4 ms·
I think that's right. If social games are going to continue to exist, and I think they are, there's going to be an arms race which focuses on quality. People m
by hugh3 16y ago
I think that's right. If social games are going to continue to exist, and I think they are, there's going to be an arms race which focuses on quality.
People may have got sucked into Farmville by the viral aspect of the game, but having been fooled once they've developed an immunity to straight-out viral games. (Also, so has the platform -- games are no longer allowed to publish more than one message to your friends' newsfeeds.) So future games will have to focus on having a gameplay experience which makes people actually want to play them.
Of course, writing a really good game isn't easy. And if you're capable of writing a really good game, why not sell it for ten bucks on iPhone/Android/MacOSAppStore/whatever instead of giving it away for free and trying to shoehorn in enough ads to cover costs?
- coryl 16y agoPrice points on apps is still something evolving. From what I've seen, its extremely difficult to get users to buy apps past a certain price range (99 cents?). And if you can't get massive adoption, its not really a "social" game, is it?
- hugh3 16y agoIt's still a social game if people can play it with their friends who also have it. You don't need 60% market penetration for that, you just need it to be sufficiently good that people say "Hey, this game is awesome, you should get it too!"
- coryl 16y agoI suppose so, but mobile games and games on Facebook are a different breed, the distribution mechanisms are very different.