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

多位开发者聊电影IP对免费模式手机游戏的推动价值

多位开发者聊电影IP对免费模式手机游戏的推动价值

原文作者:Matt Suckley 译者:Megan Shieh

传播媒介的出现开始让电影版权在游戏中发挥作用,这种状况持续到了现在。

为了利用电影院中围绕上映电影的宣传,商家们会发布相关的盒装产品;而开发者们也会制作出反映电影情节的互动体验。

但是在F2P手游的世界里,电影版权的作用发生了微小的改变。

通过传统的方式在手机游戏中使用电影版权可以将两小时的巨作转换成正在进行的实时游戏,让玩家沉迷几个月,甚至几年。

因为仍可能有利可图,所以实践的难度并没有挫伤人们的热情。就在最近几周,Spil Games签下了《Valerian》,Ludia签下了《Underworld》,Mediatonic抢先签下了《Fantastic Beasts》。

与此同时,Koukoi游戏公司筹集了100万美元用来开发一款新游戏,该游戏改编自一部尚未命名的好莱坞电影。

为深入了解两者间的关系,我们请教了一些手游界的专家:

你认为电影版权在移动游戏中越来越流行的原因是什么?

电影的保质期短暂,而成功的F2P游戏却要求相对较长的生命周期,两者如何调和?

John Ozimek —— Big Ideas Machine 联合创始人

电影版权在移动领域一直都很受欢迎。

早在2001年,人们就已经原意花费巨额购买电影版权了。Riot-E购买《Lord of the Rings》系列电影就是一个很好的例子,说明手游工作室看到了游戏搭配电影的潜力。(当然,Riot-E的交易是出了名的糟糕。)

Jean-Philippe Decka —— PocketWhale 首席执行官

我相信这种合作方式可以带来成功,特别是当你使用非常有名气的版权的时候。

Ludia和《Jurassic Park》、还有Vivid Games和《Jurassic Park》,他们的合作效果都非常好。

Oscar Clark —— Rocket Lolly Games 作者、顾问、独立开发者

当初有人向我提案《Lord of the Rings》,遗憾的是,公开说这是个“垃圾”主意的人不是我,一个在Vodafone工作的人抢先了一步。我记不清楚是谁,但如果我没记错的话这个人应该是Graham Ferguson。

THQ难道不就是建立在此之上(或因此倒闭)的吗?

我还记得Glu在Java时代制作的《Transformers 》游戏让Kristian Segerstrale(游戏邦注:Glu Mobile联合创始人)多么地沮丧。

电影版权可以成为推动游戏进入主流的工具,但它并不能取代一个精彩的游戏。

通常情况下,版权的费用会成为制作一个好游戏的阻碍。

买了电影版权之后剩下的钱不够提供最好的游戏体验,同时还得遵守电影公司所设置的各种限制,其中一些限制真的会让你的想法变得一团糟。

一般来说,当人们更重视游戏本身而不是电影版权的时候,电影搭配的效果最好。通常情况下,游戏被视为次要项目、营销工具或者通过版权筹集快速现金的方法。

就我的情况而言,我们制作的游戏不是根据一部电影,而是根据一个激发了电影灵感的原创舞台表演,我认为这没多大差别。

《 Rocky Horror Show 》自1973年发布至今,深受粉丝喜爱,我们也是它的粉丝!

因此这个作品不仅仅是对原版IP的致敬,也满足了我们以游戏的形式来重新想象它的企图。

我们并不是在尝试去构建一个新版的原版游戏(一种冒险游戏),相反我们正在试图挖掘出让这种狂热体验发挥作用的方式。

这需要的不仅仅是版权本身,它还需要大量的细节关注、大量的激情、以及理解原始版权来源(灵感)的能力。

能不能成功?游戏现在还在开发阶段,所以你们就只能拭目以待了……

The Rocky Horror Show: Touch Me(from pocketgamer.biz)

The Rocky Horror Show: Touch Me(from pocketgamer.biz)

