Here's a funny and suprising catchy video I found. I thought the class might enjoy it.
Cheers and good luck on finals!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNyg1ftMIU
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Zynga’s Massive Popularity
In the article questioning whether or not Zynga will become “the Google of Games,” a lot of Zynga’s successes are pointed out. According to the article, Zynga is on its way to gaining $500 million this year and took about half the time as Facebook did to reach 100 million users. However, all of this money that the company is making isn’t from selling the game, like how game companies usually make most of their revenue. Zynga cashes in when people pay a little bit of money for digital goods that help them make their farms look how they want. To individuals, the amount is close to nothing, but the fact that there are millions and millions of people paying for them adds up significantly. Its founder, Mark Pincus, is actually on his way to becoming a billionaire.
Although there have been a few hiccups on its way to stardom, Zynga has still fought through all of them to retain its success. For example, people on Facebook joined groups that specifically stood against the notifications of friends’ farms and other game updates. However, this did not have a large impact on the cash flow of the company because those who quit playing never really bought things in the first place.
The little playtime I have had with Farmville and Frontierville don’t really convince me to keep playing beyond this class assignment. I can see why they are very popular though. The game is easy and fun to compare farms and build upon your own. Seeing that it is free, some people don’t feel as bad buying extra components for their farms. This is a great idea and I can see them becoming even more popular in the future, especially considering how much money they are making. I don’t ever see myself spending actual money on this, even if I do play beyond this assignment, but we’ll see how that plays out.
Being a "Hardcore" gamer I always kinda laughed at these Zynga games like Mafia Wars and FarmVille. I never really saw the fun in them but after playing Frontier Ville for the weekend I have to say I was surprisingly hooked. I have never really had the ambition to be a farmer in the old west but even after my first play threw i was hooked. The simple and repetitiousness aspect of planting crops and clearing land in the game were very captivating. You had to preform these tasks in order to start a little farm and complete missions that were given to you by the game. The challenging part was that you only had so much "energy" or number of actions that you could do. I found this very frustrating because the only way to get more energy was to visit your friends farm and help them out or pay Zynga real money for the goods. If you already helped out your friends once that day then you couldn't get more energy from them untill the next day. It really limited the amount you could play to basically once a day.
The brilliant part of this game is how they rely on micro-transactions to make a profit. If you ran out of energy like i did then you are able to pay a certain amount to Zynga in order to get more energy, supply's, and special items to decorate your farm. This will allow you to further advance in the game and save yourself the time you would have to wait instead. This has been extremely profitable for Zynga because they have maid Millions off of just little 60 cent transactions. This is often seen as the future of profiting in the video game industry. MMO's and console games are putting out DLC and extra content for small transactions all the time now so we can see that it is a really profitable way to structure your business in the video game industry. The one thing that I found frustrating( and i know many others did as well) was the constant pop ups, and asking to publish things on friends walls or news feeds. It was annoying while playing and is annoying to see in the news feeds. the only problem is that you can really have the games social aspects work any other way.
So do you think this is the future of Video Gaming? Have you ever paid for items in a game like this? or will this be just a fad?
The brilliant part of this game is how they rely on micro-transactions to make a profit. If you ran out of energy like i did then you are able to pay a certain amount to Zynga in order to get more energy, supply's, and special items to decorate your farm. This will allow you to further advance in the game and save yourself the time you would have to wait instead. This has been extremely profitable for Zynga because they have maid Millions off of just little 60 cent transactions. This is often seen as the future of profiting in the video game industry. MMO's and console games are putting out DLC and extra content for small transactions all the time now so we can see that it is a really profitable way to structure your business in the video game industry. The one thing that I found frustrating( and i know many others did as well) was the constant pop ups, and asking to publish things on friends walls or news feeds. It was annoying while playing and is annoying to see in the news feeds. the only problem is that you can really have the games social aspects work any other way.
So do you think this is the future of Video Gaming? Have you ever paid for items in a game like this? or will this be just a fad?
Behind the Success: Zynga the new Billionare?
Farmville is a new age of casual gaming that has taken over our social networks. Mark Pincus, the mastermind behind the whole operation has found an interesting market that can change the way we look at social network gaming forever. The Zynga Game Network has created a forum of many popular online games, but the real phenomenon is how has it been turned into a multi-billion dollar industry?
Zynga’s empire is made up of cartoonish online games that even Mr. Pincus acknowledges are goofy. And most striking, given its financial success, is the fact that the games are free to everyone. Zynga makes money, by and large, only when a small fraction of its users pay real money for make-believe “virtual” goods that let them move up in the games or to give their friends gifts.
Its amazing to see how what many people may look to as a free common casual game can turn into something that people are willing to pay money for in order to get " level ups". After playing Farmville for about 20 min. i realized that it wasn't a game for me, but i was interested in finding someone who enjoyed the game. I asked My 17 year old sister who constantly plays this game and she basically plays the game to "out farm" her friends who invited her to play in the first place. Although my sister hasn't bought any Farmville "power ups", she states that its tempting to at times because i can take a long time to get your farm at the level you want it through regular game play. With Zynga being valued at $4.5 Billion, there seems to be alot of people who are willing to pay to upgrade their farms.
Is it possible to become a hardcore gamer on a casual gaming platform?
Zynga's Success
After spending more time than necessary "trying out" both Farmville and Frontierville, I became tired of the incessant pop-ups requesting that I publicize and "share" my experience with friends. Moreover, I was amazed at how Zynga had managed to create a game experience in which players can spend nearly half their playtime working to advertise for Zynga while "enjoying" themselves and engaging in play. What really blew my mind was the fact that despite all of this, there were people willing to put money into these same games in order to buy items or advance their play abilities, so much so that Zynga is expecting "$500 million in revenues this year." This again brought my train of thought to a subject that we have discussed time and time again in this class: virtual goods and their value.
"Analysts estimate that virtual goods could bring in a billion dollars in the United States and around $5 billion worldwide this year"
To many, virtual goods may seem trivial and of no worth but then again, it may also be argued that the purchase of a cow or tractor in Farmville with real world currency is not much different from purchasing dolls or throw pillows in real life. It again comes down to how much value an individual places in different sectors of their lives whether in virtual worlds or the "real" world. With computer technologies being incorporated into every single nook and cranny of day to day life, it makes sense that people would view the internet and virtual worlds as much a part of real life as watching TV, eating dinner, working, or playing with friends. So does it make sense then that people would pay money for goods that are technically intangible?
“'It’s an experience, like going to the movies. That’s how I describe it,' said Sara Merrill of Parsonfield, Me., who plays Pet Society on Facebook with her two young sons five times a week. Recently, the family used a credit card to buy $20 worth of the game’s currency, then bought items like a haunted mirror and a potion that helped their pet, Demon Baby, grow bat wings. 'It’s still cheaper than taking the kids to Target where they will ask for a toy,' she said."
Have you ever invested in virtual goods of any sort, and if so, can you specify what the virtual good was? Now, taking into consideration that we have payed for services since the dawn of time, is it really that different from paying for "virtual services?"(When taking into account that the term "virtual goods/services" does not necessarily have to refer to those found within virtual worlds or video games, many will quickly realize that they too commonly spend money on both virtual goods and services.)
"Analysts estimate that virtual goods could bring in a billion dollars in the United States and around $5 billion worldwide this year"
To many, virtual goods may seem trivial and of no worth but then again, it may also be argued that the purchase of a cow or tractor in Farmville with real world currency is not much different from purchasing dolls or throw pillows in real life. It again comes down to how much value an individual places in different sectors of their lives whether in virtual worlds or the "real" world. With computer technologies being incorporated into every single nook and cranny of day to day life, it makes sense that people would view the internet and virtual worlds as much a part of real life as watching TV, eating dinner, working, or playing with friends. So does it make sense then that people would pay money for goods that are technically intangible?
