An Explanation of Facebook Games to the PC/Console Gamer in me of 2 Years Ago.
Recently, we launched SimCity Social on Facebook, and I’m proud of it. After nearly 10 years in the industry developing hit PC titles for Maxis/EA (primarily The Sims games), why would I be so proud of a Facebook game? What has gotten into me?

Two years ago, before I worked on social games, I just didn’t “get” them. I didn’t want to bug my friends when I needed things. I didn’t want to play on the game’s schedule rather than my own. And I didn’t see any depth or interesting gameplay (and in many cases, there was none to see).

Like many PC/console gamers, I figured that if I didn’t like a Facebook game, then it was a bad game. But that was a subjective view. Now that I understand the types of people who enjoy Facebook games, I understand why many of these games are objectively great.

So I’m writing this post to explain to my past self why Facebook games are the way they are, and to dispel some of the misunderstandings that PC/console gamers have about them.

1.  Strategy is Great, But it Needs to Cater to the Target Audience

One of my goals while working on SimCity Social was to bring more depth of gameplay to mass-market Facebook games. However, it would have been a mistake to try and shove all the complexity of a normal SimCity game into the Facebook variant because these games need to be easy to learn and quick to play.

Instead, I think SimCity Social hits the sweet spot – enough strategy that it tickles the mind, but not so much that it would scare away the mass market. Unfortunately, some reviews (like this one) don’t take the time to understand the game and instead dismiss it out of a general loathing for Facebook games, making comments like, “There was never a moment where I had to sit back and think about strategy.”

The main aspect of SimCity Social – city layout – is designed around giving players strategic choices. And it has given rise to many forum threads discussing placement strategy, with carefully crafted suggestions like this:

Strategy in SimCity Social: A player's suggestion for maximizing population.
(the white gaps are filled by roads)

Strategy in SimCity Social arises from a few rules and variables:
  1. Homes (residential zones) hold population.
  2. Attractions and décor increase population in nearby homes (radii and shape vary).
  3. Attractions can be upgraded to increase radius of effect.
  4. Homes get a population multiplier from being near coastline.
  5. Businesses get a payout multiplier from near population.
  6. Factories also get a payout multiplier from being near coastline (but they may produce pollution, which floats over nearby buildings, rendering them temporarily ineffective).
For example, here’s one player’s comparison of various locations for a business:

Placing businesses in higher population areas gives better payouts.
Placing businesses in higher population areas gives better payouts.

These rules, combined with an interesting terrain layout, make a complex system. There is no easily solvable optimal strategy, and strategy varies depending on your goals. The layout in the first image of this section may be great for high population, but it doesn’t account for coastline, businesses, industry, shape variations of attractions, or how the catalog of buildings evolves.

As our audience has grown, more players have whipped out spreadsheets and whiteboards to theorize optimal strategies, leading to Excel mockups that look like someone was diagraming CPU memory blocks:

Strategy: One player’s theory of optimal placement for maximizing population in SimCity Social.
One player’s theory of optimal placement for maximizing population.

In fact, some players are geeking out on the strategy so intensely that it’s what the entire game has become about for them. Not decoration. Not quests. Not collecting for the sake of progress. Not anything – except optimizing. Here’s one Excel mockup from a player who stepped back and tried to give equal attention to optimizing placement of all building types:

SimCity Social Advanced Layout in Excel
(A player-made Excel sheet representing their placement strategy and various bonuses conferred on and by businesses, attractions, décor, and homes.)

And all of this ties into the core loop, which focuses on affording better mechanisms to increase population.

Having a complex system that is part of the core loop and that has a simple, understandable interface can add a wonderful dimension to Facebook games and give players a feeling of consequence. More Facebook games need to evolve in this direction. 

A “simple” interface limits the amount of complexity a game can have, but this simplicity is necessary to cater to the target audience – a mass market not typically composed of PC/console gamers.

(For more reading on depth, I recommend Smart-Depth: Adding More 'Game' to Social Games by Henric Suuronen.)  

