作者：Josh Bycer

在过去一年，Facebook的战略之一就是留存和获取更多用户，其中包括以新颖的游戏吸引硬核玩家。

但目前来看，Facebook的战绩并不如意，这从Insomniac游戏《Outernauts》，《龙腾世纪》社交游戏以及大量Zynga游戏的表现就可看出端倪。

社交陷阱

社交游戏的设计与其他游戏不同。其基本设计的主要内在目标并非吸引玩家，而是赚钱——提供有限的机制，令玩家无限掏钱，并不断骚扰好友请求帮助。

这些机制如此普遍，甚至出现了诸多专门讨论如何从社交游戏玩家身上攫取更多金钱的行业会议。这种为了赚钱而非提供玩法的设计，也令硬核玩家对社交游戏心存唾弃。

社交游戏要吸引硬核玩家，第一要务就是“取其精华，去其糟粕”，去除那些意在最大化利润而非重视玩法的社交机制。不顶出现限制玩家的机制，不要再骚扰用户，不要再无度向用户伸手要钱。

换句话说，也就是移除社交游戏中所谓的“社交”元素（游戏邦注：即那些让玩家请求好友帮助，或者在涂鸦墙上发布游戏消息等行为）。原因在于硬核玩家比社交玩家更重视游戏机制，会毫不犹豫地辨认出将花钱凌驾于玩法之上的游戏。

如果有人想不花一文钱花游戏，或者想同任何人玩游戏，那么游戏就不应该阻止他们。

另一个问题起源于Facebook吸引硬核玩家的最大竞争对手——F2P游戏。

FarmVille(from gamasutra)

F2P以及社交游戏的发展

F2P设计在最近几年颇受欢迎。从小型开发商自主发布游戏，到MMO游戏转向F2P模式等一系列现象，我们可以看到市场上出现了大量设计精妙的原创F2P游戏。

反观社交游戏领域，任何一种题材的发展均因试图打败竞争对手的公司而受限，大家都试图成为最先在用户身上掘金的第一人。当一种社交游戏获得一定人气时，你必定可以看到马上有其他公司也依葫芦画瓢，推出了类似的游戏。

现在，如果Facebook设计师真的打算吸引硬核玩家，理论上应该能够整治该平台的山寨和剽窃现象。首先是因为，游戏越复杂，它就越难以被复制；其次，硬核玩家具有更强的品牌忠诚度，会指出哪家公司抄袭了自己所爱的游戏。

在F2P游戏面前，Facebook拥有一个巨大的优势和劣势。其优势在于通俗性，用户可以通过一系列渠道进入Facebook，并访问任意一款Facebook游戏。而你若要玩一款F2P游戏，你得先注册，安装游戏，不像到哪都能玩Facebook游戏。

Dragon_Age_Legends(from quartertothree)

（《龙腾世纪传奇》是首批拥有高级玩法的Facebook游戏之一，但并不足以说服玩家为其掏钱。）

Facebook存在身为固定平台的问题。这意味着若要针对该平台设计游戏，就会受到Facebook的技术限制。

F2P游戏的设计使用的是自己的软件和客户端，只会受限于开发时间和资金成本，不会受制于Facebook这种第二方平台。

《Path of Exile》和《英雄联盟》也许并不具有《使命召唤》这种图像保真度，但拥有自己的美术风格，看起来也足够美观。更重要的是，它们在视觉上独具特色，并且瞄准的是不同的硬核玩家市场。

制作硬核社交游戏的开发者将遇到的另一大障碍是创建粉丝基础。看看当今社交游戏，它们的宗旨都是尽量更为通俗性，获得更广泛的用户。这本身并非坏事，但硬核玩家就喜欢独特的设计，就好比喜欢玩MOBA（多人竞技游戏）就不会去玩《Path of Exile》。

简单而言，硬核玩家瞄准的是细分市场的用户，而后者只喜欢独特的玩法，而非简单到人人甚至是自己的祖母都能玩的游戏。社交游戏设计师和Facebook应该学会适应这一现实，即他们无法推出能够快速获取大量利润或者粉丝的游戏。

发展Facebook游戏是一个漫长而困难的旅程。F2P游戏设计已经获得了先行一步的优势，Facebook游戏或许已经难以迎头赶上。问题就在于：最硬核的社交游戏究竟能有多硬核？

即使开发者跳出社交游戏的框框制作新游戏，他们还能与F2P游戏市场相抗衡吗？（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）

Examining the Problems of Facebook’s “hardcore” Social Game Scene

by Josh Bycer

The following blog was, unless otherwise noted, independently written by a member of Gamasutra’s game development community. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gamasutra or its parent company.

