作者：Peter Molyneux

有关下一代游戏的宣传已经达到非常狂热的程度了。但是要想创造出高质量的游戏就需要付出更高的费用以及更长的开发时间。开发者们需要钱，而发行商们需要产品。他们需要为此放弃很多东西。

许多经验丰富的游戏玩家都知道下一代的硬件。他们清楚地了解它的速度，能量以及功能，因此他们不仅对软件充满期待，同时还要求软件能够配得上硬件。而一般用户想要的是更加简单，外观更突出，更具有强制性，更具有沉浸感且更深入的游戏。每家开发工作室，不管大小，都将尝试着提供给用户他们想要的内容。当然，这也是他们的发展方向。

但是创造这些每一方面都更加优秀的新游戏需要付出一定的代价。强大的创新需要花费更高的代价。它要求开发者投入更长时间去创造这种水平的软件，同时它也将耗费开发者大量的费用。我见证了近来许多优秀的游戏理念，事实上所有开发者都在尝试着执行大胆，且突出的理念。有些理念是独出心裁的，有些是源于授权，但它们具有的一大共同点便是非常昂贵。并且贯穿整个产业，它们的价格都不可能往低走。

content(from accentdesign.co)

所以当前的经费是如何安排的？许多现有的发行商—-开发者合同都是基于音乐产业模式。当发行商在一群出色的人才团队中发现了一部优秀的作品并预测到它的成功，它便会投入大量的经费。然后这一团队将继续创造一部热门作品。尽管这一模式能够有效运行（游戏邦注：不管是在音乐产业还是游戏产业都存在例外），它同样也具有风险，并只有在游戏开发时间不到2年，且开发成本不到4百万美元的情况下才会出现。

而真相是，如果现在能够构想出新游戏，那么3年的开发时间与1千万美元的开发成本也将变成标准。

开发者所面临的问题

在游戏创造的每一方面我们都开始进行疯狂的竞争。这对于消费者来说是好事，因为这意味着我们在创造比以前更加规范的游戏。

所以竞争是件好事，即使这意味着我们需要不断挑战极限，直到崩裂。存在三种公认的方法去保持这种势头。

首先，你可以发展一个人才团队。人才并不便宜，你可以从迪士尼挖来动画师也可以从Pixar挖来模型创造者。所以在这方面我们并不会省钱。

其次，你可以与外部资源维系起良好的关系。许多重视这种关系的工作室都能与动画工作室或美术或程序团队共同发展。不过如此预算可能将向上攀升到1千万美元。

实际上，有些项目和游戏设计总是会被人们与2千万美元以上的数字搭建在一起。如果这一数目都让你颤抖的话，那就只有排名前五的游戏才能赚钱了。

另外一个选择是购买现有的游戏引擎，动画，图像以及其它中间件开发工具。这一方法是当前最受欢迎的：当你可以直接使用现有的技术或图像时为什么还要想尽办法自己创造了？不过我们现在讨论的是新一代软件。在中间件变得足够出色并满足渴望创造性的用户之前，它需要花费一定的时间。而当并不存在足够的中间件的时候，大多数使用现有中间件的游戏看起来都将非常雷同。

发行商的观点

现在让我们从发行商的角度来看待问题，即现在的他们不再能够资助大量项目并寄希望于他们能够创造出高质量的畅销游戏。

首先，他们可以在原型创建阶段资助游戏，并为了获得进一步的收益而要求开发者通过游戏玩法和图像去证明自己。但问题在于这仍需要花费20多万美元才能创造一个原型，并且它将延伸任何发展项目的开发时间。

其次，发行商可以基于追踪记录只签下一个人才。可以说这是较为安全的抵住。但再一次地，这些人需要花费较大的成本，而你也将获得同样的项目并扼杀掉创造性。

第三，发行商可以通过创造与购买去组建自己的内部团队。这是带有灵活性与发展潜能的长期问题。但这种公司文化是否能够实现“安全”项目并减少对于这些团队的创造性要求？

profitable business(from greymattergaming)

所以开发者要如何资助游戏？

首先，开发者不应该基于音乐产业的方法去资助游戏，而是应该参考电影产业。根据游戏的知识产权创建一家公司。任何人都可以基于完整的套装软件去购买股票，包括商品，电影或电视版权，网络内容等等。这也将延伸向市场营销，推广以及任何与这一理念相关的内容。

其次，你可以联合人才让较小的团队能够访问你的资源。这并不会局限于技术，而是会包含所有内容，不论是办公室的资源还是理念。Lionhead的卫星企划便是基于这一方式，即让较小的团队受益于AI，3D，以及更重要的测试与焦点小组。

另外一个选择是让软件公司的名字出现在股票市场上。这是当时最受欢迎的做法，能够为团队提供所有必要的资金去实现自己的游戏理念。你也可以通过在项目最后找到发行商和分销商而获得较高的提成率。你当然需要一个追踪记录，一个出色的理念以及有效的管理，但如果你能够圆满地创造出游戏，你便能够笑到最后。

最后，冒险资本主义也是一种可行的选择。尽管你将局限于支持者间，但是你却能够收到所需要的资金，并且不需要面对经验丰富的发行商所要求的苛刻的时间表。你能够紧握财权，而那些想要看到你的游戏诞生并对其进行销售的人将站在你的那一边—-不过前提是你最终能够创造出作品。

我们的产业需要面对的事实是，明天的游戏将需要更多的成本。但是游戏仍然需要创造性的血液，特别是当我们想要走到真正的大众市场的最前方时。不管是开发者和发行商都必须具有创造性。他们必须找到替代的投资资源并说服更多人自己的游戏能够走到排行榜前五名的位置。对于那些最终获得这样成功的游戏来说，这将始终是一项有利可图的业务。

（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）

Raising stakes in the next-gen publisher-developer relationship

By Peter Molyneux

The hype surrounding the next generation of games is at fever pitch. But with quality comes big expenses and long development times. Developers need money and publishers need products. Something’s got to give.

