Spielberg fell into this trap 30 years ago. What pit is it that makes Tencent and NetEase afraid to jump into?

In addition to mobile e-sports and VR, the hottest topics in the gaming industry in 2016 are "film-game linkage". "Film-game linkage", as the name suggests, is to adapt and recreate the two popular entertainment forms of film and television works and games.

However, the user dividend effect that the gaming industry has relied on for more than a decade has long been on the verge of exhaustion after years of full growth. The film, television, and animation industries are beginning to generate new dividends and user eyeball effects, and the combination of film, television, animation, and games is receiving more and more attention. However, "film and game linkage" does not mean that the adapted games of films with good market returns can also receive the same response. Whether in China or abroad, the effects of many "film and game linkage" are not ideal.

The "Atari Collapse" brought a bloody lesson to the "Movie and Game Linkage"

The mode of simultaneous production and release of film, television and games has been popular in Europe and the United States for nearly 30 years and has become a relatively common commercial supporting solution. For example, in 1993, Hollywood brought Nintendo's classic game "Super Mario" to the screen, and then "Street Fighter", "Prince of Persia", "Tomb Raider", "Silent Hill" and other classic games were adapted into movies. In terms of film and television adaptation games, there are many works such as the Batman series and the Harry Potter series.

However, "movie-game linkage" does not necessarily lead to a win-win situation for movies and games. For example, the early "Atari Crash" incident. In the 1980s, the Atari Darth Vader game console was popular, and Universal Pictures and Atari began the earliest IP cooperation in history. Atari developed the game of the same name as the famous science fiction movie "ET" directed by Spielberg, and sold it at the same time as the movie was released.

At that time, Atari could be said to have taken advantage of the right time and right place. Since "ET" was the most popular and profitable science fiction movie at the time, the title of North American box office champion had already earned enough attraction for the game that had not yet been released. At the same time, the competition in the game market at that time was far less fierce than it is today. Atari was also a well-known game console company at the time, with strong R&D capabilities. But the result was that Atari produced more game cartridges than the number of consoles, and then a large backlog of cartridges caused Atari to suffer huge losses and go bankrupt, and the American game industry was hit, and countless game companies closed down. The "Atari Crash" had a lot to do with the rough production of the "ET" game itself, and it also made director Spielberg suffer a loss.

"Film and game linkage" is to squeeze out the surplus value of IP

In China, many game manufacturers simply regard the manufacturers of "movie-game linkage" as using IP for marketing, and the results are often unsatisfactory in terms of word of mouth and market performance. Even many classic IPs have quickly evolved into "fan centrifuges" through the IP of game manufacturers. The most representative example this year is "Grave Robbers' Chronicles". Whether from the perspective of novels or film and television dramas, this IP has accumulated a very large fan base at the time, and when the relevant game news just came out, the majority of people predicted its success. On the one hand, this IP was authorized by multiple parties, and the authorized manufacturers only developed games with the attitude of borrowing skins, resulting in shoddy games, which disappointed a large number of "Grave Robbers' fans" and even had a resistance to the game products under this IP. In 2015, "Grave Robbers' Chronicles" was still a golden IP in the traditional sense, but by 2016, it was basically in a situation where it lost money for every game it made.

In fact, the foundation of "movie-game linkage" lies in the overlap of the two markets and the feasibility of product IP conversion. Several relatively successful cases such as "Star Trek" and "Lord of the Rings" also took advantage of this feasibility: the popularity of a certain movie led to a high number of downloads of the game of the same name. Rather than "movie-game linkage", it is more like "fan economy". Just like fans buy autographed photos of idols, fans who are keen on a certain film or TV work will also have a high probability of trying the game of the same name.

But anyone with a discerning eye can see that in this game of exchange, rather than expanding the market and entertaining the public, it is more about encouraging fans to repeat consumption. The domestic game market always likes to go from one extreme to another. Just as we didn’t pay attention to IP before, now major companies are frantically snatching and hoarding IP. Once the "concept" is hyped up, everyone is excited. As for the question of "good film and television works are not equal to good games", no one will consider it at all. Therefore, "film and game linkage" is a means for manufacturers to squeeze out the surplus value of IP driven by interests.

Where did the film-game collaboration fail?

The development cycle of game works is too fast, the gameplay is single, and the sustainable content is thin. In order to cooperate with film and television works, many games with the same name have to sacrifice precious development time and R&D investment just to achieve the "same release period". The advantage of this is that it brings fierce publicity effects and high initial downloads, but the game itself lacks polish, and the game graphics and playability are all the same.

A lot of money is spent on purchasing IP, and the allocation of development resources is imbalanced. It takes money to develop games and it takes money to purchase IP. When the two are combined, it is a bit tragic. Developers spend a lot of money to purchase IP, just hoping to get a return as soon as possible. In this case, "borrowing" and "micro-innovation" are the best ways. Learn a little framework here, and use a little format there. The final product can be summed up in one word: the medicine is the same in a different soup.

As film and television works are constantly being innovated, games are being "counterattacked". As a film and television industry, a large number of film and television works are invested every year. When one work is finished, another one will be launched immediately. The audience's attention changes with the replacement of works. For example, the brothers and sisters who cried for "Bai Li Tu Su" some time ago are now paying tribute to "Mei Chang Su".

From this point of view, the game of the same name really feels like it has been "counterattacked". After all, the interactivity of the game requires players to spend more time to engage with it, and game manufacturers hope that players will play as long as possible. But new works always come too much and too fast. Therefore, "success or failure depends on Xiao He". The word "fast" is like a double-edged sword, which allows products to enter the market quickly, but also makes them decline quickly. This is also the main reason why game giants such as Tencent and NetEase have already got involved.

Don’t die in the routine of “movie-game linkage”

However, it can be seen from games such as "Angry Birds" and "The Journey of Flower" that the linkage between film and games is possible, but several problems need to be solved.

In the entire process of creating the film-game linkage, all activities must be carried out around the IP. Whether it is games or movies, the IP must be infiltrated into every link. Highly restored plots, sound effects, pictures, etc. are all indispensable in the film-game linkage. Secondly, do not blindly develop and operate an IP. It is very difficult for the film-game linkage to succeed. Let’s talk about the game industry first. The success rate of game products is very clear in the industry. Although there are many products produced every year and there are many types, the success rate is about 1%.

The situation in film and television is even worse. There are also a lot of works, but very few are focused on. According to statistics, the success rate of domestic film and television dramas is less than 1%. Under such difficult conditions, it is extremely difficult to create a successful film-game linkage work. Therefore, don't blindly rush to develop an IP that has yet to be settled. You must know that you can't eat hot tofu in a hurry. In addition, the popularity, values ​​and user sedimentation of the IP will directly affect the success of the film-game linkage. It is also very important to choose a suitable IP. After all, not all IPs are suitable for film-game linkage. Finally, the marketing link is also very important for expanding the influence of the IP. Marketing promotion with IP as the core can more efficiently convey the entire concept you want to express to the audience.

The most critical point to achieve "film-game linkage" is to make good content and give up the idea of ​​making a quick buck and leaving. In fact, people who have been in the industry since the PC game era should know that if you really want to practice "film-game linkage", you can plan movies like Youzu, or you can delve into the plot like "Three Swords". "Film-game linkage" and "making a quick buck" are essentially mutually exclusive. When a successful movie or game crosses borders, it should not think about making a quick buck and leaving, but how to influence users in another circle, so that the cultural symbol itself has greater value. After playing with IP for a while, I looked back at the best-selling list and found that it was dominated by NetEase and Penguin again. IP fanatics even called it PC game IP. I vaguely remember a saying that is circulating in the video industry, "It's never too late to make good content", which also applies to the game industry.

"Film-game linkage" is inseparable from "film" and "game". The popularity of film and television dramas and the quality of games are the two most critical factors in "film-game linkage". Film and television dramas can only bring temporary popularity to games. As for whether they can retain users, it depends entirely on the quality of the game itself. Games are different from films and television. Games are interactive, which allows players to combine with content instead of just being spectators. Because of this, games need more polishing and carving.

You can't copy other people's success. Don't just follow their path just because they succeed. Everything is random, and the film-game linkage field is not mature yet. There is no absolute path that says you will succeed if you follow it.

Each company has its own characteristics. Similarly, in the field of film-game linkage, it will have different advantages and focuses, so finding a path that suits itself is the key to success. In the current fiercely competitive market environment, especially under the current pathological film-game linkage, it is very difficult to achieve greater success with a single path. Innovation is the hard truth. Find a new path suitable for your own development, enhance your competitiveness in the market, and take your own unique path to stand out in the entire market.

As a winner of Toutiao's Qingyun Plan and Baijiahao's Bai+ Plan, the 2019 Baidu Digital Author of the Year, the Baijiahao's Most Popular Author in the Technology Field, the 2019 Sogou Technology and Culture Author, and the 2021 Baijiahao Quarterly Influential Creator, he has won many awards, including the 2013 Sohu Best Industry Media Person, the 2015 China New Media Entrepreneurship Competition Beijing Third Place, the 2015 Guangmang Experience Award, the 2015 China New Media Entrepreneurship Competition Finals Third Place, and the 2018 Baidu Dynamic Annual Powerful Celebrity.