作者：Michael Ritter

最近Casual Connect休闲游戏会议中提到了一个有趣的问题：什么是Publshing 2.0，我们要如何让它实现？这是Applifier首席执行官Jussi Laakkonen的电子发行小组提出的问题。

作为传统印刷杂志《Saturday Night Magazine》前发行商，以及SGN（Social Gaming Network）目前的发行、授权及分售主管，我见证了发行商同开发者关系的转变过程。所以，我可以告诉你今天我们在手机/社交游戏领域所目睹的情况与过去发生于其他内容的媒体相差无几。

Publishing(from paymentscardsandmobile.com)

游戏的发行模式，以及大多数行业的发行模式一直以来都极其简单：一方负责编写内容，另一方负责营销及内容发行。这是商业中的普遍原理，所谓的专业化原则就是：这些团队各自分工，基于个人的相对优势进行“交易”。

随着数字发行模式为内容持有者开启了同市场直接接轨的渠道，我们发现在音乐、电影业、图书以及杂志行业中，发行商与开发者的关系发生了不少变化。同样，电子游戏领域也是如此。

主要的变化是？发行方式。

开发者方面

当前环境的主要不同之处在于发行商不再完全掌控数字发行渠道，更可怕的是，开发者可能会取代发行商。以音乐行业为例：过去由Napster和MP3将唱片公司发行的音乐带传送给消费者。不久后，MySpace、iTunes和Amazon这些服务类网站允许音乐家直接向消费者推广自己的内容，这在本质上会导致传统唱片公司走向末路，以及著名独立音乐人的崛起。

这种形势也发生在杂志行业，以前发行渠道由发行商掌控。内容制作者，又称作家，需受控制媒介的发行商所支配。但是现在，随着网络的出现，作家可以直接快速地向消费者免费传播自己的文字。信息传播的这种速度导致早间报纸的新闻很快过时。

游戏行业同样受此影响。过去，主要的游戏发行商操控着主机平台，他们投资生产及发行各类游戏暗盒，所以开发者与发行商的利益关系常常无法平衡。但是现在，Facebook、苹果、谷歌和亚马逊以及其它新兴渠道，比如Desura（独立游戏的电子下载服务）已渗入这一模式。任何人都可以开发和发行自己的游戏，并能快速免费地吸引上百万的潜在用户（免除了App Store的版税，且无需前期预付成本）。同音乐和杂志行业一样，游戏的发行不需依靠发行商，而开发者可以同顾客建立直接的联系。这从本质上降低了人们入行的门槛。

所以，内容就是王道，可以致发行商于死地，真的吗？还没那么快。

发行商方面

由于现在开发者可以“更容易地”发行自己的游戏，所以手机游戏与社交游戏领域出现过度饱和，市场竞争越发激烈。草根们每天都会推出游戏，单单一天就有上百款游戏在苹果的应用中上架。App Store上，大约有三分之二的应用由于无下载量而被称为“僵尸应用”，其中一小部分是由小型开发者费尽心思开发出来的。对这种情况我并未感到惊讶，但是由于这些开发者缺乏盈利及营销战略，我们将很难发现这些被湮没的金子。

你可以孤注一掷地自己动手：开发、发行、营销然后推广。或者你可以坚持专业化原则，只关注自己擅长的部分，余下部分委托其他人处理。作为游戏开发者，你的时间最好用于开发游戏而不是制定营销策略、侧重CPI（每安装成本）和分析LTV（用户终身价值）。发行商仍在生态系统中发挥着重要作用，他们提供支持、最佳方案、品牌价值、资金、联系应用商店运营者（以便获得推广时机、技术支持以及设置新功能）、现存用户基础、营销费用及专门的营销技巧。随着业务的成熟，发行商的地位只会越发重要。所以我们如何处理这种情况呢？

答案就是，Publishing 2.0是将专业团队结合的最佳选择。

开发者将游戏提交给发行商时，并不意味着两者的关系就此终结。这可能只是他们之间关系的开端。这需要交流且建立真正的合作关系。通过这种新型的发行方式，加速进入市场以及动态信息需求为这个生态系统创造了新机会。发行商主要通过提供实时数据和分析填补这一领域空缺，开发者需认识到这种转变，并据此调整自己的研发周期。发行商必须和开发者紧密联系，及时提供用户数据、数据分析、盈利策略、游戏反馈及相应的推广战略，开发者也需制定灵活的时间安排表，来适应动态的用户反馈，运营一项更趋服务型的业务。

开发者与发行商的地位无轻重之分

这涉及到最大的经济问题。由于发行平台占领了30%的收益，发行商的收益为30%-50%之间，如果幸运的话，开发者就能获得20%-40%的收益。如果没有营销费用的支出，那么很容易就可明了开发者和发行商各自赚取的利润。由于开发者在游戏开发上下了不少功夫，而发行商在游戏发行方面投入了大量资金，所以很明显，即使是在Publisher2.0时代，他们仍然难以获利。

所以开发者和发行商在建立关系之初，就应协商好目标及期望值，双方也需做好准备接受结果的变动。开发者需要持续支持游戏开发吗？如果需要，那要多久？发展趋势又会如何？工作室打算根据用户和发行商的反馈进行调整吗？发行商的营销策略如何？它如何结合游戏类型及目标群体呢？发行商能够保证营销策略各个层次（游戏邦注：包括现存用户数据、预出版作品、广告和PR等）的基本实行吗？如果游戏为热作，那么发行商可以充分利用市场时机吗？在Publshing 2.0时代，这些都是开发者和发行商需要考虑的范畴。其实，开发者与发行商的关系及专业性同等重要，而这种“强强联合”的方式会继续胜出。（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）

Developers and publishers need each other now more than ever before

by Michael Ritter

The recent Casual Connect casual-gaming conference posed an interesting question: What is Publshing 2.0, and how do you make it happen? I heard this provocative during Applifier CEO Jussi Laakkonen’s panel on digital publishing.

As the former publisher of Saturday Night Magazine, a traditional print magazine, and currently head of publishing, licensing & distribution at SGN (Social Gaming Network), I have experienced the shift in the publisher-to-content-developer relationship across the board. As such, I can tell you that what we’re seeing in the mobile/social games business today is something that we’ve seen before in other content mediums.

Historically, the publishing model for games, and most industries for that matter, was quite simple: One party makes the content, and another party markets and distributes the content. It’s the common theory taught in business school, the principle of specialization: that groups are better off specializing and “trading” based on one’s comparative advantage.

We have seen shifts in this publisher/content developer relationship in the music, film, book, and magazine industries as digital distribution models opened channels for content holders to reach their respective markets directly. The video game business is no different.

The major change? Distribution, distribution, distribution.

The case for content

The key difference in today’s environment is that the publisher no longer entirely controls digital distribution channels and, even worse, distribution is readily available to content holders. Just look at the music business: Napster and MP3s took distribution out of the hands of the record labels and made music readily available to consumers. Not long after, websites and services such as MySpace, iTunes, and Amazon enabled musicians to speak and market themselves directly to customers, essentially eliminating the traditional record labels and giving rise to popular indie artists.

The same took place in the magazine business, where the publisher historically controlled or owned the distribution channel. Content producers, aka writers, were at the mercy of the publishers who controlled the media and medium. But now, with that crazy thing called the World Wide Web, writers can distribute their content directly to consumers, instantly and for free.

The speed at which information is processed makes the morning newspaper old news before the presses even fire up.

Now we’re seeing this affect the games industry. In the past, the major game publishers controlled the consoles or were large enough to fund the manufacturing and distribution of game cartridges, and thus the content maker/publisher relationship made for one happy family. But now Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon, among other daily entrants such as the Desura, the digital download service for independent games, have flipped this model upside-down. Any yahoo can develop and distribute their own game, reaching millions of potential customers practically instantly and for free (minus the app store royalties, but there is no real upfront cost). Just as the music and magazine industry experienced, distribution has been ripped from the game publishers’ hands, and content developers now have a direct line to customers. Essentially, the barrier to entry has been removed.

Thus, content is king, and death to the publisher, right? Not so fast.

The case for publishing

Just because it’s now “easier” for developers to release their own titles, both the mobile and social gaming space is incredibly crowded and competitive. Yahoos launch games every day, hundreds daily on Apple’s app store alone. Yet nearly two-thirds of apps on the app store are so-called “Zombie Apps” that generate no downloads, a good number of which are smaller developers who poured their heart and soul into developing the content. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some diamonds in the rough, but we’ll never find them because of the lack of monetary and/or marketing support.

You can roll the dice and do everything on your own: develop, distribute, market, and promote your own game. Or you can stick with the principle of specialization and focus on what you do best while relying on others to handle the rest. As a game developer, your time is better spent developing games than optimizing marketing plans, leveraging CPIs, and analyzing LTVs.

Publishers continue to play a major role in the ecosystem, providing support, best practices, brand value, funding, access to the store operators (for promotional opportunities, tech support, and new feature sets), an existing user base, marketing dollars, and marketing expertise. As this business matures, the publisher’s role will only become more valuable. So how do we all get along?

The answer is that Publishing 2.0 is a greater collaboration between parties of specialization.

No longer does the relationship end when a developer hands their game to the publisher. If anything, this is when the relationship begins. It takes communication and a true partnership.

With this new form of distribution, speed-to-market and live information has created new opportunities in the ecosystem. As publishers pivot to fill this void by providing real-time data and analysis, developers need to recognize this shift and thus adapt their development cycles. Publishers should work more closely with developers to provide support with user data, analytics, monetization strategies, game feedback, and coordinated promotional plans, while developers need to create flexible schedules in order to adjust to live consumer feedback and operate as a more service-oriented business.

Neither have a strong case?

The biggest issue here is economics. With distribution platforms taking 30 percent off the top and publishers taking anywhere between 30 percent to 50 percent, that leaves the developer with a remaining 20 percent to 40 percent — if they’re lucky. It doesn’t take a mathematician to understand the share of a $0.99 game for developers and publishers, before any marketing dollars are spent. Simply put, with developers working hard on developing a game and publishers making heavy investments (commonly north of $1 per user), it becomes very clear that even in a Publisher 2.0 world, it’s incredibly hard to turn a profit.

Therefore, goals and expectations need to be more accurately aligned prior to entering into a partnership, and both parties must be prepared for the outcome to change. Will the developer support the game on an ongoing basis? If so, for how long? What does that road map look like? Is the studio prepared to make adjustments based on user and publisher feedback? What does the publisher’s marketing plan look like, and how does it align with the type of game and its target audience? What baseline commitment is the publisher willing to guarantee on all levels of the marketing plan, including existing user engagement, acquisitions, advertising, PR, and so on? Can the publisher scale to take advantage of the market opportunity if the game is a hit?

These are just a few of the questions every developer and publisher should consider in a Publisher 2.0 engagement. Ultimately, relationships and specialization still matter, and those that “tie the knot” the best will continue to succeed and rise above the fray.

Michael Ritter is the vice president of licensing and distribution at Social Gaming Network, the developer of popular social and mobile games such as Fluff Friends Rescue, Rescue Reef, Bingo Blingo, Jewels of the Amazon, and Skies of Glory. Follow him on Twitter at @Ritter83 or @SGNGames.（source:venturebeat）