5 ms·

I think Zynga will continue failing simply because they were wrong about human nature and user needs. I've seen my acquaintances on Facebook, playing less and

I think Zynga will continue failing simply because they were wrong about human nature and user needs. I've seen my acquaintances on Facebook, playing less and less games, sending less and less invites. I'm connected to a lot of regular non-technical folks on Facebook and I barely see any traces of games in my feed, whereas 1 or 2 years ago, my stream was chocked by games. Zynga games seemed like fun. Users stayed for a while for whatever reason. However advancing the game by pressing buttons to increment counters is simply not fun. Once the novelty passes, you start realizing what a stupid game it is. There's also a new breed of games on iTunes. Games that require slightly more skill, but after the first level or 2, they become next to impossible to advance unless you pay up or spam dozens of your friends. Again, at some point users realize that the game is not at all about skill or fun, but about willingness to pay up. Basically this new breed of games is depending on new users for survival. At some point the market will get saturated by people that tried these games out and that have grown tired of them. Also, what the hell does social mean anyway? 10 years ago, social meant to play CounterStrike or StarCraft with your high-school buddies, games that are still played by groups to this very day. Does social mean spamming your friends with annoying invitations? Or does it mean multi-player games where you and your friends can have fun together? I'm asking because I'm seeing a lot of the former and not much of the later ;-)

chaz 13y ago
I don't think your acquaintances are a good representation. Social games are still doing well. Maybe not the Zynga-style games, but check out http://www.appdata.com/ http://www.appdata.com/. #1 is Candy Crush Saga, which is kinda like a social Bejeweled. I'm getting requests from people I didn't even knew played games. King seems to be doing well lately. But note that Zynga's games still reach 171 million users per month. That's huge. Zynga may have too many games, employees, and expenses, but the category has plenty of life yet.
- neutronicus 13y ago
  My fifty-something aunt plays that candy crush thing.
Jare 13y ago
"Social" in the context of games basically means "multiplayer for everyone". This aspect of the game can be approached in many ways, just like "platformer" may mean Rayman, Mario, Sonic or even Temple Run. Some examples: - spam your friends or pay - asynchronous trade - visiting each other - multiplayer features introduced slowly over time - promoting the creation of groups and structured relationships among players - automatic interaction with other players - any combination of these It normally does mean avoiding things like these: - synchronous play - highly competitive or highly skilled play The above should cover 90%+ of the social gaming spectrum without entering value judgements.
- bad_user 13y ago
  Unfortunately the current crop of "social" games preferred social/psychological gimmicks, over having fun. But in the end, the need for fun always wins. Spamming your friends, buying FB gold, visiting your friend's stupid farm, these are not fun activities, these are just actives required to advance in a stupid game that involves incrementing counters. When I'm thinking of what social should be, I'm thinking of chess, or strategy games, or Monopoly, or whatever that involves playing against other users, instead of a computer. It doesn't even have to be synchronous multiplayer. Chess doesn't have to be synchronous. You can have turn-based strategies or RPGs (as in Heroes of Might and Magic, which used to be pretty fun). You can have games where the users themselves establish what the game is. But companies like Zynga went the other way around, focusing on the virality aspects, instead of those aspects being a side-effects or an add-on to a fun game. These games are broken by design.
dclusin 13y ago
Facebook also re-tooled how they display in-game sharing and such in response to Zynga and many other app companies that constantly spammed Facebook's user base. My suspicion is that this led to a precipitous decrease in Zynga's ability to acquire new customers.
prostoalex 13y ago
While you may be right about Zynga-branded games, overall stats disagree http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2013/06/04/zynga-be-damned-facebook-claims-its-last-three-months-of-game-revenue-are-a-record/ http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2013/06/04/zynga-be-damned-fa... Just like with any new industry, there's the concept of user saturation and quality bar being raised. Pong was revolutionary and industry-formative in 70s.

chaz 13y ago

I don't think your acquaintances are a good representation. Social games are still doing well. Maybe not the Zynga-style games, but check out http://www.appdata.com/ http://www.appdata.com/. #1 is Candy Crush Saga, which is kinda like a social Bejeweled. I'm getting requests from people I didn't even knew played games. King seems to be doing well lately. But note that Zynga's games still reach 171 million users per month. That's huge. Zynga may have too many games, employees, and expenses, but the category has plenty of life yet.

neutronicus 13y ago
My fifty-something aunt plays that candy crush thing.

Jare 13y ago

"Social" in the context of games basically means "multiplayer for everyone". This aspect of the game can be approached in many ways, just like "platformer" may mean Rayman, Mario, Sonic or even Temple Run. Some examples: - spam your friends or pay - asynchronous trade - visiting each other - multiplayer features introduced slowly over time - promoting the creation of groups and structured relationships among players - automatic interaction with other players - any combination of these It normally does mean avoiding things like these: - synchronous play - highly competitive or highly skilled play The above should cover 90%+ of the social gaming spectrum without entering value judgements.

bad_user 13y ago
Unfortunately the current crop of "social" games preferred social/psychological gimmicks, over having fun. But in the end, the need for fun always wins. Spamming your friends, buying FB gold, visiting your friend's stupid farm, these are not fun activities, these are just actives required to advance in a stupid game that involves incrementing counters. When I'm thinking of what social should be, I'm thinking of chess, or strategy games, or Monopoly, or whatever that involves playing against other users, instead of a computer. It doesn't even have to be synchronous multiplayer. Chess doesn't have to be synchronous. You can have turn-based strategies or RPGs (as in Heroes of Might and Magic, which used to be pretty fun). You can have games where the users themselves establish what the game is. But companies like Zynga went the other way around, focusing on the virality aspects, instead of those aspects being a side-effects or an add-on to a fun game. These games are broken by design.

dclusin 13y ago

Facebook also re-tooled how they display in-game sharing and such in response to Zynga and many other app companies that constantly spammed Facebook's user base. My suspicion is that this led to a precipitous decrease in Zynga's ability to acquire new customers.

prostoalex 13y ago

While you may be right about Zynga-branded games, overall stats disagree http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2013/06/04/zynga-be-damned-facebook-claims-its-last-three-months-of-game-revenue-are-a-record/ http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2013/06/04/zynga-be-damned-fa... Just like with any new industry, there's the concept of user saturation and quality bar being raised. Pong was revolutionary and industry-formative in 70s.