作者：Thomas Bidaux

Jurie Horneman最近在gamesindustry.biz发表的文章中提到了我之前与学生不断讨论的一个盈利和商业模式概念，它就是规格（Form Factor）及其在开发游戏过程中的作用。

在Jurie发表这篇文章之前，我就一直在考虑针对这一话题撰写博文及其对游戏开发的作用。现在有他的文章作为情境，我想是时候谈谈我自己的观点了。

什么是规格？

在硬件领域，规格就是设备的外形，以及这种外形向用户传达的信息。这可以是该设备的用法（单手操作还是双手操作）或者它让用户产生的印象（奢侈或者售价合理）。

这个字眼在移动领域频繁用于比较不同设备的性价比——某一物品的外观对其用法具有直接影响，这也成了其设计的核心元素：毕竟你要用手握住它，这就需要兼容输入与显示设计。

但我所指的规格并不仅仅局限于设备，而是一种适用于不同类型设计的更广泛概念。就游戏开发而言，我认为所有触屏手机或多或少都有相同的规格，平板电脑亦是如此。

但这也并不仅局限于设备的物理特征，而是包括其输入机制，即你在现实生活中会坐在哪里玩游戏。我们可以明显区分的游戏平台就是主机（坐在沙发上拿控制器玩游戏）和PC（坐在桌前，用鼠标和键盘玩游戏）。这就是两种会产生不同游戏设计决策的基本规格。

我想为这个概念添加第三个层次，即软件领域的情况。这就必然要考虑到PC设备，但也可能有其他我所没想到的用例。所以，用户对某种游戏体验的行为和预期也会因为其他所使用的设备而产生区别，他们在桌面客户端，还是在浏览器或者Facebook页面上玩游戏也会产生这种区别。在浏览器玩游戏会让玩家置身于容易分心的环境。许多人在玩游戏时会在同个浏览器开启社交工具——你在玩游戏过程中就会经常看到那些干扰游戏体验的通知。用户对游戏价值的看法也会因其在浏览器或独立客户端上的运行而有所区别。Facebook仅仅是浏览器中的一个额外层次，它让好友更易于互动，但其干扰性也十分明显。这会极大改变游戏体验。

我并没有牵强地扯到其他层次——用法模式的差异也从属于规格概念。我可以用一个典型的例子来说明以上这些原理：

Supercell

这家公司现在已经是成功的手机游戏开发商的范本，身价超过30亿美元，还斥资推出超级碗广告，但他们在规格和电子游戏方面有什么举措呢？

我笃信我们可以通过发展史了解一家公司的情况及其企业DNA。对我来说，Supercell就是一家围绕规格和电子游戏而创建起来的企业。我与Ilkka Paananen首次见面是在2011年，也就是Supercell成立初期。当时Ilkka对Supercell的定位是“新一代Bigpoint”，公司战略就是创造基于浏览器的高质量游戏，试图复制Bigpoint在网页游戏领域的成功模式，但推出的是高质量的即时3D游戏。

当时我深信这个理念的可行性。因为当时业内广泛讨论3D游戏在浏览器的前景，Unity工具令这一操作更为便捷，你可以用Flash工具做出许多具有3D效果的游戏（这也是Supercell的方法）。并且当时行业也有一种看好浏览器即时游戏玩法的倾向。

Supercell首款游戏是《Gunshine》，类似于暗黑系列，采用即时玩法，自上而下的3D视角，游戏背景是后世界末日的时代，以flash方式运行于浏览器。

用Flash游戏的标准来说，这款游戏的确极为出色和流畅。其质量也是一流的，编码也相当过硬（从未见过能够如此流畅运行的复杂Flash游戏），玩法也很卓越，但它在运营上就是失败了。

这也许是因为发布的时机不对，Supercell也并不气馁。在这次发布失败后，重新发布（提供了优化的管理，以及重新调整的玩法）也失败了，后来又换了个名称进行发布（更改为Zombie Online这个更容易被记住和更为明确的名称）同样失败了。

他们又返回画板重新调整，其核心理念不变，但更改了对游戏的理解方式。他们仍然旨在打造“新一代Bigpoint”，但并不瞄准先进的浏览器，而是锁定了新平台——平板电脑。

注意，不是手机而是平板电脑。Supercell在这次拐点之后就开始极为专注于平板电脑。其所有营销和交流都围绕自己的游戏是iPad而非手机游戏这个重点，当时还将“平板优先”作为公司战略。

另一个转变就是从“网页游戏”向“体面游戏”过渡，抛弃了将3D即时游戏引进浏览器的理念。Supercell将“网页游戏”引进了新兴的休闲平台。《Hayday》相当于《Farmville》，《Clash of Clans》就是《Travian》，这些游戏的执行方式极为不同，但它们核心元素相同。这些核心元素也是严格按照平板电脑的规格进行落实：游戏界面针对平板电脑进行优化，采用的是横屏而非竖屏模式。

form factor(from gamasutra)

form factor (from gamasutra)

