Comments on: Social Gaming, Beyond the Clones

By: Diane

Diane — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:02:43 +0000

Excellent article. Thanks Tadhg!

By: Matias Paterlini

Matias Paterlini — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:42:32 +0000

This post really is awesome! I couldn’t stop reading, specially because you are not judging game cloners (as sometimes I am), you’re just making a great study on why cloning is a good business too. It is very informative and comparative as well, which let people judge by themselves.

I’m always reading your articles, but this one is really good stuff!

Best,
M

By: romeo ostil

romeo ostil — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:02:30 +0000

i would like to download my favorate game super mario

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:09:37 +0000

Sketch: Yes, I agree: it does lend to the idea of cloning.

As far as “it costs them nothing” Totally agree: A player can only pay attention to one game at a time, so the original inventor of the game would loose time. The MAU is a very poor metric to determine how good a game is, especially for the likes of Zynga, due to their cross promo machine probably have much more people just checking out a game for a few minutes.

I have seen games on FB that do $4-$5 per user and month, while Zynga seems to be doing something like 20 cents. I truly hope that Zyngas low income per user is because their tendency of not innovating, but rather just stealing other peoples ideas.

We are releasing new games that are totally new in their approach, and hence, I really hope that we can be alone on the market. It would really be sad if Zynga came along, made a poor copy of the game, and then runied the concepts acceptance in the community. Especially since we have invested big money coming up with the concept, testing it and so on.

By: Sketch

Sketch — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:39:34 +0000

great article.
a few things i disagree with.

“Good physics are hard to get right.” – Box2d

“because it costs them nothing.” – It costs them time.

on a side note; this article somehow makes me want to clone.

By: Derk Geus

Derk Geus — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:59:40 +0000

Excellent article, and great topic.

It is interesting to look at the history of Nintendo and Atari related to the social games scene. The thing that comes to mind is that both these players are actually platforms, while Zynga / Playfish are not the platform, but “just” the publishers of content.

Where does Facebook fit in all this? I guess they are the platform, the operating system, the gaming console. But what is important to note is that they currently take the route of Atari, not Nintendo.

Anyway, I completely agree with the article. In the end, the companies with a loyal fanbase have nothing to fear from copycats.

And a strong brand will probably help too

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:46:49 +0000

Great article. However, the writer mentioned that the games that Zynga has cloned (ie, Restaurant City and Farm Town) haven’t lost any users to the cloned versions (Cafe World and Farmville), but I don’t think that’s entirely true. I haven’t looked at the graphs for Restaurant City and Farm Town, but I’m guessing that their growth slowed way down once Zynga got in the game. No growth is the first step to losing visitors. So over the next few months, I think we’ll see the true effect of these clones…

Also, one more thing that’s interesting. Pretty much all of these social games, as we know, are set up so that they become a little bit frustrating unless you pay real money. Well, because of the waiting period (whether it be for your crops to grow or your energy to replenish), a lot of players play more than one game in the same genre. I know many, many people who play both Mobsters and Mafia Wars. They switch between the two depending on which one they have energy available in.

Just some thoughts…thanks for the article. Good insight.