作者：Eli Cymet

作为新闻记者，你经常会听到说，行业活动是联络、会见开发者及倾听有趣故事的中心地带。今年Casual Connect大会的前一天对我来说更是如此，我有幸遇到Spry Fox联合创始人David Edery并展开以下访谈对话：

Spry Fox Article Image

Spry Fox游戏的定义元素是什么？

我们希望制作从某种意义上来说能够改善人类生活的游戏。显然若你制作的是非常有趣的游戏，能供玩家进行放松和体验，那你就有望改善他们的生活。但我们想要更进一步。我们总是挑战自己，然后问道，“我们能否制作出带来友谊的游戏？能否制作出深化当前友情的游戏？我们能否制作出教授你有趣东西的游戏？目前在我看来，从很大程度上来说，我们只是娱乐了玩家。

我知道这非常棒，我对于我们所做的事情感到非常高兴，但我觉得我们还可以做更多。值得一提的是，我觉得我们可以帮助玩家建立新友情，强化他们的既有友谊。

接着深入这一话题。我非常好奇其中的具体任务。我最近刚和某位好友谈及Facebook和Twitter的差异。Twitter让你有机会获得意见领袖的关注，他们能够帮你建立新的关系网。而Facebook则更多围绕维系你的既有友谊。作为开发者，你如何通过Facebook有所突破，建立新友情？

你是想问这一看法对不对？《Words with Friends》搭载Facebook，推动游戏的主要因素是和陌生人之间的关系。

说得好。在你看来，这是否是一种玩法类型，建立新友情的是多人模式，还是异步玩法？

可以说，游戏总体来说具有这一潜力，尤其是能够让你在长时间里与他人进行共同体验的游戏（游戏邦注：或者是接连同他人进行共同体验）。在我看来，基于这种方式运作，能够促进玩家之间的某种沟通，鼓励合作、而非相互厮杀的游戏就是典型例子。这就是我们所思考的内容。

Word with Friends Spry Fox Article

哪些因素给这一思潮带来影响？在当前追求积极联系的过程中，你们主要着眼于哪些方面？

这很难表述，因为我们尽量避免单纯看着某内容，然后表示，“这就是我们想做的，但我们会做得更好，”因为这是条危险道路。这是多数人所选择的道路。说到这方面，我又要回过头来谈谈《Words with Friends》。我只是想，“虽然这基本算是在线版《Scrabble》， 但其设计非常完美。”就此而言，游戏非常完美。这是将棋盘游戏带入数字领域最典型的例子。

你觉得这是否会变成一种趋势？开发者希望逐步回到模拟风格的玩法，重现亲密的社交互动感觉？在你看来，亲密及非个人体验是否存在发展空间？

我觉得二者都存在发展空间。我觉得当前电子游戏市场的美妙之处在于，我们有更多机会制作更多奇特内容。但这不是说《使命召唤》将逐步淡出视野，是吧？依然有很多人从中赚取丰厚收益。但除此之外还有《Words with Friends》和《Minecraft》，机会日益增多。这多半将持续另一5年或10年时间，因为事实情况是，现在我们能够通过虚拟交易进行创收。这里存在之前你所无法覆盖的数十亿用户群体。这代表许多细分市场，许多试验机会。

若你需要就此提供一个解决方案，你认为我们应如何进行微交易？是否存在合理操作方式？或是更优质的方式？

我不确定自己能否将此总结成一句话。我觉得这里存在若干经验法则。通常，你不应有这样的感觉：“我需要付费在游戏中胜出。”这里包含各种级别，是吧？你要问自己，雪球效应何时开始发生作用。因为毋庸置疑，付费将给游戏带来些许影响。

是的。例如在《三重小镇》中，付费会影响游戏。

毫无疑问，你是对的。

这在《三重小镇》中效果显著。因为，如果你愿意花钱，你可以付费让自己摆脱任何处境。

不是的。因为商店库存非常有限。

但就我的经验来看，你所购买的商品将延伸游戏寿命，这远超越其他未付费玩家的体验时间。这是否公平？

这正是有趣之处。假设两位玩家拥有相同数量的技能，但其中有位玩家没有存储硬币，这是重点，是吧？若你自己存储硬币，那你就能够避免掏钱，但假设有玩家没有存储硬币，他们的技能数量和其他某玩家相同，理论上来讲，我们应拥有相同数量的道具，那么这就会带来影响。付费玩家将获得比未付费玩家更高的分数。但事实情况并非如此。

