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

论述开发商-发行商合作关系的严格评估过程

发布时间:2012-06-19 11:04:16 Tags:,,

作者:Majdi Kraiem

各工作室都独一无二,发行商亦是如此。文化、开发哲学和策略是区分各个公司的因素所在,它们都在不同程度上受到业务、设计、技术和营销之类元素的推动。

基于这点,你如何完美搭配工作室和发行商?各方都有自己所追求的目标,所以这不会非常困难。但建立成功合作关系没那么简单,需要耗费许多时间。

这也需要有良好开端。通常当事情开始变严肃时(游戏邦注:完成所有背景调查及制作出承揽商业条款),这就开始涉及严格评估,也就是在发行商拜访开发公司办公室的时候。这个过程是文章的主要谈论话题。

cooperation from chungkukitt.blogspot.com

cooperation from chungkukitt.blogspot.com

进行严格评估的意义何在?

显然,开发团队非常重要,确保团队具备相应人才、技能及经验非常有必要。但背景调查及若干面谈无法揭示团队在开发过程中的具体动态,因为人才管理及有效引导是关键性因素。

这就是为什么工作室的管理至关重要。事实上,如果经理很优秀,他/她多半会组建优秀的团队。和规模无关,这是优秀工作室的一般做法。如果缺乏管理,即便出于运气,团队各成员都非常优秀,那么项目多半也会出现问题。

通常发行商的拜访过程主要着眼于技术问题。技术对发行商的业务团队来说至关重要,因为这是他们所缺乏的技能,因此算是颇具风险。在此我要说明的是,这其实并没有那么重要。

退一步来看,如今多数工作室都采用授权技术,那些坚持专利解决方案的人士在此非常得心应手。众所周知,运用特定授权技术或具备尖端功能并不是项目品质或游戏成败的决定性因素。这就是为什么游戏制作所占据的时间是探讨技术问题的两倍。

开发解决方案带给生产力的影响不像项目管理问题(规划、缺少资源和意外事件等)那般显著。此外,编码行为也会影响最终成果。

游戏代码是否经过精心设计,具有灵活性,最终得到合理优化,能够轻松维持?我们能够在面谈中收集到这些问题的相关线索,但无法得到确切保证。

更重要的是,这些讨论的主要目标应围绕合作关系能够顺利建立起来。就如《游戏开发者》杂志总编辑Brandon Sheffield所说的,严格评估过程并不只是单行道。

要给合作关系建立良好开端,公开谈论非常必要——谈论创意控制、发行商投入、各自预期及解决问题之类的内容。在我看来,尽早讨论这些问题能够有效避免很多麻烦。

这不仅是个相互评估过程,各方真正了解彼此及履行承诺需要耗费一个完整开发周期。这时候,如果你有决心,这将变成长久合作关系。

发行商在严格评估过程中的着眼点是什么?

* 发行商通常着眼于长期合作关系。这是个合理着眼点,因为和第三方共同制作游戏意味着双方需在资源和技术、工具及技巧开发方面进行投资。

无论是新项目,还是续集,和熟悉人士合作对发行商来说显然更为容易——通过既有生产线。发行商还需要下这样的赌注:工作室将逐步完善。

对发行商而言,严格评估包含把握工作室的文化和希望,判断其潜力。作为工作室,你应该清楚自己的战略,自己的长期目标,尤其是就完善结构和游戏方面而言。持续完善自我的工作室更有望在未来持续生存下去。

* 工作室的必要品质是,懂得如何整合及利用知识——包括有关营销和社论的发行商知识。即便发行商之前曾制作过优秀作品,他/她也需要意识到外部视角的重要性。例如,你可以做好回答有关自己和其他发行公司合作经历的问题,举例说明外来投入如何完善你的作品,帮你瞄准焦点,或促使你走得更远。

* 工作室需要严格对待自己及产品。有些发行商也非常严格,但最好还是开发者执行严格标准。发行商偏好不需要他们亲自动手,值得信任的工作室。在评估自己的作品时要表现出突显著的自主性,解释自己如何进行评估。如果你在呈现高质量游戏方面存在前后矛盾的追踪记录,那么发行商多半会基于你的最近表现判断你是否是合适的合作伙伴。在此坚持内部质量标准及评估过程至关重要。

