3 ms·

For context, Sirlin is the "Playing to Win" guy. He's pretty much the patron saint of games that reward real player skill instead of rewarding "wasting a lot of

For context, Sirlin is the "Playing to Win" guy. He's pretty much the patron saint of games that reward real player skill instead of rewarding "wasting a lot of time doing the same thing over and over". Unfortunately, I have yet to be convinced that there's a significant market for Sirlin's approach compared to the "click button for victory" style. So if someone can find an upside or benefit to the latter, all the better.

DaniFong 17y ago
So far, the best market that I've come up with is that the influence and attention of intelligent and powerful people is a much scarcer resource than money. So if you develop games for influence rather than wealth, you can have higher ideals. Otherwise, you're stuck pandering to the lazy majority.
dasil003 17y ago
One such reason is the life-cycle of fads. Farmville and its ilk are not building the long-term brand equity that companies (or artists!) need to become stable. Their success just represents clever use of a new social medium, but the same thing that made them spread virally so quickly will cause people to abandon them quickly as well. Once the majority of Farmville players become ex-players and telling everyone how much of a waste of time it is, the engagement will fall off a cliff. Sure, Zynga will try to string people out with new games, but there is diminishing returns for something that offers players little more than addiction. Doesn't matter though because it's an epic money grab anyway. The people out there making real games are no doubt feeling a twinge of jealousy at the insane profits Zynga is raking in right now. However this is just what happens with new market opportunities. Look at how Atari caused the crash of the home video game industry in the early 80s by following a similar strategy to Zynga (I remember playing ET as a child and just wondering what the hell the point even was).

DaniFong 17y ago

So far, the best market that I've come up with is that the influence and attention of intelligent and powerful people is a much scarcer resource than money. So if you develop games for influence rather than wealth, you can have higher ideals. Otherwise, you're stuck pandering to the lazy majority.

dasil003 17y ago

One such reason is the life-cycle of fads. Farmville and its ilk are not building the long-term brand equity that companies (or artists!) need to become stable. Their success just represents clever use of a new social medium, but the same thing that made them spread virally so quickly will cause people to abandon them quickly as well. Once the majority of Farmville players become ex-players and telling everyone how much of a waste of time it is, the engagement will fall off a cliff. Sure, Zynga will try to string people out with new games, but there is diminishing returns for something that offers players little more than addiction. Doesn't matter though because it's an epic money grab anyway. The people out there making real games are no doubt feeling a twinge of jealousy at the insane profits Zynga is raking in right now. However this is just what happens with new market opportunities. Look at how Atari caused the crash of the home video game industry in the early 80s by following a similar strategy to Zynga (I remember playing ET as a child and just wondering what the hell the point even was).