Want to write your own blog post on Gamasutra? It’s easy! Click here to get started. Your post could be featured on Gamasutra’s home page, right alongside our award-winning articles and news stories.

Facebook and social game designers have been trying to attract hardcore gamers back to the platform, but is this actually viable or are designers barking up the wrong tree?

Reprinted From My Site: Game-Wisdom

Over the last year, part of Facebook’s plans going forward to retain and gain users to the site was revealed. This involved attempting to attract hardcore gamers with new, more involving games.

Facebook’s track record so far has been poor with titles like Insomniac’s Outernauts, the Dragon Age social game and the numerous games from Zynga. And given what we know about social game design and their competition with free to play games, I’m not exactly holding my breath to be sucked into Facebook anytime soon.

The Social Pit:

Social games are not designed the same way as other titles. The main goal inherient by their basic design is not about attracting fans, but taking money — From limiting mechanics to constant micro transactions and bugging your friends to help you.

These mechanics are so prevalent that there are conventions and presentations aimed specifically at ways to get more money out of your social game audience.  The design of taking money instead of providing gameplay has created a stigma against social games among the hardcore.

The first thing that any social game aimed at hardcore gamers would have to be “trimming the fat” regarding all the social mechanics aimed at maximizing profit over play. No limiting mechanics, no reason to bug people and no constant transactions.

In other words: remove the “social” aspects made famous by the social genre. The reason is that hardcore gamers are more attuned to game mechanics than social gamers and will pick apart any game that emphasize spending money over playing.

If someone wants to play a game without spending one cent, or playing with anyone else, then the game should not in any way hinder them.

Another major problem comes down to Facebook’s biggest competition for attracting hardcore gamers: Free To Play Games.
The Evolution of Free to Play and the Devolution of Social Games:

Free to Play design has gained major traction over recent years. From smaller developers releasing their own games, to the MMO transition to the market, we have seen a number of well thought out, polished and original games released.

But with the social game scene, any growth of the genre has been stymied by companies trying to outdo each other in — who can get the most money out of their customers first? When one social game reached a point of popularity, you can just bet that other companies will attempt to “borrow” some of the elements for their game.

Now, if Facebook designers are serious about attracting hardcore gamers to the platform, this should in theory cut down on the number of copycats. One, because the more complex the game is, the harder it would be for someone to replicate fully. And second, hardcore gamers have a greater sense of brand loyalty and would call out anyone who tried to outright copy their preferred game.

There is one big advantage and disadvantage that the Facebook platform has over Free to Play games. The advantage is the accessibility. You can access Facebook from any number of sources and can play a game as easy as 1, 2, 3. To play a free to play game, you need to sign up, make sure the game is installed, and you can’t play it anywhere compared to a Facebook game.

Dragon Age Legends was one of the first Facebook titles to have more advanced gameplay. But that wasn’t enough to convince gamers to spend money

With that said, Facebook has the problem of being a set platform.  What that means is that someone who wants to design a game for it, is limited by the technical limitations of Facebook.

Free to Play titles are designed using their own software and client and are only limited by the time and money needed to develop it and not by the limitations of a secondary platform like Facebook.

Titles like Path of Exile and League of Legends may not have the graphical fidelity of Call of Duty, but have their own art style and look good nonetheless.  More importantly, they visually stand out from each other and are aimed at different markets of hardcore gamers.

That last sentence is the big hurdle for anyone attempting to make a hardcore social game: Creating a specific fan-base. When we look at social games today, they are aimed to be as accessible and far-reaching as possible. This by itself is not a bad thing, but hardcore gamers want specific designs. Someone who likes MOBA styled games is not going to play Path of Exile for example.

Simply put, a hardcore game is by and large aimed at niche audiences who appreciate the unique gameplay. Not something so simple that everyone and their grandparents can play. Both social game designers and Facebook would have to get used to not having games that earn vast profits or a huge number of fans quickly.

The goal to grow the Facebook game scene is a long difficult road ahead. Free to play game design has gotten such a head start, that they may not be able to catch up. The million dollar question is: Just how hardcore would the most hardcore social game actually be?

Even if developers do go outside the social game box to develop new games, would they be able to compete with the growing Free to Play market? If they’re not careful they may show up for a race with the most superior horse and buggy… to face a sports car.（source:gamasutra）