作者：Leigh Alexander

在不瘟不火的IPO之后，Zynga决定就分析者和投资者所关心的问题，即过度依赖Facebook不利于进一步发展这一点做出回应。这家社交游戏巨头就此公开了即将推出自有社交游戏平台的计划，希望围绕着自己的产品创造出更有针对性的社交游戏社区。

但是分析师却表示这一策略不一定能够保证Zynga成功，因为它将仍然有赖于Facebook虚拟货币Credits。但是影响该公司增长的不稳定因素也许并非Facebook，而是Zynga自己的游戏。

分析师和投资者都很熟悉该公司在开发并平衡最近几款游戏（游戏邦注：如《Empires and Allies》和《CastleVille》）的复杂情况，这些游戏都遵循了相同的循环过程，即最初吸引了大量对游戏感兴趣的玩家，游戏人数开始稳定攀升，但是最终都不可避免地遭遇用户流失。

CastleVille-in-Action(from gnews.com)

该公司旗下的许多游戏都是借鉴或购买一些现有的成功游戏产品。例如“With Friends”系列便是受益于模仿或融入大受欢迎的益智游戏元素。但是任何一家公司如果没有自己的资产和理念，便很难获得真正的成功。

众多Ville游戏支撑着Zynga品牌的发展。但是在玩了很长一段时间的Zynga城建游戏后，我们不难发现这些游戏中都存在一些共性，它们能够在游戏初期推动玩家快速沉浸其中——不过这些机制后来也成了玩家离开游戏的重要因素。这些机制包括：

1.一开始就提供丰富的奖励。在开始一款新游戏时，如《Castleville》，游戏便会提供给玩家大量的目标和信息。玩家应该在5至10分钟内创造出一个角色，并且需要面对三个不同的角色进行过关任务。在下一个5至10分钟内，游戏中便会出现庆祝烟花以表示玩家通过了首个关卡。随后便会弹出大量“Doobers”并且在游戏中到处乱跳——这是一种闪亮耀眼的道具，能够带给玩家强烈的刺激感和成就感，而这也是该公司的所有游戏想要呈现给玩家的奖励。

在游戏中任务是最基本的元素，玩家可以通过花费一些能量点而完成任务。例如，游戏的早期任务可以是玩家将一个物品收入自己的库存中；而后期的游戏任务可能会要求玩家砍下一整棵树——因此需要他们点击游戏8次或者付出8个能量点。

所有游戏都设置了普遍的双货币系统，即游戏一开始向玩家明确了一种可支付的货币类型（游戏邦注：在《CastleVille》中就是“Crowns”）——但是作为游戏的一种“手段”，它并未告诉玩家他们将很难在游戏中挣得这种货币，所以大部分玩家在意识到这点之前会不断投入更多货币。这种通过提供大量奖励的引导性方法虽然能够促使玩家快速沉浸于游戏中，但是他们的这种满足感却不会持续太久。

2.邀请朋友加入游戏。“访问”是这些游戏中非常重要的机制。并且当玩家达到了早期的游戏目标，即学会了如何与游戏进行互动，他们便需要接受访问邻居的王国，农场或城市的任务。而随着越来越多好友开始玩游戏，他们便会发现添加其他玩家作为“邻居”的障碍越来越小。

Zynga一直在努力减少玩家访问或照料其他玩家领土的阻碍。例如，《CastleVille》会提供给前往每个邻居王国的玩家更多能量点，而非强迫着他们一直在自己的王国中进行活动。

除此之外游戏还让玩家在好友土地中收集自己可能需要的道具，例如，如果你帮助好友收获了小麦，你自己也能够获得一定量的小麦；访问好友的土地也能够提高玩家的“声誉之心”——这是游戏中的第三种货币形式。而因为玩家在游戏中能够拥有的“声誉之心”数量非常有限，所以他们便会更频繁地使用这种货币并更加努力去赚到它。

但是这种访问机制却不具备真正的社交性。因为玩家并不能与好友进行交流，并且好友也很难察觉到玩家对自己王国的帮助；你的好友也许能够“帮助你收获庄稼”，但是当你最终回到游戏中时，那些庄稼仍然如故。《Empires and Allies》和《CastleVille》都使用不同方式创造了可视化的访客，但是这些访客却与另一端希望与你互动的玩家没有多大关系。

可以说访问机制的主要功能是帮助玩家明确在自己社交圈中谁才是真正的活跃玩家。借此他们也能够快速了解到谁才是自己在《CastleVille》中的真正好友——这一点对于下一个机制来说非常重要。

3.强迫玩家向好友发出请求。还记得游戏最初阶段所提供的大量奖励吗？但是随着完成任务所需要的时间越来越长，并且需要玩家经历更多步骤并投入更多能量，这种方法将不再奏效。可能一开始大量的奖励能够让玩家感到满足，但是现在的玩家更希望能够通过不断收集目标和道具而完成游戏目标。游戏开始逐渐将更多有关完成任务的元素转移到Facebook的通知系统上。

一开始这种请求具有可选择性：假设你需要5块木头以完成房屋建造。而如果你只要砍掉这些树便能够获得木头的话，你又何须打扰5位好友或者1位好友呢？下一次游戏要求你使用15块木头再向好友发出请求时，你可以通过自己的努力获得10块木头然后再向好友索要剩下的5块。这时候你就需要从索要名单中做出选择——作为人类你知道这么做难免会让对方感到厌烦，所以你会优先选择自己在游戏中的邻居。而因为很多任务都是“付出一份得到一份”，所以此时的你心理也会好受点，因为至少邻居能够从帮助你的份上获得相同的报酬。

但是随着游戏的发展，玩家通过自己的努力所获得的道具与向邻居索要的道具之间的比例变得越来越不合理。一开始玩家总是拥有3个选择：花钱保持游戏进程；求助于好友保持游戏进程；或者耐心卖力地收集所需要的物件。但是后来，游戏任务却要求玩家求助于好友或主动花钱换得道具才能完成任务，完全排除了第三个选择。

此时游戏早期阶段的粘性已经荡然无存，因为玩家一方面需要忍受长期未完成的任务，一方面还需要耐着性子每天向好友发送多次请求信息。每次当玩家登录游戏时都会看到许多来自好友的请求信息。并且不管玩家库存中是否拥有好友所要求的道具，他只要点击“接受”，好友便能够获己所需——如此看来这是一种毫无意义的交换机制。

这是一种互惠的过程；也就是你点击接受后，你的好友也会跟着点击。这种访问邻居而促成的习惯性交换行为与Facebook用户的某些行为极其相似，就像《CastleVille》玩家要回复好友发送的请求通知一样，Facebook用户也常需要查看是否有人对自己的照片做出评价或者“赞一下”自己的状态更新。

4.强迫玩家在涂鸦墙上发布游戏信息。很多玩家会因为得不到即时的满足感或认为游戏的社交依赖性提高而退出游戏——而这恰恰就是Zynga游戏的瓶颈所在。即游戏任务都会从最初带给玩家满足感而慢慢变成只是让他们收集一些没有意义的道具，并开始让玩家只能通过在涂鸦墙上发布信息才能够获得所需要的道具。

如果向好友发送私人请求的做法无效，玩家就只好选择在自己的涂鸦墙上面向所有人发布自己所需要的道具（游戏邦注：除非玩家屏蔽了游戏更新信息，而这也是大多数人所采取的做法）。大概是Zynga认为利用Facebook涂鸦墙能够进一步宣传游戏或者让游戏更具有吸引力，但是他们却没有考虑到只有骨灰级的“社交游戏玩家”才不会被这些垃圾信息惹恼。

更糟的是，即使游戏好友愿意点击玩家涂鸦墙上的链接帮助用户完成任务，这些好友也不可能24小时都挂在Facebook上，所以便很容易错过一些请求信息。这时候玩家将面临两个选择：一是在涂鸦墙上发布多条信息，或者花钱完成任务。

即使在这个阶段玩家还是认为自己花的钱很值当并获得了相应的游戏乐趣，但此时他们的游戏体验也已经完全被分裂了。因为通过向好友发送请求而收集道具会变成一种“空洞”循环；这种行为既没有保障同时也会让玩家感到不安，所以最终只会促成一系列没有意义的行动。

大概这也是为何Zynga想创建自己网站的原因吧：他们认为阻碍其发展以及游戏用户粘性提高的主要原因是玩家不愿意让游戏影响自己在Facebook上的其它行为（就像病毒一样）。而如果能够建立专属于Zynga的社交游戏网站，玩家便不需要担心这些问题，也不会再犹豫是否要发送大量的请求信息了。

一般来看，社交群组总是会因为一些特别的活动而聚集在一起，就像人们是主动到当地的俱乐部结交各种朋友而不是让俱乐部来接近自己。但是也有人好奇Zynga游戏玩家的自我意识障碍与Facebook的局限性是否也是他们在游戏中的一种体验。

典型的Zynga游戏在一开始的几分钟，甚至是几个小时都非常有趣；能够吸引玩家愿意花更多时间和金钱去体验其中的舒适感。但值得注意的是Zynga游戏最终是通过上瘾的玩家而获得盈利，也就是说现有玩家的用户粘性比数量更加重要。就这点而言，只要该公司能够持续保持玩家付费愿意，其瓶颈所造成的用户流失并不会对游戏的健康发展构成威胁。