Which leads me to…

2. You Are Not the Audience: Half a Billion Other People Are.

Here’s a loose analogy. Compare playing Guitar Hero to actually playing a real guitar. Guitar Hero is more accessible, more immediately satisfying, and takes less of a time commitment. But playing the real guitar is more cerebral and, in the long run, more constructive.

Prince even turned down the opportunity to have his music in Guitar Hero, stating that it was “more important that kids learn how to actually play the guitar.”

Does this mean Guitar Hero is a bad experience? No. In fact, Guitar Hero makes the guitar accessible to an audience who does not have the time nor the initial desire to play the real guitar. It has made 25 million such people happy. And, in fact, it has given many of them a greater understanding of and appreciation for instruments, and led to 2/3 of non-instrumentalist players deciding they’d like to learn a real instrument.

Guitar Hero leads to greater appreciation for the real guitar.
Guitar Hero leads to greater appreciation for the real guitar.

Just the same, Facebook games target a wide audience that doesn’t have the time nor desire to play other games. People who were never interested in games before are suddenly seeing the appeal. And the same as Guitar Hero leads to a desire to learn the real guitar, Facebook games can also be a gateway to PC and console games. The light experience of The Sims Social has led to increased interest in The Sims PC games, and many SimCity Social players are expressing interest in trying the SimCity PC games.

On top of this, some Facebook games have had over 100 million players. Objectively, many Facebook games are great because they give so many people enjoyment. I never liked CastleVille much, but now I can appreciate it for what it is: a game that has made many tens of millions of players happy – more players than World of Warcraft ever had – and most of them never paid a cent.

3.  Fast Load Times Mean Content is Spread Out Over Time

You can’t play a Facebook game and expect the amount of content to be on the same level as, say, Skyrim. The main challenge is load time. In a Facebook game, we don’t have the luxury of expecting players to sit through a long download with gigabytes of content.

We count our load times in seconds. If the game takes 30 seconds to load, that’s too long, and we’ll lose a lot of players before they even see the game the first time. 

Picture
Facebook games must load in seconds, or players will leave.

However, successful Facebook games make up for this by releasing new content over time – usually every week or two – cycling new features and object in, and others out. The Sims Social has had thousands of game objects in its catalog over the past year, but only a portion of them are available at any given time. Facebook games really just get started when they launch.

4.  Lots of Wall Posts Means More Players. But…

This is an aspect of Facebook games I’ve been conflicted on. When given permission, most Facebook games like to post to your wall or timeline. A lot. This is how they self-market to reach a wide audience. And, used correctly, it also helps share interesting moments from your game.

My designer heart tells me that Facebook games should only post the most interesting moments from gameplay, like when two players in The Sims Social "WooHoo" with each other – the sorts of moments that carry intrinsic value for your Facebook friends and are highly comment-worthy. This would make the overall player base happier. And Facebook agrees (in fact, they use this same example from The Sims Social).


A Sim couple about to “WooHoo.”
A Sim couple about to “WooHoo.”
The Sims Social: Players get a chance to share that hey
Players get a chance to share this meaningful moment.

But the other side of the argument comes from the Product Managers – those in charge of the monetization and the virality of your game. Data shows that a certain high level output of posts leads to a wider audience. And a wider audience means we have a better chance of paying our dev costs. Period.

There’s no way to argue with that unless we can dredge up metrics that show that fewer viral mechanisms leads to better results in the long-term. But in a constantly-updated game, we can’t easily do a test like this and get meaningful results.

Most surprising to me is that there are plenty of players who don’t mind. In fact, they enjoy sharing everything – it’s part of the experience, and so is getting to see everything that’s happening to your friends who are playing. The sentiment is summed up by one player on our TSS forums who said, “Why wouldn’t you post everything?”

(Check out my GDC 2012 talk for more of my opinions on this topic.)

5.  Energy and Time Gates are Used for Pacing

A common complaint by gamers who try to give Facebook gaming a shot is, “You have to spend energy to do anything, and it runs out. I don’t want to be limited.” I questioned this at first as well. But there are three good reasons Facebook games are built this way.

Examples of “Energy” mechanic variants in SimCity Social, Diamond Dash, and Triple Town
Examples of “Energy” mechanic variants.

First, we come back to the intended audience. As one player points out: Social games are intended for people who do not have 90 minutes to play a video game because they have jobs, children, and other commitments. Playing it for 10 minutes a day, twice a day…” is exactly the sort of experience our target audience is looking for.

We’re asking our players to slow down, take a breather, and enjoy the time with their friends. Many players appreciate the relaxed schedule that these games create. Expecting too much gameplay in a single sitting will shift your game from a wide audience to more niche. In fact, on The Sims Social, some of our players complained about play sessions that were too long because we made activities you could do without needing energy. Imagine that! Players wanted the game sessions to be shorter! That’s the audience Facebook games serve.

Second, there’s a deeper gameplay and design motivation: Facebook games are Games as a Service, which means the developer intends to keep the game fresh with updates over time.

But that means the game needs to be paced. If you drop someone into SimCity 4, they could build an entire city in just a few days. Yes, the most hardcore players would continue to build city after city for weeks, but a lot of players would build a couple, and then be done with the game.

Energy and time gates are the pacemakers of Facebook games for good reason. If we didn’t have them in SimCity Social, most of our players would build up a city and then leave before we had a chance to release more content to keep them interested.

Third, selling energy can be a significant portion of revenue – so significant that it can make or break a game’s profitability.

There are alternatives to energy and explicit time gates, but they typically change the entire game design because they count on systems for creating endless content – like PvP, puzzles, or procedural worlds. And even then, puzzle games with potentially unlimited replayability (such as Triple Town or Diamond Dash) still often use energy-like mechanics because they remain great pacers and the games need to make money.

6.  Facebook Games are Hard to Make

Another misconception is that making a Facebook game is easy. Fortunately, Facebook games don’t yet require 4 years and 100-person teams to be successful, which is roughly what it took to develop The Sims 3. However, developing The Sims Social still took 1 year and at launch the team was about 40 devs. Then the team nearly doubled in size after we launched and knew we had a hit on our hands.

One of the biggest hidden dev costs when coming from the single-player space is the server-client structure, which at least doubles dev and QA time and gives far more opportunity for bugs. A simple single-player feature can become harrowing when translated to the online space if it requires a lot of server code and security work to prevent hacks.

The team also inevitably spends countless hours optimizing for fast load times, efficient streaming algorithms, and clean memory management. You might think that because these games appear simple when compared to a console or PC game that we might not have to do all of this – but many of the best Facebook games are pushing Flash to its limits.

On top of this, Facebook games tend to have tons of UI. It’s fast and easy to design crappy UI, but designing and implement a pleasing, easy-to-use, strongly-communicative UI takes a long time with plenty of iteration.

7.  Yes, You Need to Play with Friends. But...

Another common gripe is that you can’t play without bugging your friends. Many Facebook games require you to ask each other to staff buildings or give special collectibles:

Example of a standard staffing mechanic that requires friends.
Example of a standard staffing mechanic that requires friends.

Facebook games do this for 3 reasons: 
  1. It’s a way to control progress.
  2. It makes money from players who want to pay and skip the wait.
  3. Facebook notifications from these mechanics reminds players they have a reason to return to the game. (And sometimes they get new players to try the game out.)
The continual back-and-forth of asking friends for help and then thanking them also serves as a constant reminder of who is playing the game – and this lets you know who you can socialize with about the game when you’re not playing.

But the mechanic is in its adolescent years. It doesn’t scale well. For players who have no other friends playing, they can’t progress unless they’re willing to spend money. For players who have tons of friends, their game inboxes can get bogged down with hundreds or sometimes thousands of requests, at which point it’s all just noise. And as your friends slowly stop playing, your personal game gets tougher and tougher, like a wick slowly burning down until it dies out completely.

In my GDC 2012 talk, I convey my personal view that social games need to be more like World of Warcraft and less like Everquest, in that WoW is first and foremost a fun and friendly place for solo players, yet even better with friends, versus the constant impending doom of trying to play EQ solo. Incidentally, most social games aren’t very social – they need more true social features, like SimCity’s relationship feature where your cities can develop special standings with your friends’ cities based on how you interact with them:

In SCS, you can build your relationship between your cities by interacting with your friends’ buildings.
In SCS, you can build your relationship between your cities by interacting with your friends’ buildings.
The friend bar shows the flavor of relationship with each friend city (Mean, Nice, or Twin Cities).
The friend bar shows the flavor of relationship with each friend city (Mean, Nice, or Twin Cities).

Back to friend requirements: I would love to try having staffing and other friend requirements auto-fulfill over time, where you could use friends to speed them up, but the solo player isn’t out of luck. I would also like to see easier ways to find active players to team up with, even if they aren’t your friends on Facebook. We’ve seen Zynga making progress here, but it needs to be widespread in all social games that have heavy friend requirements.

8.  You Don’t Need to Spend Money to Progress

One final misconception is that you can’t progress without spending money. This only tends to be true if you have no friends who play (but I’d like to change that; see above). Otherwise, it’s easy to play SimCity Social or The Sims Social or plenty of other Facebook games without spending money. A vast majority of Facebook gamers never pay a dime, but play these games for months or even years. Where Value = Entertainment/Cost, players are getting a significant value. We’re effectively creating a singularity of infinite entertainment value.

Part of this “must spend” stigma comes from having pervasive opportunities to spend. Everywhere you look, there’s an appointment to speed up, a worker to hire, or an awesome premium object to buy. There are at least 10 different ways to spend Diamonds (the premium currency) in SimCity Social. To spenders, this represents great choice and power, and it is a very good thing. To non-spenders, it’s a reminder that they’re not getting the whole experience.


A few ways players can spend money in SimCity Social: purchasing game coins, special objects, or energy.
Players can pay for game coins, special objects, or more energy, among other things.

The truth is that developing a fantastic Facebook game costs a lot of money. And the overhead costs of running servers to support millions or tens of millions of players is high – especially when most of them never pay a dime. So we need to walk a fine line between adding enough opportunities for players to spend such that we become profitable, and going out of business because we offer too much for free.

So far, the ways we let players spend money are the best we’ve found. We can’t make players pay up front – it will limit our audience too much (and evidence from iPhone shows that free apps with microtransactions tend to make more than paid apps). We also can’t require subscriptions – not many people would trust a Facebook game enough to pay just to try it; instead we have to let you play for free so we can prove that our game is fun and worth spending money on. And we can’t switch to only paid episodic content or stop the game unless you pay at a certain level because again, that would drastically reduce our audience – all the free players would stop, but we need them to keep the social network strong.

I’d love to hear ideas for new ways to monetize a Facebook game that would (1) please the Console/PC gamer market, (2) not severely cut down our audience, and (3) not require more investment. But right now, this is the best we have.

Lastly, a Reflection on Personal Satisfaction 

As a designer, I’ve had a (mostly) wonderful time working on Facebook games. After 9 years of developing PC games, it was a welcome change. I imagine it’s like going from writing plays to writing movies. It’s a new experience with some crossover; the challenges are different, and it enriches you.

You learn to respect metrics and use them in harmony with your gut design instincts. You get intriguing insights into the way players interact with your designs, and you get the amazing opportunity to react quickly, so the game evolves into a reflection of your players’ desires. You learn the utmost importance of crystal clear communication and how to design toward it (a skill that more PC/console games need to embrace). And among other things, you make tens or hundreds of millions of players happy – far more than most PC/console games.

A downside is that you get less respect from PC and console gamers – which, being a PC/console gamer myself, can weigh on me. But you get more respect from just about everyone else, including friends and relatives who tend to play more Facebook games than PC/console games and are looking for the lighter experience. My ultimate goal as a designer has always been to delight people. We launched The Sims Social in August of 2011, and one year later 15 million players still enjoyed it every month. That's pretty good.

But most of these design choices I've explained need to evolve, or the Facebook game audience will wither. There's plenty of territory to pioneer, and plenty of tired approaches that need rethinking. If Facebook games can evolve with more interesting gameplay and deeper, true social mechanics that are still appealing to the mass market, then there is hope, and potentially a bright future.
▪   
Josh Levitan, VP of Games for Gamzee, has an interesting and level-headed response to this post, here. He agrees with many of these points -- but not all of them --  so if you're looking for another word on social games, it's worth checking out.

 


Comments

Carlos Hurtado
07/29/2012 2:32pm

Ray,
I agree with almost everything here. I understand that the target audience IS using this mechanics and enjoying the games. I do feel that the one point you want to change, the requirement of friends, is so bad right now, that it really destroys my enjoyment. I played Simcity Social, a game i was waiting for (I was a big SimCity fan), for about 2 to 3 days and I got stumped by the dreaded requirement to have friends to keep playing. It was almost immediate. In other games it took a while. I do have plenty of friends that play the game, but I just dislike spamming people on their walls (also, because I hate the spam. I currently have 204 requests for SimCity Social).. That made me stop, and made me very sad about it, because the game had so much potential to let me have so much fun. From what I played, the game looked great and I am looking forward to see how you can find a better way for players like me that want to enjoy Facebook games, but would rather pay for compulsive play (the energy hook works great I think) than to avoid bothering friends.
I know you can figure something out and I'm looking forward to that. When you do, (and if you implement it on SimCity Social), let me know, and I will be back to the game.

Reply
07/29/2012 3:34pm

Hi Carlos,

Yes, that's one of the aspects of Social Games that took me a while to understand when I first began working on them, and then once I understood it, I've been trying to change it to something that doesn't alienate solo players (or clog up FB walls). Perhaps that's because I'm a solo player, myself, and in games like WoW and Dialbo, friends are (to me) only a side benefit of having a networked game.

The friend requirement aspect of Social Gaming has incredible momentum, and there's a lot of friction against change -- though the true game designers that I've been working with as well as some others recognize this problem. If we can/do make changes, you will be one of the first people I tell, Carlos.

Reply
Rajveer Kothari
07/30/2012 8:02am

This has truly been an informative read... Thanks for sharing the knowledge! :)

Reply
08/02/2012 11:57pm

Great post, agree with the points and like the comparison between guitar hero and the real guitarr. Your points on strategy reminds a lot my own pieces on how to add 'smart-depth' to social games. The example from sim city is also almost identical to what we used in millionaire city, just a tad more evolved. We also had users creating excel sheets like yours. I think one point remembering though that it is impossible to please everyone, and if you try you will fail. With every iteration these games become better and better, the industry id still in its infancy. Looking forward to see the games in the future. Keep up the great work!

Reply
08/03/2012 8:58am

Thanks, Henric, that's a great point about not trying to please everyone. The better you know the audience that you're trying to reach, the easier it will be to weed out the feedback that matters from focus tests, surveys, and forums. But even if you think you know your target audience, there will still be be players that aren't happy -- especially so with social games where audiences tend to be very large.

I read your post on "smart-depth" shorty before GDC this year, and really enjoyed it. It's definitely relevant, and I will probably add a link to it from this post next time I do an edit. In the meantime, anyone reading these comments should check it out at:
http://henricsuuronen.com/blog/smart-depth-adding-more-game-to-social-games/

Reply
David
08/09/2012 10:19pm

" To spenders, this represents great choice and power, and it is a very good thing. To non-spenders, it’s a reminder that they’re not getting the whole experience."

You neglected to mention that the spenders represent a very small portion of any freemium game player base and that they are only feeling more privileged than everybody else because they can get around artificial limitations built into the application.

You could just remove the limitations and give everyone the 'great choice and power' but I guess rich people always need ways to use their money to prove they are superior.

Reply
08/10/2012 8:31am

Hi David,

I'm going to address your comment because it's similar to other replies I see following other articles about freemium games across the web.

First, I didn't neglect to mention that the spenders represent a very small portion of any freemium game player base. In fact, I point it out in BOLD in the very first paragraph of that section about spending:

"A vast majority of Facebook gamers never pay a dime, but play these games for months or even years."

The more specific numbers have been publicly stated by Zynga to be 3-5% of players as spenders. Other analyst reports put the estimate for Zynga at 2.4%. Either way, yes -- it is small. (I'm using Zynga because their numbers are public due to their IPO filing, and they have the largest sample of players, so their numbers are significant.)

Second, your suggestion to "just remove the limitations and give everyone the 'great choice and power'" feels thoughtless. Maybe I misinterpret, but it sounds like you're suggesting that freemium games make all content and gate-skips available to everyone, in essence, removing the business model from the game.

We can't make games unless we can make money from them. It's kind of like playing a demo of Halo and getting upset that you have to pay $50 for the full game instead of being able to play it all for free.

I would have appreciated suggestions for alternate ways to make money from a freemium game. It's not helpful to criticize the current standard without offering ideas for a change. Like I said in the article:

"I’d love to hear ideas for new ways to monetize a Facebook game that would (1) please the Console/PC gamer market, (2) not severely cut down our audience, and (3) not require more investment. But right now, this is the best we have."

I do, however, recognize that non-spenders get a lesser experience. That's part of what happens when a game's economy becomes commoditized, and that's the tricky nature of freemium. But when you step back, you'll realize that these tens of millions of players -- although they are getting a lesser experience -- are still given a fun experience nonetheless, and they're getting it *absolutely free.*

Reply
David
08/12/2012 10:46pm

Well, yes, I guess I was suggesting removing the business model from the game, or replacing it with a pay-once to get the full version, or maybe even monthly subscription to justify continuing content.

Are games with pay-or-wait gates, friend spamming and pay-to-unlock content really the only way to make money on Facebook, or are they just so successful that they drown out everything else?

The iphone seems to still have some normal, paid games although they seem to be in the minority now.

Is the future of mainstream gaming going to force players to need a calculator and their credit card statement to work out how much of their favourite game they can afford to play today or trying to rearrange their schedule to fit the game?

And yes, you did mention how many players pay to play the game, my mistake there.

08/13/2012 4:52am

Hi David, I appreciate your follow-up.

Pay Once and Subscription are new methods of charging for apps on Facebook. They've only become available in the past few months. Since we started developing SCS long before that, we didn't have a reasonable option to use either of those payment methods because the game would have had to be significantly redesigned.

Now that Subscription and Pay Once are available, I definitely think they should both be explored by Facebook games. Pay Once may be harder for players to accept than on phones or Steam or Origin, because if Facebook disappears, your game won't be anywhere to be found... it won't be on your computer or phone because it was never really there in the first place. Or it may require lower prices. I'm sure we'll soon see as games begin trying this. It's somewhat similar to buying permanent access to on-demand movies and that is gaining traction (although I'm personally hesitant because there are so many competing services and who knows what will stick around). Also, since these games live on servers, they get shut down when the audience wanes and the cost of operating them becomes too high compared to income. This is another mental hurdle to Pay Once.

I'd also be curious to see games try a hard wall a bunch of hours into gameplay with an in-app purchase. E.g. -- you can play for 20 hours, then must pay once or you cannot keep playing. I believe this has been possible and not against FB terms of service, but I don't know any games that have tried.

I think you're right in wondering if the standard approach of pay-or-wait, etc, will drown everything else out, at least for a while. Part of it is that studios that make these games are familiar and comfortable with these methods; switching payment models would be a risk. It's a risk I think is worth trying, but the more these games cost to make, the higher the hurdle becomes to get everyone to agree that the risk is worthwhile (and I could be wrong, it may not be worthwhile).

Another aspect relates to what you point out -- that freemium games now outnumber paid games on iPhone. The game industry has a lot of data and examples that show iPhone games make more money if they are freemium, and this certainly influences the mentality of FB game devs. There will always be exceptions (usually big ones), like Angry Birds on mobile which has paid versions in addition to their free, "Lite" versions, and which has made billions because the game is so appealing to so many and because of enough luck on the app store to have high visibility so it could gain momentum in the first place.

I don't think freemium is going away, but to stay healthy, the gameplay will have to evolve. Overall, there is an industry shift to freemium, even with large MMOs like Lord of the Rings Online, D&D Online, and soon Star Wars. And then there are freemium web games like League of Legends and Drakensang (Diablo-like). Also, the U4iA studio has a "console-quality FPS" on the web, which has a free and a paid version, though I think even the paid version has additional ways to spend in-game (http://u4iagames.com/). These games let players keep any schedule, but they're for more narrow audiences.

Now... all that said, I think there will be FB games that deviate from freemium and all the friend shares, etc. We'll probably see most of the innovation and success here (and failure) come first from startups who aim to break the mold and who approach risk differently than larger companies. I think a lot of it will hinge on developing games which have vastly different gameplay than what's already available for free, and/or have vastly higher quality. It's a big challenge, particularly for the super-mass market, but I think it can be done.

This could be a huge conversation and I certainly don't know all the answers. It's a deep subject.

Thanks again for your comments & questions, David.

Reply
08/15/2012 7:09pm

Hi Ray. I've been in online game/world design since text MUDs, and moved into social games two years ago (first for Zynga, then for Loot Drop). In the course of those two years I've also gone from being a curious outsider to a deep believer in the form. SimCity Social is fantastic; I've been playing steadily since launch and have spent $20. I'd been planning a blog post discussing its virtues, but have gotten way too busy... will see if I can manage. But I wanted to leave a note of appreciation both for this post and the game. Terrifically well done.

Reply
08/17/2012 1:47am

Hi Erin, thanks a ton, I appreciate that! I'm glad you posted here, because it seems like we should have been acquainted with each other (seeing as we're both the cross-breed of game designer/writer), and now we are.

I'm enjoying your website and liked your take on the android-as-protagonist in Prometheus... I hadn't thought about it that way.

If you do end up putting together a piece about SimCity Social, I know it will be well-written, so let me know and I'll link it from the bottom of this article.

Nice to web-meet you : )

Reply
Andy
08/31/2012 3:52pm

Ray, I can't agree more with the problems of solo play. It feels like Simcity Social is trying to force me to pester my friends and fill their feeds just so I can progress in it. And that's a shame - I think that basically it's a very good game.

How about this as an alternate way of monetizing - just let me pay to remove the need for other players? Just that. Diamonds to buy new buildings and goodies - that feels fine, you're paying and getting something. Having to use diamonds to 'staff' projects just feels like you're being cheated. And it's at an extortionate rate - I've bought diamonds, and they all went pretty quickly on staffing things.

Just let me pay a flat fee to remove that requirement.

From a user interface perspective, it'd also be nice if I didn't have to see 9 adverts before getting to the game screen itself. I get it; you want me to buy things. I probably will - there are some cute buildings I want (Climbing Wall!). Quit hassling me. And I don't like hassling my friends - I'm probably older than Simcity Social's target market - most of my friends won't care...

On the plus side - I love the variety of buildings, and the quest system works well - apart from when you need lots of friends...

Reply
09/04/2012 2:52pm

Hi Andy,

Thanks for reading. I quite like your suggestion about paying to remove the aspect of needing to rely on friends. I'd love to take it one step further and build a game that doesn't require you to rely on friends at all. Period. But then you can use friends in similar ways to get bonuses and benefits. Perhaps then you can pay to remove this aspect and permanently unlock these bonuses and benefits. But either way, it would be a game friendly to solo players.

Your views on how spending diamonds makes you feel are common. I raised this issue in my Game Developer's Conference 2012 talk about The Sims Social. The gist is that when players spend to get permanent things, like objects, they feel good about it. But if they spend to buy things that have no lasting value -- like energy, staffing, quest skips, etc -- then they tend to feel buyer's remorse. I'd like to see this fixed by bundling permanent rewards with the fleeting purchases (or find different gameplay that doesn't use these fleeting purchases).

Thanks for playing SCS, Andy, and I really appreciate your comments.

Reply
Courtney
11/14/2012 1:31am

I have played TSS for a number of years but finally quit due to a number of dwindling friends. Zynga has also gone under the practice of lying about which friends are actually playing the games, in order to get you to pester them for more requests. I did try out the SCS game, and I am sorry but I have to agree with the people reviewing it that it is just as bad at asking your friends for things and no real gameplay involved other than selecting buildings, waiting, and clicking 'okay' when your friends finally give up and accept. For the paying player base to be such a small percentile, forgive me if I don't think this method is successful. I think social games would be just as profitable, maybe even more so if you didn't have to pester your friends for things and click 'okay' only to receive a similar goal. Seems like exclusive avatar items do a fair amount of pay-win on other sites I've used that haven't been social. As well as in-game advertising. Also, I would complain about the energy problem, because the on-the-go people could play thier 30 minutes and leave and everyone else can keep playing. As of now, there isn't a lot of time to complete goals in TSS, another reason I quit out of frustration. My friends are on the go and aren't home on the dot, and neither am I. I would rather come home from my work shift and play my game, not result to others tactics of sneaking on during office hours-- essentially both sides are going to fizzle out and stop playing the games out of frustration. If we're talking about the Playfish brand of games, I believe Pet Society handles premium and freemium best out of most games I've seen. You're not begging and you can still have a good time.

Reply
11/15/2012 11:27pm

Hi Courtney,

You and I actually mostly agree. I wrote this article to explain why Facebook games have moved in this direction of using energy and requiring you to ask friends for help. In fact, the games are like this because this is the best way they know how to make money and increase audience. Premium avatar items do sell, but in general they are miniscule in comparison to the amount that players spend on things like energy, collectibles, quest skips, and hiring helpers. And for some of these reasons, The Sims Social, for example, has been much more financially successful than Pet Society.

But you’ll notice I’m also saying in the article that from my designer perspective, I think Facebook games need to evolve beyond bugging friends for help. They should be entirely playable without friends, and friends should only be used to make the game even more fun.

The overall Facebook game market is declining, and I think a lot of the reason is that the games have begun to feel similar in the way they all use elements like energy, friend requests, etc. In fact, I believe Facebook games are ready for a reinvention that does away with a lot of these typical elements, including bugging friends. It would be a risk, but I think it’s one worth taking.

Reply
Scott
01/31/2013 11:59pm

I enjoy SimCity Social but also can't stand pestering my friends. The only work around I've found is to play on an assumed Facebook account and gather strangers as friends to populate my gaming experience. This way I don't bother any real friends and the people I do bother are also playing the game and don't care about being bothered. I don't know how many "rules" I'm breaking doing this but I feel forced into it in order to play the game.

Not being a spender, it has taken months and a boatload of fake friends to finally reach 550,000 population last month. I've had to rely on the occasional "Earn Diamonds" advertiser that matched up with money I would already be spending in real life in order to raise my diamond levels.

I understand the business end of the game and know that it's necessary to make a profit but I know lots of people who will never play a Facebook game because they are bugged by them and don't want to bug anybody else.

Reply
02/01/2013 10:57pm

Hi Scott, thanks for sharing your experience. And congrats on hitting 550,000 population!

Reply
Harold
02/11/2013 10:44am

Hello. I am curious if you need others to help you out with your game SimCity Social? I have several design ideas for new decorations, homes, buildings, factories, and businesses but I don't know how to design them on a computer. I am always looking for ways to expand on my drafting and art skills.

Reply
02/11/2013 11:07am

Hi Harold,

Thanks for showing interest -- that must mean you enjoy SimCity Social. As for helping out, we have a handful of Playfish studios scattered across the world. SimCity Social is developed at our Beijing studio, so unless you're nearby in China, that wouldn't work out. You can always check our jobs pages here: http://www.playfish.com/?page=jobs.

Not already having the ability to author content on computers is too high a hurdle. Most of our art is made in 3D modeling programs (Maya/Max) with some in Adobe Illustrator by artists that have been using these programs for years.

If you just want to draft up concept for fun and show the world, I recommend drafting it, scanning it, and putting it on a website for everyone to see. We always love to see suggestions for content. (I suggest Weebly, which makes it super simple to manage a website.)

Reply
03/23/2013 5:38am

The only restriction I see in SCS is land. There certainly a lot to buy on the mainland and the island too. However, eventually you will no longer be able to expand

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply