Farmville Killed Gaming, Virtual Worlds, And Your Dog

Am I the only person in the universe that doesn’t think Raph Koster is a genius?

Raph :
Far from it, Ed!
My post doesn’t say they are over or dead, it says that they are changing form, and in a way that hardcore gamers won’t like.
The real issue here is whether the growth in one category reduces investment in the other categories. And I think the answer to that is yes. Of course core stuff will still be made. But it will be made in a very different landscape. And I think we have already seen this with the big MMOs — there’s just plain fewer of them being attempted, because of cost.

Well, that’s good, because most MMOs are bad games. Even the ‘good’ ones really aren’t all that great. Rarely do they even get the fundamentals right, like enjoyable gameplay. Even Blizzard self-admitted to losing 70% of players by level 10. Pressing 1 or 2 abilities over and over, being only indirectly in control of the whole swinging your sword part of the game, that’s just not enjoyable to most core single player game players who are used to things like God of War.

If anything, this whole trend should tell future MMO teams to focus more on core action oriented gamers OR casual passive gamers, but not both. WoW got big by riding the line between casual and hardcore gameplay styles but as more products fill in on both ends, I can see it slowly contracting. If an MMO came out with God of War style style gameplay, I bet it could capture the attention of nearly the entire core and hardcore audiences.

Brask Mumei :
So where is the million dollar investment into modern day tamagotchis?

Neopets? Even Pokemon, really. The lack of a Pokemon MMO-like product has always boggled me, but the game has always had social sharing aspects.

The whole social thing just reeks of the Wii fiasco all over again. Everyone thought the Wii was the future, motion control. Now, looking back, a few games have done really well for Wii, but it just doesn’t really sell that much software. And the best selling game for the system, NSMB Wii, barely even uses motion control.

As far as I can tell, traditional MMO subs haven’t lost any ground while social games have been on the rise. An increase in market X doesn’t necessarily mean a decrease in market Y.

(Incidentally, “social games” is an awful term for this discussion. MMOs are social games by design as well – the new Facebook-style games simply do a better job of capitalizing on previously existing social networks. “Social network games” would be much more descriptive.)

The issue with Farmville doesn’t lie with its gameplay – the problem is the way it’s being monetized through ethically dubious marketing schemes and outright fraud. If that proves successful in the long term, (and it certainly appears to be succeeding so far) conglomerates like EA, Sony or Activision Blizzard will be tempted to fund their new games this way as well.

I think the fact that, even during a major recession, people are willing to spend millions of dollars on virtual seeds says more about the human condition than it does about gaming.

If essentially re-skinned games weren’t something gamers liked RTS, FPS, and MMO games would have already died off

It’s an unfortunate state of gaming that this is automatically deemed to be a bad thing. In bizzaro-world, every game is so very awesome and distinct as to defy easy classification.

Different people have different exceptions about games. A game does not need to have beautiful graphics designed by a team of artists to win over players, it just need to have some distinct features that make a large enough group of people to buy the game and sustain the developer. It is like some people like Photo-realistic paintings and others like Van Gogh.

Brask Mumei :
So where is the million dollar investment into modern day tamagotchis?
When I see something huge and shallow, I think “fad”, not “trend”. Mind you, I don’t know if that applies to Farmville as I’ve never managed to get past the “give up all your personal information to take a quiz” aspect of Facebook.

Keep in mind that Pong was pretty shallow too. How shallow was Space Invaders compared to Asteroids? Breakout vs. Arkanoid? Karateka vs. Mortal Kombat?

“”How important is game development when you have poor quality free social games generating these kinds of numbers?” -Pacific Crest’s Evan Wilson

That reminded me of:

“Why should people go out and pay to see bad movies when they can stay home and see bad television for nothing?” -Samuel Goldwyn

Yet we still have films — including, yes, bad ones –, just as radio didn’t suddenly die because of television. Certainly, it forced some adjustments: radio soap operas, film serials and newsreels died out as a result of their move to television, which they did with relative ease, but the formats survived their initial medium. I might despise e-books, but they are not going to kill the novel; and so on.