“'It’s an experience, like going to the movies. That’s how I describe it,' said Sara Merrill of Parsonfield, Me., who plays Pet Society on Facebook with her two young sons five times a week. Recently, the family used a credit card to buy $20 worth of the game’s currency, then bought items like a haunted mirror and a potion that helped their pet, Demon Baby, grow bat wings. 'It’s still cheaper than taking the kids to Target where they will ask for a toy,' she said."
Have you ever invested in virtual goods of any sort, and if so, can you specify what the virtual good was? Now, taking into consideration that we have payed for services since the dawn of time, is it really that different from paying for "virtual services?"(When taking into account that the term "virtual goods/services" does not necessarily have to refer to those found within virtual worlds or video games, many will quickly realize that they too commonly spend money on both virtual goods and services.)
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Zynga's Success and Secrets
I never thought I would play games like Farmville or Frontierville because it doesn’t have a concrete goal to the game. In addition, these games are “grinding” game. It is honestly like playing MMORPGs that requires you to do the same thing over and over again. After trying it out for the first time, I have to say that I did not find it very interesting but it is really addicting. To some, the interest factor correlates with the addicting factor. I would like to think so too but it is not the case with this game.
As I mentioned before, this game isn’t appealing to me because of the depth as well as the graphics and gameplay. However, the game is addicting because of the instant gratifications you get from the repetitive actions. When we talked about casual gaming in class, one of the features it has is the gratification system. Bejeweled will let you know every time you scored or moved up a level. Similarly, both Farmville and Frontierville do the same. When you plant a crop, harvest it, or some other action; the system will flash icons letting you know what you have acquired or achieved. This is one of the reasons why the game is so addicting.
Another reason that I find this game addicting is the timer on everything in the game. This tells the player that you will earn something after this amount of time. In games such as WoW or Aion, the luck factor is emphasized making the game much harder and unpredictable. This game style deters competitive gamers but lures in the casual gamers that don’t have the time and energy to deal with uncertainty and frustration. As Professor Nakamura mentioned in class, many adults play Farmville in our school. It makes a lot more sense for adults with a job to be attracted by these games because it is based on a strict timing. When you work 8-5 everyday, you can plant your crops around those times so that you don’t have to worry about rotting them. These games are perfect for the majority workforce.
Still motion games like these don’t have a strong social aspect to it. Zygna changed that by constantly incorporating the help each other initiative in these games. This strategy creates a sense of community for players. For the game producers, it is nothing more than a way for existing players to lure their friends into playing the game. In another word, free advertising.
These games are starting to permeate and spread into the family setting as well.
Recently, the family used a credit card to buy $20 worth of the game’s currency, and then bought items like a haunted mirror and a potion that helped their pet, Demon Baby, grow bat wings. “It’s still cheaper than taking the kids to Target where they will ask for a toy,” she said. (NY times)
Computers are very common among households in the 21st century. Kids are growing up with these technologies instead of the physical toys. It becomes an easier way for parents to satisfy their children’s needs. Buying toys can take up space but a computer game will only take up the same space. It is very possible that Zynga will become the leading company in the gaming industry. It is also very possible that more games will adopt this type of pay structure.
Question: How much would you pay to be good at these games?
What makes people play Zynga games?
From when I began to play Frontier Farm (Thursday) to Today, I have not found out the funness in this game. Therefore, I was surprised when I realized that Zynga is expecting to reach $500 revenue in 2010. However, after reading the interview with Zynga's CEO, I began to understand how their games succeeded.
First of all, it is not as time consuming as other games. This also relates to the hardcore vs. casual gaming discussion that we had in the beginning of the semester. I also realized that people I know who are into this game are all employed. They do not have much time playing normal games and as Mark Pincus points out that "One of the biggest reasons people don't play games is they say that they don't have the time," Zynga games are, in fact, addressing modern people's concern about not wasting too much time on entertainment, yet get the chance to enjoy gaming.
Secondly, the platform of Zynga's game is the world largest social platform: Facebook. The biggest attraction about facebook is that you get to socialize with your "real-life" friends and Zynga games definitely benefits from this function. The fact that friends can have fun together in the same game at anytime is a major attraction because there aren't that many chances when you and your friends are playing in the same game at the same time like those games outside of facebook. Therefore, part of Zynga's success has to give credit to Facebook.
According to Mark Pincus, their games earn money only from the selling of virtual goods. However, I am kind of surprised by Mark Pincus' explanation of why people would buy those virtual goods because according to him, people buy goods for the sake of standing out in crowd and "changing your friends' view of you," which is saying that Zynga games are actually competitive games that allow people to compare and show off their goods.
Question: would you buy any virtual goods on FrontierFarm? why and why not?
First of all, it is not as time consuming as other games. This also relates to the hardcore vs. casual gaming discussion that we had in the beginning of the semester. I also realized that people I know who are into this game are all employed. They do not have much time playing normal games and as Mark Pincus points out that "One of the biggest reasons people don't play games is they say that they don't have the time," Zynga games are, in fact, addressing modern people's concern about not wasting too much time on entertainment, yet get the chance to enjoy gaming.
Secondly, the platform of Zynga's game is the world largest social platform: Facebook. The biggest attraction about facebook is that you get to socialize with your "real-life" friends and Zynga games definitely benefits from this function. The fact that friends can have fun together in the same game at anytime is a major attraction because there aren't that many chances when you and your friends are playing in the same game at the same time like those games outside of facebook. Therefore, part of Zynga's success has to give credit to Facebook.
According to Mark Pincus, their games earn money only from the selling of virtual goods. However, I am kind of surprised by Mark Pincus' explanation of why people would buy those virtual goods because according to him, people buy goods for the sake of standing out in crowd and "changing your friends' view of you," which is saying that Zynga games are actually competitive games that allow people to compare and show off their goods.
Question: would you buy any virtual goods on FrontierFarm? why and why not?
Yawn and Gasp (aka: I spent more time writing this post than I did playing Farmville)
I yawn because it's boring and I gasp because it's scary. That more or less sums up my experience with playing Farmville.
Nothing about Farmville really struck me as being all that engaging or interesting. I felt little motivation to continue playing other than to learn more about it for this class, and tomorrow I will leave the game behind without any pangs of loss. I tried to motivate myself by trying to get to the next level, but was quickly deterred because there was little noticeable benefit to doing so (I got a wider variety of crops, but few of them presented any notable advantages), and because it required such a time investment - crops are grown only in real time and once you run out of coins there isn't much more you can do for exp. One of the draws of the game is that it's a way to interact with friends, but it's created a false cycle of interaction where the only additional interaction the game allows is directly relevant to the game - i.e. you give your friend an in-game gift - rather than personal interaction. I can think of other ways I'd rather spend time with friends - perhaps something that involves more direct communication. I don't really care about ribbons or character accessories or anything else the game has had to offer me, and it has given me no compelling reason to do so. The only reason I've managed to glean that these rewards are supposed to be rewarding is that they exist in the first place. There's nothing here I'd really want to spend money on, and the level system is the aspect that came the closest to making me want to play more. I can achieve the same effect by solving puzzles in Professor Layton (increasing my completed puzzle count), which provides the fun of a mental challenge, or leveling my Golden Sun team, which rewards me by progressing a story, or staring at this website, which gives roughly the same "watch the number go up" satisfaction. If I sound somewhat cynical, it's probably because I'm not the type of person to be enticed by sparkles and shiny purples. I rather prefer meaningful content to empty (and relentless) praise. I realize that I could progress in the game more easily by paying money for coins/cash, but this introduces its own problems. For one, it cheapens the goods I buy with that money - I would feel like I cheated to get it. For another, if I'm going to pour money into this game on any sort of consistent basis, I'd rather use that same money to buy a completely new game. I'll talk about that more later, though.
In addition to being uninspired by Farmville, I also found the experience a bit frightening, because the game seems to focus its every aspect on pure virulent infectiousness. It would not be a poor analogy to say that Farmville is to Facebook as the flu is to most people. Let's start with the part that everyone knows about: this game is designed to make you make your friends play. Every minor in-game accomplishment pops up a notifier to your friends' news feeds, inviting them to play the game to celebrate with you. Sometimes it's not even accomplishment based: the "wandering animal" events are entirely random! This sort of pester marketing is disturbingly similar to a pyramid scheme, in which a con artist convinces people to convince people to sign on to a false program, with the promise of additional program benefits for those who recruit more members. Farmville is not a pyramid scheme, but the notification aspect of the game certainly reminds me of one. Also, I mentioned before that crop-growing takes place in real time. The sole obstacle to level progression and reward-gaining in Farmville is time. Banking on this, Zynga has allowed players to bypass this obstacle by paying real money for the virtual goods they would have otherwise earned by waiting long enough for their crops to grow. Yes, it's ingenious - marketing virtually no-cost goods for real money with a driving factor of two very human traits (impatience and greed) - but it's that level of business-end genius that makes it scary. Why? Because it's manipulative. And it's working - Zynga has made a crapload of money solely from virtual, in-game goods. This is made even more relevant by the fact that there will be an occasional pop-up advertisement (which are somewhat intrusive and annoying while playing) for one of Zynga's other games, which offer a similarly passive experience in a different setting and encourage people to spend more money on different virtual goods. This is what completes the one-two sucker punch that has made Zynga so successful - the people who are spending money on Farmville are encouraged to start playing Mafia Wars or Frontierville as well, and in turn pay for content in these games. I can understand that virtual items have value to some people (my music library, a collection of merely data, has great value to me), but I personally see little worth in these particular items. Farmville is also designed to keep people playing forever - just like World of Warcraft, there's always something more to do, and designers keep creating new content, and if you're not like me and actually care about planting certain crops or decorating your farm for the holidays, you're sure to keep coming back for more. Which is fine, if you enjoy that, but the whole thing strikes me as a bit too engineered. It reminds me of Connor's work in For the Win, discovering ways to take advantage of human behavior to coerce people into continued play - gaming as a chore rather than entertainment. Finally, there's the issue I have with many "casual" games: it all feels FAKE. Everything is too shiny and "juicy" and the game is much too quick to praise. It feels as though the game is trying much, much too hard to get on my good side, and when a game does this, I begin to question whether it does so to cover up the fact that it cannot stand on its own merits; that it cannot provide something I can legitimately care about. And that is exactly what is happening, at least to me.
Oh, right, one more thing that scares me about this game: I made a new Facebook account so I didn't have to give it any personal information, and it STILL wants to know my email address. I have refused to offer it to them, and as a result am given a persistent reminder to do so, to the point where I have even been given an item that I cannot activate until I give them my email. This strikes me as kind of creepy and more than a little intrusive.
Now, the articles. The main points they seem to bring up are the success of selling virtual goods for real money, and how ingenious Zynga's marketing strategy is in this regard. As I mentioned in my "scary" paragraph, I agree entirely. Enhancing their future prospects is the fact that they are no longer limiting themselves to Facebook apps, spreading Farmville and other games to various additional platforms such as the iPhone. They are already leading the way in number of players, with four times the playerbase of even the enormous gaming conglomerate EA. What is most interesting, though, is the testimonials from players who have paid money for virtual goods. One mother mentions that she buys items for her kids in Farmville because it's cheaper than taking them to Target for a toy. Another player recounts spending $20-$40 each week on Zynga's virtual goods. It is, admittedly, pretty darn cool that a company has managed to basically single-handedly create such a large new market for consumers that can serve as a replacement for some peoples' money-spending outlets. Zynga is definitely on to something here. I do take a bit of issue with these particular uses of money, though, if you'll pardon my self-aggrandizing here for a minute longer. I know that, given $20-$40 per week, I'd rather buy myself a completely new video game for my DS every week, as opposed to additional content for a game that I can continue to play for no charge (especially if continued play allows me to unlock that same content). It comes down to getting more for my money - I can either get an additional full game, or I can get less than a complete game for the same price. If I had a kid, I'd also rather buy him Legos (which have creative and educational properties) than Farmville accessories (which don't). But again, all of these are just my own personal preferences with regards to how I would like to spend my money.
Seeing as how this whole blog post has basically been me spouting my (admittedly very harsh and one-sided) opinion of Farmville and how I'd rather spend my time and money elsewhere, here's my question to you: Am I just completely crazy? (it's okay to say yes) More specifically: you already know where I stand on the subject, but do YOU see any value in virtual goods of the variety that Farmville offers?
Nothing about Farmville really struck me as being all that engaging or interesting. I felt little motivation to continue playing other than to learn more about it for this class, and tomorrow I will leave the game behind without any pangs of loss. I tried to motivate myself by trying to get to the next level, but was quickly deterred because there was little noticeable benefit to doing so (I got a wider variety of crops, but few of them presented any notable advantages), and because it required such a time investment - crops are grown only in real time and once you run out of coins there isn't much more you can do for exp. One of the draws of the game is that it's a way to interact with friends, but it's created a false cycle of interaction where the only additional interaction the game allows is directly relevant to the game - i.e. you give your friend an in-game gift - rather than personal interaction. I can think of other ways I'd rather spend time with friends - perhaps something that involves more direct communication. I don't really care about ribbons or character accessories or anything else the game has had to offer me, and it has given me no compelling reason to do so. The only reason I've managed to glean that these rewards are supposed to be rewarding is that they exist in the first place. There's nothing here I'd really want to spend money on, and the level system is the aspect that came the closest to making me want to play more. I can achieve the same effect by solving puzzles in Professor Layton (increasing my completed puzzle count), which provides the fun of a mental challenge, or leveling my Golden Sun team, which rewards me by progressing a story, or staring at this website, which gives roughly the same "watch the number go up" satisfaction. If I sound somewhat cynical, it's probably because I'm not the type of person to be enticed by sparkles and shiny purples. I rather prefer meaningful content to empty (and relentless) praise. I realize that I could progress in the game more easily by paying money for coins/cash, but this introduces its own problems. For one, it cheapens the goods I buy with that money - I would feel like I cheated to get it. For another, if I'm going to pour money into this game on any sort of consistent basis, I'd rather use that same money to buy a completely new game. I'll talk about that more later, though.
In addition to being uninspired by Farmville, I also found the experience a bit frightening, because the game seems to focus its every aspect on pure virulent infectiousness. It would not be a poor analogy to say that Farmville is to Facebook as the flu is to most people. Let's start with the part that everyone knows about: this game is designed to make you make your friends play. Every minor in-game accomplishment pops up a notifier to your friends' news feeds, inviting them to play the game to celebrate with you. Sometimes it's not even accomplishment based: the "wandering animal" events are entirely random! This sort of pester marketing is disturbingly similar to a pyramid scheme, in which a con artist convinces people to convince people to sign on to a false program, with the promise of additional program benefits for those who recruit more members. Farmville is not a pyramid scheme, but the notification aspect of the game certainly reminds me of one. Also, I mentioned before that crop-growing takes place in real time. The sole obstacle to level progression and reward-gaining in Farmville is time. Banking on this, Zynga has allowed players to bypass this obstacle by paying real money for the virtual goods they would have otherwise earned by waiting long enough for their crops to grow. Yes, it's ingenious - marketing virtually no-cost goods for real money with a driving factor of two very human traits (impatience and greed) - but it's that level of business-end genius that makes it scary. Why? Because it's manipulative. And it's working - Zynga has made a crapload of money solely from virtual, in-game goods. This is made even more relevant by the fact that there will be an occasional pop-up advertisement (which are somewhat intrusive and annoying while playing) for one of Zynga's other games, which offer a similarly passive experience in a different setting and encourage people to spend more money on different virtual goods. This is what completes the one-two sucker punch that has made Zynga so successful - the people who are spending money on Farmville are encouraged to start playing Mafia Wars or Frontierville as well, and in turn pay for content in these games. I can understand that virtual items have value to some people (my music library, a collection of merely data, has great value to me), but I personally see little worth in these particular items. Farmville is also designed to keep people playing forever - just like World of Warcraft, there's always something more to do, and designers keep creating new content, and if you're not like me and actually care about planting certain crops or decorating your farm for the holidays, you're sure to keep coming back for more. Which is fine, if you enjoy that, but the whole thing strikes me as a bit too engineered. It reminds me of Connor's work in For the Win, discovering ways to take advantage of human behavior to coerce people into continued play - gaming as a chore rather than entertainment. Finally, there's the issue I have with many "casual" games: it all feels FAKE. Everything is too shiny and "juicy" and the game is much too quick to praise. It feels as though the game is trying much, much too hard to get on my good side, and when a game does this, I begin to question whether it does so to cover up the fact that it cannot stand on its own merits; that it cannot provide something I can legitimately care about. And that is exactly what is happening, at least to me.
Oh, right, one more thing that scares me about this game: I made a new Facebook account so I didn't have to give it any personal information, and it STILL wants to know my email address. I have refused to offer it to them, and as a result am given a persistent reminder to do so, to the point where I have even been given an item that I cannot activate until I give them my email. This strikes me as kind of creepy and more than a little intrusive.
Now, the articles. The main points they seem to bring up are the success of selling virtual goods for real money, and how ingenious Zynga's marketing strategy is in this regard. As I mentioned in my "scary" paragraph, I agree entirely. Enhancing their future prospects is the fact that they are no longer limiting themselves to Facebook apps, spreading Farmville and other games to various additional platforms such as the iPhone. They are already leading the way in number of players, with four times the playerbase of even the enormous gaming conglomerate EA. What is most interesting, though, is the testimonials from players who have paid money for virtual goods. One mother mentions that she buys items for her kids in Farmville because it's cheaper than taking them to Target for a toy. Another player recounts spending $20-$40 each week on Zynga's virtual goods. It is, admittedly, pretty darn cool that a company has managed to basically single-handedly create such a large new market for consumers that can serve as a replacement for some peoples' money-spending outlets. Zynga is definitely on to something here. I do take a bit of issue with these particular uses of money, though, if you'll pardon my self-aggrandizing here for a minute longer. I know that, given $20-$40 per week, I'd rather buy myself a completely new video game for my DS every week, as opposed to additional content for a game that I can continue to play for no charge (especially if continued play allows me to unlock that same content). It comes down to getting more for my money - I can either get an additional full game, or I can get less than a complete game for the same price. If I had a kid, I'd also rather buy him Legos (which have creative and educational properties) than Farmville accessories (which don't). But again, all of these are just my own personal preferences with regards to how I would like to spend my money.
Seeing as how this whole blog post has basically been me spouting my (admittedly very harsh and one-sided) opinion of Farmville and how I'd rather spend my time and money elsewhere, here's my question to you: Am I just completely crazy? (it's okay to say yes) More specifically: you already know where I stand on the subject, but do YOU see any value in virtual goods of the variety that Farmville offers?
Zynga, Facebook and Casual Gaming.
(Now that I have written the title, it really is grandioso)
As a farmville user of myself and other player of several of their game, I was already familiar with their game's style, and other common characteristics. Reading this NY Times' article helped me clarify some of the statistics as well as answering some other questions previously I had in my mind.
First of all, as we were studying casual games, I have always thought that Zynga/Playfish's games are suited perfectly for the description of being 'casual games'; it does have every elements that defines casual games, namely some 'juiciness', not-so-easy but seems easy, amiable characters (I do not recall if it is a part of the definition, but I do believe those kind of cartoon-ish graphics that they offer are certainly the characteristics of many other casual games as well) and other features that were mentioned by the authors.
As for a future growth, however, I do not see them as growing as NY Times' particular article's writer of Miguel Helft or Mr. Pincus's ambition allows. First of all, their only platform offered so far is a facebook, and as the article points out, they had strong argument over share facebook takes by providing the platform Zynga's user can enjoy.
It is my strong belief that in order for the internet companies to flourish in a level of Google, Microsoft and others, they must create a platform that others can play on, not to create a feature that is being played on someone else's platform. As a great example of Microsoft proves, their success is largely based on their ability to create a platform, not additional features, such as Age of Empires game series, or other projects they have ran.
I, however, believe that casual game's future is so much brighter, then even some of 'Triple A' titles. As casual games have broader, wider audiences and more appealing to the general audiences that has a purchasing power of small amount, but in more frequent terms. As Mr. Pincus himself clarified, they earn money not by advertising (you can't really find one other than their games), but the players' infrequent (or frequent) purchase of items that are available.
Am I only one who sees their future as not-so-bright?
As a farmville user of myself and other player of several of their game, I was already familiar with their game's style, and other common characteristics. Reading this NY Times' article helped me clarify some of the statistics as well as answering some other questions previously I had in my mind.
First of all, as we were studying casual games, I have always thought that Zynga/Playfish's games are suited perfectly for the description of being 'casual games'; it does have every elements that defines casual games, namely some 'juiciness', not-so-easy but seems easy, amiable characters (I do not recall if it is a part of the definition, but I do believe those kind of cartoon-ish graphics that they offer are certainly the characteristics of many other casual games as well) and other features that were mentioned by the authors.
As for a future growth, however, I do not see them as growing as NY Times' particular article's writer of Miguel Helft or Mr. Pincus's ambition allows. First of all, their only platform offered so far is a facebook, and as the article points out, they had strong argument over share facebook takes by providing the platform Zynga's user can enjoy.
It is my strong belief that in order for the internet companies to flourish in a level of Google, Microsoft and others, they must create a platform that others can play on, not to create a feature that is being played on someone else's platform. As a great example of Microsoft proves, their success is largely based on their ability to create a platform, not additional features, such as Age of Empires game series, or other projects they have ran.
I, however, believe that casual game's future is so much brighter, then even some of 'Triple A' titles. As casual games have broader, wider audiences and more appealing to the general audiences that has a purchasing power of small amount, but in more frequent terms. As Mr. Pincus himself clarified, they earn money not by advertising (you can't really find one other than their games), but the players' infrequent (or frequent) purchase of items that are available.
Am I only one who sees their future as not-so-bright?
Zynga Games From A Gamer's Perspective
After a little bit of playing FrontierVille, I found it to be not very inspiring. The gameplay was not at all deep, revolving around only a lot of clicking. I could see a bit of the appeal of playing a game that most of your friends were involved in as a social connection, but I did not like most of the game mechanics. One bothersome mechanic is that the game gives you a limited number of actions per time. I tend to enjoy budgeting a fairly large window of time to play games, not spreading my playtime out throughout the day. I also dislike the "spam your friends" rewards in the game.
I do know a number of people who play and really enjoy PetVille and FarmVille, but don't see myself ever playing these games.
In the articles we read, we learned that Zynga profits from the approximately 3% of players who buy virtual goods, things that allow them to get around the annoyances of the limited number of actions and make their town better than their friend's (or just catch up if the player is behind). It is interesting that nearly everyone is playing the game for free, and all profits are based on impatience and jealousy. It reminds me more than a little of the story of Connor Prikkel in For The Win, where he notices that people value exotic goods more than easy to get things, even if they function no differently. And Zynga makes people pay real money for these exotic items!
After your brief playing of FrontierVille, do you plan to play it more? Why or why not?
I do know a number of people who play and really enjoy PetVille and FarmVille, but don't see myself ever playing these games.
In the articles we read, we learned that Zynga profits from the approximately 3% of players who buy virtual goods, things that allow them to get around the annoyances of the limited number of actions and make their town better than their friend's (or just catch up if the player is behind). It is interesting that nearly everyone is playing the game for free, and all profits are based on impatience and jealousy. It reminds me more than a little of the story of Connor Prikkel in For The Win, where he notices that people value exotic goods more than easy to get things, even if they function no differently. And Zynga makes people pay real money for these exotic items!
After your brief playing of FrontierVille, do you plan to play it more? Why or why not?
ZYNGA
The NY Times article deals with the growing attention that Zynga and its founder Mark Pincus are recieveing, he is the creator of the company and they have made such games as Farmville and mafia wars and Frontierville. the article goes into details about why he created the company and what his intentions were. Once the company was created the popularity of the games grew greatly. the article then goes on to talk about what Pincus plans on doing in the future with Zynga and where he wants his company to be.
I found it very intersting where the article talks about some of the struggles that the games and company ran into. One of the biggest problems erupted because of the constatnt updating that takes place on useres status's whenever they complete a task. This lead to the facebook community creating a group called "I dont care about your farm, or your fish, or your park, or your mafia!!" I found this portion of the article to be comical in a sense, because i can remember times when it seemed like a majority of my friends and family on facebook were constantly sending updates or invites to these games and it was so annoying. It actually often lead to me not wanting to be on facebook. It was very similar to the spam on myspace that lead to its downfall, luckily these updates and invites stopped.
The other article from the NY times titled "Virtual goods start bringing real paydays," talked about how virtual goods were popular within Asia for years and now they are becoming very popular within the US due to people playing on their mobile devices. The article then discusses the great revenue that these games are creating for their companies. I found it particularly interesting when the article discussed the strategies that are used by these companies to make users pay money while playing these games, we often as players dont think about these tactics and its strange to think that we may be manipulated to pay money.
Lastly i took the chance to play the game farmville on facebook, and i can say that my experience was decent. At first i was confused because i had never played the game and it was a bit diffucult to figure out exactly what the point of the game was. Overall i feel that game isnt very interesting and i really cant see myself playing it unless i was painfully bored and had no other options. Overall i can see why people play the game but its just not my type.
Where do you see these social network games going in future? will they die out or remain poular?
I found it very intersting where the article talks about some of the struggles that the games and company ran into. One of the biggest problems erupted because of the constatnt updating that takes place on useres status's whenever they complete a task. This lead to the facebook community creating a group called "I dont care about your farm, or your fish, or your park, or your mafia!!" I found this portion of the article to be comical in a sense, because i can remember times when it seemed like a majority of my friends and family on facebook were constantly sending updates or invites to these games and it was so annoying. It actually often lead to me not wanting to be on facebook. It was very similar to the spam on myspace that lead to its downfall, luckily these updates and invites stopped.
The other article from the NY times titled "Virtual goods start bringing real paydays," talked about how virtual goods were popular within Asia for years and now they are becoming very popular within the US due to people playing on their mobile devices. The article then discusses the great revenue that these games are creating for their companies. I found it particularly interesting when the article discussed the strategies that are used by these companies to make users pay money while playing these games, we often as players dont think about these tactics and its strange to think that we may be manipulated to pay money.
Lastly i took the chance to play the game farmville on facebook, and i can say that my experience was decent. At first i was confused because i had never played the game and it was a bit diffucult to figure out exactly what the point of the game was. Overall i feel that game isnt very interesting and i really cant see myself playing it unless i was painfully bored and had no other options. Overall i can see why people play the game but its just not my type.
Where do you see these social network games going in future? will they die out or remain poular?
New Type of Game
In NYT, it says buying virtual goods become an usual things to do for everyone, especially Facebook users. A lot of money is already made with virtual goods. It would be fantastic business, or new type of business. NTY says Virtual goods have been commonplace for a long time, now the mainstream is moving to USA for not only video game users, but also ordinary people. People were interested in playing casual games, and also paying few dollars. People can give and take a gift from their Facebook friends worth 1 dollar, which encourages more people to be invited in playing game. and that relationship between invitation, and gift will be profitable to the game company
Zynga has become one of the most popular game companies recently with the social network site, Facebook. Facebook users can play Zynga’s games through Facebook website. It is really easy to play. It does not require formal installation, graphic cards, and high quality of computer devices. After clicking three or four buttons shown on the Facebook website, you can play the games such as Mafiawar, Farmvile and Frontierville. The great advantage of Zynga’s games is that you can play with friends that you have through Facebook connection. People can invite their friends, give gifts, share their data, join the ranking system, and see how their friends are doing. This f that people play game with their friends through social network website was very renovating, and impressive.
Personally, I never played Zynga’s games until this assignment. But after playing for while, I realized that it is really fun doing it, and sharing my data with my friends. It makes me feel like participating with my friends even though I totally play alone. It was somewhat different than ordinary games. when I used to play games, I did it with male friends, or people who are interested in games. but in the case of Zynga’s game, I could play with more diverse friends. For example, I could participate in the games with girl friends, professor, dorm friends, and any friends across the world. We could give gifts to each other, gain rewarding, and share our data with each other. it was pretty different experience. It was more than a just casual game, it was great tool that relates me to other friends with great bond, and that is Zynga’s games. I would make a great social bond while playing game which is really good advantage of Zynga’s games.
Here’s my question for you guys, do you think it would make people’s relationship stronger by giving gift, or sharing data to each other?
Social Network Games: the future of gaming industry?
After spending hours and hours playing Frontierville, I noticed that the game doesn’t really have any goal or objective for players to reach. Compare to other triple A hardcore titles, Frontierville doesn’t even seem like playing a game. However, one fact for sure is that games like Frontierville are very “addicting” and time-consuming. As the article by The New York Times, “Virtual Goods Start Brining Real Paydays”, suggested, “The people playing these games on social networks don’t define themselves as gamers – they are just killing time, having fun”, games like Frontierville is very typical example of casual games. While I was playing Frontierville, I, too, thought that I wasn’t playing the game for serious. However, every 10 minutes or so, I constantly checked into the game and suddenly realized that I was addicted in my own Frontierville universe. Due to the limitation of “energy” I can spend within the game, I was tempted to spend some real cash to recharge my energy. So far, I haven’t spent any money on game items, but eventually I might buy some in-game currency mainly because the game currency seems really cheap. The game encourages the player to spend little money like less than 10 dollars, it feels like buying in-game currency isn’t such a bad deal or a waste.
The New York Times article talks about how these virtual goods are actually making or will make big money mainly because of the ideology that players/buyers have regarding virtual goods. Because these types of games are free to everyone, I believe people first approach to play the game without any huge expectation of the game quality. As the article says, one of the main reasons why Zynga first designed and developed the game was to make a game that puts an emphasis on social-networking tool. I view this tactic as a very successful marketing tool because People think that they are playing game and interacting with other people for free at the same time. As I played Frontierville, one thing I noticed was that in order to be successful in playing the game, player interactions are very important. Players have to constantly exchange items and other stuff (work for others) to be successful in game play and the game encourages inviting people I know to play the game in order to get advantages within the game play. As the article suggests, virtual goods can bring more than 5 billion dollars worldwide this year. Since in-game currency purchases don’t require huge money from each player, players approach buying in-game currency without too much pressure.
Another key-point to the success of game developers like Zynga is through encouraging and forcing players to play other games that are developed by the same developer. For example, while I was playing Frontierville, I had to play Mafia Wars (the game also developed by Zynga) to get a special item. Even though Frontierville and Mafia Wars are two different games, the developer makes a connection between those two games through virtual goods. In this sense, I personally think that it is possible for game developer like Zynga to become “Google” in gaming industry. When I read the article saying that parents bought their kids 20 dollars worth of in-game item instead of a toy at Target, I realized how a new generation has emerged. Even a decade ago (maybe little more), kids wanted toys, not virtual goods. However, the form of entertainment for kids has changed. Now kids are playing computer/video games, not playing Lego toys. Instead of asking for Lego toys for Christmas gift, kids of modern world ask for virtual items/goods for social network games from their parents.
I have two questions regarding the articles for this week. First, do you agree that the form of entertainment for kids have been replaced by computer/video games? Do you think physical goods/toys for kids like Lego will disappear soon or later?
Second question is that do you think social network games like Frontierville or Farmville (or similar casual games that are provided to players for free) will be placed as a bigger market in game industry (compared to Triple A titles)?
Zynga Games
Zynga and its online games have quietly taken over people’s time and money. Especially with social networking sites like Facebook, the game company has cashed in with their games being linked up to those accounts. The basic gameplay allows for anyone to get into the game quickly and easily. With that many people on those sites, the chances of people of playing these games are really high. There are many reasons why people play these games. Since it is online, many people communicate and play with their friends. The games have become virtual worlds due to people working together in the games.
The idea of social capital comes into play as well. For the players, getting more and more items/rewards means a higher status within the game. They can even publish their achievements as news on their social profiles. Another aspect I found very interesting was the though process of sending gifts over the games. In some ways, there are a good gesture other people but it could have a deeper reason. People, sometimes, do not have time to get into contact with their friends and family. Through these games, they connect with them by giving them virtual gifts to keep up their relationships. The prices for these gifts are cheap as well. They do not usually go for more than couple of bucks. Due to that, Zynga is able to get more money from selling these special items.
One of the issues that were brought of the game was the immense spamming the games have. Because of the ads within the game to create revenue, they are certain ads that are scams. With all of the constant playing, some of players will experience those moments. Additionally, other people dislike anyone who constantly spams their rewards. There could be negative social problems between and everyone else.
From playing these games, I was strangely addicted to these games. I played Framville, Frontierville, and ESPN College Town. All of the games were easy to pick up as all the rules and controls are simple. Even though with the simplicity, I kept on playing. Did anyone else felt that quietly enjoyable experience of playing these games?
The idea of social capital comes into play as well. For the players, getting more and more items/rewards means a higher status within the game. They can even publish their achievements as news on their social profiles. Another aspect I found very interesting was the though process of sending gifts over the games. In some ways, there are a good gesture other people but it could have a deeper reason. People, sometimes, do not have time to get into contact with their friends and family. Through these games, they connect with them by giving them virtual gifts to keep up their relationships. The prices for these gifts are cheap as well. They do not usually go for more than couple of bucks. Due to that, Zynga is able to get more money from selling these special items.
One of the issues that were brought of the game was the immense spamming the games have. Because of the ads within the game to create revenue, they are certain ads that are scams. With all of the constant playing, some of players will experience those moments. Additionally, other people dislike anyone who constantly spams their rewards. There could be negative social problems between and everyone else.
From playing these games, I was strangely addicted to these games. I played Framville, Frontierville, and ESPN College Town. All of the games were easy to pick up as all the rules and controls are simple. Even though with the simplicity, I kept on playing. Did anyone else felt that quietly enjoyable experience of playing these games?
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Social Network Games
The three articles pertained to games in social networks, especially Farmville and other Zynga games, why people play, and why people pay for virtual goods.
In "Marketing Virtual Goods: Q&A with Zynga's Mark Pincus," Mark Pincus is interviewed and he talks about why Zynga games like Farmville are so successful. From the beginning, Zynga worked on a way to make games that were both entertaining and gave people new ways to have meaningful relationships with people that they're already trying to network with in one way or another on Facebook (Naone). Their games are built on "the three pillars of a great social game": it allows people to play with friends, it lets people express themselves, and it gives them the sense of equity (Naone).
There are different reasons why people play these games. The primary one is for recreation/relaxation, but there are others. Alena Meeker says "she uses the games to connect with friends, co-workers and family (Helft)." Nathan R. Van Sleet plays because "online forums of YoVille players have allowed him to connect with various people (Helft)." And once they're reeled in, Zynga keeps them interested with their "episodic structure," where every week there's a new twist (Naone). This is done by "creating short and long arcs of aspiration. A long arc of aspiration in FrontierVille might be finding your spouse or unlocking the Gold Rush territory, and a short arc that you need to do to achieve the long arc is something like building a cabin that then requires other short arcs like cutting down trees (Naone)."
A big part of these games is the paying aspect. While only a small fraction of its users spend money on these games, "analysts estimate that virtual goods could bring in a billion dollars in the United States and around $5 billion worldwide this year (Miller). So why do people spend money when they could just play for free? One reason is that it can save a player a ton of time. Another is that spending money on an item can make a player stand out and be differentiated from their friends and other players (Naone). Sara Merrill describes it as an experience just like going out to the movies. In addition, it's cheaper to just buy her kids a virtual item than to buy them a toy at Target (Miller).
When I played Farmville, I found it boring. I planted my crops and I found myself with nothing to do. I didn't understand how people could spend hours on this game. I went back sometime later and found out all my crops died, so I was just really off put. With Frontierville, it was definitely more fun because I felt like there was more to do and it was instantly more gratifying with all the stars and coins popping up whenever you do a task, and big screens telling you what a good job you did clicking around. But eventually I got frustrated when I didn't have anymore energy in game and didn't know how to get more. I just found the games really hard to navigate and hard to figure out what was going on half the time and I just didn't want to play anymore. Also half the time I was playing I was vigilantly trying not to have the games post things on my profile, in fear of embarrassment, but I felt like I wasn't getting the full experience by not posting things to my profile because of all the things you can share with your friends by posting.
Farmville, Frontierville, etc. usually get a bad reputation and give the people playing them a bad reputation. Has playing these games affected your perception of the games or the people who play them?
In "Marketing Virtual Goods: Q&A with Zynga's Mark Pincus," Mark Pincus is interviewed and he talks about why Zynga games like Farmville are so successful. From the beginning, Zynga worked on a way to make games that were both entertaining and gave people new ways to have meaningful relationships with people that they're already trying to network with in one way or another on Facebook (Naone). Their games are built on "the three pillars of a great social game": it allows people to play with friends, it lets people express themselves, and it gives them the sense of equity (Naone).
There are different reasons why people play these games. The primary one is for recreation/relaxation, but there are others. Alena Meeker says "she uses the games to connect with friends, co-workers and family (Helft)." Nathan R. Van Sleet plays because "online forums of YoVille players have allowed him to connect with various people (Helft)." And once they're reeled in, Zynga keeps them interested with their "episodic structure," where every week there's a new twist (Naone). This is done by "creating short and long arcs of aspiration. A long arc of aspiration in FrontierVille might be finding your spouse or unlocking the Gold Rush territory, and a short arc that you need to do to achieve the long arc is something like building a cabin that then requires other short arcs like cutting down trees (Naone)."
A big part of these games is the paying aspect. While only a small fraction of its users spend money on these games, "analysts estimate that virtual goods could bring in a billion dollars in the United States and around $5 billion worldwide this year (Miller). So why do people spend money when they could just play for free? One reason is that it can save a player a ton of time. Another is that spending money on an item can make a player stand out and be differentiated from their friends and other players (Naone). Sara Merrill describes it as an experience just like going out to the movies. In addition, it's cheaper to just buy her kids a virtual item than to buy them a toy at Target (Miller).
When I played Farmville, I found it boring. I planted my crops and I found myself with nothing to do. I didn't understand how people could spend hours on this game. I went back sometime later and found out all my crops died, so I was just really off put. With Frontierville, it was definitely more fun because I felt like there was more to do and it was instantly more gratifying with all the stars and coins popping up whenever you do a task, and big screens telling you what a good job you did clicking around. But eventually I got frustrated when I didn't have anymore energy in game and didn't know how to get more. I just found the games really hard to navigate and hard to figure out what was going on half the time and I just didn't want to play anymore. Also half the time I was playing I was vigilantly trying not to have the games post things on my profile, in fear of embarrassment, but I felt like I wasn't getting the full experience by not posting things to my profile because of all the things you can share with your friends by posting.
Farmville, Frontierville, etc. usually get a bad reputation and give the people playing them a bad reputation. Has playing these games affected your perception of the games or the people who play them?
Friday, December 3, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Virtual Goods and Frontierville
In their New York Times article, “Virtual Goods Start Bringing Paydays”, Claire Cain Miller and Brad Stone discuss an increasingly popular method for Internet-based companies to make profit. Social networking sites are promoting computer games which possess the tempting option to charge real money for products that physically do not exist. These efforts boast incredible profits for companies because the cost of producing the purchased content is practically free. Designing new clothes for avatars simply costs companies a few hours of work by a computer programmer and an artist, thus, the marginal cost for every one item sold is zero, yielding 100 percent margins. Virtual good selling is an extremely profitable business as it is estimated that they could bring in around $5 billion worldwide within the next year. As a consumer, one probably wouldn’t expect that these companies benefit so much from that cute virtual shirt we purchased for $1 the other day.
But why is the public consuming such commodities? After all, these products are purely virtual; they are just pixels on the computer screen! With the migration of many of these casual games to social networking sites such as Facebook and mobile phones like the iPhone, people find themselves just killing time and merely having fun in the process. Accordingly, their free membership and easy accessibility makes them attractive entertainment. While studies show that individuals tend to share purchased content with others, “most of the momentum in the virtual goods market comes not from gifts but from social games, where people buy items to improve their performance in the game or just to build up a collection that will impress friends.” On a side note, I thought that Sara Merrill rose an interesting point in her interview with the New York Times, stating that buying $20 worth of virtual goods for her two young sons “is still cheaper than taking them to Target where they will ask for a toy.” Could this be a new outlet for kids to explore their creativity? Will physical toys eventually become an idea of the past, and will the computer dominate their imaginative inspiration?
For the first time in my life, I began playing a social network game this past weekend. The game was Frontierville, a simulation, role-playing video game created by Zynga in June of 2010. My initial thoughts of the game were actually rather positive. The game was simple, and I enjoyed leveling up my pioneer. Accomplishing various goals such as gathering money, clearing land, raising livestock and creating items such as furniture and buildings proved quite addictive. Within one of the menus was an option to convert real money to the game’s currency (horseshoes). (This option is also available on Farmville except with farm cash). I was absolutely appalled to witness the exchange rate. $100 can get somebody 1000 horseshoes. Perhaps it’s because I’m just a broke college student, but I think this is a rather steep price. I suppose if players were addicted enough, this option would be admirable since it would speed up the pace of the game and help them succeed. While playing Frontierville, I also noticed a fair amount of advertisements to promote the game. Every couple of minutes, a pop-up box would appear, asking me if I wanted to invite my Facebook friends to join the game. For nearly every completed event (quest or killing a varmint), that pop-up box comes up again, except it asks if I want to share my accomplishments with friends. This amount of self-promotion is very bothersome for me as it becomes annoying rather quickly. It is distracting to the game play. However, in order to advance faster in the game, one needs to play with more people (up to 30).
Please comment on your experience playing one of Zynga’s social games (Farmville or Frontierville). While much of the game revolves around playing with others, do you feel that the amount of self-promotion is overly distractive and ruins the experience for you? In addition, have you or do you see yourself exchanging real money for virtual currency? What would be your motivation in doing so?
If you are further interested in the growth of virtual goods, you may find the following link a fascinating resource.
Farmville Account
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001861796600
This is my farmville account, Robby Mediastudies, made yesterday for the explicit purpose of not spamming up my or my friends' walls with farmville stuff, and also because I don't want to submit my actual profile information to the app, among other reasons (social networking is SERIOUS BUSINESS). Interestingly, I did get Farmville to work just fine without any friends, but feel free to friend me anyway, knowing that this is a dummy account.
Funny story, Facebook would not let me enter my last name as "Farmville" or "Farmaccount." Looks like they've got some measures in place against people signing up just to play Farmville. I thought that was pretty interesting, considering what we just finished reading about.
If you want to be friends with actual me and not farmville me, my username is schiele1. I may or may not show up in searches, but my farmville account (Robby Mediastudies) definitely will.
-Robby Schiele
This is my farmville account, Robby Mediastudies, made yesterday for the explicit purpose of not spamming up my or my friends' walls with farmville stuff, and also because I don't want to submit my actual profile information to the app, among other reasons (social networking is SERIOUS BUSINESS). Interestingly, I did get Farmville to work just fine without any friends, but feel free to friend me anyway, knowing that this is a dummy account.
Funny story, Facebook would not let me enter my last name as "Farmville" or "Farmaccount." Looks like they've got some measures in place against people signing up just to play Farmville. I thought that was pretty interesting, considering what we just finished reading about.
If you want to be friends with actual me and not farmville me, my username is schiele1. I may or may not show up in searches, but my farmville account (Robby Mediastudies) definitely will.
-Robby Schiele
FB
http://www.facebook.com/NuLimit
But do we really have to play farmville?? I rather people now see that in my news feed.. that games is rubbish..
But do we really have to play farmville?? I rather people now see that in my news feed.. that games is rubbish..
Facebook Profile
Here's a link to my page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639019106
BTW, I have never played Farmville prior to this assignment, so excuse me if I'm slow at first.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
For The Lolz..
After finally finishing the book - and trust me it wasn't pretty - I need to agree with the people here who say it was hard to take the story seriously and to try to learn some bigger truths about it. When everyone almost gained super hero abilities to further their cause, it became a joke. Yes, the book raises some serious questions about GFs and why they are doing what they're doing but the way to conclude the book is rather bad. I didn't think that a book could start off so sharp and interesting and then develop into a second class fiction novel but hey, it could happen? no? :P
At any rate, throughout the entire book i just kept on thinking about why it would ever be illegal to GF and why its such a big deal and while the book didnt really answer my question maybe you can? It's all virtual goods, the developers arent loosing anything on this, so why do they care? If anything, they could sell it themselves and make even more cash... why not?