* 发行商寻求的是有特点的工作室,还有就是这一特点如何转变成游戏成品。提醒发行商你的优点,以及游戏受玩家或评论者认可的品质。强调这会让你所推广的游戏从中受益——而当这是发行商的IP时尤其如此。

pr from semadvisory.com

pr from semadvisory.com

* 接着上面的观点,发行商不仅寻找能够制作游戏的工作室;他们还锁定能够给带来优质PR宣传的合作伙伴。这可以算是预先查看工作室的公共形象;这里你需要推销自己,所以不妨引述媒体评论,描述你如何处理原始IP的沟通工作,或者你是否有忠实的玩家社区。这些不是必要条件,但显然能够让你将合作关系变得更有利于工作室。

吸引发行商的品质

在电话会议中,许多工作室主管强调创建优秀团队的重要性。有成员非常注重团队充分说明,这一工作室具备无限潜力。吸引、指导和留住人才需靠战略技巧。

若干年前,我曾拜访一家制作数字游戏的Guilford工作室。看到大家置身这样的挑战非常有趣:两人一组,在1周内开发出一款手机游戏。这类游戏困境如今似乎变得更普遍;这充分说明,工作室是绝佳的工作场所,管理人员关心团队及其表现。

雇用政策也是个有趣的讨论话题;经理注重的求职者品质能够充分展现出工作室的风貌。要找到合适人选很难,所以如果经理具备不错的HR管理策略,提前做计划,热衷于招募新人才(游戏邦注:同时维持团队的平衡性)会更好。

还有就是工作室经理要采用平衡的开发模式,清楚自身优缺点,或者甚至是承认过往失败。适应或不适应其职位的有背景管理者不存在具体模式,只要他们怀有激情——包括对岗位及游戏开发。

危险情况在于,工作室过多由单个具体的游戏开发要素推动。显然这个问题也适用于发行商,前提是他们设有自己的项目指导团队。

能够清楚表达工作室的目标和价值标准能够让工作室从中脱颖而出。这回答众多有关工作室是项目最佳合作伙伴的问题,能够帮助发行商适应工作室的文化。工作室拒绝含糊请求,在必要时候以建设性方式说不是个良好征兆。即便这不被发行商所接受,但至少是个相当准确的早期预警机制。

同样,只收到肯定答案也会令人颇为不安。这里我们需要留心工作室经理。工作室经理没有审核游戏作品也是个糟糕情况。

开发团队希望管理者能够留心产品及他们的操作内容,随时提供支持。就连大型发行商的首席执行官也会在开发的不同阶段评论游戏。其他情况包括,诸如缺乏团队支持,扮演过多角色,“掌握一切”也是应该加入列表中的警示标记。

那么开发者应着眼于哪些要素?

* 与利益相关者持有相同项目目标和优先考虑事项的发行商合作非常重要;实际情况并非都是如此,并非总是显而易见。你多半会想要和清楚自己发展方向的发行商合作。

如果发行商没有方向,很容易就会出现这样的情况:错误决策、缺乏沟通会导致延误、不必要的方向变更,甚至是项目被取消。你可以就项目的目标和优先考虑事项展开讨论,看看大家是否达成共识。我们还能够询问发行商的审核过程。

* 工作室还注重创意自由,想要获得某种程度的控制权。

让发行商明白创意方向不同于游戏方向非常重要,因为即便做出不同设计选择,采用不同美术元素,你也能够实现相同的游戏目标。值得注意的是,在特定主题中融合两种不同的设计选择也具有可行性,但输入内容过于混杂会导致我们无法创造出一致的作品。游戏可以瞄准某一方向,以特定方式定位,瞄准特定用户,但创意工作和总体执行过程应由工作室掌握。

电子游戏不是普通产品。它最终是工作室的游戏作品,玩家和评论者评价的是工作室的作品,而非不是发行商的作品。除幕后开发者外,没有优秀的工作室会想要着手没有所有权的游戏作品。不妨询问发行商针对第三方工作室所采取的编辑政策和开发举措,这样你就能够确保这些适合你。多数游戏主管会让工作室做出选择,进行最终剪辑——即便这些选择非常不寻常。但这依然是非常不错的考虑事项,即便这一言论听起来有些理想主义。

* 发行商一方的相关人员应负责项目的运行工作:制作人或主管要能够做出运作决策,提供适当支持,对游戏形成现实预期。确保对方达成共识,投身于合作关系中,而且了解你,这样他/她就能够通过认同你的决策给予你支持,在需要进行仲裁时做出最佳选择。

* 工作室应询问发行商的审核过程,这是合作关系的重要组成部分。除普通反馈及如何就目标及下个步骤达成一致,发行商还应该联系咨询顾问,预先评估游戏,或采用以玩家为中心的测试方法。你应查看游戏的具体情况是否如此,然后确保这在开发初期得到落实,这样你就能够在必要时候就游戏做出调整。

* 当工作室即将要和发行商签订协议时,决策相关人员应了解发行商会提供的服务以及合作能够带来什么价值。例如,直接和掌机设备制造商签订协议能够给工作室的业务带来积极影响,这主要是就提高公共形象和从中获取的知识而言。

同样,工作室应准确判断合作关系所能够带来的益处。举个例子,和同样也是游戏开发者的发行商签订协议的工作室将有望获得技术支持及随意享受额外开发资源(游戏邦注:这也许不是真的,所以首先要进行查看)。更重要的是,你还会想要知道发行商愿意同你分享的信息和知识限度,因为内部数据和调查会影响项目的相关决策,无法访问这些信息将令人非常沮丧。

* 本文并不打算谈论具体内容;就如前面提到的,各工作室都应要设有自己的发行商预期标准。工作室的成败主要取决于游戏开发及所有相关决策。但这些选择需要发行商共同参与,这显然是和发行商共同开发游戏最主要的权衡关系。

着眼于第三方开发的工作室的成败取决于合作关系的质量。把握这点之后,我们就不会忽略寻找会重视你观点和付出的合作伙伴。纯粹基于开发进度和收入分成之类的数据和发行商建立合作关系远远不够,把握这些元素无法确保我们定能够从中赚取收益。

首次建立成功合作关系后,发行商和开发商之间的合作关系会朝更具战略意义的方向发展,不再有很多的程序,开发者在创意元素上享有完整的所有权。

但在此之前,各方应瞄准真正的关键要素。这能够帮我们判断合作关系是否具有可行性。

首要选择并不总是,在具体题材或平台上存在更多经验的工作室。如果此工作室无法和发行伙伴完美配合,那么和具备更多突出核心品质但经验不多的工作室合作风险更小。

另外,主流发行商也许看起来非常诱人,能够带来许多有利条件,但这并不代表双方的合作关系能够毫无摩擦或是项目就不会最终被取消。

大家也许时间紧迫,但务必记得询问这些难题。各方通常都会进行事后分析;为什么不共同探讨严格评估过程?(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

Finding Out if a Publisher is Right for You

by Majdi Kraiem

[A veteran Ubisoft producer explains what publishers look for in developers, and also explains what developers should look for in return, and how sometimes the more experienced studios and publishers with better offers aren't the best choices.]

Every studio is unique, and the same goes for publishers. Cultures, development philosophies, and strategies are among the things that differentiate every company, and they are all driven at different levels by business, design, tech, marketing, and more.

With that in mind, how do you make a good match between a studio and a publisher? Each side has its own ideas about what it is looking for, so it shouldn’t be that difficult. But building a successful collaboration isn’t that easy and takes time.

It takes also a good start. Usually when things get serious — with all background checks done and work for hire business terms outlined — it starts with some sort of due diligence where the publisher visits the studio’s office. This process is mainly what is going to be covered in this article.

What’s the Point of Due Diligence?

Obviously, the development team is important, and making sure it has all the talent, skills and experience is essential. However, a background check and some interviews are not going to reveal what the team dynamic during game development will be like, as talent management and good direction is really what is going to make a difference.

This is why the studio’s management is key. In fact, if the manager is good, he or she is going to build a great team. Independently of their size, this is what the best studios do. If the management is lacking, even if by chance the team members are individually good, the project is most likely to go wrong at some point.

Often a large part of the studio visit is dedicated to technology. Tech tends to be a big deal to publishers’ business teams, because this is an area we do not master, and is thus seen as pretty risky. It is not necessary for us to go deep into the subject, as it is covered well already — more importantly, my point is that it doesn’t matter much.

Taking a step back, most studios today use licensed tech, and those sticking with proprietary solutions tend to be really good at them. And as we know, using a particular licensed technology or having some cutting-edge feature is not a deciding factor in the quality or success of a game. This is why for one unit of time spent discussing tech, double should be dedicated to the making of games in general.

Development solutions are also not going to affect productivity in the same order of magnitude as project management issues do (planning, shortage of resources, contingencies, etc…) Coding practices are also more likely to affect the outcome.

Is the game code going to be well-designed, flexible, and eventually well-optimized and easy to maintain? These questions make it possible to collect clues during an interview, but don’t offer much of a guarantee.

More importantly, the main goal of these discussions should be around making sure that the partnership has a chance to work out. As expressed by Game Developer magazine editor in chief Brandon Sheffield, the due diligence process is not only a one way street.

For a good start in this type of collaboration, it’s necessary to discuss things openly — things like creative control, what kind of input to expect from the publisher, respective levels of expectation, problem solving, and so on. In my experience, a lot of trouble can be avoided down the road by discussing these topics early.

And not only it is a mutual evaluation process, but it also takes a full development cycle for each party to really learn about the other, and to see that everyone has delivered as promised. At this point, if you have the will, it may turn into a longterm partnership.

What is a Publisher Looking For in the Due Diligence Process?

* Publishers often look for longterm partnerships. It’s a rational approach, as making a game with a third party developer represents an investment for both parties in term of resources and developing the tech, tools, knowhow, and more.

For either a new project or a sequel, it is definitely easier for a publisher to work with someone familiar — and with an existing production pipeline, in the case of the latter. The publisher is also betting on the fact that the studio is going to improve over time.

Basically, for a publisher, due diligence consists of understanding the studio’s culture and wishes, and identifying its potential. As a studio, you should be clear about your strategy, and what your longterm goals are, especially in terms of improving your structure and your games. A studio that seeks to continuously improve and questions itself is definitely more likely to be around in the next five years.

* A must-have quality for a studio is to have enough wisdom to integrate and make use of different kinds of knowledge — including the publisher’s knowledge related to marketing, editorial, and so on. Even if a developer has made a good game before, he or she should also be smart enough to see the value of an external perspective. You can, for instance, prepare yourself to answer questions about your past experiences with (or without) other publishers, and to provide examples of how external input has improved your game, helped you focus, or pushed you to go the extra mile.

* A studio needs to be demanding with itself and its products. Some publishers can be demanding as well — for good reasons — but it is definitely better when the developer is. Publishers will favor studios they need not be hands-on with, ones they can trust. Show good autonomy in assessing your own work, and explain exactly how you do it. If you have an inconsistent track record for delivering quality games, the publisher’s team has probably looked at your most recent releases in considering you as a possible partner. It is all the more important in this case to insist on your internal quality and review process.

* What a publisher is often looking for is a studio with an identity, and how this identity translates into the shape of its games. Remind the publisher of your strengths, and what qualities of your games are recognized by players or game reviewers. Insist, also, on how this can benefit the game you are pitching — especially if it’s the publisher’s IP.

* Following the previous point, a publisher is not simply looking for a studio that can make a game; it is also potentially looking for a partner who can deliver great PR for the game. This can be considered as a pre-check to see what the studio’s public profile is; you are here to sell yourself, so do not hesitate to quote the press, describe how you handle communication on your original IPs, or if you have a community of players following you. This is not a necessary condition, but it definitely helps balance the relationship more in favor of the studio.

The Qualities that Impress Publishers

During conference talks, many studio heads insist on the importance of building a great team. Having someone who is really focused on the team is certainly a strong indication of a studio’s potential. Attracting, mentoring, and retaining talent is strategic.

A couple of years ago, I visited a studio in Guilford doing digital games. It was cool to see that people were challenged to team up in pairs to develop mobile phone games in a week. This sort of game jam seems to be a lot more common nowadays; this is just one practice that points to the fact that a studio is a great workplace, and that the management cares about the team and its performance.

The hiring policy is also an interesting point to discuss; the qualities a manager looks for in candidates tells a lot about a studio. It is hard to find the right people, so it is always a plus when a manager has a good HR management strategy, plans ahead, and is always interested in adding new talent while trying to keep a good balance within the team.

It is also important when a studio manager has a balanced approach to development and knows his or her strengths and weaknesses, or even acknowledges past failures. There is no pattern for managers with specific backgrounds that do or not not fit better in the job, as long as they are passionate — both about their role and game development.

The danger comes when a studio is too much driven by one specific aspect of game development (Erik Bethke identified this issue in his book Game Development and Production, giving examples on how it could affect projects). Obviously this issue applies to the publisher as well, when it has its own team directing the project.

Being able to clearly express your studio’s vision and values — and proving that you have stayed true to them — makes the studio stand out from the others. It answers a number of questions about the studio being the right fit for a project, and helps the publisher adjust to the studio’s culture. When a studio turns down borderline requests and says no in constructive ways when necessary, it’s a good sign. And if it is not that well received by the publisher, at least it is a pretty accurate early warning system.

Likewise, it is disturbing when the only answer received is a yes (unless, culturally, “yes” means something else). This is one trait that is a red flag in a studio manager. It’s also a turn-off when a studio manager doesn’t review the studio’s games.

A development team expects the management to care about the product and what they are doing, and be supportive. Even big publishers’ chief executives review games at several stages of their development. Other items, like the lack of team trust, having too many hats, and “knowing everything” are also warning signs that should be added to the list.

So What Should Developers Look For?

* It is important to work with a publisher whose stakeholders share the same goals and priorities for the project; this is not always the case, and it isn’t always obvious. You simply want to work with a publisher who knows where it is going.

If the publisher doesn’t have a direction, it is easy to imagine situations where improper decision-making and lack of communication will lead to delay, unnecessary changes of direction, or even cancellation. You can simply have a discussion about the project’s goals and priorities (for example, time to market over iterating, over polish, over scope…) and see if everyone is on the same page or not. It is also possible to ask about the publisher’s greenlight process.

* A studio also cares about creative freedom and wants some level of control. (It’s worth noting here that total control and no guidance, while very common in the publishing business when a studio seeks funding to finish a game, it is less likely to happen in a work for hire type of deal).

Making sure that the publisher understands that creative direction is different than game direction is important, as basically you can achieve the same goals for a game even if you make different design choices, get different art, and so on. It’s worth nothing that while incorporating two different design choices for a given subject can do the job, but too much mixing of sources of input will eventually prevent the possibility of delivering a consistent product. A game could go one direction or another, be positioned in a particular way, and aim at a particular audience, but the creative work and overall execution should be left in the studio’s hands.

A video game is not a common product. In the end, it is the studio’s game, and players and reviewers alike will judge the studio’s work, not the publisher’s. Except for shadow developers, no good studio wants to work on a game without a proper sense of ownership. You can ask the publisher about its editorial policy and development practices with third-party studios, so that you can be sure that these suit you. Most game directors will let a studio make the choices and have final cut — even if the choices made are unusual. But it’s still a good area to check, as this statement may sound a bit idealistic.

* Someone on the publisher side should be the main contact in charge of running the project: a producer or director who should be able to make the operational decisions, provide appropriate support, and who has a realistic level of expectations for the game. Make sure your counterpart has common sense, is committed to the relationship, and will get to know you, so that she or he can back you up by standing for your choices, and make the best decisions for the game when arbitration is needed.

* Given that it’s a big part of the working relationship, the studio should ask about the publisher’s review process. Beyond the usual feedback and how to agree on goals and next steps (sprint, milestone…), publishers could also contract consultants to pre-rate their games or use player-centered testing methods. You should ask if it’s going to be the case for your game, and then make sure it is done early enough during development so that you can make adjustments to the game if need be.

* When a studio is about to sign with a publisher, those involved in the decision should have a good idea of the services a publisher is going to provide and what value the collaboration offers. For instance, signing directly with a console maker will positively impact a studio’s business in terms of raising its profile, in addition to the knowledge the studio can take away from it.

Still, the studio should not hesitate to go deeper to identify precisely what can be expected from the relationship. As a modest example, a studio signing with a publisher which is also a game developer might presume there is access to technical support and additional development resources at will. This may not be true, so check first. More importantly, you may also want to know the level of information and knowledge a publisher is willing to share with you, as internal data and studies could affect some decisions made about the project, and not getting access to those can be frustrating.

* There is no intention in this article of being very specific; as already mentioned, each studio should have its own criteria about what is expected from a publisher. A studio is a business whose success relies on the development of games and all the choices made around them. But these choices are going to be shared with a publisher, which is obviously the big trade-off of developing games with one.

By extension, part of the success of a studio which focuses on third party development depends on the quality of its partnerships. With that in mind, looking for partners that will value your views and contributions is not to be neglected. Forming alliances with publishers merely based on figures like a development advance and revenue share is not enough, and there is certainly no guarantee of making a profit with only those elements in mind.

After the first successful collaboration, the working relationship between a publisher and developer can evolve toward a more strategic partnership with significantly fewer procedures and complete ownership over the game’s creative aspects.

But before this happens, the general idea is to focus on what really matters for each side. Such an approach should help in figuring out if the partnership can work.

The first choice is not always the studio with more experience with a specific genre or platform. If such a studio doesn’t make a good match with a publishing partner, then it is not actually less risky than working with a less experienced studio that happens to have more remarkable core qualities.

On the other hand, a top publisher can look attractive and apparently offer a number of upsides, but that is not going to guarantee a frictionless relationship or prevent a project from being cancelled.

Even if everyone is in a rush and has a plane to catch, do not hesitate to ask the hard questions. Each side usually shares the postmortem; why not share the due diligence?(Source:gamasutra


上一篇:

下一篇: