作者：Carter Dotson

游戏行业的成功通常容易被神话，并不时被贴上“史诗”和“传奇”这类华丽丽的标签。

在移动行业尤其如此，新兴公司和独立开发者获得成功的励志故事广为流传。但最近这种态度遭到了质疑——大家过于关注成功案例，太多媒体报道忽略了其中的艰辛，以及游戏行业中更普遍的失败案例。

这一理念认为，媒体还应该报道那些努力但却失败了的项目，不应该将目光全部转向成功的宠儿。

success vs failure(from askmikehenry.com)

天时地利

这一看法的出发点是好的。人们当然喜欢看成功案例，因为其他开发者可以从中借鉴相关经验，但通常情况下成功还需要一定的运气。

在此并非贬低许多手机游戏热作开发者所倾注的心血及其作品质量，但事实就是，这个行业中的成功有时候就是天时地利的问题。

没错，在一定程度上说，让游戏获得成功的因素通常会因为已经被使用和发掘而失效。

这可以追溯到App Store手机游戏刚兴起的早期阶段，当时像《iShoot》这类游戏很容易登上头条新闻：而促使这类游戏跻身榜单前列的特点，现在则早已成为回忆。

同理，让Imangi凭借《Temple Run》而风声水起的环境也已经一去不返了（尽管这款游戏问世也不过两年之久）。由于一波又一波成功游戏问世，小型开发者将更难以角逐F2P游戏市场。

所以我们很难通过这些成功案例找到未来可行的方法，通常情况下却更容易从中看到不可行之处，以免将来走弯路。

困境

我们也不应该忘记，即使是在黄金时期，也有一些淘金者是空手而归。

这是值得记住的宝贵教训：对开发者，尤其是非传统大型公司的独立开发者来说，要有足够的钱，专业地制作游戏实非易事，而是非常困难，并且几乎都会失败。

但问题是，这说法听起来像是给“后生可畏”（游戏邦注：这是大众对手机游戏开发新贵的看法）这一观点泼冷水。在开发者群体中，这却是一条再正确不过的真正。

在他们的私下、在线交谈和聊天中，我们甚少听闻“容易”一词。事实上，他们背后的故事经常与极端困难有关，对于资源有限的新兴开发者来说，市场营销几乎是个妄想。

唯一认为独立游戏开发很容易，收益有保障的人，多半是那些并不上心的群体。

没错，过度强调行业成功案例会有问题的。但如果走向另一个极端，过多考虑和反思失败案例，也难免遭遇像成功案例被神话的结局。

听说过10家餐厅中有9家在第一年经营就会倒闭的说法吗？这真是一针见血，指出在一个高度竞争的行为中，多数新兴者会失败，只有少数兼具技术和运气者会成功和幸存下来，而这通常是具有知名度的大型公司。

对于新兴开发者而言，其面临形势并不乐观，而更像是掷骰子碰运气。

独立开发者当然有可能暂时幸存下来。仅有特定部分的竞争者能够幸存，但这并不意味着这个市场险象环生，要知道这种尝试并非毫无收获。

平衡

尽管如此，有流行观点称失败不可避免时，这不仅会令那些如果尝试就有可能成功者退缩，还可能令那些已经成功一半者丧失斗志，不再努力，100%地寄希望于运气。

我担心这会创造观念上的不平衡：如果除了大型工作室，其他开发者的游戏永远没有出头之日，那么还有人愿意为小型独立工作室制作游戏吗？

最好的方法是取得这两者间的平衡，因为开发者并不是只有非胜必败这种二元选择。Rovio在推出《愤怒的小鸟》之前已经制作50多款游戏，其中有些后续作品以当前的标准来看，其实也不能算是成功。

Imangi因《Temple Run》而一举成名，但这也并非该团队首款游戏，它也并非一夜成名的游戏。还记得《Harbor Master》这款为Imangi奠定了基础的游戏吗？它发布于其他相似但并未获得成功的游戏之后。

成功和失败的定义不一而足，开发者应该自己下定义，讨论为何自己的游戏会成功或失败，或者完全是另外一回事。

没错，我们是应该将创造一款高收益游戏的困难和挑战亮出来，但不要因此而伤害那些小型开发者的积极性——那些敢于不走寻常路的人即使是在不稳定的条件下也能够成功。

要给正在努力奋斗中的开发者一点希望和正能量。（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）

Stateside: Mobile needs to find a balance between success and failure

by Carter Dotson

Success in the gaming industry tends to get mythologised. Grand qualifiers like “epic” and “legendary” get tossed about as if they were nothing.

This is especially the case in the mobile industry, where a new wave of upstarts and indies have found success, many to a great degree. Their tales of success are well known and their triumphs told throughout the land.

But lately, there’s been a backlash against this kind of attitude – one that focuses solely on the successful, with much press coverage ignoring the difficulty and often the pervasive failure of many operating within the gaming industry right now.

The thought is, just as much press should be afforded to those who try but fail as the share that is dedicated to the big boys.

The time, the place

This attitude comes from a good place. While undoubtedly people want to read about success stories – there are, in some cases, things other developers can take away from their tales – often luck has had a role to play.

Not to belittle the hard work and quality that is evident in many of mobile’s biggest hits, success in this industry is sometimes a matter of being in the right place at the right time.

Indeed, to a certain degree, the factors that allow a game to succeed are often invalid as soon as they are used and observed.

This stems back to the early days of the App Store era of mobile gaming – back when games like iShoot hit the headlines with ease: the traits that were in place that allowed titles such as that to hit the top of the charts were essentially mere memories by the time they were documented.

Likewise, the environment that allowed Imangi to spring up almost out of nowhere with Temple Run – despite being only a couple of years old – is long gone. It’s become even more difficult for small developers to try and compete in the free-to-play arena thanks in part to the wave of successful games.

So, it’s easy to look at and try to imitate the successes, but perhaps it is the failures that need to be analysed as much, if not more.

It’s so hard to figure out what will go right in the future from the successes alone, and often, it’s easier to look at what goes wrong, in order to see what needs to be corrected in the future – if there is one.

The struggle

And yes, the attitude that even in a gold rush, some miners are going home empty-handed, shouldn’t be forgotten.

It is a valuable lesson to remember: making enough money to make games professionally, especially when not part of the traditional power structure, is not easy. It’s very difficult. And most will fail.

But the problem is that in part, this feels like a reaction to a supposed attitude, that this is how the ‘mainstream’ sees the upstarts. Among developers, this couldn’t be farther from the truth.

In their conversations and chatter both in person and online, the word ‘easy’ is rarely muttered. In fact, the narrative seems to consistently be that it’s extremely difficult, and that aspects like marketing are nigh-impossible to crack for upstarts with limited resources.

The only people who think it’s easy, that riches are guaranteed, are the only ones not paying attention.

Yes, the over-emphasis on success has its problems. But the problem is that the reverse, by considering and contemplating failure too much, is also true: failure can just as easily become mythologised as success.

Ever hear the adage that nine out of ten restaurants fail in the first year? It’s a sexy line, pointing out that in a highly-competitive industry, most upstarts will fail: only few with the right combination of skill and luck will succeed and survive, and it’s often big companies with well-known brand names that last and dominate.

The problem is that evidence suggests that it’s not the truth. For upstarts, the situation is definitely not a rosy one, but it’s far a dice roll for new restauranteurs.

It’s possible to survive, at least for a little while. Only a certain number of competitors will be able to survive, but that doesn’t mean that the market is entirely hostile. It’s not a fruitless endeavour to try.

A question of balance

Nevertheless, when the popular misconception says that failure is all but inevitable, it not only can discourage those who might otherwise have a shot if they tried, but it puts those who succeed on a further pedestal, or even just reduce their work down to 100 percent sheer luck.

I fear that it creates a further imbalance in perception, and not a healthy one: if all is doom and gloom outside of the big-name studios, why would anyone want to make games with smaller, independent companies?

The best path for the tone of conversation lies somewhere in the middle, because developers do not fit into that binary of successful and failed. Rovio made over 50 games before it hit it big with Angry Birds – and some of its follow-up projects could easily be viewed as failures based on those standards.

Imangi went supernova with Temple Run, but it was not the team’s first game, and it was not a smash hit right away. Remember Harbor Master, the game that laid the groundwork for Imangi’s longevity? That launched after other games that, likewise, didn’t hit the bigtime, like the eponymous Imangi word game.

Success and failure can be many things, and developers need to define them, discuss them, and why their games may have been one or the other, or something else entirely.

Yes, the difficulties and challenges of creating and monetising games need to be brought to light, but not at the detriment of the overarching idea that caused many to change course from mainstream gaming: that those who dare to do things differently can succeed, even in volatile conditions.

The light of possibility needs to shine through the darkness of the struggles.（source：pocketgamer）