Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 22, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 22, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


 
Zynga: The Future, Or Just A Bit Of It?
by David Hayward on 03/15/10 11:37:00 am   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

 

(Originally posted at Pixel-Love, Pixel-Lab's company blog) 

A couple of years ago you couldn't turn a corner at GDC without hearing about casual games. This year, the term was "social games", and they seem to have set off some major jitters.

Firstly, we have a panel, in which VCs talked about developers being "in denial" and the future of the games industry being social games. I first spotted it because of this Tweet from Brian Baglow of Denki Games:

when VCs start saying they won't fund console titles, it's time for devs to have a long hard think

There are a lot of defensive comments with unfair arguments in them below the article, but it's quite possibly true. The market for the bombastic experiences you get from big-budget console titles is not going to disappear and be replaced by Facebook games, but with certain social games raking in such huge amounts of cash and users, there's a fight brewing to see, from a cultural perspective as well as a financial one, exactly what will be regarded as the games industry in future.

At the moment, if you introduce yourself to someone at a party and tell them you work in the games industry, their first assumptions generally include consoles or joypads. I think some developers are scared that those assumptions are going to be replaced.

For years, the mainstream games industry has been largely console dev, and just as games are climbing out of the same cultural ghetto that has beset comics for so long, something like Farmville comes along, makes an absurd amount of money, claims 83M monthly users, and gets a Game Developers Choice award. Zynga is not a threat to traditional videogame development, but it is most definitely a threat to developers' sense of identity.

As if to exacerbate it, Bill Mooney from Zynga to stood up at the GDC awards to accept theirs for "Best New Social Game" and effectively said "Hey guys! We're indie, just like you!". His comments were not well received by an audience who are at the pinnacle of their craft. Whether his words were borne from temerity or naivety, they certainly betray a scant awareness of game design dialogue from the past few years.

World of Warcraft's treadmill, grinding game design is sinister and unhealthy to quite a few game designers, such as Jon Blow and Chris Hecker, and they want to make more nourishing games for people. Farmville seems like a massive threat to that, but think about it with a little perspective from the last half decade or so. WoW triggered everyone to talk about MMOs for several years, to the point where Richard Garriott stood up at the Develop Conference to talk about Tabula Rasa, and basically said "MMOs are like money printers! AAA development is for chumps".

Look what happened: MMOs have cemented as a sector with many failures and a few really big successes, console development has rumbled on with plenty of fans remaining, and casual games have metamorphosed into social games, finding a larger user-base than ever along the way.

To any developers concerned about Zynga, I'd first like to point to the fact that most Facebook apps, pages, and games get very little traction. Zynga is exceptional, but others such as GameLayers have tried Facebook games and not done nearly so well. Secondly, Zynga have a "fuck the users" approach to game development. Their games extract revenue and multiply users in every way possible. Mark Pincus himself is on record saying "I did every horrible thing in the book to, just to get revenues right away". They ran offer scams, and, while it was misreported as far more scandalous than it actually was, they nonetheless piggy-backed some very lucrative business on people's charity.

"Fuck the users, we want revenue" is hardly a German board game design manifesto, but it's more or less exactly what you'll hear from a lot of VCs and other investors. That doesn't mean that attitude, or soul destroying treadmills of games, are the future of the games industry, just that they're the latest thing someone made a very large amount of money from.

VCs don't necessarily make great decisions, incoming models are not necessarily the best things to invest in, screwing your players isn't the only way to make money, and just because there's a market for Dizzy Dizzy Dinosaur, that doesn't mean there's no market for Carcassone or Power Grid. MMOs and casual games both seemed like the future at various points, but they turned out to just be parts of it. The business du jour is never a license to print money, nor is it the existential threat a lot of passionate developers perceive it to be.

Look down this list and you'll see a virtual world company or two that have gained investment then failed, or at least failed to turn any kind of profit yet. Areae closed down recently. Three Rings described Whirled as "an abject failure". These were virtual worlds projects initiated by well respected and well motivated developers. The same kind of things are going to happen to plenty of social games companies.

This thread on A Quarter To Three describes GDC as feeling like "there's a war going on". Given the amount of bickering and scenesterism I saw among indie developers at GDC09, maybe this is a good thing. There's a Sauron figure for everyone to unite against now. This is not Evony or ZT Online, but it works in a similar way and is right in our back yard: a living, breathing, nigh-ubiquitous Western example of worst practice to wean players away from.

It's not all bad news with regard to investment either. A group of very successful indie developers announced Indie Fund recently, and the founders (listed on the site) have a very wide array of backgrounds, from close relationships with platform holders and publishers to striking out successfully by themselves and even founding successful portals. Ron Carmel went into their plans in more detail here.

Will they make good investors? I hope so, but even if it goes the same way as Gathering of Developers, the rancor towards Farmville at GDC is a testament that there's enough interest in game design to ensure that the craft of game development has a future. That's a culture, and it's what you find in its highest concentration at GDC, expressing and swapping its research and expertise. What do Zynga have to contribute to that?


Related Jobs

Bohemia Interactive Simulations
Bohemia Interactive Simulations — ORLANDO, Florida, United States
[10.22.14]

Game Designer
Petroglyph Games
Petroglyph Games — Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
[10.21.14]

Illustrator / Concept Artist
DoubleDown Interactive
DoubleDown Interactive — Seattle, Washington, United States
[10.21.14]

Game Designer
Zindagi Games
Zindagi Games — Camarillo, California, United States
[10.21.14]

MOBILE Art Director






Comments


Nicholas Lovell
profile image
The biggest issue I have with your post (sorry, David) is the opening quote.

VCs have hated the games industry for a very long time. VCs don't like *products*, they like *services*. Zynga (and Playfish, and GameForge, and Bigpoint, and Wooga, and ...) are great businesses for VCs.



But in essence, the *old world* of games is like movies, and the new world (of social, casua and browser based games) is like television. It offers a different experience. At its best, I believe that these new games will equal or even surpass AAA games for consumer experience and innovation; at it's worst, it will be below the quality of daytime TV.



For game developers to deride it is foolish - because, on average, these new games are going to eat their lunch.



(Should I duck now?)

craig fergusson
profile image
i dont agree with how you say zynga piggybacked business on peoples charity in the same breath as scams: "They ran offer scams, and, while it was misreported as far more scandalous than it actually was, they nonetheless piggy-backed some very lucrative business on people's charity. "



The first charity before the earthquake was a chance to give back something and help people in need. I dont really see any similar contributions from the big publishers. Ive never seen a call of duty say they are going to give 50% of sales to help out war torn iraq or anything like that. After the earthquake 100% of donations were given to Haiti. I dont understand why companies are always accused of shenanigans when there is charity involved. These are private companies that could just keep all the millions for themselves. And when a CEO decides to help out they are accused of just doing it for a better business image. Well I think a better business image does includes charity work as opposed to all those companies that have done nothing. Give Zynga some credit.

David Hayward
profile image
@craig: Disagree all you like; they weren't contributions from Zynga, they were contributions from their users, channeled through Zynga, which they then happened to make a $1.2M "arrangement fee" or whatever from. Donating 100% of the subsequent campaign was laudable, but well, in general that's not something you could say about Zynga. WRT other publishers/platform holders not donating (or mobilising their users to), so what? Does that make them evil or something?



@nicholas: Point taken on VCs, it's not like you regularly hear of development studios or games being funded by them. It's also not credible to deride Zynga as a business, clearly it's extremely viable no matter what questions people ask of their morals, but in terms of game design, there's plenty to deride and mistrust, and there's the war. I also just don't think Zynga and, say Bethesda, or Activision are going for anything like the same market. Zynga may dwarf them, but that's different to eating their lunch. People are still interested in movies, they will remain interested in the experience console games give them. OnLive and Gakai are worth paying more attention to in that respect than Zynga.

craig fergusson
profile image
@David, you make it seem as donation programs are not helpful because someone somehow capitalized off of it. Not giving Zynga any credit for it is just sour grapes. Take a look http://www.zynga.org/ and look at some of those faces of the haiti children. You know zynga and other companies could have "channeled" 100% of their profits right into their pockets. And yeah, i really believe if you make a millions of dollars and you cant give back a penny to society or those in need are evil. I bet you have a Mr. Burns picture hanging somewhere in your office.

Mike Nowak
profile image
I think the issue Craig, and it is a valid one, is about transparency. No one is saying that donating to a charity is bad, but if you take charitable donations and keep a portion of them, without making this clear and obvious, it's misleading and shady. Just ask Wyclef Jean. Besides, you're arguing about one little link completely ignoring the contextual relevance of the previous two.

Ben Zeigler
profile image
I went to a possibly relevant lecture at GDC that I just typed up my notes from: http://doublebuffered.com/2010/03/17/gdc-2010-single-player-multi
player-mmog-design-psychologies-for-different-social-contexts/ In it Ernest Adams talks a fair bit about the possible evils of Free to Play games. Slides from a Virtual Goods conference (http://www.slideshare.net/vgsummit/zhan-ye-what-us-game-developer
s-need-to-know-about-freetoplay-in-china-2408412) are the clearest example I've seen of the dangerous places the Free to Play business model can take game designers.

David Hayward
profile image
Thanks for the links, excellent notes. I'd read the occasional feature on some evilly designed games from the Chinese market, but those are a much better overview.



Alexi Pajitnov spoke at the GameCity festival a couple of years ago, and when asked if he thought making a game as addictive as Tetris was perhaps a bad thing, he responded that he considered it a job well done. I've been used to thinking of game design as a unified blob for years, but it seems a little obvious now that the closer designers get to defining it, the more schools of thought it will split into.

kevin wright
profile image
3 years later and... nailed it Dave.

Now that social/mobile/ftp has losty its luster, with VC's and consumers, now what?

@Nicholas: buddy you were betting too much on the short game- your comments:
- "At its best, I believe that these new games will equal or even surpass AAA games for consumer experience and innovation" (didnt happen)
- "at it's worst, it will be below the quality of daytime TV" (oh no- it is WAY lower than that).
- "For game developers to deride it is foolish" (hardly; it disrupted the industry to ignore innovation)
- "because, on average, these new games are going to eat their lunch" (again, didn't happen - its already on the way out- or is 5k+ industry layoffs in the last 6 months not enough proof?!?).

I suspect that boutique + innovative (not merely data aggragating ad nauseum) game development on emergent platforms and devices is what will eat/is eating social's lunch- because at the end of the day, it isn't how many free downloads you have, its how many actually pay to fund the next round. (i.e., true revenue is derived from the consumer, not the investor/wall street; that's just short money).


none
 
Comment: