It made it into GamerInformer, they must be doing something right, no matter what it spells for the rest of the gaming industry.Galaxy613 said:..You mean it isn't already a hit?Deofuta said:....Is going to make farmville a hit.
It made it into GamerInformer, they must be doing something right, no matter what it spells for the rest of the gaming industry.Galaxy613 said:..You mean it isn't already a hit?Deofuta said:....Is going to make farmville a hit.
It is true that the whole scammy ads thing does stick out in the minds of people. Though a con artist is someone who is a professional at what they do, but more importantly this stems from experience. What I am trying to say is, a con artist is someone who has made a job of it whereas Zynga had one run in with such a perception. They did use scammy ads, only once, and haven't done it since. It's like if I helped a person out of a burning car saving their life, that doesn't necessarily make me a good person. In the same way that if a person drinks a couple of beers, doesn't make them a drunk. If Zynga routinely scammed people I might be inclined to agree with the perceptions contained herein, but they haven't. Ever since they took down those scammy ads, they haven't been seen again. So yes, they do have a sordid past, but I don't see it in the present nor do I see it in the future (unless you have references I am not aware of )? So for me, it's like judging a person based on one action and deciding that's all they are. If someone did that to me, I would consider that unfair. Though we will have to wait and see what Zynga has planned, and go from there.Hopeless Bastard said:You're not wrong in expecting objectivity from anything that presents itself as journalism. But when something's past actions, present situation, and future prospects are utterly identical, its pretty much impossible to not sound biased.Waif said:Well I can understand why some people would be critical of Zynga's past mistakes. Indeed, the usage of scammy ads did nothing for the company's image. Though to let that opinion interfere with the telling of the facts is really what I disagree with. It's fine that some people disagree with Zynga, after all I am sure every company has it's detractors. All of which have their reasons, but I do expect some impartiality with informative articles. Whether or not I error in doing so, is perhaps a question of the ages. There are a lot of people who prefer emotionally charged articles rife with opinion and bias. I just don't, I feel that opinions should be up to the reader, not the author. If people reading are in a negative view of the subject matter, then it is fine, because the author isn't promoting hatred on the subject.
I don't know, am I wrong in wanting impartiality in these articles?
Its like a convicted con artist, who is currently engaged in a large con, releases a press release stating hes planning on conning more people. How do you report that in any way beyond exactly what it is?
Okay, so do you have any references that shows that Zynga's negative reputation isn't confined to a single incident(remember that with the Haiti thing, they have long ago been exonerated for the accusations surrounding it).Hopeless Bastard said:I see. Yes, if you're operating under the impression that zygna's reputation can be isolated to a single incidence, yes, its easy to see coverage as biased.Waif said:It is true that the whole scammy ads thing does stick out in the minds of people. Though a con artist is someone who is a professional at what they do, but more importantly this stems from experience. What I am trying to say is, a con artist is someone who has made a job of it whereas Zynga had one run in with such a perception. They did use scammy ads, only once, and haven't done it since. It's like if I helped a person out of a burning car saving their life, that doesn't necessarily make me a good person. In the same way that if a person drinks a couple of beers, doesn't make them a drunk. If Zynga routinely scammed people I might be inclined to agree with the perceptions contained herein, but they haven't. Ever since they took down those scammy ads, they haven't been seen again. So yes, they do have a sordid past, but I don't see it in the present nor do I see it in the future (unless you have references I am not aware of )? So for me, it's like judging a person based on one action and deciding that's all they are. If someone did that to me, I would consider that unfair. Though we will have to wait and see what Zynga has planned, and go from there.
As it is corporations do what they must to grow and flourish as a company. I doubt Zynga will make the same mistake in Asia as it did with the scammy ads here in North America. They have a better platform to operate from than what they did a year ago.
Cons/scams are all about convincing the mark that giving you money is not only a good idea, it was his/her idea. I compare zygna to con artists because what they produce are not games. They're presented as games. They have graphics and a basic design that resembles a game. But their only purpose is to lock their users into an ascending, self-contained cycle of work (in this case, spamming) for reward (virtual bullshit). They're essentially pyramid schemes with only two levels. At the bottom, the millions of users generating a river of upward flowing revenue and zygna.