I, for one, don’t care whether a game is built as a Facebook application, a traditional F2P title, or an old-fashioned subscription title. I saw more depth in Puzzle Pirates or Wurm Online than I ever saw in World of Warcraft (or even, heresy, in EVE). Likewise, I only heard great things about Allods Online, until the cash shop came out. So it might well be possible to design an intricate, in-depth Facebook game.

But why has it not been so? The problem isn’t so much the format as demographic expectations, which can be summarized in one word: appeal to the lowest common denominator.

First, there was the impression that one could only find success in MMO development by churning out WoW clones, but I think it gradually sank in that you couldn’t beat WoW at its own game — Conan and Warhammer being two high-profile examples of games that tried to copy WoW to some extent and failed.

So developers all had the epiphany that if they couldn’t convince more existing gamers to pick up their game, they would have to turn everyone into gamers, the proverbial “casuals”. But they understood why “casuals” did not become gamers, and thought these casuals needed to be lured with ease of access, so these games were made ultra-accessible, unchallenging, and cutesy.

There’s a telling comment on Scott’s article at MMORPG.com by someone who claims to know people who play Farmville, but none of whom he would identify as gamers. It reminded me of that Koster article we once discussed here, written in 1999, when “Johnny the console player” was the main demographic, and the way to get his attention was to slap Firiona Vie inside every gaming magazine and hope he might get enough of a boner to buy the game.

At least “casuals” are assumed to seek to keep their testosterone in check, to which was added the other half of population with little to do with testosterone in the first place, traditionally spurned by gaming circles (remnants of which mentality are still popping up in the usual places, with “grope a booth babe” contests, and gaming webcomics where women are just ancillary, and so on). And this desire to widen the scope is fine, if this indicated the gaming industry was growing up. Unfortunately, expectations seem not to have increased regarding the intelligence of gamers; “casuals” are expected to be as equally lacking in cerebral powers as Koster’s Johnny was considered at the time (“can’t read” was how he put it).

The new-found dedication to the casual market also has an evangelical tone to it that I find displeasing, if not disquieting: “Everybody is a gamer, but they don’t know it yet, so we must bring the gospel of gaming to them.” Which is just as condescending as that “One Laptop Per Child” initiative, that doesn’t really care about African tribes having food, or running water, or protection from the local junta, as long as they have internet access; but here, Zynga’s dominance in the “casual” field demonstrates that the first to set their foot in the door are the shysters, like those peddlers of pseudo-IQ tests who just want you to take out a cell phone subscription for more of their stupidities.

Will the presence of Koster, Garriott and others in this new field help build its reputation and legitimize casual gaming? Probably, but that’s perhaps what most people who oppose the casualization of gaming really fear. Had this new profession of faith come from a lesser designer, I’m guessing it would not have had much of an impact, but from a Raph Koster, it turns into the equivalent of the pope admitting he doesn’t believe in God anymore, only to add in the same breath: “atheism is where the money is”. Not even about doctrine, but about the size of the tithe.

Somehow I would have expected something… loftier coming from a game designer.

But Facebook, much as I may despise it for what it is, isn’t the problem as far as games are concerned.

scott,

read your blog with interest.

i wont argue about your assertions although i dont agree with them.

however, i take particular exception to your statements about killing dogs. zynga is a dog loving company named after my dearly departed dog zinga. dozens of dogs show up here every day.

best,

mark pincus
ceo
zynga

There’s two separate issues here:

1)The growth of the videogame market in F2P web aplications

and 2)The development of malware filled, spam orgytastic shitty games designed to shake the users as hard as possible for getting the money to fall, ethics be damned.

The first WILL happen. No way around it.

The second? Over the corpse of every designer with a minimum of decency. Developers and gamers should have gotten over the fact that some games aren’t just for us years ago, but only an amoral scumbag would want his name in Farmvill or one of its clones.

Which resumes what I think of it’s creators.

And I have to wonder how much of Farmville’s documented and undocumented “features” are even legal.

I do think Vetarnais has a point Ralph, I hadn’t really realized it until I read it, But your involvement in social network gaming really is lending the genre creditability it has not earned (IMO). I think that is what I find most disturbing.
Thou I certainly wish you the best in your endeavors, you have earned it. But at the same time I cant help but feel like I’m saying goodbye to an old friend.

“And I have to wonder how much of Farmville’s documented and undocumented “features” are even legal.” – Gx1080

What on earth is this even supposed to mean? How can a feature be illegal?

the 3 most important words in this thread…

Lowest… Common… Denominator….

sadly, this isn’t just a problem in the gaming industry, it’s a problem that plagues almost all aspects of our society currently… this type of thinking needs to stop… not just in games… but everywhere… until this changes, humanity is in for a very rough ride.

do we really want to play games that cater to idiots?

it’s becoming more and more acceptable to be an idiot in our society… is that really what we want?

@hsinclair

Links:

http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus-faceboo/

http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/31/scamville-the-social-gaming-ecosystem-of-hell/

What I dislike about the current attitude of gameplayers is that there is an knee jerk “Web == Suck” belief of games.

Consider the recent misuse of “ultima” for an RTS. Most commentators latched onto the fact the RTS was to be a browser game to be proof it would be a crap game. I think this is one of Raph’s points – the games may suck now, but don’t let that make you discount the entire platform.

I read your most recent article with great interest, Mr. Jennings. As an avid gamer and a professional in the tech industry that has to (unfortunately) unscrew the terrible, terrible situations that the average user gets scammed into on a monthly — if not weekly — basis, I drilled down into the Zynga / Offerpal situation and got quite the education.

You see, I spend an awful lot of time at work railing quite loudly against “rogue anti-virus utilities”. They are programs that are very specifically designed to SCARE you into paying money for absolutely nothing at all. They don’t try to cajole or convince; their tactic takes a decidedly sinister approach. It is also quite effective — from what circumstantial evidence that my own personal experience has gathered, at any rate.

Now we have a somewhat more familiar scam — the classic bait-and-switch. “Take this free* survey and get actual fake assets delivered to you almost immediately!” Never you mind that the “*” carries a hefty price. I prefer the rogue antivirus scams now, because people typically only fall for them once.

Since I would never travel within 3.1415 parsecs of the games in question, I thank you for your write-up and the insight that it has provided to me. You have convinced me to educate my co-workers and subordinates on this matter, as many of them frequent these applications during their lunch breaks, coffee breaks, boring meetings, interesting meetings, times when they should be working, etc.

I enjoy your work and your unique insight into the industry. Thanks for that.

Matt Mihaly :
Raph wrote:
“What if I told you your best hope for a worldy virtual world was Facebook games?”
Your best hope for a worldly virtual world is to go play text MUDs actually.

MUSH or MUCK or MOO, but close enough…

@Raph

It seems we have very different views of what constitutes a “virtual world”, if I read correctly your Feb. 26 post on your blog.

I agree with the basic definition, namely, that a virtual world is “a non-real place that exists independent of my imagination”; however, I am not certain why Star Trek Online would qualify, but not Half Life 2. And I suspect it’s not because HL2 is a single-player game; in which case, every game that isn’t an MMO would be excluded. Is it then a question of how much effort you put into building a fictional world, to the extent of including details that are particularly irrelevant to player interaction?

I’m reminded of Tolkien’s appendices to The Lord of the Rings, even though only a masochist would want to memorize them, or of Sinclair Lewis drawing extensive maps of Zenith and Winnemac State to set his novels. It’s the sort of attention to detail I can appreciate, and that’s why I admired the Baldur’s Gate series (and not because I had played a tabletop game set in the Forgotten Realms before; that was my first exposure to AD&D altogether). And despite the whole “you are the child of Bhaal” story line, you could sense there was something that existed beyond your character.

Where it becomes difficult to explain is why the Forgotten Realms setting used in BG I and II worked as a virtual world, whereas the Eberron setting used in DDO did not. The tutorial island is a good example: it was supposed to be an epic story arc, where you ended up killing a dragon and saving the village… but then, as soon as you finished the quest, you returned to the village, which was just as you left it.

As another case in the same vein, World of Warcraft is a mighty bad example to offer as a virtual world, as it’s a sorry excuse for one. In fact, I would offer that it doesn’t even want to be taken seriously as such, what with Haris Pilton and all those other pop culture references. The other problem is, as you pointed out, that malleability of environment doesn’t exist. They’ve built this beautifully rendered world, but you’re just supposed to glide through it without so much as ruffling a leaf. I remember reading a webcomic about that (on Penny Arcade, I think), where a jaded old player takes another enthusiastic old player on a tour to see the villain they’d killed long ago, perpetually respawned, still dispensing quests to newbies.

In your list of praxis, malleability is the only one I would retain, because it is a specific concern to MMO’s. So I just can’t fathom why you have chosen World of Warcraft for drawing a comparison (because it’s the most popular?) instead of any of the self-proclaimed “sandbox” MMO’s out there, where players can play a role in developing the virtual world in question.

There was an interesting debate some time ago on the MMORPG.com forums about what constitutes an MMO, after the site chose to add Travian and Evony to its listings (leading to not-as-unwarranted-as-I-would-prefer-to-think accusations that those two games got a listing because they bought advertising). Then someone (I think it was Gyrus, occasional poster here) put the question to the site’s management: if Travian and Evony make the list, what about… you guessed it… Farmville?

To this day, Travian and Evony, one nothing more than a browser game with countless clones, the other with a reputation… well, you know, have listings there — but not Farmville. I hardly consider MMORPG.com to be the Social Register of MMO gaming, but it just gives you an idea of the uphill battle you’ll have to face just to legitimize your project. I have no doubt that you’ll probably end up with something a little more decent than Farmville (which I cannot play, for I refuse to sign up for Facebook as a matter of principle), but I cannot come to terms with your assessment that Facebook gaming is where the future of virtual worlds lie.

It’s not because of my aversion to Facebook and other social networking sites; and it’s also not because I perceive Facebook games as intrinsically looser in ethics. I remember that Jonathan Blow squarely accused that sacred cow of the subscription model that is World of Warcraft of being “unethical” because of its treadmill/Skinner box design; and the more traditional model of F2P got a mighty good example of unethical behaviour in Allods Online and its virtual shop with $2,000 items — not to mention all those double-dipping games that first seek to make you pay for a subscription, only to find inventive ways to make you pay again once you have. So Zynga’s track record is really moot, in my mind.

The real problem with Facebook games, based on what I’ve read of them (including from you), is that they have no depth, and are mostly designed as (my expression of choice) a single-player game run in parallel, with a chat box. And unless I am misinterpreting what you wrote, that is precisely what you are referring to when you talk of Farmville “completely lacking in synchronous avatar-based interaction”. Further, you add: “Asynchronicity rules the roost, not real-time interaction. Real-time is a feature, a perk, something used occasionally. It’s not the norm.”

Yet a virtual world implies real-time interaction; otherwise, you might as well be spending most of your time writing and receiving letters, without ever getting a glimpse of your correspondent.

But to compensate, you say that this whole pseudonymous handle business is going to disappear, to be replaced (thanks to Facebook — one of the main reasons why I won’t use it) with my real name, while ironically telling me that it’s only natural, since exchanges are going to get weaker rather than stronger. So everyone would know who I am, even though nobody cares? That’s the idea?

But I think you’d be getting it backward. I’ve been playing MMO’s with the same people (whom I met online) for over two years now, and we now know each other’s real names. But it’s precisely because we have been playing together for years that we know our real names. On the other hand, you’re telling me that in your new virtual worlds, I must a priori tell everyone my name, before I can even play the game. Sorry, but I’m much too guarded for that; not because I have anything to hide, but because I don’t see how my real name is anyone’s business but my own.

I remember reading, a while ago, an argument by John Stuart Mill on how voting should be done openly, without the secret ballot, so that voters could be held accountable for what they did, and act accordingly. It’s a fine idea on paper, but impractical on several counts, especially if you keep in mind the political mores of the nineteenth century. Your idea similarly sounds nice on paper: perhaps this means new virtual worlds will mostly be spared the griefing douchebaggery of current MMO games, because everyone’s real identity will be tied to their in-game actions. But to someone like me, who always avoids griefing anyone in games, always sticks by the rules, and always seeks to help other players if my assistance is required, it’s not a step I’m willing to take, because it assumes from the start that I must be prevented from doing something I would do without hesitation could I remain safely behind my rather meaningless handle of Vetarnias. I already refuse to use voice chat, out of privacy (mine and others’); you can imagine what I think of a requirement to divulge my identity to one and all as a prerequisite for playing the game.

And in addition to all that, it’s just that I have no idea where you’re heading in particular; I’m still attempting to compute your ideas with Metaplace. I tried Metaplace, although briefly, in December. It had already been announced that it would close, so I did not want to linger, in case I found myself getting attached to it. But I could not even make sense of it. It looked more like a platform for other games makers (which would explain your current concern) than a virtual world in itself. I think I once wrote in the comments on this blog that Metaplace reminded me very much of a cubicle farm, where everyone could stick a picture of their wife and kids to the wall of their private space, but which remained, despite all the personal flourishes, nothing more than a cubicle.

@Brask Mumei

“What I dislike about the current attitude of gameplayers is that there is an knee jerk “Web == Suck” belief of games.”

I’m not 100% sure I’d class it as a “web game”, but the makers do and I think Battlefield Heros is a great little F2P browser installable game. Personally, I think of it as “best of breed” (though I still prefer to play the proper client versions).

I can’t edit my post Apologies for typos.

schild :
The revolution will not be televised simply because Facebook is doing everything in its power to destroy the Facebook gaming market.

Can you elaborate on that? Provide some more examples, insight, links, etc?

I’ve been wondering for quite some time how Facebook feels about these companies making HUNDREDS of millions of dollars off their platform and they aren’t really getting a cut.

/quote There’s a telling comment on Scott’s article at MMORPG.com by someone who claims to know people who play Farmville, but none of whom he would identify as gamers. /endquote

Hell, I’ll out myself. I’m a gamer and I play Mafia Wars. It was a slow slide. A friend begged me to join her mafia because she needed the numbers (you don’t have to do anything! she said) I didn’t realize that it was just my mere existence that mattered, I assumed that my stats did too, so every now and then I’d log in and do a few jobs and randomly place points. Slowly, every now and then became weekly, then daily, then several times a day… Turns out that the slew of mini rewards do indeed act as conditioning, and I already knew I liked spreadsheet games, so I liked doing the jobs. I don’t like pvp in ‘real’ games, but I even got to the point of enjoying the fighting in Mafia Wars, as it is (usually) so very impersonal.

I also play Fairyland, but that’s a very different sort of game.

Raph :
Far from it, Ed!
My post doesn’t say they are over or dead, it says that they are changing form, and in a way that hardcore gamers won’t like.
The real issue here is whether the growth in one category reduces investment in the other categories. And I think the answer to that is yes. Of course core stuff will still be made. But it will be made in a very different landscape. And I think we have already seen this with the big MMOs — there’s just plain fewer of them being attempted, because of cost.

Fewer compared to what? I think what we’ve seen with MMOs is that you can’t just clone WoW and print money. You’re still seeing a stream of AAA level MMOs, from Age of Conan or Warhammer, to Final Fantasy XIV to Knights of the Old Republic, and so on.