游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

阐述手机游戏发展历史的第三波

发布时间:2013-07-22 17:50:29 Tags:,,,,

作者:Simon Moller

你可以根据三波大潮去理解手机游戏的历史。在第一波中,手机游戏公司必须亲自将游戏带向功能手机上。这主要是关于宠幸与货架的竞争,这里并不存在创造性空间,因为这时候运营商对于游戏来说才是最重要的。基本上来看,如果能与主要运营商维持良好的关系,开发者将能够获得主要优势和更多的下载量。

在第二波中,随着智能手机开放市场的发展,这种围绕着功能手机的世界逐渐瓦解。开发者开始绕过主要运营商,并在还未完全发展起来的应用商店中努力提升游戏下载量。每个人都站在公平的起点上。开发者变成了百万富翁,而独立开发者为了获得关注和利益也开始挑战艺电这类型的产业巨头。

现在,我们来到了第三波。手机领域已经非常成熟——据估算,如今产业的价值已经高达700亿美元,并且很多事物也发生了改变。结合开放市场与极低的准入障碍(游戏邦注:现在游戏开发引擎Unity也变成免费了),如今的市场中已经充斥着许多游戏,如此便导致许多公司开始担心一件事,即玩家是否能够找到自己的游戏。

请发现我

对于发现性的抱怨却导致许多开发者忽视了造成这种困境的根本原因——有些产品并未使用手机游戏的优势:易扩散性。手机游戏就像是品牌T恤。如果用户喜欢你的产品的外观和感觉便会购买该产品,然后通过他们日常的体验便能够有效地帮助产品做推广了。

不过比起品牌T恤,手机游戏还具有的一大优势便是近乎0美元的准入障碍。它们可以自然地进行病毒式宣传。如果你拥有一款优秀的游戏,它具有吸引人的外观,那么这本身就是一种推广元素。你应该诚实地面对自己的游戏。

不需要发行商的帮助

有些不是很知名的工作室会让那些名气很大的公司帮助自己发行游戏,从而通过这种品牌联想去建立自己的市场形象。但这却是徒劳的。大型公司之所以会鼓励开发者与自己合作完全是出于自身利益:他们会使用最低的投资和巨大的潜在优势去化解产品组合的风险。而签订了发行协议的开发者除了会获得一份无意义的保障外,还需要将大量的收益分摊给发行商。

为了回到最初的发现点上(如果你的游戏足够优秀),你可以不需要发行商的帮助独立做好这一工作。就像《愤怒的小鸟》最初的成功便不是源于Chillingo(为其设置了分支标签从而导致减少了游戏的曝光率)的发行。这款游戏的成功主要取决于它本身就是一款好游戏。

Subway Surfers(from appup)

Subway Surfers(from appup)

而比起传统发行来说更有价值的应该是联合开发。联合开发意味着两个团队共同投资并努力去创造一款出色的游戏,而一方未将其当成低风险则意味着他们想要推动游戏组合的多样化。Killo与SYBO Games共同创造《地铁跑酷》便属于联合开发。这两个团队都利用了自身独特的人才与能力去共同创造游戏。

游戏超新星的出现

我们产业中还出现了许多带来了极高价值的巨大成功。GunHo(《智龙迷城》的创造者)的价值为90亿美元;Supercell(《部落战争》和《卡通农场》的创造者)的价值为7.7亿美元。而作为长期活跃于该产业但是最近才突显于世人面前的King(创造了《Candy Crush Saga》)正在计划IPO,并有可能因此获得极高的估值。

这些价值对于普通的手机游戏公司意味着什么?手机游戏的分配模式意味着只要小型开发者拥有出色的内容,也能够在此与巨头们相抗衡。这便是Supercell,GungHo以及King等公司能够与艺电竞争的主要原因。

在第三波中发展

对于这一时代的手机游戏来说最重要的便是有趣的体验以及与玩家间的交流。一款外观华丽且有趣的游戏将能够起到很好的推销作用,从而便能解决发现问题,或避免其它大型开发商的挤压。

关于《地铁跑酷》,我们已经创造出一款优秀的游戏,但是我们却未止步于此。我们清楚,如果只是绞尽脑汁想着如何通过游戏赚钱的话,玩家们便会很快对游戏感到厌烦。所以我们决定每个月对游戏玩法做出适当的更新。

你必须足够诚实,正视游戏的版本历史。有多少更新是在完善着IAP或其它盈利技巧?有多少更新是为了完善游戏玩法?你是否计划在今后三个月,六个月,或者几年内更新一些吸引人的内容?这些内容在游戏世界中是否具有意义?对于那些想要一开始便创造出一款优秀游戏的开发者来说,构建初动力非常重要。

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

The ‘Third Wave’: What mobile gaming’s maturation means for publishing, discoverability, and boring games

By Simon Moller

You can understand the history of mobile gaming in three distinct waves. In the first wave, mobile game companies had to pass through the carriers themselves to get their games on feature phones. This was largely a contest of favoritism and shelf space, and there was no room for innovation because the carriers’ placement of your game was all that mattered. Basically, having cozy relationships with major carriers rewarded developers with prime placement and more downloads.

In the second wave, this feature-phone-centric world was upended by the rise of an open marketplace in smartphones. Developers bypassed the major carrier gatekeepers and fought for downloads in the Wild West of the app store. Everyone had equal footing. Developers became millionaires, and Indies challenged industry giants like Electronic Arts for attention and revenue.

Presently we are riding the third wave. The mobile space has matured — estimates put the industry to be worth around $70 billion, and things have changed again. With the combination of an open marketplace and an incredibly low barrier for entry (game-development engine Unity is free now), the market has been flooded with so many games that companies worry about a very basic thing — people actually finding their game.

Discover me, please?

Complaining about discoverability distracts from true nature of the predicament — some products just aren’t using mobile gaming’s advantages: easy virality through games that are fun and visually appealing. Mobile titles are like branded t-shirts. People use your product if they like it the look and feel of it and then promote the product they like in the world by using it during their day.

It’s even better than branded t-shirts; the barrier to entry in mobile games can be zero dollars! And they can naturally go viral. If you have a good game that’s aesthetically appealing, it will promote itself. Look in the mirror and honestly reflect on what you’re bringing to the table and how well that aligns with the marketing mobile gaming naturally affords.

Publishing schmublishing

Some lesser known studios have taken their games to be published by bigger name companies, trying to establish a market presence through brand association. This is a fool’s errand. Big companies encourage publishing with them because it is self-serving: they get to de-risk their portfolio with minimal investment and huge potential upside. The developers who signed a publishing deal get a rather meaningless veneer of credibility and a huge chunk of their revenue lopped off.

To return to the initial points about discoverability — if your game is good, it will do well without the publisher’s help. Angry Birds’ initial success was not due to being published by Chillingo (who put them on an offshoot label which provided minimal press). They succeeded because they made a great game.

Instead, what is much more valuable than traditional publishing is co-development. Co-development means both teams are invested and working together to make a great game, and one party is not using it as a low-risk means to diversify its portfolio. Co-development is the process that Kiloo used in working with SYBO Games to create Subway Surfers. Both teams leverage their unique talents and work to build the game in unison.

Rise of the gaming supergiants

Then there are the newly sprung redwoods of our industry, the towering mobile successes with massive valuations. GungHo (maker of Puzzles & Dragons) is valued at $9 billion; Supercell (maker of Clash of Clans and Hay Day) is valued at $770 million. And, long-time player but only recent headline maker King (maker of Candy Crush Saga) is eyeing an IPO and will probably receive a huge valuation if it does.

What do these valuations mean for the ordinary mobile game company? Not that much, really. The beauty of mobile gaming’s distribution model is that the small guys can still compete if they have good content. That’s what allowed Supercell, GungHo, and King to rise against behemoths like EA in the first place.

Surfing the third wave

What’s great about this era in mobile gaming is that it revolves around great experiences and empathizing with the player. A good-looking, fun game will sell itself and rise beyond issues of discoverability, publishing, or being squeezed out by the big players.

With Subway Surfers, we made a great game, but we didn’t stop there. We knew that people playing it would be bored if we sat back and just tried to figure how to better monetize them. So instead we decided to give them meaningful monthly gameplay updates.

Be honest; look at your game’s version history. How many updates are refining IAPs [in-app purchases] or other monetization techniques? How many are designed to enrich gameplay? Do you have a plan for delivering compelling content updates for the next three months? Six months? Year? Do they make sense within the world of your game? Building on your initial momentum is as essential to crafting the great game in the first place.(source:venturebeat


上一篇:

下一篇: