3 ms·

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".
        pchristensen 17y ago
        Oh, don't worry, I think it's practically the epitome of fun. I just think the fact that there's no challenge aside from spending time means the fun will run out quickly.
- qeorge 17y ago
  I think "blackmail" is too much. The offer is not misleading, even if it seems like a waste of money to us.
- heyitsnick 17y ago
  The only way they could be blackmailing you is if they said something like, "if you don't spend money, we will tell everyone on facebook how much you suck at maintaining virtual fish!" I don't think this is exactly the case. They sell a service. Whether you deem it a service of value or not is irrelevant.
  - bumblebird 17y ago
    The fact someone sells a service doesn't mean it's right, proper, etc. Gambling is heavily regulated for a reason. I would say that games like these should be regulated just as much. 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?
    - mattmaroon 17y ago
      Like many drugs, gambling is heavily regulated because of puritanical values, not because regulation helps reduce the social impact. These games are not gambling at all, and share no more in common with gambling than any other form of capitalism. And yes, it would be totally fine. If you don't like it you don't have to play Street Fighter II. And given that it costs 50 cents a play and has a steep learning curve, that's effectively what they do in a roundabout way.
      - bumblebird 17y ago
        They share a lot. They are addictive, and the further in you get sucked, the harder it is to stop. Because of this, the further in you get, the easier it is to be exploited and taken advantage of. I don't think it's about being puritan, it's about protecting the most vulnerable members of society from themselves. For example, say you get 95% of the way through a game, then the game asks for $100 to get past an absolutely impossible stage, they'd probably get a fantastic amount of people spending the $100 reluctantly. Which IMHO isn't a nice way to do things.
- allenbrunson 17y ago
  i'm actually going to agree with matt's original point. if you call an app 'stupid', then you are preventing yourself from being able to empathize with its users. if it's successful, then it is fulfilling some sort of need. by putting yourself in opposition to the people whose needs are being met, you are making it impossible to see what they get from it. of course, the fact that matt refers to users of products he doesn't like with terms far, FAR worse than 'stupid' kind of negates his point.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  That's ludicrous. Selling someone something in game is no different than selling them something in real life. Do makers of razor blades blackmail users? What about Apple with iTunes DRM? And if you think the lottery is stupid, you should not ever work in the game design industry.
  - bumblebird 17y ago
    The issue isn't as clear cut as that. They are offering you an 'easier game' for money. When you're competing against other people, that's an un-level playing field. I'm pretty sure people who run lotteries think they are stupid. They are a tax on the poor, but they're extremely effective at raising money.
    - mattmaroon 17y ago
      People who run lotteries do not think that the lotteries are stupid. I know a lot of people who work in the gaming industry, you can trust me on that. Some may think people who play the lottery are stupid. There's a very big difference.
      - bumblebird 17y ago
        We're splitting hairs now and down to the meaning of "lotteries are stupid" :) I see your distinction though, I was meaning the latter when I said "lotteries are stupid".
jagjit 17y ago
There is nothing to be lost in calling something stupid if you believe something to be stupid. The article gives a good illustration of why the author believes it is stupid. Calling something stupid does not mean the author is saying there is no money to be made in such things.
- bumblebird 17y ago
  In fact stupid things are often the most lucrative.
  - vijayr 17y ago
    like fart apps?
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  There is a lot to be lost. It means you cannot emphasize with the people who enjoy it. It means you cannot replicate or iterate upon it, or apply those concepts to other things in the future. It's dismissive, and you should never be dismissive of something that makes $250m per year. It clearly has a lot of value that the author doesn't understand, and since he has dismissed it he will never tap into that. That hurts him. I don't like Twitter (which makes $0m per year) very much, but I try to understand it, play with it, and find out what people do like about it because it will inform product design decisions that I make in the future. I know that a LOT of people do like Twitter and therefore it cannot be stupid. In fact in some ways it must even be brilliant.
allenbrunson 17y ago
how about when prognosticators refer to iPhone users as "people who have wet dreams about Steve Jobs?" by your logic, that could have contributed to why certain predictions about said users were so disastrously wrong, yes? http://mattmaroon.com/2007/05/03/why-the-iphone-will-be-a-flop/ http://mattmaroon.com/2007/05/03/why-the-iphone-will-be-a-fl...
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  The iPhone model I referred to was a flop. It was on track to underperform Apple's predictions. It sold very few units. And it even only got as far as it did when they cut the price so soon after launch that the people who did buy it right away were pissed off. Price was a large part of my argument, and I'd argue still that I was not incorrect. The original iPhone was clearly a disappointment to Apple. The 3G unit was not a flop.
  - allenbrunson 17y ago
    Man! How hard do you have to pretzel yourself to refer to the iPhone as a flop? So they didn't make as much money on the first one as they did with later models, so what? They were completely changing all the rules, so it's not much wonder that it took a couple of iterations to zero in on the best revenue model. And you didn't address the real point of my comment at all: it's bad to call a Facebook game "stupid," but it's fine to call iPhone users "people who have wet dreams about Steve Jobs." You are blinding yourself to why Apple is successful, which is costing you.
    - mattmaroon 17y ago
      No pretzelling involved. I specifically was talking about the iPhone that was just about to released, as evident from the date on the post, and said that only Apple fanboys would buy it. That turned out to be largely true. You can't take my statement and apply it to future models or other Apple products and then marvel at their incorrectness. Well, you can (and did) but it's not fruitful. There's a big difference between a $500-600 unit (with 2 yr contract) that has no 3g and no App Store and a $200 unit (with 2 yr contract) that has 3g and an App Store. They're the same device in name only. One is priced for businesses, but without business features. The other is priced for consumers, and with much more consumer appeal to boot. One was a flop, the other a roaring success. I don't think that only Apple fanboys buy the current iPhone and have never said that. And I'd guess between us, I have a much better understanding of why Apple is successful, as you probably vastly understimate marketing and cult appeal.

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".
      - pchristensen 17y ago
        Oh, don't worry, I think it's practically the epitome of fun. I just think the fact that there's no challenge aside from spending time means the fun will run out quickly.
qeorge 17y ago
I think "blackmail" is too much. The offer is not misleading, even if it seems like a waste of money to us.
heyitsnick 17y ago
The only way they could be blackmailing you is if they said something like, "if you don't spend money, we will tell everyone on facebook how much you suck at maintaining virtual fish!" I don't think this is exactly the case. They sell a service. Whether you deem it a service of value or not is irrelevant.
- bumblebird 17y ago
  The fact someone sells a service doesn't mean it's right, proper, etc. Gambling is heavily regulated for a reason. I would say that games like these should be regulated just as much. 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?
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    Like many drugs, gambling is heavily regulated because of puritanical values, not because regulation helps reduce the social impact. These games are not gambling at all, and share no more in common with gambling than any other form of capitalism. And yes, it would be totally fine. If you don't like it you don't have to play Street Fighter II. And given that it costs 50 cents a play and has a steep learning curve, that's effectively what they do in a roundabout way.
    - bumblebird 17y ago
      They share a lot. They are addictive, and the further in you get sucked, the harder it is to stop. Because of this, the further in you get, the easier it is to be exploited and taken advantage of. I don't think it's about being puritan, it's about protecting the most vulnerable members of society from themselves. For example, say you get 95% of the way through a game, then the game asks for $100 to get past an absolutely impossible stage, they'd probably get a fantastic amount of people spending the $100 reluctantly. Which IMHO isn't a nice way to do things.
allenbrunson 17y ago
i'm actually going to agree with matt's original point. if you call an app 'stupid', then you are preventing yourself from being able to empathize with its users. if it's successful, then it is fulfilling some sort of need. by putting yourself in opposition to the people whose needs are being met, you are making it impossible to see what they get from it. of course, the fact that matt refers to users of products he doesn't like with terms far, FAR worse than 'stupid' kind of negates his point.
mattmaroon 17y ago
That's ludicrous. Selling someone something in game is no different than selling them something in real life. Do makers of razor blades blackmail users? What about Apple with iTunes DRM? And if you think the lottery is stupid, you should not ever work in the game design industry.
- bumblebird 17y ago
  The issue isn't as clear cut as that. They are offering you an 'easier game' for money. When you're competing against other people, that's an un-level playing field. I'm pretty sure people who run lotteries think they are stupid. They are a tax on the poor, but they're extremely effective at raising money.
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    People who run lotteries do not think that the lotteries are stupid. I know a lot of people who work in the gaming industry, you can trust me on that. Some may think people who play the lottery are stupid. There's a very big difference.
    - bumblebird 17y ago
      We're splitting hairs now and down to the meaning of "lotteries are stupid" :) I see your distinction though, I was meaning the latter when I said "lotteries are stupid".

jagjit 17y ago

There is nothing to be lost in calling something stupid if you believe something to be stupid. The article gives a good illustration of why the author believes it is stupid. Calling something stupid does not mean the author is saying there is no money to be made in such things.

bumblebird 17y ago
In fact stupid things are often the most lucrative.
- vijayr 17y ago
  like fart apps?
mattmaroon 17y ago
There is a lot to be lost. It means you cannot emphasize with the people who enjoy it. It means you cannot replicate or iterate upon it, or apply those concepts to other things in the future. It's dismissive, and you should never be dismissive of something that makes $250m per year. It clearly has a lot of value that the author doesn't understand, and since he has dismissed it he will never tap into that. That hurts him. I don't like Twitter (which makes $0m per year) very much, but I try to understand it, play with it, and find out what people do like about it because it will inform product design decisions that I make in the future. I know that a LOT of people do like Twitter and therefore it cannot be stupid. In fact in some ways it must even be brilliant.

allenbrunson 17y ago

how about when prognosticators refer to iPhone users as "people who have wet dreams about Steve Jobs?" by your logic, that could have contributed to why certain predictions about said users were so disastrously wrong, yes? http://mattmaroon.com/2007/05/03/why-the-iphone-will-be-a-flop/ http://mattmaroon.com/2007/05/03/why-the-iphone-will-be-a-fl...

mattmaroon 17y ago
The iPhone model I referred to was a flop. It was on track to underperform Apple's predictions. It sold very few units. And it even only got as far as it did when they cut the price so soon after launch that the people who did buy it right away were pissed off. Price was a large part of my argument, and I'd argue still that I was not incorrect. The original iPhone was clearly a disappointment to Apple. The 3G unit was not a flop.
- allenbrunson 17y ago
  Man! How hard do you have to pretzel yourself to refer to the iPhone as a flop? So they didn't make as much money on the first one as they did with later models, so what? They were completely changing all the rules, so it's not much wonder that it took a couple of iterations to zero in on the best revenue model. And you didn't address the real point of my comment at all: it's bad to call a Facebook game "stupid," but it's fine to call iPhone users "people who have wet dreams about Steve Jobs." You are blinding yourself to why Apple is successful, which is costing you.
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    No pretzelling involved. I specifically was talking about the iPhone that was just about to released, as evident from the date on the post, and said that only Apple fanboys would buy it. That turned out to be largely true. You can't take my statement and apply it to future models or other Apple products and then marvel at their incorrectness. Well, you can (and did) but it's not fruitful. There's a big difference between a $500-600 unit (with 2 yr contract) that has no 3g and no App Store and a $200 unit (with 2 yr contract) that has 3g and an App Store. They're the same device in name only. One is priced for businesses, but without business features. The other is priced for consumers, and with much more consumer appeal to boot. One was a flop, the other a roaring success. I don't think that only Apple fanboys buy the current iPhone and have never said that. And I'd guess between us, I have a much better understanding of why Apple is successful, as you probably vastly understimate marketing and cult appeal.