最近，我们看到许多出自EA、Zynga和甚至Minimonos的在线游戏都被关闭了。

你认为游戏关闭对于那些在游戏中花钱购买道具的玩家来说，会产生什么影响呢？有没有一种“好”方式向游戏告别？这是在线游戏，特别是免费游戏的必然命运吗？

回答：

Oscar Clark，Applifier倡导者

真是巧合，我刚刚在我的第一本书的引言中写到这个问题。

基本上，我认为这是任何产品的必然结局。

任何产品都不可避免走向衰弱；甚至像“亨氏茄汁焗豆”这样不朽的品牌也不定期地推出一些延伸产品或“新菜谱”，以保证产品的活力。大多数产品是没这么“不朽”的……还记得Spangles吗？

问题是，我们从来没有料想到结局，也很少为此制定计划。

对虚拟世界和免费服务的消费者的影响甚至更严重；因为他们“投资”了只存在于虚拟世界的虚拟物品。如果你仍然喜欢某款游戏、道具等，那么当游戏关闭时，你肯定会非常焦虑不安，因为你发现你花的钱（通常）回不来了。

但是，如果你已经离开那款游戏——像大多数人一样，你通常不觉得有什么不妥。也许你会为那一段一去不返的时光感到一点儿惋惜，也许你会希望有一个虚拟博物馆可以让你偶尔参观怀旧一下；但你知道你永远不会抽时间去参观的，即使去了，你也可能感到失望。通常就是这样。

对我来说，唯一的办法是提前计划。给你的玩家发通告，在其他游戏中给这些老玩家一些东西，作为谢礼。对哀悼和怀旧反应敏锐，但必须接受现实：产品有生命周期，它们会死亡。

产品的死亡不可避免。想想《Earth and Beyond》（我仍然缅怀）和《Meridian 59》？

《Meridian 59》其实是相当有意义的例子。因为玩家社区利用开放资源模型把它救活了。也许这也是一条出路。让你最忠实的玩家接管游戏的运营吧。如果它有赢利能力，说不定你还可以拿到不少版权费。

Mark Sorrell，Hide & Seek开发总监

个人认为，也许是不可必避免的。今天早上玩《Clash of Clans》时，我很纠结应该购买13.99英镑的宝石包还是34.99英镑的。我选择了13.99美元的，因为，谁知道这款游戏会运营多久呢！

想到我（过去常常）在一款我可能永远不玩的游戏中高兴地消费40英镑，似乎是相当愚蠢的，但这也是我做出刚才的决定的原因之一。

我很好奇是否存在简单的解决方案。随着我们越来越习惯于把“内容租借”作为原则，而不是期望，我们可能不必再担心这些东西了。也就是说，考虑到所有权/损失规避/禀赋效应（游戏邦注：是指人们倾向于保留已经拥有的东西，即使付出更大的代价）这些发生在免费游戏中的经济行为，也许不是这样的……

Ella Romanos，Remode工作室创始人

肯定是不可避免的，万事有终……

所以问题是，我们如何保证我们执行的方式能让消费者满意，甚至更重要的是，不让消费者怨恨这整个服务型的游戏模式？

我同意Oscar的说法，这是一个沟通问题。让你的玩家知道你的计划是什么，保证他们有时间从他们的消费中得到相应的价值，形成一个良性循环：慷慨地回馈这些玩家，让他们去你的新游戏，并且还想玩你的游戏！

Anthony Pecorella，Kongregate虚拟产品制作人

作为平台所有者，我们的观点可能与开发者有一点儿不同，但目标基本上是一致的：在旧游戏关闭后，你想让你的玩家继续玩你的其他游戏。虽然这种事在我们平台上不常发生，但我们仍然认为与玩家保持密切的关系是非常重要的。为了达到这个目标，在开发者认为必须在我们的平台上终止游戏时，我们有几条原则和适当的流程：

1、开发者要填写关闭表格，帮我们收集一些基本的信息（游戏邦注：例如关闭日期、最佳联系方式、共享的“官方声明”，如果该开发者与社区关系并不积极的话）。

2、我们向玩家发送通告。我们的最低要求是提前30天让玩家知道消息。如果出于某些原因无法在30天内收到消息，我们会执行退款政策，这样任何在关闭日期前30天内消费的玩家都会收到退款。这种消费保障会让玩家有信心在游戏中消费——他们知道在我们的游戏内的任何消费，都会得到至少30天的乐趣。

3、我们帮助开发者在论坛、聊天室和游戏页面上发布关闭信息。我们不希望有人感到惊讶。

4、一旦游戏关闭，我们将用其他玩家可能喜欢的游戏的链接取代原游戏的页面。虽然玩家更可能转移到其他平台，但你当然希望玩家还是在你自己的平台上玩其他游戏，如果你的平台还有其他很多游戏的话。

5、对于那些影响我们大部分玩家的大游戏，我们会为玩家发放一种特殊的补偿包。这些补偿包一般分成3类，第一种是给在游戏中花了较少时间（3小时以上）的玩家和那些曾经在游戏中消费较少金钱的玩家；第二种是给那些在游戏中花了很多时间（20小时以上）的玩家和花了比较多钱（20美元以上）的玩家；第三种是给那些在游戏中消费极大（至少100美元，取决于游戏的指标）。玩家一般都能得到这些补偿包，并且我们提供2-3款其他游戏供玩家选择。它们可能是出自相同开发者的游戏，也可能是我们网站上相同类型的其他游戏。管理这些补偿包是非常费时间的，所以我们只对大游戏采取这一政策。但作为开发者，刺激你的玩家去玩你的其他游戏，肯定应该有一些慷慨的表示。

6、如果游戏论坛相当活跃，我们会将游戏关闭延迟至少一个月，如果仍然很活跃，还会延迟得更久。这么做是为了让玩家保持交流，甚至组成公会集体转战其他游戏。这也让他们有时间发泄失去一款游戏的郁闷情绪。

执行以上流程，我们的目标是玩家第一。你必须记住，你的玩家与游戏及其他玩家之间都有密切的关系。关闭游戏就相当于告诉玩家你再也不能拜访某个好友了——这是令人悲伤的时刻，作为开发者的你应该关怀和抚慰玩家。

最近这波关闭潮让我们意识到，游戏是有时限的，总是会有走到头的一天。这这种事发生时，我们这个行业应该带着敬意和关怀对待我们的玩家，以避免玩家对我们的游戏和行业丧失信心。

Ben Cousins，DeNA（欧洲）主管

首先澄清一下——EA和Zynga最近是正在“中止”游戏。这里的“中止”是指服务器仍然开着，游戏也可以玩，但不再对游戏进行任何更新和开发。

我的回答是针对“关闭”，而不是“中止”。

1、你认为关闭游戏对购买虚拟商品的玩家有何影响？

当消费虚拟商品的绝大多数玩家都自愿离开游戏且永远不再回来时，运营公司就会关闭游戏。这么做的风险是，也许还有大额玩家对游戏很忠实，仍然在玩。我想，也许可以发起一场对话，让这些少数大额玩家转移到其他游戏中，给他们一些特权或道具，作为关闭游戏的补偿。

2、有没有关闭游戏的“好”办法？

首先，你必须保证协议上清楚地说明游戏将关闭。然后是沟通问题，我认为你要保证玩家接到提前通知。其实许多游戏本不必关闭，只要有合适的服务器结构和管理，你可以用固定的成本用为少数玩家继续运营游戏。

3、在线游戏，特别是免费游戏必然会关闭吗？

如果因为很高的固定成本，公司不能“关闭”玩家很多的游戏，我认为这会威胁到玩家的信心。但愿大多数公司能够做好准备，以免关闭玩家上百万的游戏。

Melissa Clark-Reynolds，Minimonos创始人

我们的观点与Kongregate的人最接近。

在关闭一款网页Flash虚拟世界（VW）时，我们纠结了好一阵子。我们知道大家都很难过。我们意识到我们可以围绕多个应用而非只通过这个虚拟世界VW来建立社区。通过儿童节目向桌面转移似乎有效。我们正在结束在线VW的商业，希望利用我们从在线游戏中积累的经验（特别是沉浸感、微交易和留存率）来经营其他产品。

今天我们收到了许多令人心痛的邮件和tweet信息和博客评论等。大多数信息表达了失去一个有过情感投入的社区的心情。一整天时，我个人也收到社区成员发来的邮件和tweet信息等。

我们的关闭决定是有好好计划的。因为我们有在街道上出售礼品卡，我们希望它们能被首先移除。我们的员工和InComm公司是最早知道的。为了给销售足够的停止时间，我们延迟了通告。在声明发出以前，我们的网站停止接受任何支付。我们有一系列活动，包括在关闭时刻给VIP举办的活动。我们已经让用户和消费者信任我们的应用。

从消费者的角度看，我不认为关闭会影响信心。对我们而言，让我们失去信心的是平台。

带着尊重和关爱对待我们的用户是我们的核心理念。在接下来的一个月，社区会继续收到邮件、博客、tweet通告等。《Minimonos》是我们关闭的第一个虚拟世界……

Harry Holmwood，Marvelous AQL Europe首席执行官

我认为我们在不远的将来还将继续目睹这种事发生。有些公司靠游戏或服务收获早期的成功，然后根据那些早期的产品推出未来的产品，从而扩大他们的商业规模。事实上，与旧游戏相比，新游戏通常更大，开发和运营成本更高。当玩家知道第一款游戏要关闭了，新游戏要成功就不那么容易了。这样，新游戏就成了不挣钱的负担，除非运营成本更低。

过去几十年，这个模式在游戏业中不断地重复——公司A有一款出乎意料地成功的游戏，于是认为他们已经领悟了成功的秘诀，于是在更大规模上重复配方，结果呢，一年之后就面临裁员问题了。

但愿，经过这个循环，我们能够更加关注运营成本和可扩展性，使游戏和团队不必靠200百万的DAU才能维持收益。游戏极有可能持续运营几年甚至几十年，只要收益还能支持运营成本。如果游戏的玩家确实大量流失了，那么关闭游戏的“好”方式与关闭公司的一样——要以有序的方式，不要留下恶名，不要欠债。

关闭游戏的过程首先是不再接纳新玩家，然后向现有的玩家发出大量通告，提醒他们尽快使用完所有虚拟货币，在离开前尽量享受游戏的乐趣。至于无力补偿的运营公司，草草了事很快就会失去玩家的信任，以后也很难与玩家建立感情。那些妥善处理游戏关闭事宜、带着尊重对待消费者的公司，之后大有希望将他们的品牌、技术和消费者基础转移到更能赢利的项目中。

Oscar Clark，Applifier倡导者

我认为Ben指出“中止”和“关闭”的区别非常重要。关闭服务是吸引关注和损害消费者信心的时刻。但Melissa描述的告别方式似乎不错，显然他们很努力地减少对玩家情绪和经济上的打击——确实从你的邮件中可以看出，你们努力把离别会变成一场欢送会。当然，有些玩家仍然会受到消极影响，但你们能做的就是尽量抚慰他们。

也许提醒玩家游戏终有到头的一天也不是坏是。虽然我相信大多数玩家已经知道了，并且会相应地消费；但我也肯定仍然有些人需要人提醒他们游戏会有关闭的时候。在也许习惯于在游戏上砸钱的玩家会有更加谨慎，毕竟有些游戏可能只看重赢利。

“游戏服务”仍然在进步，玩家会也会跟着我们一起成长，或者没有我们也一样成长—–我们只能希望当他们与我们一起时（数年或数月），我们的游戏能给他们带来欢乐，希望我们能给他们留下积极的印象。

正如Tommy Cooper曾经说的：总是笑着离别。

Andy Payne，Mastertronic总经理

Oscar提到的Tommy Cooper说的话是正解。

在微软决定停止开发任何飞行模拟器的25年以后，《模拟飞行》社区的愤怒和失望仍然没有减少。那不是中止，而是消失。如果当初微软好好处理游戏社区和关注他们的心情，将代码公布给他们或让有兴趣的人接管游戏，那么该游戏本可能继续流行，而粉丝们也会感到高兴。但《模拟飞行》并没有体现“游戏即服务”的精神。现在，微软声明只根据GAS原则开发，所以我确定他们已经考虑过关闭的问题。

似乎我们都需要一种“生前遗嘱”，听起来虽然有些伤感，但毕竟万事有终，所以游戏开发者应该有所计划。

玩家是游戏世界的核心。重视他们、尊重他们、补偿他们，以我的经验（从《模拟飞行》社区得来的），他们就会追随着你。他们对你的热情不会熄灭。（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）

[Gamesbriefers] Is there a good way to sunset a game?