技能在游戏中发挥重要作用，因此付费只会带来细微影响。从另一角度来看，精通游戏的未付费玩家和逊色付费玩家之间的差距依然相当显著。精通游戏的玩家多半将获得胜利。

关于免费模式，我想说的是，这不应像是买了汽车，然后被要求掏钱购买轮胎。而应是，你获得汽车之后，可以选择购买加热座椅或是座椅靠背电视，你可以掏钱购买自己想要的汽车零部件。

关于这点，我非常欣赏Nimblebit的方案。他们曾表示，他们最后才涉及游戏货币和应用商店之类的内容，确保付费内容和免费操作达成平衡关系。

这非常有趣，我从未这么想过，但我们却有这么做。商店是我们所有作品所涉及的最后元素。我们清楚这里存在创收计划。否则你将陷入困境。你需要为你的游戏付出代价。但除“这是我们的游戏创收方式”这一模糊概念外，这通常最后才显现在我们的计划中。

当然，游戏需要富有趣味。

Analytics Games Spry Fox

你觉得这非常平淡无奇。我觉得有很多开发者没有思考这一问题。谁基于动画内容创建商业模式。

这有些难以置信，但你是对的。在我看来，这是我们的操作核心。我的意思是，若你首先没有制作出有趣的体验，那么你为什么要加入这个行业？

但不妨回过头来看待这一问题，因为我没有给出合理答案。所以，开发者显然要避免采用付费胜出模式。但这绝非仅是如此。这实际意味着：没有资金的娴熟玩家是否能够超越资金雄厚的拙劣玩家？二者显然存在细微差别，但这非常重要。

这里还有个关注点，体验时间是否存在限制？我们所有的游戏都不涉及能量机制。体验时间不存在限制。我们不想要因此向你收取费用，我们更愿意你持续游戏，这样我们就能够就其他内容收取费用。

那么什么是能量元素的可行替代选择？

能量元素的解决方案在于，向你出售体验游戏的非必要道具，但这些道具能够强化你的游戏乐趣。给你举个例子，你可以基于若干糟糕球杆打高尔夫，你完全可以玩游戏，事实上，技术娴熟的球员通过糟糕球杆完全能够打败手持最优球杆的新选手。但在特定时刻，你可以告诉此选手，“看，你已玩这款游戏这么久，你显然非常喜欢这款游戏，你也许会想要购买若干优秀球杆。”

我觉得在此表现突出的团队有，推出《Hero Academy 》的Robot Entertainment，或是发布《Outwitters》的One Man Left。他们呈现的感觉是，你体验的内容非常独特，有利于玩法，同时颇具平衡性，不会惩罚技能足够娴熟的非付费玩家。

我觉得这是免费模式开发者的设计思路。这截然不同，但没有更胜一筹。这是你在免费模式开发中经常听到的主题。其构思是，我们将向用户出售内容，这会影响游戏的功能。但这促使功能变得截然不同，而不是更加突出。这点至关重要。

我热衷这样的商业模式：能够让大家将我所喜欢的作品变得越发杰出。也许我对于《Hero Academy 》这类游戏的唯一担心是，最终他们会停止支持这一模式，因为这对他们来说缺乏盈利性。我喜欢这款游戏。所以从某些方面来说，我希望他们能够从我身上取走更多资金，或者添加他们可以轻松调节的虚拟商品。

Hero Academy Top List

这里存在的问题是，作为这一环境中的开发者，你不能食言。Robot Entertainment绝不会出尔反尔称，现在他们基于不同的创收模式支撑游戏。在我看来，这部分是因为我们在App Store中看到激烈的底价竞争。你对此的看法是什么？

这竞争非常激烈。

作为玩家，我这么说听起来有些愚蠢。但我觉得有一些玩家会抱怨称自己需要投入1美元给成本200美元的手机购买游戏。

所以事实情况是这样，它促使我陷入疯狂状态。你所说的东西很容易就会让我们感到沮丧，我每天都要应对这些。但同时，我知道：在生活中，事物都是相对的。所以若你处于某平台中，所有内容都售价99美分，那么1.99美元就算是非常昂贵。这就是实际情况。

