作者：Ben Jones

当我们着眼于当下的社交游戏产业格局时会发现，许多大型公司因为拥有雄厚的资金而主导着该产业。

在这些巨头阴影下是一些小型“爆发富”，他们一直在遵循一些常见的方法去突显自己的游戏，包括投入大量的时间和金钱—-这是小型工作室所不具有的。

 

为了向挑战妥协，社交游戏理念变得不像真正的社交。

大多游戏都是由其它游戏所派生出来的。它们传达的是越来越狭隘的体验，即致力于执行一个快速的反馈循环和“切换式”游戏机制。唯一的社交元素只是在炫耀自己的成就，请求好友的“帮助”或受到游戏操作者的推动去花钱。

当前环境下的社交游戏类似于沿着墨西哥提华纳的Avenida de la Revolucion漫步下来—-你将会获得许多互动，但这都是为了像你销售一些你并不是真的想要的内容。

就像我们今天所了解到的社交游戏一样，它并非具有真正的社交性，但也不是反社交。

反社交游戏也具有自己的空间。10年来我最喜欢的一款反社交游戏是Valve的《传送门》，你可能听过它。这款游戏允许我带上自己的耳机，身子向前倾，并沉浸于其中长达一个半小时。在娱乐体验过程中我并不会受到广告，限时抢购或弹窗的干扰。这是一种近乎与世隔绝的游戏体验，因为我能完全享受着整个游戏过程。

如果《传送门》是像我们今天所看到的经典社交游戏这样，那么我的游戏体验便会不断受到干扰。这些干扰将导致玩家从创造性问题解决转向决定自己是想要一个5美元的基本包，10美元的升级道具还是20美元的超级交易。这些环境上的改变将会让玩家感到疲劳，并导致他们对游戏体验失去兴趣。

这就像电视广播一样。如果你真的沉浸于某个节目中，你便能够忍受任何商业广告。而如果一个节目不能抓住你的注意力，你便不可能忍受任何干扰。

你可能会问：“那盈利呢？”我们都知道盈利很重要。如果没有收益的话我们一开始怎么会去制作游戏呢？讽刺的是当你的目标是创造成功的社交游戏时，我们便是走在完全错误的道路上。

对于真正的社交游戏，我们可以着眼于《魔兽世界》这款成功的社交游戏。《魔兽世界》的设计师和玩家创造了一个社交圈。这里的社交才是真正的“社交”。比起使用社交媒体进行炫耀和购买，在这里玩家可以真正进行互动并影响游戏环境。在像《魔兽世界》和《星战前夜》这样的游戏中，真正的互动是推动社交游戏发展的重要元素。甚至像Snapchat这样非游戏体验也是受到社交互动（游戏邦注：包含参与者之间的真正交流）的驱动，而不是向玩家的Facebook信息墙广播“喜欢”或相关“事件”。

所以现在的我们与许多其他的游戏开发者一起站在了峡谷的边缘，我们几乎看不到另外一边。在此存在一个非常重要的问题：“我们该如何从这里到达那里？”

我们不能这么做，或者至少不能基于与之前相同的方式去做到这点。

关于缩短厌烦与娱乐之间的差距。

让我们着眼于为何这个峡谷如此难穿越。

如果我们将社交游戏置于一个范围中，我们便可以缩短两个极端间的距离，即娱乐和厌烦。

大多数社交游戏将掉落在这一范围的“厌烦”区域中。为什么会这样？

当我们能够使用最少的干扰去满足玩家时，我们便能够提升娱乐体验的价值。

电影，Netflix，唱片，播放列表和“反社交”游戏让我们能够无需频繁被干扰而留在体验环境中。在《传送门》中，我们可以像观看电影，听一张完整的唱片或与好友玩西洋双陆棋那样近乎不受打扰地玩一整款游戏。当这些娱乐状态被广告，小孩或电话销售员所打扰时，我们便会为了应对这样的干扰而要求执行环境切换。这会将我们从娱乐状态中叫醒，这种感觉跟在周日早上7点半听到闹钟声是一样的。这是一种烦人的过度，我们总是会不愿意做出反应。

关于为一种娱乐体验创造价值标签，我们可以将范围两端分别定为高E和低E。高E体验提供的是不间断的娱乐状态，而低E体验则充满干扰。

总而言之，提供高E体验的游戏将比低E体验吸引更多玩家并留住更多玩家。

为了离开现在所处的悬崖我们需要跨越的峡谷便是创造能够让玩家保留兴趣并愿意容忍盈利干扰的高E体验。

关于是什么构成有效的娱乐体验。

我认为我们必须定义构成有效娱乐体验的要素。

在《The Games People Play》中，Eric Berne将游戏定义为一种人类行为问题。只有在玩家获得回报时才会对游戏感到满足。

对于游戏和其它娱乐形式，观众或玩家想要的是一个让人满意的结果。这可能是以故事的戏剧化结果这样的形式呈现出来，或者一款短游戏中的胜利或者场游戏中的关卡。我们之所以在娱乐中塑造这样的回报是因为我们的真实生活中也充满这样的元素。

总之，稳定的娱乐体验是一种具有足够长度的独立体验，将提供前言，循序渐进的挑战以及最终解决方法。

对于充满抱负的成功的开发者来说，我可能会建议他们阅读Joseph Campbell所写的《The Hero’s Journey》，并将此作为塑造能够真正吸引玩家并诱导他们打开钱包的指南。

我们所面对的是真正的社交与撒谎之间的区别。

在本系列的一开始，我直接地说出了“社交”是一种谎言。在此我将进行解释。

许多习惯用语已经失去了它们真正的含义并被我们所感知到的内容所取代。我最喜欢的一个便是“three sheets to the wind”，经常用于描述我们所认识的好友在酒吧待了一晚上的状态。如果你问大多数人是否知道该短语最初的意思，他们会回答这应该是像水手喝醉一般，而他们的回答其实是片面的。

sheet是一条绳子的一部分，但却带有目的。在驾驶帆船的时候，帆带有4个sheet，即用于控制帆。基于4个sheet，如果因为强风而导致3个sheet松动，这便是非常危险的情况，会导致沉船，或者帆船可能撞向其它船只。

当我们想当然所认为的一个短语的意思与其真正含义相反时，该词便会失去其作用。

如今，许多社交游戏的社交元素都包含了社交媒体中的吸引人元素，在这些社交媒体中社交便是在Facebook上刊登更新内容和喜欢状态，并面对各种购买机遇。

这便是低E游戏的完美例子。一款低E游戏要求发行商投入足够的钱去吸引并留住玩家，当投资终止时，KPI便会下降。我并不打算在此提到任何游戏，但我想你们至少会知道一款与许多游戏相似，并看似是致力于提升重复行动难度直至你如果不购买东西就不能再游戏的游戏。这些游戏与午餐高峰期的快餐店的寄存器一样受欢迎。

如果我们着眼于真正具有社交性的游戏，我们便能够以如下游戏作为例子：《魔兽世界》，《魔兽争霸》以及《Clash of Clans》等等。这些游戏都不是局限于主机，PC或手机，它们提供的是高E且真正的社交游戏体验。

总而言之，真正的社交游戏会系统性地呈现社交，而不是使用社交媒体临时完善KPI。

当我们的主角实现了目标并获得一些新信息时。

在结束前，让我们快速回顾这系列文章中的一些关键点。

社交游戏这一词经过重新定义已经与其最初的含义相违背了。如今的社交游戏只是使用社交媒体去传达成就，邀请好友并传达新的购买机会罢了。真正的社交游戏是那些玩家在定义游戏的真实性过程中扮演着积极角色的游戏。

如今，大多数社交游戏比其它娱乐形式更容易让人分心。游戏变成了一些不断重复的行动并被推向更加陡峭的难度曲线从而快速推动玩家进行购买。这会消除玩家的高阶思考并以经常被购买请求干扰的忙碌思维所取代。

基于我们的低E到高E的范围，大多数社交游戏都属于低E范围，因为为了挽留并发展玩家（和收益），经营者不得不花费更多钱去获取玩家。而高E游戏将发现它们的游戏是呈现病毒性发展，玩家将邀请其他人一起享受高E体验。

在本文的开始，我曾说过社交游戏产业正处于峡谷的边缘，为了获得发展我们必须想办法通过它而不是在边缘上徘徊着。

我是借用Geoffrey A. Moore在著作《Crossing the Chasm》中的山谷作为如今产业所处状况的例子。我们按照承诺创造了某些内容，但它却基于其当前模式走到了尽头。

一些大型游戏商店为了能够提高市场份额选择在玩家身上花更多钱，而不是去创造真正具有创造性的游戏。

玩家也逐渐意识到他们已经习惯于沉浸在这些游戏中，并只为了能够继续做同样的事而花钱。这种模式的成功范围已经到达了界限，那些支撑着某些游戏公司的玩家浪潮将在退潮时被留在沙滩上。

总之，我们来到了一个不可逆转的点。而对于那些选择做完全不同的事的人来说，未来正在等待着他们。

（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）

The social is a lie.

by Ben Jones

Wherein our brave hero reaches the edge of a chasm and considers how best to get across.

