多位開發者聊電影IP對免費模式手機遊戲的推動價值

多位開發者聊電影IP對免費模式手機遊戲的推動價值

原文作者:Matt Suckley 譯者:Megan Shieh

傳播媒介的出現開始讓電影版權在遊戲中發揮作用,這種狀況持續到了現在。

爲了利用電影院中圍繞上映電影的宣傳,商家們會發布相關的盒裝產品;而開發者們也會製作出反映電影情節的互動體驗。

但是在F2P手遊的世界裏,電影版權的作用發生了微小的改變。

通過傳統的方式在手機遊戲中使用電影版權可以將兩小時的鉅作轉換成正在進行的實時遊戲,讓玩家沉迷幾個月,甚至幾年。

因爲仍可能有利可圖,所以實踐的難度並沒有挫傷人們的熱情。就在最近幾周,Spil Games簽下了《Valerian》,Ludia簽下了《Underworld》,Mediatonic搶先簽下了《Fantastic Beasts》。

與此同時,Koukoi遊戲公司籌集了100萬美元用來開發一款新遊戲,該遊戲改編自一部尚未命名的好萊塢電影。

爲深入瞭解兩者間的關係,我們請教了一些手遊界的專家:

你認爲電影版權在移動遊戲中越來越流行的原因是什麼?

電影的保質期短暫,而成功的F2P遊戲卻要求相對較長的生命週期,兩者如何調和?

John Ozimek —— Big Ideas Machine 聯合創始人

電影版權在移動領域一直都很受歡迎。

早在2001年,人們就已經原意花費鉅額購買電影版權了。Riot-E購買《Lord of the Rings》系列電影就是一個很好的例子,說明手遊工作室看到了遊戲搭配電影的潛力。(當然,Riot-E的交易是出了名的糟糕。)

Jean-Philippe Decka —— PocketWhale 首席執行官

我相信這種合作方式可以帶來成功,特別是當你使用非常有名氣的版權的時候。

Ludia和《Jurassic Park》、還有Vivid Games和《Jurassic Park》,他們的合作效果都非常好。

Oscar Clark —— Rocket Lolly Games 作者、顧問、獨立開發者

當初有人向我提案《Lord of the Rings》,遺憾的是,公開說這是個“垃圾”主意的人不是我,一個在Vodafone工作的人搶先了一步。我記不清楚是誰,但如果我沒記錯的話這個人應該是Graham Ferguson。

THQ難道不就是建立在此之上(或因此倒閉)的嗎?

我還記得Glu在Java時代製作的《Transformers 》遊戲讓Kristian Segerstrale(遊戲邦注:Glu Mobile聯合創始人)多麼地沮喪。

電影版權可以成爲推動遊戲進入主流的工具,但它並不能取代一個精彩的遊戲。

通常情況下,版權的費用會成爲製作一個好遊戲的阻礙。

買了電影版權之後剩下的錢不夠提供最好的遊戲體驗,同時還得遵守電影公司所設置的各種限制,其中一些限制真的會讓你的想法變得一團糟。

一般來說,當人們更重視遊戲本身而不是電影版權的時候,電影搭配的效果最好。通常情況下,遊戲被視爲次要項目、營銷工具或者通過版權籌集快速現金的方法。

就我的情況而言,我們製作的遊戲不是根據一部電影,而是根據一個激發了電影靈感的原創舞臺表演,我認爲這沒多大差別。

《 Rocky Horror Show 》自1973年發佈至今,深受粉絲喜愛,我們也是它的粉絲!

因此這個作品不僅僅是對原版IP的致敬,也滿足了我們以遊戲的形式來重新想象它的企圖。

我們並不是在嘗試去構建一個新版的原版遊戲(一種冒險遊戲),相反我們正在試圖挖掘出讓這種狂熱體驗發揮作用的方式。

這需要的不僅僅是版權本身,它還需要大量的細節關注、大量的激情、以及理解原始版權來源(靈感)的能力。

能不能成功?遊戲現在還在開發階段,所以你們就只能拭目以待了……

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

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

Nicolas Godement-Berline —— Mana Cube 首席運營官

電影版權是用戶獲取的手段之一:更便宜的CPI、更好的特色和口碑、交叉推廣,並且可以消除創建一個全新遊戲版權時可能會遇到的一些挑戰。

它們也是一種相對簡單的,快速跟進和擴大一個熱門遊戲或遊戲類型影響力的方法。

在激烈的競爭中,隨着UA和開發的成本上升,製作移動遊戲的風險變得越來越高。因此電影版權捲土重來也就不足爲奇了。

我完全同意Oscar的觀點,當人們將遊戲本身看作主角而不是單純的電影配角的時候,電影搭配的作用就最好。

版權交易一般需要很長時間進行協商,因此直接的電影搭配總是會導致開發啓動太遲的情況,但是如果你想要趕在電影發佈日期當天推出遊戲的話,遊戲發佈日期又不能推遲。

結果遊戲的質量就會受到較短的開發預算和進度的影響。

此外,一款成功的F2P遊戲一般會有較長的生命週期,所以最好將它的成功根植於對一個系列根深蒂固的依戀,而不是暫時的知名度提升。

如果你真的決定要和合作的電影同一天上架,那麼試圖將故事內容貼近電影情節往往是災難的根源。

這在製作遊戲機動作遊戲的時候總是發生,在手遊領域發生得更加頻繁。抓住版權的本質,在這個範圍內構建一個偉大的遊戲,在我看來是更好的方法。

理想情況下,你創建的遊戲應該以一個正在進行的電影系列或一部翻拍的電影作爲基礎。

這樣一來,遊戲就能和電影系列與時俱進,每一部電影的發佈都能爲擴大粉絲基礎起到很大的推動作用。

從這個角度來看,與《Underworld》合作似乎是一個聰明的舉動,而《Fantastic Beasts》和《Valerian》帶來了更大的長期風險。即便如此,我是《Valerian》和《Harry Potter》的忠實粉絲,所以希望還是有的。

Scott Foe ——Ignited Artists 首席產品官

App Stores剛起步的時候,你需要的只是一個好玩的遊戲。但是不久之後,你需要的就不僅僅是一個好玩的遊戲了,你還得有機靈的營銷。

隨着“best practices”(遊戲邦注:最優實踐)的出現,行業開始整合,根本沒有必要爲了新遊戲版權的發行而在用戶獲取方面花錢。

結合著名版權開發遊戲一度被認爲是一種減少用戶獲取花費的方式,這似乎正在成爲一種嚴格的發行要求。儘管從歷史上看,IP搭配的遊戲產出的市場結果多種多樣。

目前與移動發行商的談話中,我能感覺到發行商或多或少地期望第三方工作室能夠帶來他們自己的、已知的IP——許可已知的IP或採用發行商自有的IP。

William D. Volk——Forward Reality 首席未來學家

我記得我在Activision公司看到的第一個遊戲電影版權協議是1988年的《Days Of Thunder 》,該筆交易的費用達到了200萬美元。

當然,我也記得《Howard The Duck》,《ET》和《Johnny Mnemonic》(我把它標籤爲“Johnny McMissing”,因爲Keanu並不是交易的一部分)。

《Atari 2600》裏的《ET: The Extra-Terrestrial 》是電影捆綁臭名昭著的最低點

我想說是,電影版權對於手遊內容的重要性甚至超過三A遊戲。

舉例來說,10個最暢銷的應用程序裏,有9個是迪斯尼和其他電影的產物。

手遊的探索這麼差,用戶獲取的廣告投資回報率又非常糟糕,電影版權只能是一件好事。

Jared Steffes Muxy——聯合創始人

電影捆綁之前一直是糟糕遊戲的保證,如今似乎情況有變!

非常糟糕的電影/電視捆綁遊戲多年來層出不窮。

但是隨着遊戲技術發展,有的遊戲情節甚至比電影中的更吸引人。

我記得我第一次玩《Left 4 Dead》的時候。我和我的妻子,還有其他兩位朋友在網上一起玩遊戲,當時感覺自己就彷彿置身於一個殭屍生存電影。

和別人一起體驗會增加樂趣,因爲電影和電視是共享的社交體驗。

移動設備從一開始就被設計成共享的、普遍存在的、而且影響力無處不在!

遊戲不再需要捆綁電影版權裏的確切人物或核心故事,它們可以進入一個允許更多遊戲機制與設備一起運行的全新領域。

我記得在SNES上玩《Wayne’s World 》的時候,當時我想:爲什麼我會拿着吉他跳來跳去,還用它來射擊。這一點都不合邏輯!

如今,一個有才華的團隊可以讓你成爲《Wayne’s World》世界的一部分,你可以幫助Garth找到他的夢想女孩,並在不打破他們電影生活泡泡的情況下,幫助Wayne負擔得起他的新吉他。

《The Walking Dead》就是創造一個全新遊戲世界的最好例子。

繼Android/iOS之後,Backflip工作室的《Army of Darkness》是我第一個從頭玩到尾的電影遊戲。超級好玩!

電影對它的影響恰到好處,而且它還結合了有趣的手遊機制,讓我一直玩到沒內容玩了才肯罷休。在手遊氾濫的今天,能夠完整地玩完一個手遊的感覺真的很棒!

正如上面提到的:電影的有機搜索使得CPI較低,如果人們期望一部電影可以有捆綁產品,那麼他們就會原意花錢得到這些產品。

我曾經參與過一些電影和電視捆綁的遊戲製作,它們需要創造性的手法和IP製作人/作者的扶持。

擴展一個別人創造的世界、提供會被很多人珍惜的互動內容是很有趣的事情,它需要開發者們在整個開發過程中從粉絲的角度來看事情。

Harry Holmwood——Marvelous Entertainment 歐洲首席執行官

我贊成電影版權可能是驅動安裝量和減少UA成本的好方法,但你必須將可能的市場成果與你將支付的版權費用進行權衡。

F2P遊戲的經濟可以歸結爲利潤率——即:你的平均用戶收入會比平均用戶獲取成本多多少?

對於一個公司來說,IP合作的一個明智方案是利用現有的遊戲系統/技術平臺,這樣可以在開發成本控制方面給予一定程度的安慰,同時需要清楚地知道該遊戲應該如何保持留存並且貨幣化玩家。

然後你可以給出一個合理的估計:第三方版權合作的遊戲如何可以爲各方帶來的投資作出回報。

如果你的遊戲設計太過“打破陳規”,那麼就會對你的F2P還有其他人的知識產權造成風險。如果你不知道你的遊戲能賺多少錢,那你咋知道你能有多少錢支付版稅/預付款?

因此不少第三方版權捆綁的成功遊戲所使用的機制都是大家見過的。

Genera的《Frozen Free Fall》就是一個很好的例子,該遊戲借鑑了《Candy Crush》類型機制,然後將它應用到一個很好的品牌上,從而得到了巨大的成功。

《Pokemon GO》也展示了一個一直默默無聞的現有遊戲(Ingress),可以在與人人喜愛的品牌相結合的時候獲得驚人的成功。

就如前面談及的,電影版權早已不是新鮮事兒,因此它帶來了一個新的難度水平。

在遊戲機業務中,“發佈日期”總是很令人期待,如果擁有合適的團隊和有限的規模,和電影同步發行通常是可以實現的。電影版權的存在會帶來巨大的銷量。

不過對於F2P遊戲來說,第一天就擁有大量的用戶可能會成爲一個災難。在開始創造留存和盈利之前,這個遊戲可能需要先花幾個月來做測試發行。

但是在電影推出之前,電影製片廠不太可能會讓你用他們的品牌進行測試發行。就像Nicolas說的那樣,把注意力放在一個更常青的電影系列上(《Harry Potter》是一個很好的例子),而不是下一部大動作電影,這纔是更明智的選擇。

Devin Nambiar —— Asia-Pacific Electronic Arts 產品經理

電影版權、安裝量和CPI之間的關係已經在這個線程中被指出好幾次了,所以我就不過多強調這些點了。

但是爲了讓電影搭配的遊戲實現良好的ROI,開發人員必須要清楚地知道隨着大量的有機安裝,CPI會下降多少;以及版權協議的結構(特別是收入)跟這有多大關係。

電影和遊戲的保質期調和方面,解決這一問題的一個很好的方法是與系列電影合作,而不是曇花一現的電影或者版權。

在我的上一個公司Kabam的時候,我們就做的很好。《Hobbit》和《Marvel:Contest of Champions》就是兩個非常好的例子。

我們不僅能依靠多部電影來驅動下載量和宣傳、延長遊戲保質期;還可以將重大功能和新電影同步發行,爲現有的用戶帶來新的內容,而且遊戲也經常因爲電影的發佈而被App Store列爲推薦產品。

並且電影的發佈還能推動更多的安裝次數。

系列電影的發佈與現場運營也有很大的協同作用,通過將這些東西與好的產品營銷相結合,你可以創造一個推動用戶獲取和收益進入最高階段的宣傳週期,

Thomas Nielsen——Osao Games

正如上面幾位資深業內人士所指出的,電影版權和電腦遊戲的存在時間幾乎一樣長。

真的,在我看來移動領域就沒發生過什麼新鮮事兒:把你的遊戲和別人知道的IP聯繫起來,讓你的遊戲更容易被注意到。(老招數了)

你可能會爭論說,移動領域在版權方面和卡戴珊姐妹、PewDiePies和Pen Pineapples 都已經創造出了新的突破。

但實際上這些就跟電影版權一個意思——IP已經有了一定的曝光量,對你脫穎而出很有幫助。

真的要說的話,我認爲電影版權捆綁將會減少,因爲電影在全球關注和認知方面已經不再代表終極產品了。

大部分的眼球已經轉向了YouTube、NetFlix和HBO,這些平臺都能讓新版權獲得巨大的曝光量,並且產生大量的新潛在玩家。

John Ozimek —— Big Ideas Machine 聯合創始人

我認爲Thomas說的沒錯,不管是不是一部電影,合適的版權一直是好注意。

就我個人而言,近期我並沒有注意到手遊領域電影版權捆綁的增加。在遊戲行業,電影授權一直都存在,移動領域也沒有什麼不同。

如果非要說的話,那就是我認爲遊戲版權和電影版權的概念變得更加模糊。像《 Angry Birds 》這樣的遊戲演變成了一部電影,而不是先有了電影纔有遊戲。

當個人品牌和觀衆成爲一種可帶來收益的商品時,超級名人將人氣授權的概念是不可避免的。

但我仍然相信,真正的好遊戲是那些原創的、具有創造性的、不依賴版權授權的,這種纔是能令我興奮的遊戲。

Oleg Pridiuk—— Defold King 倡導者

我可能在重申已經提到過的東西,但我在這裏增加了一個新的角度。

我花費了大量時間試圖通過年輕人的眼睛看現代世界、媒體空間和日常生活,而我經常聽到的關鍵詞是“信息量太大”。

我的意思是,年輕人必須消化這麼多的新信息,由於需要弄清楚遊戲裏所有的內容和新世界,所以任何學習曲線都是困難的,任何教程都是很麻煩的。

這裏就是知名版權發揮作用的地方,青少年都知道蝙蝠俠是誰,也知道他爲什麼和Joker一直打架,這就足夠讓他們點擊你的遊戲了。

Jas Purewal—— Purewal & Partners 律師&合夥人

兩個評論:

1. 越來越多遊戲中的電影版權屬於互惠利益驅動:電影看着遊戲然後遊戲看着電影,它更像是一種平等的關係。這與過去不同,但缺乏共同的理解和不同的行業視角仍然會在版權談判中帶來根本性的挑戰。

當心炒作:有很多的電影+手遊搭配已經悄悄放棄了。

本文由遊戲邦編譯,轉載請註明來源,或諮詢微信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  )