I think, though, that it's pretty evident that Zynga's success has had a large impact on the industry. It's not just that they did it using underhanded tactics. It's that they did it so freakin' fast that's gotten so much attention.
Remember, Farmville launched in summer of last year.
83,000,000 MTUs in less than a year.
That's why the industry has taken notice. That's why Zynga nabbed another EA developer. That's why Nintendo is getting into Social Gaming. That's why Zynga sells gaming currency cards in 12,000 stores in the US alone.
Saying that Zynga has had an impact on the gaming industry is like saying Madoff had an impact on the financial industry. This is true. But I was talking about *relevance*.
The goal is to make Madoff irrelevant, because his tactics, like Zynga's, do nothing but harm, and are far outside the realm of normal, ethical business practices. Neither of them has any place at the table. Neither of them is relevant to their respective discussions.
You keep mentioning the number of units they sold. I can scam the holy hell out of people and sell twice as many units of essentially ANYTHING - that's the way Amway has worked for decades. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the company or their products have any relevance.
Relevant to this subject, there was a recent "lunch" about this, of which the BBC [http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/maggieshiels/2010/04/lunching_with_gaming_luminarie.html] blogged a report about. Thankfully, the "social" game developer in question is Playfish. And now, a bunch of quotes from that article.
[Playfish's co-founder Kristian Segerstrale] also noted that of Facebook's 400m monthly users, around 200m play social games.
That figure astounded fellow lunchers - and none more than Dave Perry [Shiny Entertainment founder], who has been in the business for more than 25 years and who started when he was 15. "The shocking thing for me," he said, "is that some of the social games just aren't that good, yet they still get a lot of play."
"We didn't see that thing coming. It had to come from an outsider who has a different vision. Change usually comes from the outside. It's hard to change from within. It's an entrenched business. We are not a mature business," said Mr [Warren] Spector who has worked on blockbusters like Deus Ex and Ultima.
He said he tried "frictionless" games five or six years ago but was more or less stymied from the start. "Everybody I talked to said 'Why do that? Do what people expect. They would rather give you more money for this triple-A game.'"
________________________
Mr Spector turned philosopher, asking: "There is lots of talk about audiences, but does art and creativity enter into that? Is it all about reaching an audience, which sounds vaguely evil to me."
Mr Segerstrale admitted that metrics about users and how they approach games can be useful but don't take away from the need to have a good compelling game. "More than anything, the cool thing about data is it validates design. You do still need the creative vision as well."
Gary Whitta, the host for this "luminaries lunch", quipped: "You don't need a game designer, they will only argue with you."
He went on: "You already have the formula. That is why you see so many of the same games - it's a fish game that's doing well, so let's have another fish game. You have to win the analytics war."
For Mr Spector, that was anathema. "I will retire before I have to make a game based on analytics or market share. I will go open a bookstore. Sales are not the only thing that matter. If I got data that said one thing and I believed in my heart of hearts in another, I would screw the data and ignore it," declared Mr Spector.
Mr Whitta then went on to point out that "gaming is a combination of technology and art. Game design concepts have become more sophisticated - and with social gaming, it seems like we have rebooted everything. We are back to very very remedial game concepts."
Mr Segerstrale generally agreed with that. "These products iterate really quickly. Pet Society today after 100 iterations has fewer buttons than when it started. They are iterating to become more simple."
_____________________________
Mr Spector said what worried him is the headlong rush to use motion controllers popularised by the Wii, and including Sony's Move and Microsoft's efforts to get rid of the console altogether with its Project Natal. [Spot the error on the BBC's part]
"I think it's kind of weird... that we've sort of said, 'We've got 20, 30 years of people learning how to do this - sitting on their couch and having a good time, and knowing where the buttons are' - and we're saying 'You've got to stand up and wave around and gesture,'" Mr Spector mused. "We're in the process of throwing away people - kids, adults - who know this stuff."
It's not that Mr Spector hates motion controls, because he admitted he has a vested interest. "I'm working on a Wii title and I'm loving it."
Relevant to this subject, there was a recent "lunch" about this, of which the BBC [http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/maggieshiels/2010/04/lunching_with_gaming_luminarie.html] blogged a report about. Thankfully, the "social" game developer in question is Playfish. And now, a bunch of quotes from that article.