If we look out at the current landscape of social gaming, we see a number of large companies who dominate the horizon due to their ability to outspend everyone else.

In the shadows of these giants are small upstarts who find themselves struggling as the common path to getting a game discovered, much less profitable, involves astronomical investments in time and cash – something few small studios have available.

To compound the challenge, the very idea of social gaming has become something other than actually social.

Most games are derivative of one another. They are increasingly insular experiences that seek to implement a fast feedback loop and ‘twitch’ gameplay mechanics. The only social aspects involve bragging about an accomplishment, hitting up friends for “help” or being pan-handled by the game operator to spend more money.

Social gaming, in its current context, is akin to strolling down Avenida de la Revolucion in Tijuana – you will get lots of interaction but it’s all about someone trying to sell you something you really don’t want.

Social gaming, as we know it today, isn’t really social but then neither is it anti-social.

There is a place for anti-social gaming. One of my favorite ‘anti-social’ games of the past ten years is Portal, from Valve, you might have heard of it. It is a game which allows me to put on my headphones, lean forward, and get lost for an hour and half while I play through the game. During that entertainment experience, I am not interrupted with ads, flash sales or pop-ups. It is a near-perfect insular game experience because I am fully-engaged for a significant period of time.

If Portal were the typical social game we see today, my experience would be regularly interrupted. These interruptions cause the player to switch from creative problem-solving to deciding whether they want the $5 basic package, $10 power-up or the $20 super-deal. These changes in context induce player fatigue and for many people, cause them to lose interest in the experience.

There is a well-known analog of this — broadcast television. If you are really into a show, you will put up with the commercial breaks. If a show fails to catch and hold your attention, the interruptions will become unbearable.

“But what about monetization?” You might ask. We all know that monetization is critical. Without revenue, why would we bother making games in the first place? The irony is that when our goal is to make successful social games, we go about it in absolutely the wrong way.

In terms of real social gaming, we only need to look at World of Warcraft as an example of a successful social game. WoW has built a society, both by it’s designers and its players. This is what makes social, ‘social.’ Players interact and affect the game environment, rather than use social media for brags and buys. Actual interaction is what drives social game growth in games like WoW and EVE. Even non-game experiences like Snapchat are driven by social interactions that involve actual communication between participants, rather than “Likes” or canned “Events” that are broadcast to a player’s Facebook feed.

So here we stand, at the edge of this chasm with many other game developers and off in the distance we can barely see the other side. The billion dollar question is, “How do we get there from here?”

Spoiler Alert, We can’t, at least not by continuing to do things the same way as before.

On narrowing the gap between annoyance and entertainment.

Let’s look at what makes this chasm so difficult to cross.

If we place social games on a spectrum, we can reduce them to a pair of extremes: Entertainment and Annoyance.

The majority of social games would fall well within the “Annoyance” quartile of this spectrum. Why is this?

We value entertainment experiences more when we can indulge them with a minimum of interruption.

Movies, Netflix, Albums, Playlists,and ‘anti-social’ games allow us to remain in the context of the experience without frequent interruptions. In the case of my example with Portal, the fact that one can play through the entire game in a respectable amount of time sans interruption is akin to watching a movie, listening to an entire album, or playing a game of Backgammon with a friend. When these enjoyment-states are interrupted by an ad, a crabby toddler, or a telemarketer calling your cell phone at eight in the evening, we are required to perform a context switch in order to deal with this interruption. This wakes us from the enjoyment-state much like the alarm clock that wakes you at 7:30 on Sunday morning. It is a harsh transition and as such, we tend to react unfavorably.

In terms of creating a label for the value of an entertainment experience, we could refer to the two ends of our spectrum as High-E and Low-E. High-E experiences provide uninterrupted entertainment-states where Low-E experiences are rife with interruptions.

In short, games which provide High-E experiences will draw and retain exponentially higher players than those which are Low-E.

The chasm which we must cross in order to move beyond this cliff upon which we all stand is to create High-E experiences which will cause players to remain engaged as well as tolerate monetizing interruptions.

On what constitutes a valid entertainment experience.

I believe it to be important to define what constitutes a valid entertainment experience.

In “The Games People Play” Eric Berne defines games as a human behavioral issue. Games are only satisfying when the player receives a payoff.

With games and other forms of entertainment, the viewer or player wants, scratch that, requires a satisfying outcome. This can be in the form of a dramatic resolution to a story, or a victory in a short game or level of a longer game. We crave these payoffs in our entertainment primarily due to the fact that real life is often so stingy with them.

In short, a valid entertainment experience is a stand-alone experience of sufficient length which provides an introduction, an escalating series of challenges and a final resolution.

For aspiring sucessful developers, I might recommend reading “The Hero’s Journey” By Joseph Campbell as a how-to guide for crafting stories which appeal to the soul, which results in more open wallets.

In which we examine the difference between that which is truly social and the lie.

At the start of this series, I made the brash statement that “social” is a lie. In this bit I will provide the justification.

Many idiomatic expressions have lost their actual meaning and replaced with a perceived one. One of my favorites is “three sheets to the wind” which many use to describe that friend we all know after a night at the pub. If you ask most people about the origins of this phrase, they would suggest that it had something to do with being as drunk as sailor, and they would be partially right.

A sheet is a length of rope, but with a purpose. In the days of square-rigged sailing vessels, a sail had four sheets which were used to control it. WIth four sheets total, three sheets coming loose in a stiff breeze is a possibly dangerous situation and results in the ship, or sailor, jostling along like a rudderless galleon..

I could go on about ancient sea-faring for days but that’s not why we’re here so I will leave it at this – when the perceived meaning of a phrase runs counter to its actual meaning, the words lose their power.

Today, the social aspect of many social games are mostly comprised of hooks into social media where the only socializing involves posting updates and likes on Facebook and being presented with purchase opportunities.

This is a perfect example of Low-E gaming. A Low-E game requires the publisher to spend enough to attract and retain players and when that investment stops, KPIs drop. I won’t mention any names, but I suspect you know of at least one game which looks suspiciously like a bunch of others and seems to be designed to increase the difficulty of a repetitive action until you can no longer play without buying something. These sorts of games have about as much appeal as working the register at a fast food shop during the lunch rush.

If we look at games which are truly social we can cite titles such as: World of Warcraft, DOTA, and Clash of Clans to name but a few. These are not limited to console, PC or mobile as they provide a High-E, truly social gaming experience.

In short, a truly social game allows socialization to occur organically, rather than using social media to temporarily improve KPIs.

In which our protagonist achieves a resolution and is bestowed with new knowledge.

Before we wrap up, let’s quickly review some key items from this series.

Social gaming is a term that has been redefined counter to it’s actual meaning. Today’s social games are only so by virtue of using social media to post achievements, recruit friends. and communicate new purchase opportunities. Truly social games are those in which the players take an active role in defining the reality of the game.

Most social games today are more diversion than entertainment. Games are tuned to repetitive actions and pushed along a steep difficulty curve to quickly drive players to purchase. This eliminates high order thinking in players and replaces it with a busy mind that is often-interrupted by calls to purchase.

Using our spectrum of Low-E to High-E, most social games are Low-E because in order to retain and grow players (and revenue) the operator must spend to acquire players. High-E games will find their titles to grow virally as players will voluntarily recruit others to enjoy a High-E experience.

At the beginning of this post, I suggested that the social gaming industry is standing at the edge of a chasm that we must cross in order to grow, instead of tumble over the edge.

I have borrowed the chasm from Geoffrey A. Moore’s book “Crossing the Chasm” as a sallient example of where the industry is at this time. We have built something with promise but it has reached the end of where it can go in it’s current mode.

As the big game shops compete to outspend each other for players in an attempt to increase their market share, most seem to iterate on tired themes, rather than creating truly innovative games.

Players are also waking up to the fact that they have been operationally conditioned to engage in these games and spend money with the only payoff being that they get to continue doing the same thing over, and over, and over again. The success horizon for this model has been reached and very soon, the wave of players who have buoyed some game companies to amazing heights are going to be left on the sand as that same wave rolls back out.

In short, we are at a point of no return. For those who choose to do things differently, the future awaits.

Hope to see you there. Thanks for reading. (source:gamasutra)