“愤怒的小鸟”还飞得起来吗

    《愤怒的小鸟》背后的芬兰游戏开发商Rovio最近发布的财报描绘了一幅令人触目惊心的业务发展图景：这家公司年收入2.16亿美元，其中盈利3,700万美元。与去年同期相比，公司盈利下降了52%。

    《愤怒的小鸟》这个招牌一直是Rovio公司的收入保证。《愤怒的小鸟》各种游戏的全球下载量已经超过了20亿次。围绕着这个系列，这家公司还发布了主题游戏、卡通以及各种纪念品等众多周边产品。周边产品如此丰富，甚至出现过以愤怒小鸟为主题的中秋月饼。

    眼下，正值企业发展的关键时刻，Rovio的盈利却出现大跌。这家公司在2009年推出《愤怒的小鸟》时，移动设备上的休闲游戏依然是一个尚待发展的新兴市场。如今，行业中涌现了大量新的竞争对手，包括同样位于芬兰、开发了《部落战争》（Clash of Clans）的游戏工作室Super Cell；而制作了《糖果粉碎传奇》（Candy Crush）的开发商King数码娱乐公司（King Entertainment）则已经在今年三月成功上市。

    韦德布什证券公司（Wedbush Securities）分析师迈克尔•帕切特表示，Rovio面临的问题很简单：“除了《愤怒的小鸟》之外，他们再也没拿出任何成功的产品。”而星佳（Zynga）算是一个跟它相反例子。2011年的时候，Zynga并不算一个蓬勃发展的大公司。但那时，这家公司也没有完全依赖单一的某一个产品系列为生。帕切特补充说：“星佳业绩表现上佳的游戏人们能说得上来的有五六款：比如说FarmVille、CityVille或者Draw Something。”

    但Rovio就与之相反。除了《愤怒的小鸟》，它就再也没有任何家喻户晓的品牌了。发布《愤怒的小鸟》之前就没曾有过，之后也没出现过。更糟糕的是，《愤怒的小鸟》并没有完全发挥它强大的吸金能力：虽然可能依然有很多人对这款游戏乐此不疲，但是从商业的角度来看，游戏并没有给玩家一个掏钱购买虚拟物品的理由。

    “玩家在《愤怒的小鸟》游戏中拥有无限生命”，帕切特解释道。他认为《愤怒的小鸟》游戏核心缺少街机游戏的各种机制，而这，才是驱动用户掏钱的根本原因。他说：“我认为这一点就是Supercell和King数码娱乐公司的成功之处。人们乐于为它们制作的游戏掏腰包。”

    因此，若以赚钱能力相较，《愤怒的小鸟》这款游戏已经落伍了。Rovio公司就算想要补救，也已经来不及了。这家公司现在唯一的选项就是向用户提供无与伦比的全新游戏体验。而任一游戏工作室的经验都显示，要达到这个目标，说起来容易，做起来难。这家公司本身似乎也意识到了自己所面临的挑战。公司首席财务官赫科普•索恩宁在本周一的公司声明中表示：“经过三年的高速增长之后，2013是一个重新夯实基础的年份。”

    过去一年中，Rovio仍在成长。员工数量从2012年的大约500名上升到了2013年的800名。而在去年12月，这家公司发布了名为《愤怒的小鸟Go！》（Angry Birds Go!）的赛车游戏。这款游戏从一开始就按照“免费增值”模式设计，在游戏内销售虚拟货币和物品。不过，Rovio若不想彻底坐实昙花一现这一“美名”，它需要的不仅仅是另一款《愤怒的小鸟》系列游戏——哪怕这款游戏的商业模式已经和以前大不相同。(财富中文网)

    译者：Liam

    The Finnish game developer behind Angry Birds painted a startling picture of its business with its latest earnings, reporting $37 million in profits, down 52% compared with the previous year, on revenues of $216 million.

    For Rovio, Angry Birds has been the brand that keeps on giving. The franchise has been downloaded over 2 billion times worldwide and expanded into a stable of themed games, cartoons, toys and other memorabilia. Indeed, there were even Angry Birds Chinese moon cakes once.

    Rovio's earnings plunge comes at a crucial moment for the business. When Angry Birds launched in 2009, casual gaming on mobile devices was a nascent market. Now newer entrants have popped up, such as fellow Finnish game studio Super Cell, the developer behind the popularClash of Clans games, and Candy Crush-maker King Entertainment (KING), which went public in March.

    Rovio's problem is simple: "They've never had any success beyond Angry Birds," said Michael Pachter, a Wedbush Securities analyst. Although Zynga (ZNGA) may not be the huge, thriving company it once was in 2011, it's also not dependent on one franchise. Adds Pachter: "You can name five or six Zynga games that have done well, like FarmVille, CityVille and Draw Something.

    That's not the case with Rovio, which didn't have any household brand names prior to Angry Birds and hasn't had one since. And worse, Angry Birds just isn't the huge moneymaker it could be: the gameplay may still be a hoot for many, but from a business standpoint, there's no real incentive for players to pony up for virtual items.

    "In Angry Birds, you don't run out of lives," explains Pachter, who argues it lacks the arcade game-like mechanisms at its core that really drive users to pay. "That's where I think Supercell and King have been so successful. They came up with games where people are comfortable spending money."

    So if the Angry Birds game is a laggard when it comes to making money, that leaves little for Rovio to do but develop compelling all-new game experiences, and as any game studio can attest, that's easier said than done. The company seems aware of the challenge it faces: "After three years of very strong growth, 2013 was a foundation-building year," chief financial officer Herkkop Soininen offered in a company statement this Monday.

    Rovio grew as a company from around 500 employees in 2012 to 800 last year. And last December, it released the racing title Angry Birds Go! -- a game designed with a "freemium" model from the start, with currency and virtual items sold inside the game. Still, it will probably take more than another Angry Birds game -- albeit one with a different business model -- for Rovio to prove it's more than a veritable one-hit wonder.