Nicolas Godement-Berline —— Mana Cube 首席运营官

电影版权是用户获取的手段之一:更便宜的CPI、更好的特色和口碑、交叉推广,并且可以消除创建一个全新游戏版权时可能会遇到的一些挑战。

它们也是一种相对简单的,快速跟进和扩大一个热门游戏或游戏类型影响力的方法。

在激烈的竞争中,随着UA和开发的成本上升,制作移动游戏的风险变得越来越高。因此电影版权卷土重来也就不足为奇了。

我完全同意Oscar的观点,当人们将游戏本身看作主角而不是单纯的电影配角的时候,电影搭配的作用就最好。

版权交易一般需要很长时间进行协商,因此直接的电影搭配总是会导致开发启动太迟的情况,但是如果你想要赶在电影发布日期当天推出游戏的话,游戏发布日期又不能推迟。

结果游戏的质量就会受到较短的开发预算和进度的影响。

此外,一款成功的F2P游戏一般会有较长的生命周期,所以最好将它的成功根植于对一个系列根深蒂固的依恋,而不是暂时的知名度提升。

如果你真的决定要和合作的电影同一天上架,那么试图将故事内容贴近电影情节往往是灾难的根源。

这在制作游戏机动作游戏的时候总是发生,在手游领域发生得更加频繁。抓住版权的本质,在这个范围内构建一个伟大的游戏,在我看来是更好的方法。

理想情况下,你创建的游戏应该以一个正在进行的电影系列或一部翻拍的电影作为基础。

这样一来,游戏就能和电影系列与时俱进,每一部电影的发布都能为扩大粉丝基础起到很大的推动作用。

从这个角度来看,与《Underworld》合作似乎是一个聪明的举动,而《Fantastic Beasts》和《Valerian》带来了更大的长期风险。即便如此,我是《Valerian》和《Harry Potter》的忠实粉丝,所以希望还是有的。

Scott Foe ——Ignited Artists 首席产品官

App Stores刚起步的时候,你需要的只是一个好玩的游戏。但是不久之后,你需要的就不仅仅是一个好玩的游戏了,你还得有机灵的营销。

随着“best practices”(游戏邦注:最优实践)的出现,行业开始整合,根本没有必要为了新游戏版权的发行而在用户获取方面花钱。

结合著名版权开发游戏一度被认为是一种减少用户获取花费的方式,这似乎正在成为一种严格的发行要求。尽管从历史上看,IP搭配的游戏产出的市场结果多种多样。

目前与移动发行商的谈话中,我能感觉到发行商或多或少地期望第三方工作室能够带来他们自己的、已知的IP——许可已知的IP或采用发行商自有的IP。

William D. Volk——Forward Reality 首席未来学家

我记得我在Activision公司看到的第一个游戏电影版权协议是1988年的《Days Of Thunder 》,该笔交易的费用达到了200万美元。

当然,我也记得《Howard The Duck》,《ET》和《Johnny Mnemonic》(我把它标签为“Johnny McMissing”,因为Keanu并不是交易的一部分)。

《Atari 2600》里的《ET: The Extra-Terrestrial 》是电影捆绑臭名昭著的最低点

我想说是,电影版权对于手游内容的重要性甚至超过三A游戏。

举例来说,10个最畅销的应用程序里,有9个是迪斯尼和其他电影的产物。

手游的探索这么差,用户获取的广告投资回报率又非常糟糕,电影版权只能是一件好事。

Jared Steffes Muxy——联合创始人

电影捆绑之前一直是糟糕游戏的保证,如今似乎情况有变!

非常糟糕的电影/电视捆绑游戏多年来层出不穷。

但是随着游戏技术发展,有的游戏情节甚至比电影中的更吸引人。

我记得我第一次玩《Left 4 Dead》的时候。我和我的妻子,还有其他两位朋友在网上一起玩游戏,当时感觉自己就仿佛置身于一个僵尸生存电影。

和别人一起体验会增加乐趣,因为电影和电视是共享的社交体验。

移动设备从一开始就被设计成共享的、普遍存在的、而且影响力无处不在!

游戏不再需要捆绑电影版权里的确切人物或核心故事,它们可以进入一个允许更多游戏机制与设备一起运行的全新领域。

我记得在SNES上玩《Wayne’s World 》的时候,当时我想:为什么我会拿着吉他跳来跳去,还用它来射击。这一点都不合逻辑!

如今,一个有才华的团队可以让你成为《Wayne’s World》世界的一部分,你可以帮助Garth找到他的梦想女孩,并在不打破他们电影生活泡泡的情况下,帮助Wayne负担得起他的新吉他。

《The Walking Dead》就是创造一个全新游戏世界的最好例子。

继Android/iOS之后,Backflip工作室的《Army of Darkness》是我第一个从头玩到尾的电影游戏。超级好玩!

电影对它的影响恰到好处,而且它还结合了有趣的手游机制,让我一直玩到没内容玩了才肯罢休。在手游泛滥的今天,能够完整地玩完一个手游的感觉真的很棒!

正如上面提到的:电影的有机搜索使得CPI较低,如果人们期望一部电影可以有捆绑产品,那么他们就会原意花钱得到这些产品。

我曾经参与过一些电影和电视捆绑的游戏制作,它们需要创造性的手法和IP制作人/作者的扶持。

扩展一个别人创造的世界、提供会被很多人珍惜的互动内容是很有趣的事情,它需要开发者们在整个开发过程中从粉丝的角度来看事情。

Harry Holmwood——Marvelous Entertainment 欧洲首席执行官

我赞成电影版权可能是驱动安装量和减少UA成本的好方法,但你必须将可能的市场成果与你将支付的版权费用进行权衡。

F2P游戏的经济可以归结为利润率——即:你的平均用户收入会比平均用户获取成本多多少?

对于一个公司来说,IP合作的一个明智方案是利用现有的游戏系统/技术平台,这样可以在开发成本控制方面给予一定程度的安慰,同时需要清楚地知道该游戏应该如何保持留存并且货币化玩家。

然后你可以给出一个合理的估计:第三方版权合作的游戏如何可以为各方带来的投资作出回报。

如果你的游戏设计太过“打破陈规”,那么就会对你的F2P还有其他人的知识产权造成风险。如果你不知道你的游戏能赚多少钱,那你咋知道你能有多少钱支付版税/预付款?

因此不少第三方版权捆绑的成功游戏所使用的机制都是大家见过的。

Genera的《Frozen Free Fall》就是一个很好的例子,该游戏借鉴了《Candy Crush》类型机制,然后将它应用到一个很好的品牌上,从而得到了巨大的成功。

《Pokemon GO》也展示了一个一直默默无闻的现有游戏(Ingress),可以在与人人喜爱的品牌相结合的时候获得惊人的成功。

就如前面谈及的,电影版权早已不是新鲜事儿,因此它带来了一个新的难度水平。

在游戏机业务中,“发布日期”总是很令人期待,如果拥有合适的团队和有限的规模,和电影同步发行通常是可以实现的。电影版权的存在会带来巨大的销量。

不过对于F2P游戏来说,第一天就拥有大量的用户可能会成为一个灾难。在开始创造留存和盈利之前,这个游戏可能需要先花几个月来做测试发行。

但是在电影推出之前,电影制片厂不太可能会让你用他们的品牌进行测试发行。就像Nicolas说的那样,把注意力放在一个更常青的电影系列上(《Harry Potter》是一个很好的例子),而不是下一部大动作电影,这才是更明智的选择。

Devin Nambiar —— Asia-Pacific Electronic Arts 产品经理

电影版权、安装量和CPI之间的关系已经在这个线程中被指出好几次了,所以我就不过多强调这些点了。

但是为了让电影搭配的游戏实现良好的ROI,开发人员必须要清楚地知道随着大量的有机安装,CPI会下降多少;以及版权协议的结构(特别是收入)跟这有多大关系。

电影和游戏的保质期调和方面,解决这一问题的一个很好的方法是与系列电影合作,而不是昙花一现的电影或者版权。

在我的上一个公司Kabam的时候,我们就做的很好。《Hobbit》和《Marvel:Contest of Champions》就是两个非常好的例子。

我们不仅能依靠多部电影来驱动下载量和宣传、延长游戏保质期;还可以将重大功能和新电影同步发行,为现有的用户带来新的内容,而且游戏也经常因为电影的发布而被App Store列为推荐产品。

并且电影的发布还能推动更多的安装次数。

系列电影的发布与现场运营也有很大的协同作用,通过将这些东西与好的产品营销相结合,你可以创造一个推动用户获取和收益进入最高阶段的宣传周期,

Thomas Nielsen——Osao Games

正如上面几位资深业内人士所指出的,电影版权和电脑游戏的存在时间几乎一样长。

真的,在我看来移动领域就没发生过什么新鲜事儿:把你的游戏和别人知道的IP联系起来,让你的游戏更容易被注意到。(老招数了)

你可能会争论说,移动领域在版权方面和卡戴珊姐妹、PewDiePies和Pen Pineapples 都已经创造出了新的突破。

但实际上这些就跟电影版权一个意思——IP已经有了一定的曝光量,对你脱颖而出很有帮助。

真的要说的话,我认为电影版权捆绑将会减少,因为电影在全球关注和认知方面已经不再代表终极产品了。

大部分的眼球已经转向了YouTube、NetFlix和HBO,这些平台都能让新版权获得巨大的曝光量,并且产生大量的新潜在玩家。

John Ozimek —— Big Ideas Machine 联合创始人

我认为Thomas说的没错,不管是不是一部电影,合适的版权一直是好注意。

就我个人而言,近期我并没有注意到手游领域电影版权捆绑的增加。在游戏行业,电影授权一直都存在,移动领域也没有什么不同。

如果非要说的话,那就是我认为游戏版权和电影版权的概念变得更加模糊。像《 Angry Birds 》这样的游戏演变成了一部电影,而不是先有了电影才有游戏。

当个人品牌和观众成为一种可带来收益的商品时,超级名人将人气授权的概念是不可避免的。

但我仍然相信,真正的好游戏是那些原创的、具有创造性的、不依赖版权授权的,这种才是能令我兴奋的游戏。

Oleg Pridiuk—— Defold King 倡导者

我可能在重申已经提到过的东西,但我在这里增加了一个新的角度。

我花费了大量时间试图通过年轻人的眼睛看现代世界、媒体空间和日常生活,而我经常听到的关键词是“信息量太大”。

我的意思是,年轻人必须消化这么多的新信息,由于需要弄清楚游戏里所有的内容和新世界,所以任何学习曲线都是困难的,任何教程都是很麻烦的。

这里就是知名版权发挥作用的地方,青少年都知道蝙蝠侠是谁,也知道他为什么和Joker一直打架,这就足够让他们点击你的游戏了。

Jas Purewal—— Purewal & Partners 律师&合伙人

两个评论:

1. 越来越多游戏中的电影版权属于互惠利益驱动:电影看着游戏然后游戏看着电影,它更像是一种平等的关系。这与过去不同,但缺乏共同的理解和不同的行业视角仍然会在版权谈判中带来根本性的挑战。

当心炒作:有很多的电影+手游搭配已经悄悄放弃了。

本文由游戏邦编译,转载请注明来源,或咨询微信zhengjintiao

Movie licenses have played a role in gaming for almost as long as the medium has existed.

And for years, this made a lot of sense. Boxed products would be released to capitalise on the hype surrounding movies in the cinema and developers would be able to craft an interactive experience that loosely mirrored the film’s plot.

But in the world of free-to-play mobile, that role has shifted slightly.

With traditional plotting out the window, working with a movie IP on mobile means converting that two-hour blockbuster into an ongoing live game that keeps players interested for months, if not years.

The challenge has not dampened the enthusiasm for such still potentially lucrative deals. Just in recent weeks, Spil Games has signedValerian, Ludia’s got Underworld and Mediatonic has snapped upFantastic Beasts.

Koukoi Games, meanwhile, has raised $1 million to develop a game based on an as-yet unnamed Hollywood production.

So we asked our Mobile Mavens:

Why do you think movie licenses are becoming increasingly popular in mobile gaming?

How can the short shelf-life of a movie and the long-term requirements of F2P success be reconciled?

John OzimekCo-founder Big Ideas Machine

Movie licenses have always been really popular in mobile.

Back as far as 2001 movie licenses were being bought for huge sums. The Riot-E deal for the Lord of the Rings films is just one great example of how mobile studios have seen the potential in movie tie-ins.

(Obviously the Riot-E deal was famously terrible. I just realised not everyone on this thread is as old as me or would spot the sarcasm.)

Jean-Philippe DeckaCeO PocketWhale

I believe it can be quite successful especially when the license is also a well-known IP.

Ludia did really well with Jurassic Park, and Vivid Games did also great with Rocky.

Oscar ClarkAuthor, Consultant and Independent Developer Rocket Lolly Games

Don’t worry John, I’m (at least) as old as you! I remember when Lord Of The Rings Bowling was pitched to me.

Sadly, I wasn’t the one to publicly say that it was “crap” – someone at Vodafone who beat me to it. I forget who, but think it was Graham Ferguson.

Isn’t this also what THQ was built on (and killed by)?

I also remember how depressed Kristian Segerstrale was over the Transformers game which Glu were responsible for back in the Java days.

Movie licenses can be great vehicles to propel a game into the mainstream, but it’s no replacement for having a good game.

In fact, more often than not the costs of the licence actively prohibit that being the case.

You don’t have enough left in the coffers to deliver the best experience and, at the same time, you have to adhere to the specific restrictions placed by the licensing company – some of which can really screw up your thinking.

I remember when they first talked about bringing Pottermore to Playstation Home and finding out we couldn’t replicate what had been done in previous games, so no Quidditch… but we could make a Quidditch Manager!

In general, film tie-ins work best when the game production is valued over the IP owner as a medium in itself. Too often games are seen as secondary projects, marketing vehicles or just ways to raise fast cash through the licence.

In my case we are making a game based not on a film, but an original stage show which inspired a movie – so I think that’s close enough.

The Rocky Horror Show (not the other Rocky!) has been around since 1973 and is highly loved by its fans. And we are fans!

Concept art for the upcoming The Rocky Horror Show: Touch Me!

As a result, the work is not just an homage to that original IP but our attempts to re-imagine it in the form of gameplay.

We aren’t even trying to build a new version of the original game (an adventure game), and instead we are trying to tap into what makes the cult experience work.

It requires a lot of attention to detail, a lot of passion and the ability to understand the sources which inspired the original IP – not just the IP itself.

Will it work? We are still in development so you’ll just have to shiver with anticipation…

Nicolas Godement-BerlineCOO Mana Cube

Movie IPs give user acquisition leverage – cheaper CPI, better featuring and word of mouth, cross-promotion – and remove some of the challenges associated with creating a brand new IP.

They are also a relatively easy way to fast-follow and broaden the reach of another hit game or genre.

As UA and dev costs rise amidst intense competition, creating a mobile game becomes an ever riskier proposition. So it’s no surprise that IPs are making a comeback.

I fully agree with Oscar that a movie IP work best when the game is seen as a medium in itself rather than just a simple street date tie-in.

As IP deals can be long to negotiate, a straight-up movie tie-in oftens ends up in a situation where development started too late but the release date can’t be pushed back if you’re going to have to hit a same-day release.

Consequently, the quality of the game suffers from a shorter development budget and schedule.

Also, since a successful F2P game is likely to have a long shelf-life, it’s better to ground its success in deep-rooted attachment to a franchise rather than a temporary burst of awareness.
Now, if you really are going to make a same day release movie tie-in, trying to fit too closely to the movie’s storyline is usually a recipe for disaster.

This is often true of action games on consoles and is even truer on mobile. Capturing the essence of what the IP is about and building a great game within that scope remains the better approach in my opinion.

Ideally, you’d want to create a game based on an ongoing movie franchise, or a reboot.

This way, the IP stays current for several years and each movie release gives a nice burst in awareness contributing to expanding the fanbase.

From that perspective, Underworld seems like a clever move whileFantastic Beasts and Valerian carry more long-term risk. That said, I’m a big fan of both Valerian and Harry Potter so there’s hope there too.

Scott FoeChief Product Officer Ignited Artists

At the dawn of the app stores, you needed a great game. Shortly thereafter, you needed a great game and smart marketing.

As “best practices” emerged and the industry began to consolidate, capital for user acquisition was all-but-required to launch new intellectual property.

Developing with known intellectual property, once viewed as a way to short-circuit that need for intense capital commitment to user acquisition, is becoming a hard publishing requirement – though, historically, the market results for mobile games sporting known intellectual properties have varied.

In present talks with mobile publishers, I get the feeling that publishers more-or-less expect third-party studios to come to the table with their own, known IP – to either license known IP or to adopt publisher-owned IP.

I have heard something to the tune, “you now need IP and UA,” from several publishing sources. The launch of a new intellectual property is more and more coming to be viewed as a dead monkey.

William D. VolkChief Futurist Forward Reality

I remember the first game movie license deal (I saw at Activision) to hit $200k in fees, that being Days Of Thunder in 1988.

Of course I also remember Howard The Duck, ET and Johnny Mnemonic (which I labeled ‘Johnny McMissing’ since Keanu wasn’t part of the deal).

ET: The Extra-Terrestrial on the Atari 2600, the infamous nadir of movie tie-ins

I’ll be contrary and say with mobile content, movie licenses are even more important than they would be with triple-A titles.

Case in point, nine out of 10 of the top iMessage grossing apps/stickers are Disney and other movie properties.

Discovery on mobile is so poor and acquisition ads so very bad in terms of ROI, movie licenses can only be a good thing.

Jared SteffesCo-founder Muxy

It really seems movie games are no longer guaranteed stinkers!

We have seen our share of really bad movie/television-based videos games, and they just kept coming through the years.

But gaming technology started evolving and games that felt like movies with better stories started coming out.

I remember my first play of Left 4 Dead. There I was playing a game with my wife and two friends over the internet that felt like we were in a zombie survival movie.

Experiencing it with someone else really increases the joy factor because movies/television are shared, social experiences.

Mobile is designed from the start to be shared, everywhere, and has ubiquitous influence!

The games no longer need to tie-in the exact characters or core story of the IP. They can move into new areas that would allow more game mechanics to function with the devices.

I remember playing Wayne’s World for my SNES and wondering why I was jumping around shooting things from a guitar. It didn’t make sense!

Now a talented team could make you part of theWayne’s World universe as you help Garth find his dream girl and help Wayne afford his new guitar without breaking the bubble of their film adapted life.

The Walking Dead is a prime example of creating a universe.

The first movie IP since Android/iOS that I played all the way through was Army of Darkness by Backflip Studios. It was super fun!

It had just enough influence from the IP along with interesting mobile mechanics to make me play it until I was out of content. It’s nice to be able to complete a mobile game nowadays!

As mentioned above: the CPI is lower due to organic searches of the IP, people expect a movie to have tie-in products, and people will spend money to acquire them.

I’ve worked on a couple of movie and TV games in the past. They require an out of the box approach and hand holding with the producers/writers of the IP.

It is a lot of fun to branch out of the world other people have created to provide interactive content for a world that many people may cherish. It just requires the devs to put on the fan’s shoes for the entire process.

Harry HolmwoodEuropean CEO Marvelous Entertainment

I agree that IP licenses are potentially a great way to drive installs and reduce UA costs. But that has to be weighed against the fact that you’ll be paying a not inconsiderable royalty to the IP holder.

F2P game economics boil down to margin – ie how much more per user are you making than that user costs to acquire?

A sensible way for companies to work with someone else’s IP is to take an existing game system/tech platform that gives some level of comfort in terms of keeping a handle on development costs, and understanding how well that game should retain and monetise players.

Then, you can give a reasonable estimate as to how that game, with a great IP on top, can deliver a return on investment for all parties.

Being too ‘out of the box’ with a game design would be risky with F2P and someone else’s IP – how do you know how much you can afford to pay in royalties/advances if you don’t know how well your game will monetise?

That’s why quite a few of the successful games using third party IP are based pretty solidly on mechanics seen elsewhere.

Genera’s Frozen Free Fall being a great example of taking Candy Crush-type mechanics and applying a great brand, enjoying huge success as a result.

Pokemon GO also shows how an existing game (Ingress), which has been under the radar, can become phenomenally successful when combined with a brand everyone loves.

Movie licenses, as has already been touched upon, bring a new level of difficulty.

In the console business, ‘day and date’ releases were always desirable and, with the right team and limited scope, often achievable. Big numbers would be sold due to the IP.

With free-to-play, though, getting a huge number of users day one can be a disaster – that game might need months in soft launch before it’s retaining and monetising well.

I’d imagine it’s unlikely a movie studio will let you soft launch with their brand before they launch their movie so, as Nicolas says, it feels more sensible to focus on a more evergreen franchise (Harry Potter being a great example) than the next big action movie.

Devin NambiarHead of Product Management, Asia-Pacific Electronic Arts

The relationship between movie IPs, installs, and CPI has already been pointed out several times in this thread, so I won’t belabour those points.

Other than to say that in order to achieve good ROI on a movie IP title, developers need to have a good sense for how much CPIs will decrease with the influx of organic installs, and how the structure of the IP deal – specifically the revenue share – ties into this.

In terms of reconciling the short shelf life of a movie with the longer product lifecycle demands of a F2P game, a great way to solve this is by going after IP deals with franchises, as opposed to just movies or flash-in-the-pan IPs.

We did this quite well at my previous company Kabam, with The Hobbit and Marvel: Contest of Champions being two great examples.

Not only were we able to rely on multiple movies to drive installs and hype, increasing the shelf life of the game, but we were also able to sync major feature releases with movie releases, bringing new content into the game for existing users and often getting App Store featuring because of it.

This, coupled with a movie release drove even more installs.

Multiple movie releases with franchise IPs also has great synergy with live operations and by combining these things with good product marketing, you can create a hype cycle that drives both acquisition and monetisation into the stratosphere.

Thomas NielsenOsao Games

As several of the anciently old Mavens have already pointed out, movie IPs have been around for almost as long as computer games have.

Really, in my mind, nothing new has happened with mobile: associating your game with any IP that people know, makes it easier to get your game noticed.

You could argue that mobile has broken new ground in terms of IP with the Kardashians, PewDiePies and the Pen Pineapples of the world.

But really those are, like movies, IPs that already have a certain amount of exposure – helpful for you to break through all of the noise.

If anything, I think movie IPs/tie-ins are going to be fewer, just because movies no longer represent the ultimate product when it comes to global interest and awareness.

As eyeballs have turned to YouTube, NetFlix and HBO, new IPs surface that get tremendous exposure – something that generates a lot of new potential even for the smaller, entrepreneurial, agile players in the space.

John OzimekCo-founder Big Ideas Machine

I think Thomas makes the obvious point that the right license has always been good business, regardless of whether it’s a movie or not.

Personally, I’ve not noticed an uptick in movie IP on mobile recently – movie licensing has been around forever in the games industry (ET on the Atari, anyone?) and mobile is no different.

If anything, I think that the concept of what is a licensable IP has become far more blurred – with games like Angry Birds turning into a movie rather than the other way around.

And the concept of mega-celebrities licensing their own notoriety is inevitable when someone’s personal brand and audience are a monetisable commodity.

But I still believe the real gems are those games that are original, creative, and not reliant on licensed IP – those are the games that I’m excited to play.

Oleg PridiukEvangelist, Defold King

I am probably reiterating on what have been said, but maybe I am adding a new angle here.

I invest so much time trying to look at the modern world, media space, and daily routine through young eyes and the key words I hear often are “too much information”.

My point is, young people have to consume and digest so much new information, that any learning curve is hard, any tutorial is bothersome because there’s a full context to learn, whole new world to figure out.

This is where known IP helps – teens and young adults know who Batman is and why he fights The Joker, which already is a good motivation for a click.

Jas PurewalLawyer & Partner Purewal & Partners

Two comments:

More movie licenses in games is driven by reciprocal interest: screen looking at games and games looking at screen. It’s also (roughly) more of an equal relationship. This is different to the old days, but lack of common understanding and different perspectives of the industries can still pose fundamental challenges in a licence negotiation.

Watch out for hype: there are as many movie/mobile game tie-ins which have been quietly dropped.(Source: pocketgamer.biz  )


上一篇:

下一篇: