5 ms·

It's strange to read the comments here on Hacker News that people are glad and "relieved" that games in Google+ are gone. Put it this way, if Google+ remains a

by jyap 14y ago

It's strange to read the comments here on Hacker News that people are glad and "relieved" that games in Google+ are gone. Put it this way, if Google+ remains a nerdvana, then it has lost. Google wants Google+ to be a household name. Not a niche product. It may well die a slow and painful death if it doesn't gain widespread use and adoption. Either way a nerdvana or equivalent means Google+ will never have reached its potential or what it set out to be. That's a huge failure in the scheme of things. Remember, Google changed EVERYTHING to center around Google+. Google wants to remain one of the biggest and most relevant brands in technology to EVERYONE. Not just people interested in Linus Torvalds post comments. March at GDC 2012, Punit Soni, lead product manager for Google+ games and mobile: "Games are key to the success of Google+" Hacker News comments can be so out of touch with what's at stake, what is reality and what they view as "great" for their own skewed opinions. Hacker News readers are meant to understand intended audiences and project goals. Not feel relieved that games are gone. Link Quote: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/168726/Nine_months_later_Google_game_devs_are_reluctant_to_share_success_stories.php http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/168726/Nine_months_later_...

nightski 14y ago
It is fine to enjoy something while it lasts. For the rest of it, who cares. That is Google's problem. nerdvana will always be where the nerds are, not tied to some product.
jellicle 14y ago
Google has made G+ intentionally unattractive to most people, and has encouraged the 40-50-ish white male technology self-promoters to be the focus of the network. They could have made other choices. This isn't our problem and can't be fixed by us. Games, as currently implemented on social networks, are a terrible and useless waste of human time. (Imagine a true social networking game. We haven't seen it yet, but it's out there somewhere. But trying to figure out how to make people come back to your app every two hours to "harvest crops" is dumb.)
- Angostura 14y ago
  >Google has made G+ intentionally unattractive to most people, and has encouraged the 40-50-ish white male technology self-promoters to be the focus of the network. Could you explain your reasoning? I'm not sure why you believe this to be the case. Introducing games was just one sign that they wanted to attract a wider demographic.
  - loudmax 14y ago
    Google limited the appeal of G+ early on when they started enforcing their real name policy. Throwing out users when you're trying to expand the user base turned out to be counterproductive. But the policy seems more misguided than intentionally unattractive.
    - nl 14y ago
      And we see the same problem again. The number of people who care about the real-name policy is so vanishingly small that it just doesn't matter. It's the 37 Signals cat.jpg[1] issue problem. Look at Facebook. Everyone[2] uses their real names, and it seems to have done ok. [1] Apparently some people thought it was outrageous that 37 Signals posted that the 100 billionth (or whatever) file uploaded was called cat.jpg. [2] I expect some pedantic comments here about how their friend's boyfriend uses a fake name to avoid an ex-gf. If you think that is important then may I suggest you are missing the point.
      - Kylekramer 14y ago
        It is funny, cause the no pseudonym policy was brought up as the reason why Google+ is an older male technologist wasteland, and vast majority of the vanishingly small number of people who care about the no pseudonym policy are older male technologists.
        nl 14y ago
        Very nicely put.
dkhenry 14y ago
Why must Google try to be just like Facebook to "win" at some fictional game of who is the most popular. I am pleased that these games are gone not so that G+ remains a nerdvana, but rather because It further focuses on the things that G+ does better then Facebook. If Google wants to focus on quality gaming content then fine but lets not lie here, these are not the most intellectually stimulating experiences being removed. Its bejeweled a simple time killer of a game. If anything this should remove some of the noise that populates the game section of G+.
danmaz74 14y ago
Without being a nerdvana, G+ could also differentiate itself from FB as the "FB for serious things". That could be a very interesting proposition imho.

by jyap 14y ago

nightski 14y ago

It is fine to enjoy something while it lasts. For the rest of it, who cares. That is Google's problem. nerdvana will always be where the nerds are, not tied to some product.

jellicle 14y ago

Google has made G+ intentionally unattractive to most people, and has encouraged the 40-50-ish white male technology self-promoters to be the focus of the network. They could have made other choices. This isn't our problem and can't be fixed by us. Games, as currently implemented on social networks, are a terrible and useless waste of human time. (Imagine a true social networking game. We haven't seen it yet, but it's out there somewhere. But trying to figure out how to make people come back to your app every two hours to "harvest crops" is dumb.)

Angostura 14y ago
>Google has made G+ intentionally unattractive to most people, and has encouraged the 40-50-ish white male technology self-promoters to be the focus of the network. Could you explain your reasoning? I'm not sure why you believe this to be the case. Introducing games was just one sign that they wanted to attract a wider demographic.
- loudmax 14y ago
  Google limited the appeal of G+ early on when they started enforcing their real name policy. Throwing out users when you're trying to expand the user base turned out to be counterproductive. But the policy seems more misguided than intentionally unattractive.
  - nl 14y ago
    And we see the same problem again. The number of people who care about the real-name policy is so vanishingly small that it just doesn't matter. It's the 37 Signals cat.jpg[1] issue problem. Look at Facebook. Everyone[2] uses their real names, and it seems to have done ok. [1] Apparently some people thought it was outrageous that 37 Signals posted that the 100 billionth (or whatever) file uploaded was called cat.jpg. [2] I expect some pedantic comments here about how their friend's boyfriend uses a fake name to avoid an ex-gf. If you think that is important then may I suggest you are missing the point.
    - Kylekramer 14y ago
      It is funny, cause the no pseudonym policy was brought up as the reason why Google+ is an older male technologist wasteland, and vast majority of the vanishingly small number of people who care about the no pseudonym policy are older male technologists.
      - nl 14y ago
        Very nicely put.

dkhenry 14y ago

Why must Google try to be just like Facebook to "win" at some fictional game of who is the most popular. I am pleased that these games are gone not so that G+ remains a nerdvana, but rather because It further focuses on the things that G+ does better then Facebook. If Google wants to focus on quality gaming content then fine but lets not lie here, these are not the most intellectually stimulating experiences being removed. Its bejeweled a simple time killer of a game. If anything this should remove some of the noise that populates the game section of G+.

danmaz74 14y ago

Without being a nerdvana, G+ could also differentiate itself from FB as the "FB for serious things". That could be a very interesting proposition imho.