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

新兴发行模式崛起 传统游戏需变革设计方式

发布时间:2013-01-22 17:24:31 Tags:,,,

作者:Steve Peterson

传统游戏已经到了非常危险的境地:零售额已经连续四年下降了(游戏邦注:2012年的软件销售额与2011年的相比,下降了22%);更糟的是,游戏的数量也减少了,各平台的游戏储备量下降了29%。最受欢迎的游戏仍然在赢利,但越来越多游戏在亏钱。发行商为了避免风险,选择做更少的新游戏,更依赖成功游戏的续作,但长远看来,这种做法本身就是很危险的。《使命召唤》的销售峰值在2010年就过了。当你只依靠较少的几款游戏,任何差错都可能是致命的。当你只靠几款大作维持赢利时,一旦有哪一款今年做不出来,那会怎么样呢?绝对是灭顶之灾。

应对的方法之一是,将业务扩展到其他领域,如社交、手机和免费游戏,并且更加注重数字推广和不同形式的纯数字收益。传统发行商在这些方面的发展程度有高有低,但绝大部分销售额仍然依靠零售商店销售自盒装游戏盘。次世代主机可能会比以前提供更多数字化的内容,但绝大部分软件收益仍然来自制作了好几年的盒装游戏盘。

Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops(from pcgamer.com)

Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops(from pcgamer.com)

有没有办法引入更多新游戏、创新型游戏,同时减少风险?有可能,这要从游戏设计入手。

游戏业的出路归结到底是设计。设计师已经习惯于看零售数字做设计,他们必须跳出这种陈旧的模式,才能应对市场的风云变幻。音乐、视频和写作都变了。作曲家不按专辑的形式制作音乐,音乐长度也不再受限于黑胶唱片。视频不一定是两小时的电影或一小时的戏剧,在网络流传的视频中,我们看到了许多形式、风格和内容上的创新。在过去,要根据价格和页面长度计算字数,从而规定小说的长度。与此类似,游戏设计一直受制于游戏的零售价格和设备的容量,也就是根据零售价格决定提供多少小时的游戏长度。

数字推广消解了这些限制。价格可以定在任何水平上;游戏长度不再固定。我们看到游戏数字化分配带来的伟大革新,先是独立游戏出现在PC平台上,然后又扩展到XBLA和PSN,接着又在手机平台爆发。当然,因为下载量的大小和平台的特性,这些游戏也有自身的限制。传统游戏的设计师应该从这些现象中得到启发。

如何解决传统游戏的难题?答案就是重新设计“游戏设计”,以应对当前和未来市场的要求。这里有几个步骤可以帮助减少风险、提高成功率。

首先,不要把所有游戏都当作下一款AAA大作,投入2年(甚至更多)的开发时间和5000万美元的预算。确实,你的龙头产品的续作当然值得这种优待;比如《使命召唤》系列的下一款游戏当然要投入大预算。再看看《光晕4》,微软对它出手大方,它也回报丰厚。但对新游戏付出同样的苦心会怎么样?你会自找麻烦的。

发行商怎么处置这5000万美元呢?开发10款500百万美元的游戏,达到Kickstarter网站最近的项目的水平就够了,如Obsidian的《Project Eternity》或InXile的《Wasteland II》,怎么样?使用当前的技术,不要在图象上太费心思,不要配音,不要重制整个游戏系统和引擎,不要包含多人或单人模式,专心做好一种就够了。调整设计视野,使项目在12月内靠一支规模合理的团队就能完成。这么做的目的是检验创意和新游戏的市场。

几年以前,当EA正打算制作一系列新游戏时,它有了一个新想法。但是EA很纠结,一方面,使用老方法制作游戏,结果肯定会失败;另一方面,新想法的风险也大,可能会让几年的时间、5000万美元和项目本身打水漂。

star citizen(from gamesindustry)

star citizen(from gamesindustry)

Chris Roberts执行新想法的过程非常理智。他对《Star Citizen》抱有很大的期望,但他已经制定了一种方案,即将游戏分成可销售的小部分,陆续制作。因此,他在一开始并不需要太多预算。如果前一两部分不太成功,无法资助剩余部分的开发,那就作罢,这样就节省了资金。也许前一两部分的成功足以维持后续内容的开发,也许不能,那也可以取消了。但他要这么做,必须保证每一步的风险都极小,而成功的可能极大。

发行商无法分享这种成功,因为他们没有提供任何他需要的东西。资金?有一些投资者和集体融资就够了。技术?他自己就有。服务器和售后服务?亚马逊等网站会很高兴帮忙。营销?如果已经有些名气了,再加上一点帮助,那就不需要大的营销工作。如果发行商不能跟上这种模式,开发者会取而代之,就像越来越多的Kickstarter项目那样。

传统游戏已经因为太多与游戏玩法无关的内容而臃肿不堪。确实,那些冗长的过场动画很棒,但你会看几次?一次。制作那些过场动画需要多少钱?可能是上百万美元。这么多钱拿来搞营销也许合适,但作为游戏预算就太多了。

Gran Turismo 5(from inertz.org)

Gran Turismo 5(from inertz.org)

某些游戏就是太臃肿了。《Gran Turismo 5》的开发历时5年,斥资8000多万美元。游戏中包含超过1000部赛车和71辆卡车。这太荒唐了;谁会用到这么多赛车呢?引擎制作需要多少时间就多少,但游戏根本不必等到这么多赛车和卡车做好了才发布。等到游戏发行了,赚钱了,再陆续放出新的卡车、新的赛车和其他自定义内容就好了。

如何将玩法分解成必要的元素,手机游戏就是榜样。社交游戏也已经将游戏的适应时间压缩到最短,玩家不必花数个小时学习操作。你真的需要全新的图象引擎吗?全新的角色生成系统?全新的战斗算法?全新的武器系列?

如果说《Minecraft》曾教会我们一件事的话,那就是图像再精美也不保证游戏一定成功。当然你的游戏也不能看起像8位体的。《Project Eternity》的截图就非常漂亮。我们真的需要配音吗?未必,配音完全不影响游戏玩法,但却耗费大量开发时间和预算。

显然,分解后的游戏不值60美元……所以不要给游戏标价60美元,试一试20美元或15美元。我们知道即使零售商店以这样的标价出售游戏,发行商仍然可以赚到钱,如果他们能说服零售商标这么低的价格的话。只要营销工作搞得好,这种事做起来并不像听起来那么不可能。游戏展、品牌合作、优惠促销等等,就看你如何刺激消费者。

也许这些游戏首次发行是以数字化推广的,只有证明受欢迎时才进入零售商店。十款游戏中,可能只有一两款会积累到足够的人气。之后发行商可以为这些成功的游戏筹资制作更多内容,给予更高级的待遇,此时的零售风险也更低。

King.com的休闲游戏正是使用了这种开发策略:让小团队以低预算开发各种游戏,由玩家做测试。挑出成功的一款,投入更多时间和资金深入开发。这种策略使King.com在发布首款游戏后的18个月内一跃成为第二大Facebook游戏发行商。

我们都知道,有些优秀的设计师供职于大公司,每几年才做一个项目。做项目时又受制于发行商的风险评估。因此,游戏越来越少,创新越来越少。这让作为玩家的我们生气,让投资商恐慌。为什么大发行公司的股票价格连年走低?因为投资人不相信他们在这样常规的模式下还有突破的潜力。因此,发行商不得不将越来越少的资金放在越来越保守的游戏上。

传统发行商如何走出困境?当然有办法。在老发行商的处境越来越甚忧以前,应该看看新发行商的尝试。它们在网络游戏(如Riot和Wargaming.com) 、社交游戏(如Kabam)和手机游戏(如Rovio、Gree、DeNA和Supercell等)方面的成长非常迅速。老一辈发行公司必须重新设计他们的设计过程,否则就可能被这些新兴发行公司打败。(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

Trimming The Fat: How and Why Game Design Must Change

By Steve Peterson

The traditional games industry has reached a dangerous point. Retail sales are down for the fourth year in a row (software sales for 2012 were down 22 percent from 2011). Worse, the number of games has dropped; the total SKUs across all platforms dropped by 29 percent. The top games are still making a profit, but more and more games aren’t. Publishers are producing fewer titles and relying on sequels to proven hits in order to reduce risk, but that in itself is risky in the long run. We’re already seeing that Call of Duty sales peaked in 2010. When you rely on fewer titles, any stumbles become more dangerous. What happens when you’re down to depending on a few big franchises for your profits, and one of them doesn’t deliver for the year? Disaster.

One response is to expand into other areas like social, mobile, and free-to-play, and put more emphasis on digital distribution and various forms of purely digital revenue. All of the traditional publishers are doing that to a greater or lesser degree, but the majority of their sales still come from discs in boxes sold at retail stores. The next generation of consoles may have more digital content than ever, but the majority of their software revenue will still be from discs in boxes for years to come.

Is there a way to introduce more new IP, take some chances on innovative games, and reduce risk? Possibly, and game design is the key.

It all comes down to design, in the end. Designers have become used to designing to the form dictated by retail sales, and they have to break out of that mold when the realities of the marketplace change. This is happening in music, video, and writing. Albums are no longer shaping how artists create music, nor are their tracks limited to the length that can fit on an analog vinyl single.

Video is no longer confined to the two-hour movie or the one-hour drama, and we’re seeing a lot of innovation in form, style and content on Internet-distributed video. The novel’s length used to be dictated by the word count that would fit in a few price points and page lengths in a standard trim size. Similarly, game designs have been bounded by the retail pricing of games and the amount of space available on the media, and by the perceived need to provide a certain number of hours of gameplay for the retail price.

Digital distribution has removed those restrictions. Price points can be at any level; length of play is no longer set. We’re seeing great innovation among games distributed digitally, first with

indie games on the PC, with games on XBLA and PSN, and the explosion of games on mobile platforms. Those games have their own restrictions due to download size and the specifics of their platforms, and designers for traditional titles should be learning some things from them.

The answer to the industry’s problems lies in redesigning game design to suit the demands of the current and future market. There are several steps that can be taken to reduce the risks and raise the chances for success.