By Gamesbriefers

Question:

We have recently seen a swathe of online games shutting down from EA, Zynga and even Minimonos.

What do you think the impact of sunsetting games will be on consumer comfort with spending money on virtual goods. Is there a “good” way of shutting down? Is it an inevitability of online games, particularly in the free-to-play space, or is the elephant in the room that threatens consumer acceptance of this new way of playing games?

Answers:

Oscar Clark Evangelist at Applifier

By curious coincidence I’ve just been writing about that for the introduction of my first book (thanks to the lovely people at Focal Press)

Essentially I see this as an inevitable consequence of the lifecycle of any product.

Decline is sadly inevitable for every product; even the guys at immortal products like Heinz Baked Beans have to occasionally throw in a few product extensions or ‘New Recipes’ to enliven their products. Most products aren’t immortal… remember Spangles?

The problem is that we never anticipate it ending, and rarely plan for it.

Its even worse for consumer of Virtual Worlds and Free-To-Play services because we have ‘invested’ in virtual assets which only exist in those worlds. If you are still enjoying the game, your items, etc then you are going to be very upset when it all gets closed down and you discover that you can’t (usually) get your money back.

But, if you have moved on from the game – as most people will have – there is (usually) no issue at all. Perhaps a slight sadness of an era gone by and a desire for there to be some virtual museum where you could go get all nostalgic once in a while; but knowing you would never actually get round to visiting and if you did you would probably be disappointed. But generally that’s all.

The only way forward for me is to plan in advance. Be give your players plenty of notice and give them something back in the other titles you have by way of a thank you. Be sensitive to the potential for mourning and nostalgia, but the hard economics is that products have a lifecycle and they die.

This is not new. Look at Earth and Beyond (which I still mourn – in a nostalgic kinda way) or Meridian 59?

Actually Meridian 59 is a really interesting case in point. Because the community has brought it back using an Open Source model. Perhaps that’s the way forward. Let your most fanatical players take over the running of the game. You might even be able to take a modest license fee if they become profitable.

Mark Sorrell Development Director at Hide & Seek

Too personal, perhaps, but I was sat this morning, trying to decide between the ￡13.99 and ￡34.99 gem pack in Clash of Clans. I went for the ￡13.99 one because, hey, you never know how long the game will last!

Considering how I (used to) happily throw ￡40 at a game I might never play, that seems pretty stupid, but it was a big factor in my decision.

I wonder if the solution isn’t as simple as time. As we become used to ‘content rental’ as the rule rather than the exception, these things might cease to be a worry. That said, given the ownership/loss aversion/endowment effect behavioural economics stuff happening in freemium games, perhaps not…

Ella Romanos Founder of Remode Studio

It certainly seems to be an inevitability, nothing lasts forever…

So the question is, how do we ensure we implement a closure in a way that consumers are happy with, and even more importantly, without making consumers resent the whole service-based gaming model?

I agree with Oscar, it’s all about communication. Let your users know what your plans are, ensure they have time to get the value from the purchases they have made, and turn it into a positive by drawing those users into your new games by being generous and making them feel like they want to carry on playing your games!

Teut Weidemann Free-to-play supervisor at Ubisoft blue byte

It certainly seems to be an inevitability, nothing lasts forever…

So the question is, how do we ensure we implement a closure in a way that consumers are happy with, and even more importantly, without making consumers resent the whole service-based gaming model?

I agree with Oscar, it’s all about communication. Let your users know what your plans are, ensure they have time to get the value from the purchases they have made, and turn it into a positive by drawing those users into your new games by being generous and making them feel like they want to carry on playing your games!

Anthony Pecorella Producer of Virtual Goods Games at Kongregate

Our perspective at Kongregate is perhaps slightly different as a platform rather than a developer, but in large part the concept is the same: you want your players to continue to play your other games after the takedown occurs. While it doesn’t happen too often with us, it’s important that we retain a strong relationship and trust with our players. In order to achieve this goal, we have a few rules and procedures in place whenever a developer comes to a point that they need to sunset a game with us:

We have a takedown form for developers to fill out that helps us collect some basic information (take down date, best contact information, an “Official Statement” that we can share if the developer isn’t very active with our community, etc.).

We give players plenty of notice. Our minimum requirement is 30 days to let players know about it. If for some reason that isn’t possible, we enforce a 30 day refund policy, so that any purchases made within 30 days of the actual closing date are refunded to the player. This sort of a buyer guarantee helps players feel more confident when making purchases in a game – they know they’ll get at least 30 days of enjoyment out of any spending in our games.

We help the developer to give information about the closing through the forums, chat alerts, and persistent messages on the game page. We don’t want anyone caught by surprise.

Once the game is closed, we’ll replace the game’s page with links to other games the players may enjoy. While this is more of a platform move, you of course would want to try to shift players over to other games of your own if you have multiple games on an existing platform.

For especially large games that affect substantial portions of our audience we will occasionally do a special compensation package for players. These packages are typically broken into 3 tiers, with the first including all players who played a fair amount (perhaps put 3+ hours into the game) as well as anyone who ever spent any amount money, the second including players who put substantial time into the game (20+ hours) as well as anyone who spent a non-trivial amount of money (perhaps $20+), and then a top tier of big spenders (minimum $100+, depending on the game’s metrics). These compensation packages tend to be generous (worth at least as much as the minimum spend within a tier) and are offered in 2 – 3 other games to give players some options. They can be in similar games from the same developer or other games in the same genre on our site. Managing a set of packages like this is very time consuming so we only do it for the biggest of games, but as a developer it would certainly make sense to provide some generous in-game incentives to your players to encourage them to move to another game in your library.

If a game’s forum is pretty active we will leave it up for at least a month, sometimes more if it stays active. The idea is to let players continue to correspond, perhaps organize guilds to move over to another game together, etc. It also lets them rant a bit, which can be a helpful step in the mourning process of losing a game.
Through all of this our goal is to put the customer first. It’s important to remember that your players have a close relationship with your game, and in many cases with other players in the game. Having a game taken down is like being told you can’t visit a good friend any more – it’s a sad time, and one in which you as the developer want to be caring and consoling to players.

This recent batch of shutdowns is only going to continue to raise awareness that games are temporary entities and in almost all cases will be shut down at some point. It is important that we as an industry treat our players with respect and care when this happens, lest we poison the water and generate distrust for our games and those of our peers.

Ben Cousins Head of European Game Studios at DeNA
Firstly a clarification – what EA and Zynga have done recently is shutting down a game. ‘Sunsetting’ is leaving the servers up with the game playable, but not doing any more development or content work on it.

I’m going to answer the questions assuming we are talking about ‘shutting down’, not ‘sunsetting’.

What do you think the impact of sunsetting games will be on consumer comfort with spending money on virtual goods?

A good company will shut down a game when the vast majority of users who have purchased virtual goods have already voluntarily exited the game, never to come back. The danger is of course if there are whales who are loyal to the game with lots of high-value gear still playing. My guess is that these would be few enough in number that you could manually start a conversation with them about moving them onto another title with a set of privileges or content to recognise their commitment to the shut down game.

Is there a “good” way of shutting down?

First you need to make sure the EULA is clear that the game could be shut down. Then I think it’s about communication and making sure when you make the decision that the userbase is given appropriate advanced notice. Many games don’t need to be shut down. With correct server architecture and management, you should be able to run very small userbases with very low fixed costs.

Is it an inevitability of online games, particularly in the free-to-play space, or is the elephant in the room that threatens consumer acceptance of this new way of playing games?

I only think it threatens consumer confidence if companies have been unable to ‘sunset’ a game with a large userbase due to high fixed costs. Hopefully, most companies in the future will be prepared better so they don’t have to shut down games with millions of users.

Melissa Clark-Reynolds Founder of Minimonos

Our view is nearer Kongregate’s than anyone else’s so far.

We have been grappling for a while with the move away from browser based flash virtual worlds (VWs). We don’t know of anyone really optimistic about this space. We realised we could build our community around apps and not just via a VW. The move to tablets by kids shows no sign of abating. We are closing the online VW side of our business, and hoping to use everything we have leant online (especially regarding engagement, micro transactions and retention) with other products.

We have had lots of tearful emails and tweets, blog comments and FB pms today. That hey are experiencing the loss of a community they have invested emotionally in, is the biggest message they are sending us. I have personally had emails and tweets linked in messages and so on from members of the community , all day (hence being late to notice this trail of emails).

The decision to close was well planned. Since we sell gift cards on the High St, we wanted them to be removed first. InComm were among the first to know, along with our staff. We delayed an announcement in order to give enough time to stop sales. Our website stopped taking any payments before the announcement was made (although cards and codes may be redeemed through to closure date). We have a series of events, including those for VIPs right up to the moment we close. We have given credits in our apps to our users and paying members.

I don’t believe this closure will have an impact on the confidence or otherwise people have in the model from a consumer point of view. For us, it’s the platform we have lost confidence in.

Treating our users with spect and love is core to who we are. The community will be getting a series of emails, blogs, tweets fb posts etc over the next month. This was the first one…

Harry Holmwood CEO at Marvelous AQL Europ

I think we’re going to see quite a lot of this happening in the near future. Some companies have enjoyed early successes with games or services, and then attempted to scale their businesses on the basis that those initial products were indicative of future ones. In fact, the newer games were generally bigger and more expensive to create and run than the earlier ones. When it transpired that the first games were actually outliers, and that surprise hits can’t necessarily be replicated that easily, they’re left with a load of games which don’t work financially, but which could have worked if only their running costs were lower.

This is a pattern that’s been replicated for the last couple of decades in the games business – company A has a big surprise hit, thinks they’ve worked out the secret, does it again bigger, better and over and over, and ends up slashing its workforce a year later.

Hopefully, out of this current cycle will come an increased focus on running costs and scalability, resulting in games, and teams, which don’t necessarily need 20 million DAUs to turn a profit. It’s quite possible that a game could carry on for years or decades, so long as its running cost is driven by its revenues, not the other way around. If a game’s popularity does wane, the ‘good’ way to shut it down is like the good way of shutting down a company – in an orderly, solvent fashion, leaving no bad tastes and no creditors.

This would be done by first closing the game to new customers, then giving existing ones plenty of notice to use up any virtual currency, and get as much value as they can out of the game as possible. As with directors trading insolvent companies, companies which run online games ‘close to the wire’ and leave customers hanging will soon lose credibility and find it difficult to rebuild those relationships in the future. Those who handle the tough times well, and treat their customers with respect will hopefully be able to transfer their brands, skills and customer bases to other, more profitable, enterprises in the future.

Oscar Clark Evangelist at Applifier

I think Ben’s point about ‘Sunsetting’ rather than ‘shutting down’ is an important distinction. Shutting down a service is a finite moment which draws attention and undermines confidence. But the approach that Melissa has described seems well thought through and they have clearly worked hard to minimise the emotional and financial hit on those players – indeed from your email here you guys seems to be trying to turn its closure into a kind of celebration at its passing. Of course it will still affect some players negatively but all you can do is let them down gently.

Also perhaps its not a bad thing to remind players that these games are finite. Whilst I am certain that most players know this already and spend accordingly. I’m sure there are some who need a reminder that these things do pass. That might make them more cautious when spending large sums on games that are perhaps overly focused on revenue.

‘Games as a service’ is still evolving and players will evolve with us or without us – we can only hope to entertain them as long as they are with us (be that years or months) and hope they remember us positively.

As Tommy Cooper once said – Always Leave them laughing

Andy Payne MD at Mastertronic

Oscar’s Tommy Cooper reference is spot on.

Whilst not a service, the Flight Sim community have been both outraged and disappointed in equal measure because after 25 years Microsoft decided to stop all dev on Flight Simulator. That was not a sunset, rather it was oblivion. Had the community been managed and their expectations handled with some feeling and had the code set been given to them or those that were interested in taking it on and up, then MS would have had some great publicity and fans would be happy. But FS was never games as a service. MS are now avowed to develop only according to the GAS principles so I am sure they have thought about the inevitable exit position as well as the entrance.

It feels like we almost need a ‘living will’ approach, which may feel a bit maudlin, however it is inevitable that nothing lasts for ever so games devs should plan what the script will be.

Fans are the key in this world. Keep them onside and respect them as highly valued, paying customers and my experience (from our flight sim community) is that they will stick by you. Anything else and they really will flame you.(source:gamesbrief)