*snip*
If Zynga and the like becomes the new major publishers, I will go to Warren Spector's book shop and buy books from him.
Glad to see that the BBC chose a worthwhile social gaming mascot. One who brings legitimate ideas to the gaming industry. We need more Playfish/Armor Games/etc, and much less Zynga.
The gaming press needs to hold them up as the standard, and push Zynga to the back of the bus.
Zynga is not "relevant to the industry." Unless, of course, you're talking about the industry that revolves around Affiliate programs who try as hard as they can to scam people.
Do I have a problem with games like FarmVille, Mafia Wars, et al? No, I don't. I still have Drug Wars on my calculator. ALL of my calculators. For two decades now, I've had version of Drug Wars on *some* device I own. I've had a Harvest Moon game on the majority of my consoles. I have a L14 Kongregate account, so I obviously have no issues with flash games. I don't get upset about PopCap's existence. I don't have a problem with Big Fish, or the Casual Game Portals out there (that is to say, the ones which don't resort to the same scam-ridden Affiliate programs as Zynga).
Zynga, and the companies like them, hurt gaming. Zynga, and the companies like them, hurt the *legitimate* Affiliate programs. Zynga, and the companies like them, hurt social networking. Why? Because the company is run by a scammer. This would normally be a statement I'd have to back up with some conspiracy theorist's nonsense about how Zynga stole his cat, but I don't. Why? Because I have guess you shouldn't make promises you can't keep, <a href=http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1935698,00.html>and an article that basically sums up the whole ordeal.
And I'm hardly the <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96024-Zynga-CEO-Admits-to-Being-a-Scammer>first to <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96310-Zynga-Sued-Over-Deceptive-Advertising>link to stories on Zynga's scam-filled background. Even the <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_228/6787-An-Offer-You-Cant-Refuse.2>stories about how much 'fun' a Zynga game is can't stay away from the scamming nature of the company.
How long before you find other slimy companies to praise?
You have to understand that the individuals who hate Zynga because "they make crappy games" are largely idiots. The majority of us hate Zynga because they have done everything in their power to cheat users out of their money, shortly before lying about it.
I still can't believe I read that the discussion "isn't about its ethical practices."
That's the only discussion we should be having. The only discussion that matters.
If it makes you feel any better, replace every instance of "Zynga" or "FarmVille" in that article with "Playfish" and "Playfish-developed-game of your choice."
Zynga is merely one example of the LARGER issue, which is social gaming being here to stay. Zynga is horribly shady, I hate its practices, but that doesn't mean I don't think that social gaming is newsworthy.
I am a bit tired of people complaining about things they don't like and being elitist. I hate farmville to but I understand why its popular. There is no sense bitching about it constantly. I just choose not to play it.
I am a bit tired of people complaining about things they don't like and being elitist. I hate farmville to but I understand why its popular. There is no sense bitching about it constantly. I just choose not to play it.
It's popular because it's dumbed down just enough so that women can understand it. It's just like Slingo, The Sims, and even Twitter/Facebook. Eventually, those women get bored and all move on to something else. None of that garbage stays relevant among intelligent people for very long.
Yes, like I said, understand that. But how does complaining about it change anything? In the end of the day, they have millions of players and make millions of dollars. It's the same thing with Twilight and every other trend out there. Of course they are not meant to last. But Funk is right, social gaming is here to stay. Farmville will be a footnote eventually, but social gaming won't be.
Them cashing in on these people makes them no worse than any other trend of media be it top 40 copy paste music or cheasy tabloid paparazzi news. It's all the same pile.
Which I why I just avoid it. Stuff like that will always be existent in any form of media.
Did I say I was complaining about it? My only legit complaint with social gaming is how it's a massive pyramid scheme. Other than that, knock yourself out if you're having fun with it and stick with the free stuff.
If it makes you feel any better, replace every instance of "Zynga" or "FarmVille" in that article with "Playfish" and "Playfish-developed-game of your choice."
Zynga is merely one example of the LARGER issue, which is social gaming being here to stay. Zynga is horribly shady, I hate its practices, but that doesn't mean I don't think that social gaming is newsworthy.
I'd prefer they be replaced in the actual articles.
I think that social gaming is newsworthy, too. I don't think Zynga is anything even remotely approaching an accurate or even halfway decent representative of social gaming as a whole. Using "Zynga" as a proxy for social gaming actually damages it.
You keep mentioning the number of units they sold. I can scam the holy hell out of people and sell twice as many units of essentially ANYTHING - that's the way Amway has worked for decades. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the company or their products have any relevance.
I am too. I'm talking about Zynga from a standpoint of relevance in the gaming industry. Which the entire industry is being turned upside down by it. To say that the largest player in that field - Zynga - is irrelevant, is akin to saying the iPhone is irrelevant to the smartphone market because you don't like their practices in selecting apps.
Mark Pincus is a jerkwad. Yes. I understand that completely. But he's a jerkwad being taken seriously by the industry. Because he found something and made it work.
You made an entire news post to ***** about bitching. If anything fails to be newsworthy it's topics like this. Bitching about bitching always just leads to more bitching about bitching. You aren't the first and probably wont be the last to make a news post on this site that boils down to being this exact same topic.
While I'm sure news about Farmville is relevant to casual gamers, I have to wonder how much of your audience finds it relevant.
By the way, I hear feeding the trolls is good for page views. Any comment on that?
You made an entire news post to ***** about bitching. If anything fails to be newsworthy it's topics like this. Bitching about bitching always just leads to more bitching about bitching. You aren't the first and probably wont be the last to make a news post on this site that boils down to being this exact same topic.
While I'm sure news about Farmville is relevant to casual gamers, I have to wonder how much of your audience finds it relevant.
By the way, I hear feeding the trolls is good for page views. Any comment on that?
Understanding what the controller does is one thing. I remember trying to get my dad to play Smash Brothers with us back in the day, and we could always explain to him the buttons and how to do everything. But actually USING it is something entirely different. How many times have you seen a non-gamer play a shooter and just walk around looking at the floor? Maybe the odd non-gamer will be able to figure it out, but for a lot of people it's a huge barrier.
You can try to argue otherwise, but it's part of the reason the Wii has been so successful, and why Sony and Microsoft are going their own alternative-controller routes. My dad might not know how to hit B-down-push the stick to the side to control angle or whatever, but he sure as hell knows to act like he's swinging a golf club.
Smash Bros seems like quite a high entry level to me (even if it is considered simple for a fighting game). I know some people who have had trouble picking up Sonic the Hedgehog. This is the 2D ones which controlled with the D-pad and 1 button!
I sometimes wish games were a bit easier to get into. I got my GF to play New Super Mario Bros with me and she actually enjoyed it which was a big plus, but I don't think I'll have much luck with a more complicated game. I actually think that Wii has become a big enough cultural phenomenon that it seems more accessible and people are more willing to try it. PS2 sold more, but Playstation probably sounds more intimidating to non-gamers.
I am a bit tired of people complaining about things they don't like and being elitist. I hate farmville to but I understand why its popular. There is no sense bitching about it constantly. I just choose not to play it.
It's popular because it's dumbed down just enough so that women can understand it. It's just like Slingo, The Sims, and even Twitter/Facebook. Eventually, those women get bored and all move on to something else. None of that garbage stays relevant among intelligent people for very long.
I think anyone who tries to say that any of the facebook games or "casual" Wii games help people get into gaming is wrong, they just get into "casual games" and have almost no interest in anything besides them, also the point that it is hard to some one who hasn't played games before into gaming is also not try I have done it a few times.
I got my sister into gaming by her watching me play Paper Mario and the 100 year door for Gamecube, this became an almost daily thing for me to play and her to watch, I slowly started to let her take control of some of the battles and by the time she got the hang of it the game was over, I then decided to give her my old Gameboy color and a copy of pokemon gold she loved it and now has a DS and pokemon pearl as well as a few other games, she even plays Oregon Trail and Spore on my computer when I'm not on it. She was 9 when she started playing.
I got my mom to start playing with tetris, now she doesn't play that offen but she does love play portal every now and then. She was 45 when I got her to start playing.
My brother and me both started around the age of 7 our first 2 games were tie fighter and Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego both given to us by our grandpa.
And lastly my ex, I got her into gaming with Diablo 2, that quickly turned into playing WOW and almost any other RPG I had, she even start playing halo before we broke up.
So what I'm trying to say is it's not hard to get someone into gaming as long as you know what they might like, and well these casual games don't really help people find out what they like in mainstream gaming.
They're only relevant because gaming sites like this one keep reporting on them. In reality, they're nothing to do with video games. I equate them to being more of a MMO board game. I was always given the impression that the purpose of the "Escapist" was to report on games that actually give a feeling of Escapism from reality. This is something that click-click-damn-click-credit-card-details-click does not achieve, unless it's an escape from financial well being.
I've also got to agree with some other posters here; these facebook games are not a gateway to other more hardcore gaming experiences. My uncle has been playing Farmville for about half a year, and hasn't so much as taken a second look at a console. My father, however has jumped on the idea of buying a family PS3. Was it Farmville? Mafia Wars? Wii Sports? Nope. It was seeing me play Bioshock. I haven't heard of even one case of people moving on to plot driven or hardcore video games from the clickers or the wavers.
Relevant to this subject, there was a recent "lunch" about this, of which the BBC [http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/maggieshiels/2010/04/lunching_with_gaming_luminarie.html] blogged a report about. Thankfully, the "social" game developer in question is Playfish. And now, a bunch of quotes from that article.
[Playfish's co-founder Kristian Segerstrale] also noted that of Facebook's 400m monthly users, around 200m play social games.
That figure astounded fellow lunchers - and none more than Dave Perry [Shiny Entertainment founder], who has been in the business for more than 25 years and who started when he was 15. "The shocking thing for me," he said, "is that some of the social games just aren't that good, yet they still get a lot of play."
"We didn't see that thing coming. It had to come from an outsider who has a different vision. Change usually comes from the outside. It's hard to change from within. It's an entrenched business. We are not a mature business," said Mr [Warren] Spector who has worked on blockbusters like Deus Ex and Ultima.
He said he tried "frictionless" games five or six years ago but was more or less stymied from the start. "Everybody I talked to said 'Why do that? Do what people expect. They would rather give you more money for this triple-A game.'"
________________________
Mr Spector turned philosopher, asking: "There is lots of talk about audiences, but does art and creativity enter into that? Is it all about reaching an audience, which sounds vaguely evil to me."
Mr Segerstrale admitted that metrics about users and how they approach games can be useful but don't take away from the need to have a good compelling game. "More than anything, the cool thing about data is it validates design. You do still need the creative vision as well."
Gary Whitta, the host for this "luminaries lunch", quipped: "You don't need a game designer, they will only argue with you."
He went on: "You already have the formula. That is why you see so many of the same games - it's a fish game that's doing well, so let's have another fish game. You have to win the analytics war."
For Mr Spector, that was anathema. "I will retire before I have to make a game based on analytics or market share. I will go open a bookstore. Sales are not the only thing that matter. If I got data that said one thing and I believed in my heart of hearts in another, I would screw the data and ignore it," declared Mr Spector.
Mr Whitta then went on to point out that "gaming is a combination of technology and art. Game design concepts have become more sophisticated - and with social gaming, it seems like we have rebooted everything. We are back to very very remedial game concepts."
Mr Segerstrale generally agreed with that. "These products iterate really quickly. Pet Society today after 100 iterations has fewer buttons than when it started. They are iterating to become more simple."
_____________________________
Mr Spector said what worried him is the headlong rush to use motion controllers popularised by the Wii, and including Sony's Move and Microsoft's efforts to get rid of the console altogether with its Project Natal. [Spot the error on the BBC's part]
"I think it's kind of weird... that we've sort of said, 'We've got 20, 30 years of people learning how to do this - sitting on their couch and having a good time, and knowing where the buttons are' - and we're saying 'You've got to stand up and wave around and gesture,'" Mr Spector mused. "We're in the process of throwing away people - kids, adults - who know this stuff."
It's not that Mr Spector hates motion controls, because he admitted he has a vested interest. "I'm working on a Wii title and I'm loving it."