不妨查看《三重小镇》，在我看来，这显然是最贴切的范例。若是10年前，《三重小镇》多半会作为PC平台的可下载内容，以20美元出售。没有人会眨两下眼睛。虽然可下载游戏价格降低，但7美元是新的价格标准。所以20美元很昂贵，那么7美元呢？这没有关系。现在，99美分最多算是不错交易。

这是否意味着，作为开发者，你内容的价值是10年前的一半？当然不是。但这就是当前情况。你接受这一事实。我们选择的应对方式是不体验这款游戏。我们不想要出售固定价格的游戏。我们制作供你进行免费体验的游戏，若你愿意（游戏邦注：因为你非常喜欢这款游戏），你可能会给予我们更多资金。在整个生命周期中，你可能会投入60美元。

付费移动体验是否丧失发展空间？

不会，我觉得两种模式都有其发展空间。我认为免费模式可能会比付费模式带来更多收益。二者均有发展空间的部分原因是，存在App of the Week这类解决方案。若你的游戏出现在App of the Week之列，你多半将获得突出表现。但同样，有多少人能够达到此等级？我们和制作99美分游戏开发商的区别在于，若我的游戏定期有5万人体验，我就足以从中获得收益。

但若制作1美元游戏的开发者售出相同份数，他多半会惨遭失败。是的，仍有开发商继续制作付费游戏，但事实情况是是，对于普通开发者来说，他们想想就知道要如何抉择。（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）

Different, but not better: David Edery explains how Spry Fox sees freemium, monetization, and the future of mobile.

By Eli Cymet

As a journalist, you often hear that industry events are epicentres for networking, meeting developers, and hearing interesting stories. Never more has this proven true for me than during the day before this year’s Casual Connect, at a summit put on by the International Game Developer’s Association. I went into the morning’s first lecture – a unique one about learning from early failure – thinking I’d be covering the panel. Instead, I ended up digging deep with someone on it.

As the group packed up their bags, and the room filed out, it finally clicked. David Edery! He was half of the wonderful indie duo Spry Fox (Triple Town)… I’d been trying to put a name to a role all talk long. Hoping he was perhaps game to talk via e-mail after the week was done, I approached him looking to pass off a card and introduce myself. After the requisite crowd of developers and friends had cleared, I managed to get a hand shake in.

“Hi, I’m Eli! I write for –“

David had looked down during my opening spiel.

“Ah! Gamezebo! You guys have always been great to us. Want to chat?”

What followed was one of those spectacular, genuine conversations you always wish for with interview subjects.

Eli: What is it that defines a Spry Fox game?

David: “We like to make games that improve people’s lives in some meaningful way. And obviously if you make a game that’s really fun, that someone can relax and play, you’re already hopefully improving their life. But we want to take it a step farther [sic]. We’re always challenging ourselves and asking, ‘can we make a game that creates friendships? Can we make a game that makes your existing friendships deeper? Can we make a game that teaches you something interesting? And you know, I’d say that thus far, for the most part, we’ve just entertained people.

“And I say just, and I know that that’s great, and I’m super happy that we’re doing that, but I think we can do more that. In particular, I think we can help people make new friendships and strengthen their existing friendships.”

Eli: Let’s go down this road a bit. I’m very curious about that mandate. I was talking recently to a friend about the difference between Facebook and Twitter. And you see something like Twitter that gives you the chance to get the attention of someone who’s an opinion influencer, and they can help you create new relationships. Whereas Facebook seems more about cultivating and curating your existing friendships. How do you as a developer who uses Facebook feel like you can breakthrough and create new friendships?

David: “Yes and no, right? Words with Friends is on Facebook, and one of the things that most drives that game is relationships with strangers.”

Eli: Good point. Do you think then that it’s a certain type of play – whether it’s multiplayer or asynchronous that lends itself to creating new friendships?

David: “I think it’s fair to say that games as a whole have that potential, but I think in particular games that allow you to play with someone over a long period of time – or one after another… I think games that function in that way, and that encourage some type of conversation between players, that encourage people to collaborate as opposed to just simply beating on each other [are good examples]. That’s the kind of stuff we think about.”

Eli: What are some of the influences on this ethos? What in today’s landscape would you say you guys look at when shooting for this goal of positive connectivity?

David: “It’s hard because do try to avoid the idea of just looking at something and saying, ‘oh we want to do that but better,’ because that’s a dangerous road to go down. That’s the road most people go down. With that said, I look again to Words with Friends. I just think, ‘wow, even though this is basically just Scrabble Online, it’s perfect.’ It’s perfect in this regard. It’s the closest thing I’ve seen to taking board games and bringing them into the digital world.

Eli: Now do you feel like that could be a trend? Developers looking to return to an analog style of play as time goes on, to recapture that sense of more intimate social interaction? Or do you feel like there’s room for both [intimate and impersonal experiences]?

David: “I feel like there’s room for both. I think that the beauty of the current state of the video game market is that there’s simply more opportunity to do more wacky things. It’s not like Call of Duty is going away, right? There are still tons of people making tons of money from that. And yet, you also have Words with Friends and you also have Minecraft… opportunities are just expanding. And that will probably continue for at least another five  or ten years because the fact of the matter is, only now is there becoming this opportunity monetize through micro transactions. There’s this massive, massive multibillion person audience that you couldn’t tap into before in this way. That represents a lot of niches, a lot more experiments.”

Eli: If you had to prescribe a method to that end, how would you say one should do microtransactions? Is there a way to do them right? Better?

David: “I’m not sure if I’ve got it boiled down to a single sentence. I think there are a few different rules of thumb. In general, you shouldn’t have a sense that ‘I have to pay money to win this game.’ And there are all degrees, right? You have to ask yourself where the snowball effect begins. Because there’s no denying that paying will impact the game in some small, measurable way.”

Eli: Right. In Triple Town, for example, paying does impact the game.

David: “For sure, you’re right!”

Eli: It’s highly impactful in Triple Town. Because, if you’re willing to spend the money, you can pay to get yourself out of any circumstance.

David: “No, no. Because the inventory in the store is limited –“

Eli: But in my experience, the things you purchase – if purchased – can extend the life of the game well beyond the length of game that others might experience [if they don’t pay]. Is that fair to say?

David: “Well here’s what’s interesting. If you take two people with the exact same amount of skill, and one of them doesn’t save up coins – which is the thing, right? You can just save up coins and never have to pay… but let’s say that there’s a person that hasn’t saved up coins and they have the exact same amount of skill as this other person, and they all have the exact same pieces, theoretically, then yes. The person who spent money would have a better score than the person who hasn’t. But those things are not true.

“Skill matters so tremendously in that game that spending money has very, very little impact. From another angle, the difference between the person who’s good at the game and spends no money, and the person who’s bad at the game and spends money is still dramatic. The person’s who good at the game is still going to crush.”

Eli: Something I like to think about free to play is that it shouldn’t feel like buying the car and then being asked to pay for the wheels to make it go. Rather that you get the car, and then have the opportunity to buy heated seats, or the seat back TVs, you can pay for what you want out of a car.

On that note, I quite like the Nimblebit approach. In speaking with them, they’ve said they approach things like the game currency and in-app store last, and ensure that as users themselves, the experience balances what it makes you pay for, and what you can do for free.

David: “It’s funny… I’ve never thought of it that way, but we also do it that way. The store is one of the last things to go into any of our games. We know – you have to know from the beginning – that there’s a monetization plan. Otherwise you’re going to get in trouble. You need to be able to pay for your game. But beyond the loose idea of ‘this is how we’re going to monetize the game,’ it always goes in last for us.

“And of course, the game has to be fun.”

Eli: You’d think it’s so obvious. I think there’s a surprising amount of people – of developers – who don’t ask the question. Who build business models around animations.

David: “It’s hard to believe, but you’re right. For me it’s just core to what we do. I mean, if you’re not making a fun experience [first], why are you in this business?

“But let me go back, because I didn’t give you a good answer to your question. So clearly, try to avoid pay to win. But it’s more than that. It comes down to: can a skilled player with no money always triumph over an unskilled player with lots of money? And there’s obviously nuance, but that’s very important.

“There’s also a concern about… is there a limit over how long you can actually play? For us, in all of our games going forward, there is no energy mechanic. There is no limit to how long you can play. We don’t want to charge you for that, we’d rather you play so we can charge you for other things.”

Eli: What, then, is the viable alternative, then, to energy?

David: “The solution to energy is, I’m going to sell you things that you don’t have to have to play the game, but that will enhance your enjoyment. I’ll give you an example. You can play golf with some really crappy clubs. You can absolutely play the game, and, in fact, a skilled player with some crappy clubs will crush a new player with the nicest clubs you will possibly buy. But at a certain point it’s reasonable for you to go to that person and say, ‘look. You’ve been playing golf for hundreds of hours, you clearly love the game… you might want to buy yourself some nicer clubs.”

Eli: I think a team that did that particularly well was Robot Entertainment with Hero Academy or One Man Left with Outwitters. There it felt like the things you were paying for were completely unique, beneficial to gameplay, and – the same time – balanced in a way that didn’t punish the non paying players if they were skillful enough.

David: “And I think this is something… this is a thread with developers of free-to-play who ‘get it.’ It’s different, not better. That’s a theme you hear a lot in free-to-play development. This idea that we’re going to sell people stuff, and it is going to impact the functionality of the game. But it will make that functionality different, not better. That’s super, super, super crucial.

“I’m a big fan – and obviously I have a bias as a developer – of business models that allow people to take the game I love, and make it better and better forever. And perhaps the only thing I worry about with games like Hero Academy is that eventually they may stop supporting them because it’s not profitable enough for them to do so. And I love that game. So in some ways I wish they would take more money from me, or add purchases that they can scale more easily.

Eli: And the problem with that too, is that as a developer in this climate, you can never go back on your word. They’re [Robot Entertainment] never going to be able to go back on their word and say ‘now we’re monetizing differently to support the game!’ And I think that part of that is down to this intense race to the base in pricing we see in the App Store. What are your thoughts on that?

David: “Oh wow. It’s so intense.”

Eli: I feel like a jerk saying this, as a gamer. But I feel like among gamers, it takes a certain brand of entitlement to complain that you have to spend one dollar on purchasing a game for the two-hundred dollar phone you just purchased.

David: “So here’s the thing, and it drives me completely insane. It’s so easy to get upset about exactly what you’re saying, and I deal with it every day. But at the same time, I know: everything is relative in life. So if you’re on a platform, and everything is $0.99, then $1.99 is going to be expensive. And that’s just how it is.

“If you look at Triple Town – and this is obviously the thing that’s closest to home for me… Triple Town is a game that, had we launched it ten years ago, would have sold for twenty dollars as a downloadable game on the PC. And nobody would have blinked twice. Then the prices of downloadable games drop, and say $7.00 is the new price point. So $20.00 is expensive, but $7.00? That’s okay. Now, $0.99 is what’s considered a good deal, at most.

“Does this mean as a developer your content is worth less than half the price it was worth a decade ago? Of course not. But that’s just how it is now. And you live with it. And the way we’ve chosen to live with it is by not playing that game. We don’t want to sell games that you buy for a fixed price. We make games you play for free, and if you choose to, because you like the game so much, you hopefully give us more. And over a lifetime, then, you may give us $60.00.”

Eli: Are we running out of this room for mobile experiences to be for pay at all?

David: “No, I think there will always be both. I suspect the free-to-play model will make make more money than a… ‘premium’ – I hate that word – title. Part of the reason there’s room for both are initiatives like App of the Week [now Editor’s Choice]. If your game is App of the Week, you’re going to do fine! But again, how many people can succeed at that level? The difference between me and a developer who makes $0.99 games is that if my game has 50,000 people who play it regularly, that’s enough for me to turn a profit.

“Whereas a guy who makes a one dollar game, if he sells the same amount of units, he’s probably hosed. Yes, people will continue to make premium games, but the fact of the matter is that for the average developer, it’s a no brainer as far as I’m concerned.”

Leaving the room, I looked over my notes from the panel, and realized I had stopped keeping track half way through, so preoccupied was I by my brain fritz about David’s identity. Then again, it was okay. I managed to have a pretty great discussion instead. The kind they say happens at industry events like these.（Source：gamezebo）