作者：Beau Hindman

《模拟城市》仍是一款为大众所知且具盈利性的游戏。多年来，它获得所有玩家类型的好评（游戏邦注：包括硬核、休闲与年轻玩家）。不管怎样，它总为我们提供理想中的挑战机制。近些年来，我们发现城市模拟游戏正向Facebook平台发展，并在此聚集大批玩家。为何会出现这种情况？答案得归结为《SimCity Social》的出现，但我们一致认同它并未追随原作的挑战特点。相反，其中会融入更多休闲元素，为Facebook玩家展示出简化版的城市模拟挑战形式。

SimCity Social(from games.com)

社交游戏能否提供类似《模拟城市》般的深度？开发商如何从免费版本中获利？如往常一样，社交游戏总会引发人们的众多疑惑。尽管不少人认为这一市场发展速度减缓，但社交游戏与其手机游戏则继续创下可观收益。也许，盈利正是EA打造《SimCity Social》这类游戏的初衷。

要知道，社交游戏是最近才刚出现流量下滑的问题。直到现在，城市建设题材的游戏以及Facebook仍然颇为盛行。如果EA没有推出这款游戏的社交版本，那才会更是让人意外。毕竟这是一个赚钱的领域，EA也绝不会对这一点坐视不理。这一点也不难解释EA为何要制作《模拟城市》这款历史悠久，质量过硬游戏的社交版本。

许多社交玩家之前并没有接触过《模拟城市》的初始版游戏。如果有的话，《SimCity Social》可能还会吸引更多玩家。社交游戏通常可作为其他游戏形式的一个通道。可能我们会有个亲戚或好友在社交游戏问世以前，对游戏压根不感冒。休闲城市模拟游戏可能会在未来继续盛行，制作硬核游戏的休闲版本也许是个不错的想法。

那么，《模拟城市》这种传统硬核游戏是如何立足社交领域，同时又不失挑战性或沉浸感？事实上，制作《模拟城市》的AAA版本需大量成本。甚至是休闲版本也需斥以巨资。该作的原始版本主要通过出售盒装模式或下载及扩展内容获利。《模拟人生》或相关游戏的粉丝十分清楚，该游戏开发商喜欢在初期推出盒装版本后，发行扩充包或额外内容。

社交游戏的标准发行方式是，以免费版本问世，而后在商店内出售道具。将这样一款高质量的游戏在Facebook中以免费形式发布，需要冒很大的风险。即使开发商严格限制游戏内容，强迫玩家购买虚拟物品，仍会有大部分用户选择享受免费模式。社交用户之所以被会冠以“休闲”玩家的头衔，其中一个原因就是：他们每次只会玩一会游戏，从未考虑为其付费。

这类游戏向硬核游戏的中间地带发展，也许是一个可行做法。硬核游戏介于休闲与挑战这两个极端之间，它们能提供具有休闲模式的丰富游戏体验。下一款城市模拟游戏可能会提升难度，同时推出价格较低的“扩展包”或城市内容包。它们不会是类似城市风光这种小型内容，而是刚好适合休闲玩家消化，并且内容足够丰富的东西。其中的关键点是要正确领悟虚拟商店的运行步奏。发布过多价格偏低的内容会立马被玩家消耗殆尽，但推出高昂价格的扩展内容或物品则会无人问津。

我并不羡慕城市模拟游戏的开发者。虽然该题材仍具有强大效应，但社交玩家期望的是以低价访问游戏。不过，《模拟城市》会基于其优良品质、刺激购买欲望的怀旧感，继续推出系列作品，但如果城市模拟题材游戏若有意进军Facebook平台，它应呈现出不同元素。总之，我希望它会能比过去我们所见识到的游戏更具难度与深度。（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）

Core Corner: Can the epic city simulator gain glory on Facebook?

by Beau Hindman

SimCity is still a familiar, and profitable, IP. For years, it has entertained all types of players, from hardcore sim (i.e. simulator) nuts to casual, younger players. Regardless, it’s known for presenting quite a challenge to those of us who seek it. In recent years, we have seen the city sim make its way to Facebook and claim a large percentage of the player base. How did this happen? There is SimCity Social, but we’d all agree that it is not up the challenge level of the original. Instead, it is a much more casual take, providing a city sim-lite experience for Facebook players.

Could a social game ever provide the depth that we’re used to from games like SimCity? How would that developer make money simply giving it away for free? There are a lot of questions–as usual–when we look at social gaming. Despite what many would call a slowing in the market, social gaming and its cousin mobile gaming continue to make money. Money is probably the first reason a social sim like SimCity Social was made in the first place.

Remember, it is only recently that social gaming has been hit with dropping numbers. Up until now the genre and Facebook have been doing gangbusters. It would have been more surprising if EA had not made a social version of every game it could. There was money to be made, and they wanted some. It’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for creating a less challenging, social version of a game that has been an earmark of quality for years.

Many social gamers would have never given SimCity in its original form a chance. If anything, SimCity Social might have created more excitement for future releases. Social gaming can often act as a gateway to other forms of gaming. All of us probably have a relative or friend who never expressed any interest in gaming before social gaming came along. The casual city sims might be what the aging genre needs to stay alive in the future. Making a social version of what is normally a core game has probably always been a good idea.

How can a traditionally core game like SimCity stay in the social space while also ramping up the level of challenge or immersion? The fact is that making a AAA game like SimCity costs a lot of money. Even making a casual version of many games costs a lot of money. With the original version, money is made by selling a box or download and expansions on top of that. Any fan of The Sims or related games knows full well how the developer loves to release expansion packs or addons after the initial box is released.

If we are talking about a social game, it is standard to release the game for free and sell items inside a cash shop to make money. It would be very risky to release a game of such high quality for free online, embedded in Facebook. Even if the developers hamstrung the game and almost forced players to purchase virtual goods, there would still be a large portion of the audience who tried and enjoyed the game for nothing. The social crowd is called casual for a reason; many players would simply play the game a little at a time, never thinking to spend any money.

It could be possible to reach for the middle ground, the core. Core games are wonderfully in the middle between casual and challenging. They provide a rich gaming experience on a casual schedule. The next city simulator could offer more challenging play but could release “expansions” or city content packs that could be paid for a little at a time. They would not be as small as, say, a literal expansion to a cityscape, but could be digestible enough for casual players and large enough to charge more than a few dollars for. The key is to get the rhythm of the cash shop just right. Release too much content for too little of a price and players will burn through it in no time, but release expansions or goodies that cost too much and the whole thing will not compute inside players’ heads.

I do not envy the city simulator developer. While the genre is still quite strong, social players expect a certain access at a lower price. Still, SimCity itself will probably continue to do well as a series thanks to its quality and to nostalgic, impulse purchases, but if a city sim wants to make it on Facebook it would need to be something different. Here’s hoping that it’s more challenging and deeper than what we have seen in the past.(source:blog.games)