At any rate, throughout the entire book i just kept on thinking about why it would ever be illegal to GF and why its such a big deal and while the book didnt really answer my question maybe you can? It's all virtual goods, the developers arent loosing anything on this, so why do they care? If anything, they could sell it themselves and make even more cash... why not?
For The Win Pt.2
In the second half of the book, things truly became fictional for me. By this, I mean that I could no longer take the book seriously as having the potential to be real. Every message and every appeal to emotions made by the book felt like I was reading a romantic adventure novel- you know, the one's where the protagonist, against all odds, comes out on top after having a life experience to live happily ever after. The book illustrates webblies around the world unifying and working together to fight for their rights both as humans and as workers, many willing to die for their cause. A handful of our beloved characters die- poor webblies- including Big Sister Nor but then again, even Bruce Willis had to die in Armageddon, right? The world is worth it... But no, in all seriousness, the ending of the book was a huge letdown with the remaining handful of protagonists- who by this point were either heroes or of a superhuman status- coming together with one of the main antagonists, Colin Prikkel, in India to grab lunch together- as Professor Nakamura said, we weren't assigned this book for it's excellent writing and literary value.
To be honest, I read and finished this book after purchasing the paperback edition at the beginning of the semester so it had been quite a while since I've made the read. However, the messages the book attempted to convey are still very much present somewhere in the back of my mind. On one hand, Cory Doctorow seems to want his audience to understand the power of the internet and its ability to connect the world under one singular communal identity. With this assumption in place, he then seems to want us to believe that this power can be used for any single individual to change the world if they put their mind to it. I can definitely agree with the former point and understand the world of potential that the internet provides for its users to come together but, whether it's the cynic in me or whether I'm jaded from years of living in a capitalistic country where the masses are spoonfed the same crap day after day- nonstop advertisements, bogus politics, false hope, etc.- the latter argument is ridiculous. Yes, the internet gives any single user what would have been considered a few decades ago, superhuman abilities but to say that all people who face injustice are willing and ready to become activists at the call of a few "powerful" internet usernames... Anyways, I did enjoy the book and look forward to reading some of Cory Doctorow's other publications. The novel was informative, fun, and easy to read and so I leave you with a question much like that posed by the Professor in our last class period: What did you take away from reading this book? Did it give you some substantial food for thought or did you take it as sheer entertainment?
To be honest, I read and finished this book after purchasing the paperback edition at the beginning of the semester so it had been quite a while since I've made the read. However, the messages the book attempted to convey are still very much present somewhere in the back of my mind. On one hand, Cory Doctorow seems to want his audience to understand the power of the internet and its ability to connect the world under one singular communal identity. With this assumption in place, he then seems to want us to believe that this power can be used for any single individual to change the world if they put their mind to it. I can definitely agree with the former point and understand the world of potential that the internet provides for its users to come together but, whether it's the cynic in me or whether I'm jaded from years of living in a capitalistic country where the masses are spoonfed the same crap day after day- nonstop advertisements, bogus politics, false hope, etc.- the latter argument is ridiculous. Yes, the internet gives any single user what would have been considered a few decades ago, superhuman abilities but to say that all people who face injustice are willing and ready to become activists at the call of a few "powerful" internet usernames... Anyways, I did enjoy the book and look forward to reading some of Cory Doctorow's other publications. The novel was informative, fun, and easy to read and so I leave you with a question much like that posed by the Professor in our last class period: What did you take away from reading this book? Did it give you some substantial food for thought or did you take it as sheer entertainment?
FTW
For The Win is a good book. It is certainly an inspiring story filled with many interweaving storylines. There are two main messages in the book. The first is the power of the internet, and the second is Big Sister's dying words "You all lead yourselves. Remember that!" The story is about civil rights and workers wanting to get what they deserve, a chance at a good life. With a few minds organizing the movement and a few Asian nations worth of workers being brought together through the power of the internet, average people are able to enter into negotiations with major companies around the world. We are made to know that this sort of feat is not impossible, and that if we choose to, we could lead ourselves through something like this. This novel is very aptly named, as it is about a group of people literally going for the win in a very difficult situation. With a lot of hard work and sacrifice, however, they seem to emerge victorious.
For the Win - Second Half
The different main characters of the book start to congregate together and start forming and carrying out plans. Matthew meets up with Lu and Jia, and Leonard comes over from America to China and carries with him a bunch of prepaid game cards (this plus american proxies would make them "indistinguishable from the lucrative American kid trade"). Back in Dharavi, Mala and her army suddenly become good guys again literally overnight after she tries to attack Yasmin and Ashok.
The main goal of the Webblies is to take control of the game economies of Mushroom Kingdom, Zombie Mecha, Svartalfaheim Warriors, and Magic of Hogwarts. But the characters face many hardships, like: the cafe being taken over by Mr. Banerjee's goons in Dharavi and the "army" having to defend it after they'd taken it back; Mala being kidnapped by Mr. Banerjee; police raiding Jiani's different places; Lu getting killed; Big Sister Nor, The Mighty Krang, and Justbob getting petrol bombs thrown in their room and having to jump out a window, etc.
Many strikes happen around the world in different factories with help from Jia's message to everyone to not go to work. There's also a big shooting of 42 gamers. The book really gets you feeling rebellious and you really want to stick it to the man.
Eventually, they get enough Webblies to farm a lot of gold and are able to topple the Mushroom Kingdom's economy. They call up Coca Cola games and talk to Connor Prikkel, a game runner and the head honcho economist there and threaten (but in a nice way) to topple their game economies unless they make gold farming a part of the company so they can unionize and not have to work in bad conditions. It works and everyone's happy. The book has a really corny ending with the people from China traveling to Dharavi and meeting with Yasmina and Ashok, and then Prikkel making a surprise visit and going out to lunch.
Looking back, I did enjoy reading the book. It has some pretty informative parts to it about basic economics and general info about gold farming while staying exciting and rebellious.
I used to think that not that many people bought gold and that it's just too risky to do, but this book makes it seem like it's a really common thing and that no one gets caught (even though it doesn't say that). Is this a reality? Or do a lot of people get caught buying and selling gold?
The main goal of the Webblies is to take control of the game economies of Mushroom Kingdom, Zombie Mecha, Svartalfaheim Warriors, and Magic of Hogwarts. But the characters face many hardships, like: the cafe being taken over by Mr. Banerjee's goons in Dharavi and the "army" having to defend it after they'd taken it back; Mala being kidnapped by Mr. Banerjee; police raiding Jiani's different places; Lu getting killed; Big Sister Nor, The Mighty Krang, and Justbob getting petrol bombs thrown in their room and having to jump out a window, etc.
Many strikes happen around the world in different factories with help from Jia's message to everyone to not go to work. There's also a big shooting of 42 gamers. The book really gets you feeling rebellious and you really want to stick it to the man.
Eventually, they get enough Webblies to farm a lot of gold and are able to topple the Mushroom Kingdom's economy. They call up Coca Cola games and talk to Connor Prikkel, a game runner and the head honcho economist there and threaten (but in a nice way) to topple their game economies unless they make gold farming a part of the company so they can unionize and not have to work in bad conditions. It works and everyone's happy. The book has a really corny ending with the people from China traveling to Dharavi and meeting with Yasmina and Ashok, and then Prikkel making a surprise visit and going out to lunch.
Looking back, I did enjoy reading the book. It has some pretty informative parts to it about basic economics and general info about gold farming while staying exciting and rebellious.
I used to think that not that many people bought gold and that it's just too risky to do, but this book makes it seem like it's a really common thing and that no one gets caught (even though it doesn't say that). Is this a reality? Or do a lot of people get caught buying and selling gold?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)