3 ms·
I haven't played Fortnite, but from what I know it took a somewhat resurgant form of gameplay (battle Royale) and added some innovations to great success. I ca
by 40acres 8y ago
I haven't played Fortnite, but from what I know it took a somewhat resurgant form of gameplay (battle Royale) and added some innovations to great success.
I can see Fortnite having a multi year run, but gaming is a completely different medium to a traditional 'social network'. Maybe this says something critical about social networks, mainly the fact that a successful social network must be oriented around passive consumption rather that active participation.
I'm sure folks watch Fortnite videos online and live streams, but I get the sense that a large number of folks have spent more time playing that watching. You cant really say that for most other social networks, especially when you remove 'power' users such as influencers and brand accounts.
- Namrog84 8y agoBut even traditional social networks change and shift and dont really last the same way. Facebook has had some lasting power but it has decreased and died in many ways. Vine. Snapchat. And many other things have taken huge chunks of mine shares. While Facebook owns or buys some of them. Most more traditional social networks I'd argue also aren't really lasting things either. They are probably longer half life and slower churn than a gaming social network but other than the half life they suffer same problems.
- 40acres 8y agoTrue, eventually these platforms will either die or innovate to the point where their original implementations seem distant. My bigger point is regarding the nature of a gaming platform vs. a more traditional feed based app as effective social networks (when it comes to lasting power and monetary ability mainly), even the best video games have a flash in the pan nature that makes it difficult to see the MAU increase in a way we've seen with feed based networks.