Implying they're going use an identical business model in asia isn't bias, its accuracy.
Well, it's not so much a misunderstanding of the basis of Flash games. I only used the term "Flash Games" because these are what Zynga games are, therefore implying that there is an irony in not referring to them as games. I also intended to make a comparison to other flash games like Tower Defense, Robot Unicorn, and, well, pretty much any flash game that is popular. The idea of the comparison was that popular flash games in general are minimalistic, easy to understand, and offer virtual rewards. Zynga games, however, are social based. You play the same kind of games, but with other people and are rewarded by it. Virtual rewards yes, but it seems that 70 million daily players like that sort of thing. Then again as I previously stated all games offer primarily virtual rewards. Especially MMO's, more so MMO's that have cash shops like Gpotato, Wonderking, NCsoft, etc. "Value" is something that the individual user places on an item. I don't see much value in purchasing a virtual Neapolitan Cow for Farmville, but a lot of other people apparently do. While you and I might not see much value in such an item, others see much worth in owning a Neapolitan Cow. For them it is worth the effort, and I think they are more than welcome to it. They are free to have whatever fun they want, and they are free to seek whatever rewards they find value in. For this reason "Better" games are a matter of opinion. A game like Tower Defense, while fun and entertaining, may not appeal to a person who likes to play Farmville. To them, Farmville is better than Tower Defense.Hopeless Bastard said:You're misunderstanding. There are a considerable amount of flash games that are better games than anything released by any big publisher in decades. Flash/console/tabletop/sex/whatever, the medium is irrelevant to a product's status as a "game."Waif said:-snip-
Zygna's products are built entirely around rewarding "meta-game" actions. These actions are primary spamming. Theres no thought involved, just self-contained, valueless rewards for working for zygna. This is not a game, its a job that pays fake money.
Ah, but therein lies the crux of the matter. I feel that Zynga isn't conning anyone, but you feel they are. Giving money to Zynga is optional and not forced. People make that decision themselves to give Zynga money, just as they make a decision to eat at Burger King or at a McDonalds. Therefore Zynga cannot be the con artist because they aren't forcing you to give up your money to play. They have incentives to do so, but it is never forced. Advertising is also optional, as you don't have to post anything to your wall. Everything that I post from Petville I have to give the okay. I have to make the decision myself, and it's not forced. Though there is incentive in doing so. However, if I was forced to post stuff to my wall, I could see why you would feel it to be a con. I wouldn't think of it to be a con in that sense, but I would think it to be poor business practice.Hopeless Bastard said:You know, I knew MMOs would be your counter-point. I thought I headed it off at the pass.Waif said:-snip-
MMOs don't compare tospam-your-friendssocial gaming. They may charge subscriptions and offer virtual items for real currency, but the ones that succeed in any real form are true games built primarily around in-game actions for in-game rewards. Even the free ones who make most their money off selling virtual items are still structured primarily around interacting with the game itself. Even if you think of mmos as "work simulators" they're still more a game than a zygna product, as you aren't actually working for the mmo's developer. You're working in a world they created.
As far as "its up to the individual whether s/hes getting scammed or not," No. Everything that costs real money in a zygna product simply provides more ways to spam people. Every bit of progress in a zygna game simply opens up more ways to spam people. Theres nothing wrong with paying money for virtual items, theres something wrong with giving money to zygna so you can work for zygna.
Back to con artistry, the inherent flaw of every con is that point where the mark realizes hes been conned, and his/her money is gone. Successful con artists are typically very far away at this point. Outwar (oldest social game I can think of) on the other hand, corrected this flaw. Most of their money comes from ad revenue, ad revenue pays by exposure, exposure is generated by spam, spam is generated by the users. No where in this basic model is "mark gives you money." Which means zygna products are the perfect con.
So, what I'm saying is just because you don't realize you're working for zygna or you don't care if you're working for zygna or you even feel good about working for zygna, it doesn't mean you're not getting conned. It also means any coverage concerning zygna must mention the fact they're well established con artists to remain unbiased.