to bypass the publishers independent developers are increasingly declaring ‘dead’, or more mildly, of little added value. We occasionally see and read about independent success stories on digital distribution channels such as Tiny Tower or Triple Town. These are fantastic games commercialized by independent development studios. However, let’s not forget that these games represent only a fraction of the total population of games available on the digital channels and that they have been marketed by teams that invested heavily in getting their commercialization complementarities on point.（Source：gamasutra）