但这些游戏也因为这种平板优先策略而获益，因为玩家在这类设备上体验游戏的方式也不尽相同。更长的电池寿命意味着更长的游戏会话时间。游戏在更大屏幕上（相对于手机屏幕而言）运行也更便于支付操作。

Supercell如果使用移动优先策略（当时这种策略较为普遍），我相信他们就不会取得今天的成就。

他们现在已经完成了转型，市场情况也同样发生了变化。今天的高质量标准也已经不同以往，人们对F2P模式的接受度在过去几年中也发生了巨变；这些层面都是规格概念的一部分：用户对设备相关的预期和看法，他们所使用的平台必须成为游戏设计过程的一部分。这里我再提另一件轶事，数年前我的公司合伙人Diane为公司运营一款网页游戏。在接手这个任务过程中，他们也将游戏推广到移动平台。该游戏是iOS版本和浏览器版本的跨平台游戏。这两个版本实际上是相同的游戏，拥有几乎相同的用户。用户可以很方便地从一个版本切换到另一个版本，因此认为游戏很值得自己投资，并且极易通过App Store进行IAP支付操作。支付绑定作为用户体验的一部分，同样也是规格考虑因素的一部分。

总结

关于针对规格设计游戏的话题，我还可以撰写更多内容。除了移动/PC/主机之外，各位不妨思考一下我们该如何针对以下其他平台的规格设计游戏：

*投币游戏机。有多少此类游戏是根据你在社交环境中玩游戏这一情况而进行设计；这种游戏需要较短暂的会话时间，同时又能够让玩家获得满足感并且愿意继续游戏。你该如何设计一款2015年的投币游戏？

*我们对VR游戏的体验方式仍然知之甚少。例如它的会话时长该是多久？业内有许多围绕制作短暂游戏会话的讨论，但我们却不知道这种游戏的标准是什么。输入设备又是什么？Valve和索尼已经推出相关设备，但它们真的是理想设备吗？如果它们还没有被广泛的群体所采用，又会有何意义呢？售价？如果说设备屏幕超小，人们对游戏售价的预期就会越低，这是否意味着人们就会接受高价的VR游戏？

*智能表。这种设备上的优秀游戏体验应该怎样？它们是否会和手机游戏相关联，还是创造自己的游戏题材？（本文由游戏邦编译，转载请注明来源，或咨询微信zhengjintiao）

Of the importance of the form factor

by Thomas Bidaux

In a recent article on gamesindustry.biz, Jurie Horneman mentioned a notion I have been discussing on and off when talking (mostly with students) about monetization and business models. That notion is form factor and its role in the process of building a game.

This goes beyond the way you monetize a game, but as this is the core topic I am usually addressing, they are often associated in my past lectures on the topic.

Before Jurie’s article, I had been contemplating putting down a blog post on this topic and its role in the process of building a game. With his article on play context out, I think this is as good a time as any to actually do this.

I’ll try to keep this concise, though might expand on the below some time in the future.

What is the Form Factor?

In the hardware space, the form factor is the shape of a device and what that shape is trying to convey to the users. It can be how the device will be used (one hand versus two hands) or how it will be perceived (luxurious or affordable).

The term is frequently used in the mobile sector to compare different devices – the fact that the shape of the object has a direct impact on usage makes it a core element of their design: you hold it your hand after all, and both input and display are combined.

The notion I am referring to is a bit of an abuse of the term in that sense, but it has felt like the right term when I first used it, and has grown on me since, so I hope you will allow me this xxx to me.

The form factor I am referring to is not specific to a device, but a wider notion across different type of designs. Where game making is concerned, I consider that more or less all touchscreen mobile phones share the same form factor, and the same holds true for all tablets.

But it also goes beyond the physical characteristics of the device and includes what are the input mechanisms, where you sit in the real world when you play the game. The obvious game platforms we can distinguish here are consoles (in the couch with a pad) and PCs (at a desk, with mouse and keyboards). Those would be two fundamentally form factors that would lead to different game design decisions.

But to make it complete on the notion, I need to add a third layer here as well: the software environment. That’s really needed to account for PCs, but there might be other use cases I haven’t thought of. So, in the same way the user behaviour and expectations on a game experience will vary based on the device the player is playing on, the same holds true on whether they play a game from a client on the desktop, or in a browser, or in a browser on Facebook. Playing a game in a browser puts the player in an environment prone to distraction. Many people run live social channels on that same browser – as you play that game you will more than likely see notifications taking you in and out of your game experience. The perception of the value of the game is also going to be different if it runs in a browser or as an independent client. Facebook is just that extra layer on top of the browser, making friends interactions easier, but distractions also more numerous. It dramatically change the game experience.

I am not shoe-horning an extra level – the usage pattern differences are the same and it belongs to that Form Factor notion. And I have a great example illustrating all those principles very elegantly:

supercell_logo_black_on_white

Supercell

Supercell, makers of Hay Day, Clash of Clans and Boom Beach is (rightfully) seen as the epitome of the successful mobile developer. They have been valued at over $3bn and have run ads during the Superbowl, but what do they have to do with form factor and video games?

I am a big believer in understanding companies through their history and what is in their DNA. To me Supercell is the epitome of a business built around the understanding of form factors and video games.

So, let’s go back in time a bit. Diane and I met Ilkka Paananen for the first time in 2011, in the early days of Supercell. At the time, Ilkka was presenting Supercell as “the next generation’s Bigpoint”. The company strategy was to build very high production value browser based games, trying to replicate Bigpoint success story, still on the browser, but with high quality, real-time, 3d looking games.

At the time, I was very convinced with the validity of the idea. There was a lot of discussion about 3D in the browser, Unity was on the rise making this easier, and you could do a lot of things with flash (which was Supercell’s approach) that looked 3D and polished. Plus there was this feeling that browser based games were ready for real time gameplay.

Supercell’s very first game was Gunshine. Imagine a diablo-like game, real time, top down 3D, set in a post-apocalyptic world, running in flash and our browser.

Or have a look at the trailer:

The game was incredibly polished and smooth for a flash game. The production value was through the roof, the code behind was incredibly robust (never seen a flash game that complex run that smoothly), the gameplay was decent with a few genuine nuggets of brilliance here and there. And a commercial failure.

And it wasn’t a matter of a bad launch and Supercell moving on. The launch failed, then the re-launch (with much improved onboarding, and reworked gameplay) failed, and the re-branded launch (under the much easier to remember and much more explicit title Zombie Online) failed.

And they went back to the drawing board. The core concept didn’t change, but they shifted the interpretation of it. They still went to build the “next generation’s Bigpoint”, but rather than looking at what the current browser could do that the old one couldn’t, they went to what is essentially the next generation’s equivalent platform: the tablet.

Not the mobile phone, the tablet. The early days of Supercell after that pivot was very very focused on game for tablets. All their marketing and communication was focused on the fact that their games were iPad games, not mobile games, as coined by their “tablets first” desciption of the company then.

The other thing that changed was instead to try to graduate “browser games” to “proper games”, taking a 3D real time Hack & Slash game to the browser. Supercell went to take “browser games” to the new casual ultra accessible platform. Hayday is Farmville. Clash of Clans is Travian. They are very different executions of those games (especially Clash of Clans from Travian), but they are the same core games. And the same core games properly executed for the form factor of the tablet: the real estate of the screen is really optimised for a tablet; the orientation is landscape rather than portrait.

But those games also benefitted from that tablet-first approach from the fact that players play differently on those devices. The better battery life means longer game sessions. The perceived value of the games played on a larger screen (compared to phones) makes the payment process more acceptable.

Had Supercell used a mobile-first approach, which at the time was much more the norm, I believed they would not have had the same success.

They have now transitioned from that position, and the market has evolved as well. What was considered high production value back then is not the same; the acceptance of the Free-to-Play model has grown significantly over the years; and those aspects are part of that notion of the form factor: users expectations and perception related to the devices and platforms they use need to be part of the design process of the games.

Another anecdote to close this example section, a few years back, my business partner, Diane, did a mission for a company running a game in a browser. During the mission, they extended the game to mobile as well. The game was cross platform between its iOS version and its browser version. This was the exact same game, with mostly the same audience (at the time). They suddenly monetized much better. From one version to another, users felt that now, the game was 1/ worthy of their investment; 2/ said investment was way easier to perform through the App Store in-app purchases. Payment integration, as part of the user experience, is part of the form factor considerations.

Concluding thoughts

I could write a lot about designing game for the form factor, there is a lot to say. I will leave you with a few thoughts on platforms beyond the mobile/PC/Consoles triptych, and how we need to integrate their form factor when designing games for them:

Coin-op. How much of the design of those games were based on the fact that you were playing the game in a social environment; you needed short sessions, that were fulfilling but would leave you with a will to get more. How would you design a coin-op game, in 2015?

So many things we don’t know yet on how games in VR will be played. Session length for instance? There are a lot discussion around making session short, but do we really know. Input devices? Valve and Sony have ones, but are they ideal, what do they imply when they haven’t been used them by large groups? Price points? If there is some truth in the idea that the smaller the screen, the cheaper people expect the game to be, would that mean that VR games could be accepted at a higher price point?

Smart watches. What is a good game experience with those? Will they be relegated to notifications from your mobile games, or can they build their own genres of games?（source：gamasutra）