Any number of seasoned game players knows about the next generation of hardware. They have a good idea of its speed, power, and versatility, and therefore not only expect but demand software to be worthy of it. The public wants ever more accessible, better-looking, more compulsive, more immersive, deeper games. And every development studio, big or small, is going to try to give them exactly what they want. Of course, this is exactly how it should be.

But there’s a price to pay for these new, better-in-every-respect games. Unparalleled innovation costs dearly. It takes a lot longer to create software of this magnitude and it costs a lot more money. I have witnessed a great many game concepts recently and virtually all are attempting to implement brave, sometimes outstanding ideas. Some of these are original, some are born of licenses, but the one thing they have in common is that all are very expensive. And industry-wide, they aren’t going to get any cheaper.

So how is funding currently arranged? A lot of existing publisher-developer contracts are based upon the music industry model. A publisher, perceiving greatness and predicting success in a group of talented individuals, hands over a wad of cash. The team then goes and creates a hit product. While this model has worked well (with a few exceptions in both the music and game
industries), it’s a risky prospect, and really only seen in cases where the game will be in development for less than two years and will cost less than $4 million to produce.

The truth is, with the new games being conceived now, figures of three years and $10 million will become the norm.

The Problems Developers Face

We’re all starting to compete like crazy with each other in every aspect of game creation. This is good for the consumer, because it means we build games to a far higher specification than ever before. Admit it — in the U.S. and Europe, we view the latest screenshots from Japanese development houses with awe and mounting dread as we realize that the eyebrows on our main characters don’t comprise individual hairs.

So competition is a good thing, even if it means we have to keep pushing the envelope until it rips. There are three recognized ways of keeping up the momentum.

First, you can grow a team of geniuses. Talented people don’t come cheap, and you’ll be looking to lure the best from Disney for your animation and Pixar for your models. So we’re not saving money here.

Second, you can form partnerships with out-of-house resources. Many studios are doing just this and relationships can thrive with animation houses or art or programming teams. Watch the spreadsheets, though. Budgets can easily creep upwards toward the gulp-worthy $10 million mark.

In fact, there are some projects and game designs being talked about at the moment with figures of more than $20 million attached. If that kind of money makes you shiver, consider that as a rule, only the top five games at any one time make money.

Another option is to purchase existing game engines, animations, art, and other middleware development tools. This approach is the current flavor of the month: Why struggle to produce your own technology and artwork when you can dial out for it? O.K., but we’re talking about the next generation of software, here. It’ll take ages before middleware is good enough and plentiful enough to satisfy innovation-hungry consumers. And since there isn’t an abundance of middleware, most games using it are going to end up looking the same.

The Publishers’ Point of View

Now let’s look at the problems from the publishers’ perspective, now that they can no longer afford the hit-and-miss approach of funding lots of projects with the hope that a quarter of them will result in high-quality, high-selling games.

First, they can fund games to the prototype stage, forcing the developers to prove themselves in game play and graphical terms in order to gain further cash. The problem is that it still costs around $200,000 to produce a prototype and it extends the development lifespan of any advancing project considerably.

Alternately, publishers can sign only talent with a proven track record. Such developers have been there and done it before, and are as safe a bet as you’re going to get. But again, these people cost big money and you might get similar projects and stifle the innovation you crave.

Third, publishers can construct their own internal teams through creation and acquisition. This is a long-term answer with flexibility and growth potential. But will such a corporate culture lead to “safe” projects and a lack of creative hunger from these teams?

So How Can Developers Fund Games?

First, developers should fund their games not based on the music industry but rather the movie industry. Set up a company based on the game’s intellectual property. Anyone can purchase equity in the whole package, including merchandise, film or TV rights, online properties, and other spin-offs. This extends also to marketing, distribution, and, well, everything to do with the concept.

Second, you can pool your talent to give smaller teams access to resources otherwise denied them. This isn’t limited to technology, but can include everything from office resources to ideas. Lionhead’s own satellite scheme works in this way, with the smaller groups benefiting from AI, 3D, and, just as importantly, testing and focus group access.

Another alternative is for software houses to get listed on the stock market. This is an extremely popular move at the moment, and can provide all the funds necessary for a team to take their game from conception to bagged and boxed without worry. You can get a higher royalty rate, too, by finding a publisher and distributor at the end of the project. You do of course need a track record, a stunning idea, and ultrasmart management, but if you can pull it off, you’ll have the last laugh.

Finally, venture capitalism is also a viable alternative. Although you’ll get locked in with the backers, you’ll receive the money you need and you might not face the tough milestones a seasoned publisher would demand. The purse strings are held tightly but the men in suits want to see your game out there and selling, so they’ll remain on your side if you can ultimately deliver the goods.

Our industry needs to face the fact that tomorrow’s games will cost more. But games will still need the lifeblood of innovation, especially if we desire the holy grail of being truly mass-market. Both developers and publishers have to be innovative in another way, too. They must find alternative sources of investment and convince a great many people that their game is going to sit comfortably in the top five. For the games that ultimately achieve this kind of success, this is and will always be an incredibly profitable business.(source:gamasutra)