Thank you for this. Quite an interesting read, and it pretty much confirms a lot of the points i keep pounding on.
Mr Segerstrale told the rest of his lunching luminaries that social gaming did so well out of the gate because "it's fundamentally about getting people who are not gamers involved in gaming".
(...)
"I don't think anyone knew where it would go. It lowered the barriers of access to gaming, like YouTube did for video. Now playing games is literally a click away, and you don't have to look for them because your friend will tell you where they are. That's been a key driver," Mr Segerstrale told the other panellists...
He also noted that of Facebook's 400m monthly users, around 200m play social games.
That figure astounded fellow lunchers - and none more than Dave Perry, who has been in the business for more than 25 years and who started when he was 15. "The shocking thing for me," he said, "is that some of the social games just aren't that good, yet they still get a lot of play."
What surprise me about this is that they were surprised. I mean, have they been living under a rock? lol
Mr Segerstrale told us that social games are about getting players to build that "value of self" as they invest time, money and friendships in playing the game.
Yeap, friends themselves are a currency in these games. A social developer himself confirmed what our general opinion is, and trashed the illusion of "social interaction" that gets thrown around ludicrously as a good thing going for these games.
Mr Perry saw the value in that and seemed to suggest that, in the future, perhaps Facebook will need social gaming more than social gaming will need Facebook.
It's a symbiotic relationship, Mr. Perry. I remember reading somewhere in this very thread that someone from Zynga said their success in facebook stems from them for some reason not minding spam. My feeling is that he was being a bit falsely naive, if not an outright liar. Of course they don't mind it, having such games is good business for them. And excuse me for not believing that they maintain no contact whatsoever to the point of this guy not knowing why don't mind spam, but it's a bit hard to swallow. How can you not be in contact and discuss and negotiate very closely with third party developers that hold a vice grip on half your user base? And if we convert that into user hours, that percentage is certainly a lot bigger, along with it being a very effective mechanism of "costumer retention".
Mr Spector turned philosopher, asking: "There is lots of talk about audiences, but does art and creativity enter into that? Is it all about reaching an audience, which sounds vaguely evil to me."
And someone gets the ball rolling. Bravo, Mr. Spector!
Mr Segerstrale admitted that metrics about users and how they approach games can be useful but don't take away from the need to have a good compelling game. "More than anything, the cool thing about data is it validates design. You do still need the creative vision as well."
Yeah, right pal. You own company is a prime example of this, isn't it? Your games *do* have better quality and creative vision than Zynga's, for instance, but they're nowhere near as successful, are they? Kinda makes your argument moot.
Gary Whitta, the host for this "luminaries lunch", quipped: "You don't need a game designer, they will only argue with you."
He went on: "You already have the formula. That is why you see so many of the same games - it's a fish game that's doing well, so let's have another fish game. You have to win the analytics war."
Right on the money. This is why we see these companies copying each other with no end. Like i said quite a few times before, this phenomenon has the potential so swallow itself whole. What i mean by this is that the games that hone more accurately their formulaic design will polarize the biggest chunk of the user base, leaving the competition to rot. You just have to look at the ridiculous difference between the amount of Farmville users vs. Farmtown, or any other games, even Zynga's ones, to realize this.
One little thing though: they need game designers, but nor for their creativity, just as workers following a blueprint. Even if they would prefer to go with some sort of creativity and "gut feeling", they're not allowed to, metrics take precedence. And no, this is not just a guess, it's a reliable fact, but i'm bound by an honor agreement not to divulge my source on this. And they *are* sucking in developers. But i will elaborate on this further below.
For Mr Spector, that was anathema. "I will retire before I have to make a game based on analytics or market share. I will go open a bookstore. Sales are not the only thing that matter. If I got data that said one thing and I believed in my heart of hearts in another, I would screw the data and ignore it," declared Mr Spector.
This made my day. It's good to see people still thinking like this in the industry. It gives me a faint glimmer of hope.
Mr Whitta then went on to point out that "gaming is a combination of technology and art. Game design concepts have become more sophisticated - and with social gaming, it seems like we have rebooted everything. We are back to very very remedial game concepts."
Mr Segerstrale generally agreed with that. "These products iterate really quickly. Pet Society today after 100 iterations has fewer buttons than when it started. They are iterating to become more simple."
I love this guy, he does all the work for me. One of the arguments i see repeated over and over again, is how these games can be an introduction to gaming, and a gateway to more complex games. While this may be true for a small portion of users (particularly younger ones), for the majority, it is not. In fact, as Mr. Segerstrale so kindly pointed out, these games are progressively simpler, instead of more complex. Hence, the further they stray away from traditional games, and the simpler their design is, the more users they have. The gap is already big, and they are widening it, instead of narrowing it. And any developer that narrows it, coming closer to bridging it, will have a smaller user base, and be swallowed by the fierce competition.
"I would kill to make a game in only two years," said Mr Spector. "My games and that of other people take longer than that."
He then joked that at the end of the process, he often feels exhausted. "There is a feeling of relief and exhaustion. Hey, maybe after this I will get four guys and do an iPhone game."
Mr Segerstrale seemed to relish that prospect. "We don't have enough game designers working on social games and that is why something like farming games are the biggest category and why they make sense because when you have one that does really well, then you have a ton of people piling into that category."
Relish indeed, i can almost see his eyes glistening. Now, i do think that the industry has the potential to adapt to the changes taking place, but i believe nobody can be blamed for seeing this social revolution as a threat to traditional gaming. They're growing fast, and need more people at a very fast rate. And where do they get them? That's right, traditional developers, because they already have the experience. They are recruiting, and pulling all the stops to do so. I mean, they even recruit during an acceptance speech, for crying out loud! (yes, i'm talking about Bill Mooney's speech). I shall quote a comment i stumbled upon in an indie forum:
Heh, speaking of Zynga, any of y'all hit that party on Monday night? It was like being in hell: 500+ people crammed in a space that should probably hold 200, open bar got cut off after just over an hour, piles of food but no plates or forks, a DJ playing asinine house music while screenshots of Mafia Wars scrolled by on a screen behind him. And you couldn't even enjoy your drink, if you could get one, without being accosted every 15 minutes by one of their recruiters..
This description made me laugh (before it, you know, scared the crap out of me).
Cody211282 said:
I think anyone who tries to say that any of the facebook games or "casual" Wii games help people get into gaming is wrong, they just get into "casual games" and have almost no interest in anything besides them, also the point that it is hard to some one who hasn't played games before into gaming is also not try I have done it a few times.
You have a point, but a separation has to be made between social and casual games. When one plays casual games on a Wii, you already went through quite a few entry barriers: you already paid money for the console and the games, and you already got familiarized with the controllers. For a non-gamer, the learning curve between a social game and and the Wii is a very steep one. While the Wii is operating a disruption in the industry, rebooting from bottom and going upwards from there (an article i linked before explains this theory, and i have to say i agree). As they progressively add complexity, they will come closer to the complex market Sony and Microsoft cater more too (Nintendo will probably release a new console somewhere later in the future), and leave them in a tight spot: they can't go "down", because they can't compete with Nintendo in that market, and they can't go "up" towards the hardcore of the hardcore, because that market is too small. So, they'll be stuck there, ready to be pounded senseless. Nintendo saw a gap in the lower tiers of the market, and planned it well long ago. Or at least, it's reasonable to assume so, as far as predictions go, but it's no science. So casual gaming *can* lead people to more complex games, there is a lot of common ground, and depends only on wether people are willing to give it a try or not. Social gaming however, is (like i said way too much already) a totally different beast. The gap is too big, the design focus and process is different, the platform is different, and even the userbase is different (a lot of social gamers don't even like PopCap's games, for instance).
And like it's already been said, being able to learn is one thing, wanting to is another. But we do tend to disregard the difficulty in something when we grew up around it. As an example, i grew up in a small village in the interior of Portugal, that didn't even have electricity when my dad was born (in the 40's). My dad is not dumb in the slightest, he has a college degree, and has been very involved in local politics. But i struggle to teach him simple things like reading text messages in his cell phone, and browsing through the interfaces of his new TV and DVD player. The context in which you grow up matters a lot in terms of both previous experiences that help you adapt to something new, and the motivation required to overcome technological obstacles.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
(before it, you know, scared the crap out of me).