11 ms·

How A Facebook Game Makes Zynga Millions

31 points by Hunchr 17y ago

bumblebird 17y ago
This sort of thing is worse than gambling. I'd say there's a strong case for regulating things like this. It's just preying on the addicted/weak/stupid surely. It's almost a bait and switch: 1. Get user addicted to game 2. After some time, tell user they can progress quicker through the game if they pay money (Blackmail).
- Hunchr 17y ago
  How is that any different than how I used to pump quarters into Street Fighter II arcade games back in the day?
  - bumblebird 17y ago
    Because that's an upfront honest price to pay the game. This is blackmail later on. (You want to do better at this game? Sure, we can fix that for you, just pay us some money).
    - skolor 17y ago
      How on earth is that blackmail? From the couple of games like this I've played, it is still entirely possible to hit the limits of the game without spending a dime. It will cost you quite a bit more time and effort, but still possible. Its more akin to an arcade game where the first play is free, but if you want a continue you have to pay a quarter each time. Sure, its a little bit shady, but its still a valid way to get money from a user. Look at all the sites/service that use a freemium model. Look at things like DropBox. Is that blackmail, since you will eventually fill up your free 2gb, and have to pay for it if you want more?
      - bumblebird 17y ago
        Because it's moving the goalposts once you're committed. It's not the same as freemium at all. A game, where you're competing against other people, that operates on a non level playing field, is unfair. Allowing people to pay money to progress faster in the game is taking advantage of peoples idiocy. Imagine going to the arcades, playing street fighter II, and it saying "We know you can't get on the score board because you suck, but if you pay $20 we'll put you at the top of the score board anyway". Would that be completely fine and above board?
        skolor 17y ago
        But the goalposts haven't moved at all. There's simply a vendor on the sidelines selling rocket boots for 25 cents. Its not like these games start you off on a path, tell you "oh, once you've played for X long you'll be able to get Y," and then changing it so that once you get to X you find out that you also have to spend a dollar to get Y (some of these games might, but the ones I've played haven't, they've all been very clear up front what costs money and what doesn't). Most of them don't even make it so that you can't get to the goalposts without paying money, they just make it take considerably longer. I fail to see how charging money for faster progress is taking advantage of idiocy. As another example, look at television programming. I can get a half dozen broadcast channels for free. If I want more, and want to get more out of my tv watching experience by having more choice in it, I have to pay for cable, who then offers me various packages, depending on how much each of those channels is worth to me. It doesn't make it idiocy to value things differently than other people. I value $10 a month more than HBO. Does that make all of the people who pay for HBO idiots? Does that make all it blackmail for the cable company to offer a trial of HBO when I sign up (admittedly, that practice is slightly shady, due to the difficulty to stop the channels after the trial, but that is a completely different issue)? Just because you put more value on your money than others do on a shiny digital fish doesn't make them an idiot, it makes them someone who values shiny digital fish. -To your edit: Well, if that was the way things were from the start, sure. Say you go to the arcade, and pick out your game to play. To make this all fit well, lets pick tetris. As long as you know from the start there are various "powerups" you can buy throughout the game, it seems totally fair. Its 1 quarter to start the game. Later in, you can buy various powerups, like double points for one level for another quarter, or the ability to choose your next block for a quarter. Does it make things different? Yes. But it certainly doesn't make them unfair. The options are open to everyone, those at the top and those trying to get there. Its fair, but is a little shady.
  - dolinsky 17y ago
    The difference is the barrier to entry / improvement. In the case of a quarter machine slot game it's pay to play, while it's a bait and switch for a game which only allows you to continue by paying more money regardless of how well you are doing in the game. It's not necessarily illegal, but it surely is deceptive and won't win the game any fans.
    - mstevens 17y ago
      I've been playing one of the zygna games myself. To the level I've got, plenty of things would be easier if I was willing to spend money, but I haven't found anything I can't do for free.
      - skolor 17y ago
        I believe that is strongly tied to why they have become so popular so fast. You can go into the game, pick it up, and become fairly good quickly. If you continue on with it, you slowly get better as time goes on. You then get a friend to join, and they have to start at the beginning. They could spend the days/weeks it took for you to get that far, or they can spend $5 and get there in a tiny fraction of the time. To generalize it, its easy to get a handful of people to do something. If you offer it to them for free, there are plenty of people who will go out of their way to advance as far as possible. Once those people start getting friends involved, the friends will want to get that far too. By offering them a quick advancement in exchange for money, you can then make a tidy profit.
- gojomo 17y ago
  My upvotes will probably be swamped by the disagree-downvotes, so I'll explicitly thank you for taking this controversial position. I don't fully agree with you, but there is something very similar to online gambling in these games. (Wasn't Texas Hold 'Em one of Zynga's first games?) Casual games with virtual goods are an expertly engineered environment that is evolved through constant refinement to maximize money extraction -- like slot machines or indeed entire casino buildings. As with casinos, it may turn out they make a significant portion of their revenue from people prone to addiction or suffering from other mood problems, soothed temporarily (but perhaps made more dependent/despondent) by the games' synthetic reward system. And while I don't support government regulation (of either games or gambling), cultural norms will need to evolve, for individuals and peer groups, that moderate participation. Otherwise, profit-maximizing addiction-engineering will do real damage. The checkout form for virtual good purchases may someday include a tiny link to "Gamers Anonymous" just like the tiny print and brochures about "Gambler's Anonymous" near casino ATMs and cashier cages.
Tichy 17y ago
Is that article just a couple of screenshots of them playing a game??? That is even cheaper than a virtual machine gun in Mafia...
sanj 17y ago
I believe that giving coins for inviting friends is explicitly disallowed in Facebook's TOS.
mattmaroon 17y ago
The minute you refer to the game as "stupid" you lose the ability to understand why it works.
- bumblebird 17y ago
  I don't really see why. We can pretty much all agree that the lottery is also 'stupid', but it works, and it's quite clearly understood why it works. These sort of games work because they get people addicted, and then blackmail them into paying money to make the games easier for them.
  - teamonkey 17y ago
    The other way of looking at it is that people are paying to be entertained by an entertainment product.
    - bumblebird 17y ago
      It's a gray area, but IMHO that's not what's happening here. It's more of a bait/switch than an honest upfront cost for entertainment.
      - pchristensen 17y ago
        It's not about entertainment or bait/switch - it's low challenge accomplishment. The 'Villes let you feel like you've accomplished something, even though all you put into it was time and money. Usually accomplishing something takes true effort and creativity, with a risk of failure, but these games are "accomplishment lite" with no risk of failure.
        teamonkey 17y ago
        Yes and no. There's a school of thought that the player should be allowed to play a game any way they please, that play is a creative process and the game is a box of tools to make an enjoyable experience. The player makes their own fun by setting themselves goals and challenges that match their personalities and skill sets (that they find enjoyable). As their skills develop (or they simply get bored) they naturally find new, different, more challenging things to do until the game can no longer satisfy them. Zynga provide a free framework and a whole load of extras to enable people to have fun. You can progress for free according to a number of pre-designed interpretations of how you can progress in the game, or you can short-cut for cash and do the bits you really enjoy, and you spend more as you explore different options. It practically screams "revenue stream". Obviously it's all set up to make loads of cash, but I see it as enabling fun rather than a scam or "accomplishment lite".
biznerd 17y ago
Could this facebook game thing be a fad? I remember back in high school when web games like Earth 2025 (games.swirve.com/earth/) were quite the rage and everybody was playing them. This lasted for a year or so until the novelty wore off. Some still play but the casual players are gone and the audience is a tiny fraction of what it once was. I've noticed that my FB friends that play FB games tend to stop playing after a couple months. The games are mindless, cookie-cutter and repetitive for the most part. <EDIT>I don't think WoW is a good comparison as there is clearly a huge depth between it and Zynga games. The experience is entirely different. "Easy come, easy go" could apply to this market. I mean these games come out of no where to millions of players. These are not hardcore gamers that develop strong loyalty and build communities, but "casual" players that probably started playing because their friends are. "Casual" gamers are notoriously fickle. Look at the Nintendo Wii, which is the most popular console but has the least average amount of titles bought per owner (which is where the real money is.) In 2-3 years I would not be surprised that after all this over-exposure these x-ville games will be significantly less popular. These "games" have more in common with Tamagotchi and Beanie Babies than Wow or Call of Duty... </edit>
- petercooper 17y ago
  Hasn't stopped World of Warcraft players..
- igorgue 17y ago
  No way, my younger brother has been playing an MMORPG for like 3 years and he's not bored at all, he spends like 30USD a month on that game. Games entertain a long time (years) that's a fact.
- ibsulon 17y ago
  Some of us played for years, long after the fad wore off. The difference between the swirve games and facebook is that a community grew up around the game. From what I've seen of the facebook games, it's mostly your existing friends. I haven't heard of Mafia Wars meetups like E2025 or Utopia had, for example. (And yes, there were ways to get extra turns via various offers. I remember having to research something on goto.com every day, as one.) What swirve did well is create a community. That's what an online game should aspire to, and I have only seem glimpses of that with the facebook games, even with the obnoxious updates.
sili 17y ago
They have a great idea on making money of users. Instead of charging a larger amount to let them play the game, they charge a numerous smaller amounts for different objects in the game. First, people are more willing to part with, let's say, 25 cents for that one cool fish than with 25 dollars for a game. Second, once you get them pulled into the experience, they will be even more willing to spend money. Surprisingly, I don't see that kind of pricing used much in other areas.
- mattmcknight 17y ago
  It seems like it worked well in the arcades. Back when I couldn't afford a Playstation or a TV, I could rent some time on Tekken, and even got to play it with my girlfriend and meet other people at the arcade. I haven't ever bought anything on Facebook, but it would really improve the profitability of these games if there was a super easy payments system there to avoid the huge hurdle of the first time someone has to get the credit card out of their wallet. Once they have the numbered stored, incremental purchases are lubricated, as in the case of iTunes, where it is very easy to make a casual $0.99 purchase.
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Ironic. While a lot of us are thinking about cool new tech, lisp, twitter, and all the other kinds of stuff we love talking about on HN, these guys are writing simple flash aquarium apps and raking in millions. Perhaps running your own startup about a lot more than simple monetary success. I know I want to make people's lives better in addition to controlling my own destiny. But still, sure looks like a sweet spot to be in. I bet the field is probably way overcrowded by now, though.
- yumraj 17y ago
  Field is "never" overcrowded. Before Google beat the crap out of everyone there was Yahoo, Altavista, Excite etc. Before iPod came there were numerous mp3 players. Before Zynga, there were numerous Facebook apps and countless Flash games. So, if you want to do it and have a good idea, I'll say do it, give it a shot. Whats the worst that can happen, some time wasted. Lather, rinse, repeat...
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    That's an excellent point. I stand corrected. It's not that it's necessarily any worse or better, it's just that competing in a crowded field is necessarily different than only having a dozen or two competitors. It's just different skillsets and tactics. I'm much more comfortable with offering something fairly unique in a smaller market with fewer competitors, but there are those businesses that do very well in huge markets with hundreds of competitors. Either way, the odds are against you. So you pays your money and takes your chances.
  - robfitz 17y ago
    Search doesn't benefit from a network effect, whereas social games do. It's the same defense that Ebay/Craigslist enjoy (though admittedly less ironclad). Someone like Zynga has brutally low customer acquisition costs compared to a new social game developer (because they can cross promote to existing players for only the opportunity cost of showing other low-CPM banners).
mrbgty 17y ago
Good at least to see someone making games for people other than the hardcore crowd. IMO, this shows that in gaming there isn't a straight line of worst-to-best but instead there's lots of different types of games that appeal not only to different types of people but different moods a person is currently in.
zandorg 17y ago
I had an email saying a Zynga user with my email address had withdrawn money from a Mastercard (which wasn't mine - nor do I own a Mastercard). Emailed Zynga to tell them about this odd semi-fraudulent activity, and they couldn't give a toss. Total idiots. I didn't lose any money, but it was unnerving.