这里还需要提到的一点是：当玩家满足感消失，游戏机制迫使他们进行一些毫无乐趣的重复操作时，Zynga也许还可能促使一部分核心玩家付费。毕竟花钱可以让玩家扫清一些游戏障碍，但如果Zynga创造了一个毫无社交之忧的游戏平台，这些玩家还愿意掏腰包吗？

如果这些游戏真的非常具有社交趣味性，玩家也许还会花钱玩游戏。这一点非常重要。

（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）

Opinion: Four steps to a bottleneck, or Zynga’s real growth challenge

by Leigh Alexander

On the heels of its tepid IPO, Zynga decided to address analyst and investor concerns that it relies too heavily on Facebook, which will limit its growth. The social network giant and metrics master did this by unveiling plans for its own platform, which aims to create more targeted social communities around its products.

Analysts, however, seemed uncertain about the extent to which this tactic could guarantee success — because, they said, Zynga would still rely on Facebook’s Credits currency. But maybe the reason the company’s growth can’t seem to stay stable isn’t Facebook. Maybe it’s the company’s games.

To what extent are analysts and investors actually familiar with the intricacies of the company’s development and balancing of recent games like Empires and Allies and CastleVille, which see an initial rush of interested users, a steady climb to numeric plentitude and then an inevitable drop-off?

The company has plenty of games that rely on either borrowing or purchasing already-successful game designs. For example, its With Friends brand largely relies on imitating or incorporating popular takes on familiar puzzle games. But very few game companies have thrived without being able to originate their own properties and ideas.

That’s where the Ville-alikes should be bolstering the company’s brand. But play any Zynga world-builder game for a long period of time and you’ll notice distinct common mechanics that encourage an early rush of users quickly — and that just as easily pushes them away in time. It goes a little something like this:

Step 1. Spoil Them With Early Plentitude. Beginning a new game like Castleville brings such a quick rush of objectives and information it’s almost overwhelming. Within five to ten minutes of creating a character, the player has quests from three different characters. Within five to ten minutes, an explosion of celebratory fireworks heralds the player’s first gained level. “Doobers” pop out and bounce everywhere — bright, eye-catching items that provide a weirdly-stimulating sense of tactile interaction and accomplishment, they’re key to creating a sense of player reward in all of the company’s games.

Quests are basic and can be attained through the expense of just a few energy points. For example, an early quest can be accomplished simply by placing an object in one’s inventory; a later-game quest will require a player chop down an entire tree, which can take eight clicks, or eight points of energy. This means that early in the game the player can complete many quests without running out of energy.

As all titles incorporate the ubiquitous dual-currency system, the games also begin with small but serviceable reserves of the paid currency (“Crowns”, in CastleVille’s case) — but in a bit of clever trickery, it’s never explained to the player that he or she is holding something that is arduously rare to earn in-game. Most players probably spend their real-money currency before they even realize what it is. The net effect of all this introductory plentitude is that players quickly become accustomed to a certain pace of play and ease of gratification that isn’t sustainable.

Step 2. Get Friends Involved. “Visiting” is an important mechanic within these games. Inevitably, once the player achieves a core set of early objectives that train them on how to interact with the game, they’re given quests that ask them to visit their neighbor’s kingdoms, farms, cities, et cetera. As many people begin playing the games because they see their friends doing it, the barrier to entry for adding a fellow player as a “neighbor” is relatively low.

Over time, Zynga has taken pains to reduce the friction involved in visiting or tending fellow players’ lands even further. CastleVille gives players separate energy points for each neighbor’s kingdom, rather than forcing them to spend the limited daily ration of actions they need for their own kingdom.

In addition to letting players gather potentially-needed items from their friends’ lands — for example, if you harvest your friend’s wheat for her, you yourself will get wheat to keep — visiting also allows players to gain reputation hearts, a third form of currency within the game. Some items can only be bought with reputation hearts. The number of hearts one can carry are limited, encouraging players to frequently spend and re-accumulate them.

There is nothing actually social about visiting. You cannot communicate with your friends, and the impact of their assistance in your kingdom is difficult to observe; your friends may “help you harvest your crops”, but of course they are still there for you to take when you return. Both Empires and Allies and CastleVille create visualizations of visitors to your kingdom in different ways, but they tend to hold minimal relevance to what the player on the other end actually wants to do with you.

The primary function of visiting seems to be to create and confirm for players a mental list of who in their social circle is an active player of the game. They quickly learn who their CastleVille friends are — which is essential to the next mechanic.

Step 3. Force Notifications. Remember the plentitude of the game’s initial stages? Very gradually, this begins to expire; quests become longer-term propositions that incorporate more steps and more energy. At first this is still satisfying; now entrenched in the game’s reward system, the player enjoys the process of gathering objects or earning pieces toward a goal. But then, little by little, the game starts to offload elements of quest completion onto Facebook’s notifications system.

At first it feels optional: Let’s say you need five blocks of wood to finish a building. Why bug five friends, or even one, when it’ll just take you a couple sessions of play to chop up all those trees? That’s fine, until the next building asks you for 15 blocks of wood. You decide to make 10 of them yourself and ask friends for five more. You do this by selecting who to request from a list — and because you as a human being are aware of how pesky you’re being, you prioritize asking your neighbors in the game. Many tasks are “give one, get one,” too, so you feel a little better. You know that you’re helping your neighbors play.

In time, though, the ratio of things players can earn on their own versus things they should ask friends for becomes steeper. First, players have three choices: Spend money to keep up the pace of gratification, notify friends to keep up the pace of gratification, or earn the needed components through patience and hard work. Later on, tasks require items that can only be got by asking friends or paying, removing the third option entirely.

Gone is the lightweight engagement of early play stages, as players have to balance the discomfort of long-unfinished quests with the discomfort of sending out multiple rounds of notifications per day. Each time a player logs in there is an increasing list of requests sent out from fellow regulars. It doesn’t even matter if the player has the requested item in inventory or not; simply clicking “accept” results in friends receiving what they asked for, enforcing the meaninglessness of the exchange system.

The result is a symbiosis of obligation; you clicked, so your friends will click back. What was once visiting neighbors has led to this habitual exchange that dovetails weirdly with the way people use Facebook — the red number that hovers over the globe icon demands to be addressed, and you must return your CastleVille notifications just as much as you need to check who has commented on your photos or “liked” your status.

Step 4. Force Wall Posts. Many players likely lose engagement as the delayed gratification and social dependency ramps up, but this area is Zynga’s real bottleneck. Eventually, quests — which have gone from things that feel like growth and satisfaction to mindless checkboxes of items to gather — start to require items that cannot be gained any other way than through wall posts.

Instead of a private notification to a friend, players have no choice but to post an item in their feed letting everyone (unless they’ve hidden game updates, which most people do) know they need some kind of item or other. Presumably Zynga imagines that a Facebook populated with Wall posts about its games will normalize them or make them look more appealing, but the Wall spam and silly puns are the kind of thing that only the most obsessively-dedicated “social gamer” won’t mind.

It’s embarrassing, and what’s worse, even the game friends that would be liable to click on the Wall post and help out probably have feeds full of real-world friends’ updates, are not on Facebook 24 hours a day, and thus will probably miss the request. It gets to where longtime players have two choices: Crank out several Wall posts a day in the hopes of completing a quest, or pay up.

Even if at this stage the player does decide that the time they’ve spent on the game was enjoyable enough to warrant a few bucks here and there, the experience has completely fragmented. It’s become a hollow cycle of completing item lists by sending requests. It’s alarming and uncomfortable, and what was once stimulating inevitably becomes empty.

Presumably this is why Zynga wants to build its own network: It thinks that the barrier to growth and engagement with its games is due to players’ hesitation to let a game colonize their entire Facebook networking behavior like a virus. On a Zynga-only social network, players don’t have to worry about looking stupid, don’t have to hesitate to send out rafts of unlimited notifications.

To a point, it’s normal for social groups to congregate around specific activities; people make friends through local clubs, rather than forcing the clubs to come to them. But one wonders if perhaps the friction that players of Zynga games feel with their self-consciousness and the limits of Facebook is part of the experience.

The first few miuntes — even the first few hours — of a Zynga Ville-style game feel great. The player will spend the rest of their time, and even some of their money, in trying to recapture that ease. It’s not unlike the strategies drug pushers use to build their customer bases.

It’s important to note that Zynga games ultimately monetize on hooked users, and that engagement of the existing userbase (i.e, how many pay and how much they pay) is more important than volume. In this regard, that the company sees quick drop-offs at its bottlenecks doesn’t necessarily inhibit the health of its games so long as it can keep people paying.

But here’s the thing: The company may be able to force a core kernel of its audience to open its wallets once the gratification dies off and the bottlenecks force them into joyless repetition. Paying buys a player relief from that friction. But will players pay if Zynga gives them a world of social impunity?

Maybe they’d pay if those games were actually social fun, like some of the brands Zynga has coveted and bought seem to be. There’s an idea. (source:GAMASUTRA)