作者：Giordano Contestabile

Will Harbin是社交游戏开发公司Kixeye（游戏邦注：Kixeye的前身为Casual Collective，专注于开发Facebook游戏，代表作有《Battle Pirates》和《backyard Monsters》等）的CEO。他最近在Casual Connect大会上又发表了主题演讲，单是题目《要么自主发行，要么等死》就充满煽动的意味。这个演讲的要旨是，因为数字分配渠道的普及，准入门槛降低了，发行商无法再控制零售，也没有存在的必要了。因此，开发者应该努力把握自己的命运。

Will Harbin(from wsj)

这个演讲的题目确实掷地有声、耐人寻味。虽然Harbin指出现在与过去的游戏机和盒装游戏时代不同，并且现在的开发者能够直接接触到他们的受众的观点是正确的，但这个演讲传达的信息却有误导大多数独立开发者的危险。

我们来仔细分析一下Harbin言论的核心—-“发行商”的定义。这个词被大多数经营手机游戏市场的公司抛弃，是因为它的含意充其量只是经销服务商—-签约游戏、在原来的玩家基础上做交叉推广、影响平台关系以获是推荐。如果那就是所谓的“发行商”提供给独立开发者的东西，那么Harbin说的就是对的—-你不需要发行商；或者更准确地说，你不应该因为那些服务而放弃30%或以上的收益。在此，我不是说那些服务没有用，，但它们不能代表发行行业的全部。相反地，它们是经销服务，而提供这些服务的公司应该叫作“经销商”，而不是被叫作或自称为“发行商”。

那么，怎样才算“发行商”？在过去，当游戏机仍然是市场的主导时，游戏开发团队是由几百人组成的，而发行商承担开发、营销和库存的经济风险，以及库存价值百万美元的游戏磁盘（或盒子）并把它们分配给世界各地的零售商。他们还提供一系列辅助服务，这样开发者就能专注于制作好游戏。把这个概念扣到免费数字游戏的经销商头上，就不太正确了，但那意味着手机游戏开发者可以更容易不借助外力发行自己的游戏吗？若是在应用商店出现的早期，这么说还是有理有据的，但现在形势变了。

首先，制作手机游戏的准入门槛虽然比游戏机大大降低了，但又随着开发预算的上涨而稳步、迅速地提高，更别说消费者的期待水平不断上升、市场竞争变得日益激烈且硬件性能更加先进了。同时，在手机市场上每周发布的游戏数量之多，使“被发现”成为一个极其严峻的挑战，进而导致营销预算不断增加。很大程度上，小团队发行游戏不投入营销成本，却能闯进排行榜前列的时代正在终结。

再者，获得成功并不只是制作一款人们想玩的好游戏那么简单。虽然制作好游戏仍然是重中之重，毕竟没有好游戏就没有成功的可能，但挤进排行榜前列却需要各方面的专业知识，如赢利策略、病毒性设计、付费玩家的开发、品牌营销、分析学、技术基础设施建设和运营等。精通所有这些知识，简单地说，是绝大部分独立游戏开发者力所不及的，通常情况是，小团队因为追求所有这些目标而分心，不能专注于保证游戏品质的核心任务。最近有小团队告诉我，他们其实并不想为了处理这些事务而扩大团队，他们只想专心做好游戏，不想处理营销之类的自己不感兴趣的活动。

最后，甚至获得商业成功的游戏开发者用他们自己的资源能做出来的游戏也非常有限，结果通常是，他们把唯一的赌注放在了“下一款成功游戏”上。从历史上说，这正是游戏开发者失败的主要原因—-他们的销量没有达到预期。对于已经成功的开发者，有一个愿意承担开发游戏的经济风险的合作方可以降低整体风险、提高发行更多游戏的成功机会。

在我看来，以上三点使“自主发行”对于甚至最成功的独立开发者来说也不再是理想的选择。不管是现在还是以后都会有不借助外力而获取成功的开发者存在，但也会出现更多因为选择了正确的合作方，并获得超出所及的资金和服务而大获成功的开发者。

总之，优秀的合作方应该为独立开发者承担经济风险、提供从开发到运营的全方位服务，使开发者能专注于制作好游戏。恶劣的“发行商”只会拿走接近完工的游戏，除了提供经销服务，就什么也不给了。与“恶劣的发行商”合作可能导致开发者失败。而得到优秀的合作方的支持，对于许多开发者而言，可能是在竞争越发激烈的市场上生存下来的唯一出路。

（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）

Independent developers need partners, not “publishers”

By Giordano Contestabile

Will Harbin, CEO of social games developer Kixeye, recently gave a Casual Connect keynote speech with the provocative title of “Self-Publish or Die.” The gist of the talk is that, due to the rise of digital distribution, the barriers of entry have fallen and publishers, no longer controlling retail shelf space, don’t have a reason to exist anymore. As such, developers should go for it alone, and take control of their destiny.

The title of the keynote is impactful and intriguing, and while it’s true that developers nowadays have an opportunity to connect directly with their audience that wasn’t available in the old world of consoles and retail boxes, the message ends up being misguided and dangerous for most independent developers.

Let’s address what’s at the core of Harbin’s argument – the definition of “publisher.” The way that word is thrown around by most companies operating in the mobile games market today amounts to little more than distribution services – signing up games that are close to launch, cross-promoting them with a pre-existing user base, and leveraging platform relationships to try and get the game featured. If that’s the extent of what a so-called “publisher” offers an independent developer, then Harbin’s right – you don’t need that. Or, more appropriately, you shouldn’t give up 30% or more of your revenue for that. Now, I’m not saying that those services are not useful – they are – but they don’t constitute a publishing offering. Rather, they are distribution services, and companies that provide them are “distributors.” They should not be called, or call themselves, publishers.

What’s a publisher, then? Once upon a time, when consoles still roamed the Earth and development teams had headcount numbering in the hundreds, publishers were organizations that assumed financial risk for development, marketing and inventory, holding millions of dollars’ worth of discs (or cartridges) in warehouses and shipping them to retailers all over the world. They also provided a portfolio of ancillary services, thereby allowing developers to focus on making the best possible games. There’s something wrong with trying to apply the same definition in the context of digital free-to-play games, but does that mean mobile game developers are better off releasing their games without any outside help? In the earliest days of the app stores, it was easy to make that argument, but a lot has changed since then.

First, the barriers of entry for succeeding in mobile, while significantly lower than on console, are steadily and rapidly rising due to the increase in development budgets, which in turn is driven by rising consumer expectations, evolving competition, and improved hardware capabilities. In parallel, the sheer number of titles launched every week in the mobile market make being noticed by the public an extremely challenging proposition, leading to the need to deploy large enough marketing budgets to have a chance to succeed. By and large, the era of a small team launching a game without any marketing spend and getting to the top of the charts is coming to an end.

Second, succeeding in mobile isn’t just about creating a great game that people want to play. While that’s still by far the most important component, and without a great game there’s no chance of success, rocketing to the top of the charts requires expertise in a range of disciplines as varied as monetization and virality design, paid user acquisition, brand marketing, analytics, technology infrastructure development, and live operations. Mastering all of those is, simply put, out of reach for the majority of independent game developers, and often a small team can be distracted from the core task of focusing on the game’s quality by trying to pursue all of those goals. Additionally, not all developers are interested in addressing those aspects of their business, and many of them have told me recently that they don’t actually want to grow their team and scope to include all those components, but want to focus on making great games and not have to deal with marketing and other activities they have less interest in.

Finally, even game developers that are encountering commercial success are limited in the number of games they can put into production with their own resources, and as a result often end up betting the farm on their “next big game.” Historically, this has been the primary cause of failure for game developers, as sales of their putative hit disappoint. Having a partner on board that’s willing to assume the financial risk for development of certain games is a good way for already successful developers to lower overall risk and increase their chances of success by launching more games into the market.

In my opinion, the sum of those reasons make “going it alone” challenging and often not optimal for even the most successful independent game developers. There are, and there will be, developers that succeed in the market without any outside help, but there will be even more developers that find success by choosing the right partner and leveraging funding and services that would otherwise be out of reach.

In short, a good partner for independent game developers shoulders the financial risk, provides a range of services to its partners from early on in development through the lifecycle of the game, and allows developers to focus on making a great game, taking care of everything else. A bad “publisher” takes a game that’s nearly completed and offers distribution services and little more. Partnering with a “bad publisher” can indeed kill a developer. But being supported by the right partner will be, for many developers, the only way to survive in an increasingly competitive market.(source:gamesbrief)