Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Exposing Social Gaming's Hidden Lever

blog.betable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: Exposing Social Gaming's Hidden Lever

#21

Post by Androsynth »

munificent wrote: post #2

"To play the game, you put currency into the machine. You then pull the knob and wait for the result. When the result is presented, you are rewarded with a cacophony of exciting sounds, attention-grabbing images, and some form of currency. Often times, this winning helps you progress towards a larger goal. You also have the opportunity with each play to win a rare prize of significantly higher value than the value of…

In MMORPG's the rewards are a big motivating factor for playing, but they're not the only factor.

WoW still has very well designed game mechanics that are fun on their own. Learning (ie advancing up the learning curve) and decision making play a big role in having fun in RPG's. These are also true game mechanics (meaning they're fun without reward mechanisms).

On one end of the spectrum would be a game like Team Fortress 2, which is fun because of it's mechanics; on the other end of the spectrum is a Zynga game that is fun for the reward mechanisms. WoW, and other RPG's would be somewhere in the middle.

Re: Exposing Social Gaming's Hidden Lever

#22

Post by davidtyleryork »

hugh3 wrote: post #19
Androsynth wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that one type of game has mechanics and the other doesn't. Social games are like gambling in that they both strictly put you in a Skinner's box, and there is no game-loop. Traditional video games have strong game-loops and this is a different kind of enjoyment. There is overlap, especially in RPG's, but the big difference is that you can enjoy traditional games without the rewards.

What do you mean by "game loop"? Surely something like Farmville has some gameplay elements, right? I've never played it, but there are some choices to be made (shall I get chickens or cows), right?

Yeah, of course, but the gameplay is largely cyclical and repeated

Re: Exposing Social Gaming's Hidden Lever

#23

Post by davidtyleryork »

hugh3 wrote: post #18
munificent wrote: post #2

"To play the game, you put currency into the machine. You then pull the knob and wait for the result. When the result is presented, you are rewarded with a cacophony of exciting sounds, attention-grabbing images, and some form of currency. Often times, this winning helps you progress towards a larger goal. You also have the opportunity with each play to win a rare prize of significantly higher value than the value of…

Y'know, I think most roguelikes are a bit more respectable than the pure super-optimized Skinner boxes that Zynga and Blizzard produce. Why? Because you die. A lot. And when you die, you need to start all over again. And you make progress further and further into the dungeon on successive games, by learning from your mistakes and honing your strategy. And if you don't learn, you don't progress. Contrast to WoW, where…

Well look at both Zynga and Blizzard games. They are super accessible and casual friendly. Dying is an inconvenience in Blizzard games, as you said, or isn't even possible in Zynga's games (even the competitive ones like Empires & Allies)

Re: Exposing Social Gaming's Hidden Lever

#24

Post by sbov »

Androsynth wrote: post #21
munificent wrote: post #2

"To play the game, you put currency into the machine. You then pull the knob and wait for the result. When the result is presented, you are rewarded with a cacophony of exciting sounds, attention-grabbing images, and some form of currency. Often times, this winning helps you progress towards a larger goal. You also have the opportunity with each play to win a rare prize of significantly higher value than the value of…

In MMORPG's the rewards are a big motivating factor for playing, but they're not the only factor. WoW still has very well designed game mechanics that are fun on their own. Learning (ie advancing up the learning curve) and decision making play a big role in having fun in RPG's. These are also true game mechanics (meaning they're fun without reward mechanisms). On one end of the spectrum would be a game like Team Fort…

There's even a range within RPGs itself. E.g. I would say that Diablo is about at the same spot in that scale as Zynga games are.

Re: Exposing Social Gaming's Hidden Lever

#25

Post by Androsynth »

hugh3 wrote: post #19
Androsynth wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that one type of game has mechanics and the other doesn't. Social games are like gambling in that they both strictly put you in a Skinner's box, and there is no game-loop. Traditional video games have strong game-loops and this is a different kind of enjoyment. There is overlap, especially in RPG's, but the big difference is that you can enjoy traditional games without the rewards.

What do you mean by "game loop"? Surely something like Farmville has some gameplay elements, right? I've never played it, but there are some choices to be made (shall I get chickens or cows), right?

this is what I meant by game loop: http://whatgamesare.com/2010/12/functions-vs-loops-finding-f...

'strong game loop' was vague, what I meant was what I said in the last sentence, that you can enjoy playing a traditional game without rewards. It is fun to play on its own merit. If you take away the rewards from a social game, it can't stand up on it's own as a 'fun game'.

In Farmville, there are gameplay elements, but its very minimal. In Cow Clicker, another social game, there are no game mechanics at all. There are some 'hardcore' social game companies, like Kabam, but they end up just having more elaborate reward feedback mechanisms.

Re: Exposing Social Gaming's Hidden Lever

#26

Post by hugh3 »

davidtyleryork wrote: post #23
hugh3 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Y'know, I think most roguelikes are a bit more respectable than the pure super-optimized Skinner boxes that Zynga and Blizzard produce. Why? Because you die. A lot. And when you die, you need to start all over again. And you make progress further and further into the dungeon on successive games, by learning from your mistakes and honing your strategy. And if you don't learn, you don't progress. Contrast to WoW, where…

Well look at both Zynga and Blizzard games. They are super accessible and casual friendly. Dying is an inconvenience in Blizzard games, as you said, or isn't even possible in Zynga's games (even the competitive ones like Empires & Allies)

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you disagreeing with me anywhere?

Re: Exposing Social Gaming's Hidden Lever

#27

Post by steve8918 »

jeffreyk wrote: post #13
steve8918 wrote: post #9

I think this article is ridiculous. "The biggest thing that unequivocally separates social gaming from gambling is that the players have no ability to tangibly recoup the money put into the game." Oh you mean like the video games I used to play in arcades? Like Gauntlet, which was one of the first quarter suckers? How many days did I go without a lunch so that I could play Spyhunter, Elevator Action, or Gauntlet? But…

I think you're missing the point here. I sank tons of money into arcade games just as you did, however neither one of us needed to add quarters during gameplay to get new items to use. You also can't compare purchasing a console game to the money that gets used in social games. Your points of comparison are apples and oranges. I can respect that you feel comparing social games to gambling is wrong, but it's purely su…

I disagree with you. What is the difference between buying a new type of crop vs. getting 3 more lives so that you can explore deeper down the dungeon? The only difference is that in Farmville it's a bit lazier because they enhance the speed of the items. You don't think that back in 1985 when we were playing Gauntlet that if you paid $0.50 to get an invincible player vs the regular $0.25, that it would be considered gambling? No way, it's enhancing the gaming experience. That's it. In both cases, you are enhancing the gaming experience by paying more money.

This is entirely different from a slot machine where "if I just do 10 more pulls, I might win $1MM! My luck is bound to turn sooner or later!" It's a completely different mentality. You put money in slot machines because you consider it an investment in hopes that you will make back more money than you put in. If you removed the ability for people to win money, the casinos would probably be empty, despite how many blips and bloops you put into the game.

Re: Exposing Social Gaming's Hidden Lever

#28

Post by steve8918 »

Androsynth wrote: post #15
steve8918 wrote: post #9

I think this article is ridiculous. "The biggest thing that unequivocally separates social gaming from gambling is that the players have no ability to tangibly recoup the money put into the game." Oh you mean like the video games I used to play in arcades? Like Gauntlet, which was one of the first quarter suckers? How many days did I go without a lunch so that I could play Spyhunter, Elevator Action, or Gauntlet? But…

The difference is that one type of game has mechanics and the other doesn't. Social games are like gambling in that they both strictly put you in a Skinner's box, and there is no game-loop. Traditional video games have strong game-loops and this is a different kind of enjoyment. There is overlap, especially in RPG's, but the big difference is that you can enjoy traditional games without the rewards.

I disagree. Even the article that you linked to below specifically mentions Farmville's game loop! Even though you don't find the game particularly interesting (neither do I), it doesn't mean that it isn't fun for a certain section of the population. Farmville and games like this are a different type of game so you can't compare them. But it doesn't mean that it's gambling!

If you read the following presentation from the Farmville developer, the reason why Farmville was so popular was because it was designed to be simple with a very easy reward system. It was made for the single moms who have spent an entire day taking care of their kids, and they want to sit back and relax to something fun that isn't particularly challenging.

http://www.slideshare.net/ctrottier1/designing-games-for-the...

Re: Exposing Social Gaming's Hidden Lever

#29

Post by davidtyleryork »

hugh3 wrote: post #26
davidtyleryork wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well look at both Zynga and Blizzard games. They are super accessible and casual friendly. Dying is an inconvenience in Blizzard games, as you said, or isn't even possible in Zynga's games (even the competitive ones like Empires & Allies)

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you disagreeing with me anywhere?

No, I didnt :)
Post reply on HN