First, don’t treat every title as if it were going to be the next AAA blockbuster by giving it a two-year development time (or more) and a $50 million budget. Sure, sure, the sequels to your hit products deserve the big treatment; the next Call of Duty needs to have a big budget. Look at Halo 4; Microsoft spent hugely on it, and it’s paying off. But that same effort on a new IP? You’re asking for trouble.

What can a publisher do with that $50 million? How about funding ten $5 million games that are on the level of some of the recent Kickstarter phenomena, like Obsidian’s Project Eternity or InXile’s Wasteland II? Use existing technology; don’t push the graphic envelope. Leave off the voice acting. Don’t reinvent an entire game system or game engine. Don’t figure on including both multiplayer and single player; pick one mode and do it well. Adjust the scope of the design so it’s doable in 12 months with a reasonable team size. The idea is to prove the market for the idea and the IP.

EA had a good idea a few years ago, when it tried to create a number of new IPs. The initiative floundered because the company tried to do it using the old process, which doomed it to failure. A new, innovative idea is too risky for a multi-year, $50 million plus project.

Chris Roberts is approaching it sanely. He has a grand vision of a huge space MMO in Star Citizen, but he’s figured out a design that will allow him to build it in salable pieces. So he can build it without an immense budget at the start. And if the first piece or two is not a big enough success to fund the rest of it, he can stop working on the next massive pieces and save that money.

Maybe it’ll do well enough to fund continued content development; if not, that could be shut down, too. But he should be able to do all this with only a minor downside risk, and huge upside potential if he succeeds in making a hit.

Only there won’t be a publisher sharing in that upside. Because they don’t offer anything he needs. Money? A handful of investors and crowdfunding is enough, thanks. Technology? Nah, he can do that himself. Servers and back-end support? Amazon or others will cheerfully sell that in whatever size you need. Marketing? If you’ve got a name already, and a little bit of help, you don’t need a big marketing department. If publishers don’t begin to follow this path, developers will be happy to do it for them, as the growing number of Kickstarter projects demonstrates.

Traditional games have become bloated with too much that isn’t really vital to the gameplay. Sure, those lengthy cinematic intros are cool, but how often do you watch them? Once. How much did that cost to make? Millions, in some cases. Maybe it’s a proper marketing expense, but don’t build it into the game budget.

Sometimes games are just bloated, period. Gran Turismo 5 took more than 5 years to develop at a cost of over $80 million, and includes over 1,000 cars and 71 tracks. This is just ridiculous; has anyone ever used more than a small fraction of those cars? Get the game engine done in whatever time it takes, sure, but the game needn’t ship with more than a few dozen cars and perhaps a dozen tracks. Sell more tracks, more cars, more customizations later, once the game is out there making money.

Mobile games have shown how to strip gameplay down to the essential elements. Social games have refined the onboarding process to a minimal time, rather than making players spend hours learning the controls. Do you really need a whole new graphics engine? A brand-new character creation system? A completely new set of algorithms for combat, and a new set of weapons?

If there’s one thing Minecraft should have taught us, it’s that pushing the graphic envelope isn’t always necessary to have a hit game. You don’t have to look like an 8-bit game, either; the screen shots from Project Eternity look very nice. Do we really need voice-overs? Nope, that sure doesn’t affect the gameplay at all, but it can add a lot of time and a lot of cost to a game budget.

Now obviously a stripped down title isn’t worthy of a $60 price point… so don’t charge $60 for it. Try $20, or $15. We know publishers can still make money even at retail stores with that pricing, if they could convince the retailers to carry such a low-priced SKU. That may not be as impossible as it might seem, given some clever marketing. A special end-cap display, some branding for the innovative games under a special label, a clever promotion – it’s all in how you set expectations for the customers.

Perhaps these titles might debut as digital distribution only, and only jump into retail when they’ve proven their audience. Out of ten titles, maybe only one or two gather a following. Then the publisher can fund more content for those successful titles, give it a deluxe treatment and put it out into retail with a much lower risk.

This development strategy is the same one successfully used by King.com for casual games: Develop many ideas with a small team and a low budget and test them on an audience. Take the successful ones, give them a special treatment and roll them out big time. Rinse, lather, repeat. This strategy took King.com to the #2 Facebook game publisher in just 18 months from their first Facebook game introduction.

We know that some of the best designers around are working at some of the biggest companies, but they only get to do one project every few years. And when they do, those designs are constrained by the publisher’s risks. We therefore see fewer and fewer games, with less innovation. That’s both annoying to us as players and frightening to investors. Why have all the major publishers’ share prices been languishing for years? Because investors aren’t convinced they have the potential to create breakout hits on a regular basis. With good reason, as publishers place fewer and fewer development bets with less innovation attached.

There are certainly other strategies that can be followed to get more games, and more creative games, from the big publishers. Let’s see some attempts, before the big publishers become smaller the hard way. New publishers are growing rapidly with online games (like Riot and Wargaming.com), and social games (like Kabam) and mobile games (Rovio, Gree, DeNA, Supercell and others). The old-school publishers need to redesign their design processes or risk getting outplayed.(source:gamesindustry)


上一篇:

下一篇: