5 ms·

I don't know. It's like saying that all those *ville are copies of Sim City. Maxis's games were centered on simulation, while this new generation of games are t

by molmalo 15y ago

I don't know. It's like saying that all those *ville are copies of Sim City. Maxis's games were centered on simulation, while this new generation of games are targeted to a much more casual gamer. And it's bad when a Giant tries to crush a little studio, copying their games, while at the same time, suing others for doing the exact same thing. (Vostu)

Uchikoma 15y ago
According to some, Zygna is not targeting casual gamers but casual gamblers (same motivations, same demographic) There was a discussion about that on HN some days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3453040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3453040
- teej 15y ago
  > According to some According to a marketing guy from Betable, a real-money gambling platform with a vested interest in making you think exactly that.
- intended 15y ago
  I think they are. WoW, Farmville, all use a skinnerian model - different reward types on variable, regular and random schedules designed to make sure that you get that next dopamine buzz just right in time. leastI don't doubt that some of these games need someone to take a look into them. Likely we need legislation such as that which covers the gambling industry or rules such as those that cover the slot machine industry. I know the regulation idea may not be popular here though (I dislike it). Yet we agree that the gambling industry needs checks and balances, in which case Zynga does too (or at the very least, someone to check) Edit: For clarity. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Also: If I am getting downvoted, I'd love to know why people disagree with me.
  - nknight 15y ago
    Well, the lumping together of WoW and Farmville is pretty bizarre and makes me think you have no idea what these games are actually like. Reminds me of Tipper Gore. Then you go on to say "we agree the gambling industry needs checks and balances", which is pretty damned presumptuous. Have you completely failed to notice the strong libertarian bent of HN? In many ways, I'm practically a socialist, but I cringe outwardly at the thought that government should regulate the behavior of consenting adults. Yes, gambling can be seriously problematic for some people and their families/loved ones, and I'm not against government efforts to educate people and help treat problem gamblers, nor am I against things like requiring casinos to post odds, but go any further and you quickly get way outside my comfort zone. Think of drugs and take a guess at how many people on HN actually support the "war on drugs". The number people who agree with special regulation of gambling is probably quite similar, and quite small.
    - intended 15y ago
      Thanks for responding. I do realize that HN has a strong libertarian bent, still I assume that healthy debate is more important than ideology. For the record: I am not advocating suffocation by regulation. I am asking where the line is drawn, and how people feel about the basic marriage between operant conditioning and micro transactions. Responding to what you said about WoW and Farmville: I did specify that I am talking about the REWARD systems employed by the games. Having played both, I know the differences between them as games. (suffered as a Shaman from nearly version 1) Both though do use basic operant conditioning techniques. In WoW you have your XP bar which gives you your fixed ratio reinforcement, and then drops which provide your variable ratio reinforcement. Then you have your various other schedules which come from leveling up professions, progression, achievements and so on. Farmville has similar mechanisms - your constant crop growth and timings are your regular reinforcement and then you have random drops which provide your variable reinforcement. There really isn't any other science behind these systems when it comes to how the reward mechanisms are designed. The games themselves are very different. Skill/ingenuity does play a huge role in WoW (like the rogue who soloed patchwork), I am in no way comparing the skill requirements of the two games. Farmville can be played by a bot.
    - JonnieCache 15y ago
  - hythloday 15y ago
    This seems like an impossible thing to regulate. What public good are you aiming to maximize? What has the market proven that it can't do without intervention? How will you determine which market behaviours are the "bad" ones? In the case of gambling, I think the only protection the public needs is education ("the house always wins")--in the UK, at least, gambling regulation is usually in place to isolate gambling from other criminal activities e.g. money laundering, and to make sure the house isn't cheating, i.e. that it's a game of chance. Neither of those rationales seem to be necessary for skinner-box-like-games.
    - intended 15y ago
      These are the questions I am asking myself. At one end, there is the market will solve it approach, and if it isn't broke, why fix it? After reading your comment, the most I could suggest would be game companies having to show the general rate of growth players could be expected (average, maximal).
- bermanoid 15y ago
  No love for Zynga here; the bulk of my rent for the past reasonable stretch of time has been paid for by a Zynga competitor, and a lot of office time has been spent ripping on them for their various tactics. There are many things to hate Zynga for, especially if you've actually talked to people that work there (or that have jumped ship, or they've tried to recruit). But I really don't buy the idea that gamblers are the target market. I know that demo very well, as my previous life was spent running numbers for an online gambling company (my experience with market analysis in that context got me most of my recent work), and I've always been a bit of a poker junkie myself. The Facebook crowd is far more casual, far more female, and far less into tangible, liquid rewards than the gambling crowd. Mistaking the motivations of this crowd is a serious mistake, and if you are under the assumption that the Facebook gaming crowd is made up of Pokerstars castoffs, for the sake of your business I strongly encourage you to reevaluate the situation. While there may be surface similarities in the addictive natures of these games, the people that spend money on gambling are almost always looking for real life gains; this stands in strong opposition to the typical motivation of a Facebook gamer, who is in it for the fantasy alone. I'm not saying that Facebook would not make a great market for real life gamblers, but at the moment, it's not feasible because they don't allow actual gambling. And the real gamblers know the difference - they won't even play on fake money poker sites, for the most part, even the ones that are quite badly addicted to poker. I seriously doubt that they're the same people that sink money into Facebook games to buy virtual goods that let them decorate their farms or give their avatars new haircuts...
  - Uchikoma 15y ago
    Poker is - in that sense - not gambling. The comparison as far as I understand it is between social games and slot machine. The link says that the democraphic is primarily female, so "The Facebook crowd is far more casual, far more female, and far less into tangible, liquid rewards than the gambling crowd." would fit. Slot machine users are also not into liquid rewards but are addicted for the entertainment.

by molmalo 15y ago

Uchikoma 15y ago

According to some, Zygna is not targeting casual gamers but casual gamblers (same motivations, same demographic) There was a discussion about that on HN some days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3453040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3453040

teej 15y ago
> According to some According to a marketing guy from Betable, a real-money gambling platform with a vested interest in making you think exactly that.
intended 15y ago
I think they are. WoW, Farmville, all use a skinnerian model - different reward types on variable, regular and random schedules designed to make sure that you get that next dopamine buzz just right in time. leastI don't doubt that some of these games need someone to take a look into them. Likely we need legislation such as that which covers the gambling industry or rules such as those that cover the slot machine industry. I know the regulation idea may not be popular here though (I dislike it). Yet we agree that the gambling industry needs checks and balances, in which case Zynga does too (or at the very least, someone to check) Edit: For clarity. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Also: If I am getting downvoted, I'd love to know why people disagree with me.
- nknight 15y ago
  Well, the lumping together of WoW and Farmville is pretty bizarre and makes me think you have no idea what these games are actually like. Reminds me of Tipper Gore. Then you go on to say "we agree the gambling industry needs checks and balances", which is pretty damned presumptuous. Have you completely failed to notice the strong libertarian bent of HN? In many ways, I'm practically a socialist, but I cringe outwardly at the thought that government should regulate the behavior of consenting adults. Yes, gambling can be seriously problematic for some people and their families/loved ones, and I'm not against government efforts to educate people and help treat problem gamblers, nor am I against things like requiring casinos to post odds, but go any further and you quickly get way outside my comfort zone. Think of drugs and take a guess at how many people on HN actually support the "war on drugs". The number people who agree with special regulation of gambling is probably quite similar, and quite small.
  - intended 15y ago
    Thanks for responding. I do realize that HN has a strong libertarian bent, still I assume that healthy debate is more important than ideology. For the record: I am not advocating suffocation by regulation. I am asking where the line is drawn, and how people feel about the basic marriage between operant conditioning and micro transactions. Responding to what you said about WoW and Farmville: I did specify that I am talking about the REWARD systems employed by the games. Having played both, I know the differences between them as games. (suffered as a Shaman from nearly version 1) Both though do use basic operant conditioning techniques. In WoW you have your XP bar which gives you your fixed ratio reinforcement, and then drops which provide your variable ratio reinforcement. Then you have your various other schedules which come from leveling up professions, progression, achievements and so on. Farmville has similar mechanisms - your constant crop growth and timings are your regular reinforcement and then you have random drops which provide your variable reinforcement. There really isn't any other science behind these systems when it comes to how the reward mechanisms are designed. The games themselves are very different. Skill/ingenuity does play a huge role in WoW (like the rogue who soloed patchwork), I am in no way comparing the skill requirements of the two games. Farmville can be played by a bot.
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
- hythloday 15y ago
  This seems like an impossible thing to regulate. What public good are you aiming to maximize? What has the market proven that it can't do without intervention? How will you determine which market behaviours are the "bad" ones? In the case of gambling, I think the only protection the public needs is education ("the house always wins")--in the UK, at least, gambling regulation is usually in place to isolate gambling from other criminal activities e.g. money laundering, and to make sure the house isn't cheating, i.e. that it's a game of chance. Neither of those rationales seem to be necessary for skinner-box-like-games.
  - intended 15y ago
    These are the questions I am asking myself. At one end, there is the market will solve it approach, and if it isn't broke, why fix it? After reading your comment, the most I could suggest would be game companies having to show the general rate of growth players could be expected (average, maximal).
bermanoid 15y ago
No love for Zynga here; the bulk of my rent for the past reasonable stretch of time has been paid for by a Zynga competitor, and a lot of office time has been spent ripping on them for their various tactics. There are many things to hate Zynga for, especially if you've actually talked to people that work there (or that have jumped ship, or they've tried to recruit). But I really don't buy the idea that gamblers are the target market. I know that demo very well, as my previous life was spent running numbers for an online gambling company (my experience with market analysis in that context got me most of my recent work), and I've always been a bit of a poker junkie myself. The Facebook crowd is far more casual, far more female, and far less into tangible, liquid rewards than the gambling crowd. Mistaking the motivations of this crowd is a serious mistake, and if you are under the assumption that the Facebook gaming crowd is made up of Pokerstars castoffs, for the sake of your business I strongly encourage you to reevaluate the situation. While there may be surface similarities in the addictive natures of these games, the people that spend money on gambling are almost always looking for real life gains; this stands in strong opposition to the typical motivation of a Facebook gamer, who is in it for the fantasy alone. I'm not saying that Facebook would not make a great market for real life gamblers, but at the moment, it's not feasible because they don't allow actual gambling. And the real gamblers know the difference - they won't even play on fake money poker sites, for the most part, even the ones that are quite badly addicted to poker. I seriously doubt that they're the same people that sink money into Facebook games to buy virtual goods that let them decorate their farms or give their avatars new haircuts...
- Uchikoma 15y ago
  Poker is - in that sense - not gambling. The comparison as far as I understand it is between social games and slot machine. The link says that the democraphic is primarily female, so "The Facebook crowd is far more casual, far more female, and far less into tangible, liquid rewards than the gambling crowd." would fit. Slot machine users are also not into liquid rewards but are addicted for the entertainment.