31 points by Hunchr 17y ago

This sort of thing is worse than gambling. I'd say there's a strong case for regulating things like this. It's just preying on the addicted/weak/stupid surely. It's almost a bait and switch: 1. Get user addicted to game 2. After some time, tell user they can progress quicker through the game if they pay money (Blackmail).

Hunchr 17y ago
How is that any different than how I used to pump quarters into Street Fighter II arcade games back in the day?
- bumblebird 17y ago
  Because that's an upfront honest price to pay the game. This is blackmail later on. (You want to do better at this game? Sure, we can fix that for you, just pay us some money).
  - skolor 17y ago
    How on earth is that blackmail? From the couple of games like this I've played, it is still entirely possible to hit the limits of the game without spending a dime. It will cost you quite a bit more time and effort, but still possible. Its more akin to an arcade game where the first play is free, but if you want a continue you have to pay a quarter each time. Sure, its a little bit shady, but its still a valid way to get money from a user. Look at all the sites/service that use a freemium model. Look at things like DropBox. Is that blackmail, since you will eventually fill up your free 2gb, and have to pay for it if you want more?
    - bumblebird 17y ago
      Because it's moving the goalposts once you're committed. It's not the same as freemium at all. A game, where you're competing against other people, that operates on a non level playing field, is unfair. Allowing people to pay money to progress faster in the game is taking advantage of peoples idiocy. Imagine going to the arcades, playing street fighter II, and it saying "We know you can't get on the score board because you suck, but if you pay $20 we'll put you at the top of the score board anyway". Would that be completely fine and above board?
      - skolor 17y ago
        But the goalposts haven't moved at all. There's simply a vendor on the sidelines selling rocket boots for 25 cents. Its not like these games start you off on a path, tell you "oh, once you've played for X long you'll be able to get Y," and then changing it so that once you get to X you find out that you also have to spend a dollar to get Y (some of these games might, but the ones I've played haven't, they've all been very clear up front what costs money and what doesn't). Most of them don't even make it so that you can't get to the goalposts without paying money, they just make it take considerably longer. I fail to see how charging money for faster progress is taking advantage of idiocy. As another example, look at television programming. I can get a half dozen broadcast channels for free. If I want more, and want to get more out of my tv watching experience by having more choice in it, I have to pay for cable, who then offers me various packages, depending on how much each of those channels is worth to me. It doesn't make it idiocy to value things differently than other people. I value $10 a month more than HBO. Does that make all of the people who pay for HBO idiots? Does that make all it blackmail for the cable company to offer a trial of HBO when I sign up (admittedly, that practice is slightly shady, due to the difficulty to stop the channels after the trial, but that is a completely different issue)? Just because you put more value on your money than others do on a shiny digital fish doesn't make them an idiot, it makes them someone who values shiny digital fish. -To your edit: Well, if that was the way things were from the start, sure. Say you go to the arcade, and pick out your game to play. To make this all fit well, lets pick tetris. As long as you know from the start there are various "powerups" you can buy throughout the game, it seems totally fair. Its 1 quarter to start the game. Later in, you can buy various powerups, like double points for one level for another quarter, or the ability to choose your next block for a quarter. Does it make things different? Yes. But it certainly doesn't make them unfair. The options are open to everyone, those at the top and those trying to get there. Its fair, but is a little shady.
- dolinsky 17y ago
  The difference is the barrier to entry / improvement. In the case of a quarter machine slot game it's pay to play, while it's a bait and switch for a game which only allows you to continue by paying more money regardless of how well you are doing in the game. It's not necessarily illegal, but it surely is deceptive and won't win the game any fans.
  - mstevens 17y ago
    I've been playing one of the zygna games myself. To the level I've got, plenty of things would be easier if I was willing to spend money, but I haven't found anything I can't do for free.
    - skolor 17y ago
      I believe that is strongly tied to why they have become so popular so fast. You can go into the game, pick it up, and become fairly good quickly. If you continue on with it, you slowly get better as time goes on. You then get a friend to join, and they have to start at the beginning. They could spend the days/weeks it took for you to get that far, or they can spend $5 and get there in a tiny fraction of the time. To generalize it, its easy to get a handful of people to do something. If you offer it to them for free, there are plenty of people who will go out of their way to advance as far as possible. Once those people start getting friends involved, the friends will want to get that far too. By offering them a quick advancement in exchange for money, you can then make a tidy profit.
gojomo 17y ago
My upvotes will probably be swamped by the disagree-downvotes, so I'll explicitly thank you for taking this controversial position. I don't fully agree with you, but there is something very similar to online gambling in these games. (Wasn't Texas Hold 'Em one of Zynga's first games?) Casual games with virtual goods are an expertly engineered environment that is evolved through constant refinement to maximize money extraction -- like slot machines or indeed entire casino buildings. As with casinos, it may turn out they make a significant portion of their revenue from people prone to addiction or suffering from other mood problems, soothed temporarily (but perhaps made more dependent/despondent) by the games' synthetic reward system. And while I don't support government regulation (of either games or gambling), cultural norms will need to evolve, for individuals and peer groups, that moderate participation. Otherwise, profit-maximizing addiction-engineering will do real damage. The checkout form for virtual good purchases may someday include a tiny link to "Gamers Anonymous" just like the tiny print and brochures about "Gambler's Anonymous" near casino ATMs and cashier cages.

Tichy 17y ago

Is that article just a couple of screenshots of them playing a game??? That is even cheaper than a virtual machine gun in Mafia...

sanj 17y ago

I believe that giving coins for inviting friends is explicitly disallowed in Facebook's TOS.

mattmaroon 17y ago

The minute you refer to the game as "stupid" you lose the ability to understand why it works.

bumblebird 17y ago
I don't really see why. We can pretty much all agree that the lottery is also 'stupid', but it works, and it's quite clearly understood why it works. These sort of games work because they get people addicted, and then blackmail them into paying money to make the games easier for them.
- teamonkey 17y ago
  The other way of looking at it is that people are paying to be entertained by an entertainment product.
  - bumblebird 17y ago
    It's a gray area, but IMHO that's not what's happening here. It's more of a bait/switch than an honest upfront cost for entertainment.
    - pchristensen 17y ago
      It's not about entertainment or bait/switch - it's low challenge accomplishment. The 'Villes let you feel like you've accomplished something, even though all you put into it was time and money. Usually accomplishing something takes true effort and creativity, with a risk of failure, but these games are "accomplishment lite" with no risk of failure.
      - teamonkey 17y ago
        Yes and no. There's a school of thought that the player should be allowed to play a game any way they please, that play is a creative process and the game is a box of tools to make an enjoyable experience. The player makes their own fun by setting themselves goals and challenges that match their personalities and skill sets (that they find enjoyable). As their skills develop (or they simply get bored) they naturally find new, different, more challenging things to do until the game can no longer satisfy them. Zynga provide a free framework and a whole load of extras to enable people to have fun. You can progress for free according to a number of pre-designed interpretations of how you can progress in the game, or you can short-cut for cash and do the bits you really enjoy, and you spend more as you explore different options. It practically screams "revenue stream". Obviously it's all set up to make loads of cash, but I see it as enabling fun rather than a scam or "accomplishment lite".

biznerd 17y ago

Could this facebook game thing be a fad? I remember back in high school when web games like Earth 2025 (games.swirve.com/earth/) were quite the rage and everybody was playing them. This lasted for a year or so until the novelty wore off. Some still play but the casual players are gone and the audience is a tiny fraction of what it once was. I've noticed that my FB friends that play FB games tend to stop playing after a couple months. The games are mindless, cookie-cutter and repetitive for the most part. <EDIT>I don't think WoW is a good comparison as there is clearly a huge depth between it and Zynga games. The experience is entirely different. "Easy come, easy go" could apply to this market. I mean these games come out of no where to millions of players. These are not hardcore gamers that develop strong loyalty and build communities, but "casual" players that probably started playing because their friends are. "Casual" gamers are notoriously fickle. Look at the Nintendo Wii, which is the most popular console but has the least average amount of titles bought per owner (which is where the real money is.) In 2-3 years I would not be surprised that after all this over-exposure these x-ville games will be significantly less popular. These "games" have more in common with Tamagotchi and Beanie Babies than Wow or Call of Duty... </edit>

petercooper 17y ago
Hasn't stopped World of Warcraft players..
igorgue 17y ago
No way, my younger brother has been playing an MMORPG for like 3 years and he's not bored at all, he spends like 30USD a month on that game. Games entertain a long time (years) that's a fact.
ibsulon 17y ago
Some of us played for years, long after the fad wore off. The difference between the swirve games and facebook is that a community grew up around the game. From what I've seen of the facebook games, it's mostly your existing friends. I haven't heard of Mafia Wars meetups like E2025 or Utopia had, for example. (And yes, there were ways to get extra turns via various offers. I remember having to research something on goto.com every day, as one.) What swirve did well is create a community. That's what an online game should aspire to, and I have only seem glimpses of that with the facebook games, even with the obnoxious updates.

sili 17y ago

They have a great idea on making money of users. Instead of charging a larger amount to let them play the game, they charge a numerous smaller amounts for different objects in the game. First, people are more willing to part with, let's say, 25 cents for that one cool fish than with 25 dollars for a game. Second, once you get them pulled into the experience, they will be even more willing to spend money. Surprisingly, I don't see that kind of pricing used much in other areas.

mattmcknight 17y ago
It seems like it worked well in the arcades. Back when I couldn't afford a Playstation or a TV, I could rent some time on Tekken, and even got to play it with my girlfriend and meet other people at the arcade. I haven't ever bought anything on Facebook, but it would really improve the profitability of these games if there was a super easy payments system there to avoid the huge hurdle of the first time someone has to get the credit card out of their wallet. Once they have the numbered stored, incremental purchases are lubricated, as in the case of iTunes, where it is very easy to make a casual $0.99 purchase.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Ironic. While a lot of us are thinking about cool new tech, lisp, twitter, and all the other kinds of stuff we love talking about on HN, these guys are writing simple flash aquarium apps and raking in millions. Perhaps running your own startup about a lot more than simple monetary success. I know I want to make people's lives better in addition to controlling my own destiny. But still, sure looks like a sweet spot to be in. I bet the field is probably way overcrowded by now, though.

yumraj 17y ago
Field is "never" overcrowded. Before Google beat the crap out of everyone there was Yahoo, Altavista, Excite etc. Before iPod came there were numerous mp3 players. Before Zynga, there were numerous Facebook apps and countless Flash games. So, if you want to do it and have a good idea, I'll say do it, give it a shot. Whats the worst that can happen, some time wasted. Lather, rinse, repeat...
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  That's an excellent point. I stand corrected. It's not that it's necessarily any worse or better, it's just that competing in a crowded field is necessarily different than only having a dozen or two competitors. It's just different skillsets and tactics. I'm much more comfortable with offering something fairly unique in a smaller market with fewer competitors, but there are those businesses that do very well in huge markets with hundreds of competitors. Either way, the odds are against you. So you pays your money and takes your chances.
- robfitz 17y ago
  Search doesn't benefit from a network effect, whereas social games do. It's the same defense that Ebay/Craigslist enjoy (though admittedly less ironclad). Someone like Zynga has brutally low customer acquisition costs compared to a new social game developer (because they can cross promote to existing players for only the opportunity cost of showing other low-CPM banners).

mrbgty 17y ago

Good at least to see someone making games for people other than the hardcore crowd. IMO, this shows that in gaming there isn't a straight line of worst-to-best but instead there's lots of different types of games that appeal not only to different types of people but different moods a person is currently in.

zandorg 17y ago

I had an email saying a Zynga user with my email address had withdrawn money from a Mastercard (which wasn't mine - nor do I own a Mastercard). Emailed Zynga to tell them about this odd semi-fraudulent activity, and they couldn't give a toss. Total idiots. I didn't lose any money, but it was unnerving.