Showing posts with label facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label facebook. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Recent News of Interest to Social Gaming geeks

Playfish gets a million dollar bridge loan from Accel Partners. I'm assuming they want to expand faster than they had initially planned. That brings their total funding to 4 million.

Hi5 buys app developer, PixVerse. First I've heard of a socnet buying an app developer. It's interesting, because I assume Hi5 is going to integrate features from PixVerse apps directly into their site. It's a reverse on the old saw I keep hearing about how developing for Facebook is risky because if the feature is any good, Facebook will just copy it. In this case, developing good features led to an acquisition. Maybe, Facebook will acquire Slide. Kidding.

In similar news, a Chinese game development company, Giant, buys a stake in China's biggest social network, 51.com. The article compares it to EA buying a stake in Facebook. With the enormous success of games on Facebook, and the success of QQ Games on the Tencent QQ IM platform, it's a brilliant move for a games company to get access to a social networking platform.
Guaranteed CPMs for Facebook devs! Potentially, $0.40 CPM. Perhaps Packrat should finally start running banners on those hundreds of millions of pageviews they get every month.

Neopets founders creating a casual MMO. The creative muscle behind Neopets in its early years, Adam Powell and Donna Williams, started a company called Meteor Games to build a non-Flash based MMO. Here's the description:

Meteor will likely have a free version to entice gamers and charge $5 to $10 a month for access to the full world. The company will likely also create a virtual goods model where it can charge for certain items. Williams said the world will combine an MMO, casual game play, and social networking.
Yes, not Flash-based. I hope they don't opt for a downloadable client, for their sakes.

Friday, June 20, 2008

Using the Virtual Goods Model on Social Networks

Sean Ryan, CEO at Meez, wrote an excellent blog post forwarded to me by my good friend Sidney Price of Social Emotions.

In the post, Sean suggests that Facebook take the Cyworld approach and monetize via virtual goods.

Here's the core reason, and one that I've spoken about before (so naturally I agree):

The best reason for them to pay is that in an SNS, which is really about people interacting with each other, the #1 goal is STATUS - how can I be different, better, have more authority, etc, and most importantly, how can I impress those around me with that status? It's so basic, and is sometimes overlooked.
It is overlooked and it is super-important. You have to know why people buy virtual goods if you plan to sell them. At Interplay, I was talking to someone who provided me with an interesting theory about why Koreans and the Chinese are massive consumer of virtual goods. He suggested that because teens in those countries are required to wear uniforms in school, thus not allowing to express themselves through clothes as teens do in the US, that their outlet for self-expression becomes virtual goods and decorating their homepage.

Obviously, the need to decorate is alive and well in U.S. teens as evinced by a five minute survey of Myspace pages. Check out how many status brands like Gucci and Playboy that you can spot. (yes, Playboy is status brand - especially with young female teens - I'll let you figure out why.)

By Sean's estimates, social networks can earn the following through a virtual goods model.
In an SNS, a well structured virtual item program should be able to generate, on average, $5-7 monthly from 5%+ of the monthly unique users, and I've seen both numbers go higher in certain cases. That compares to $3-5/year in advertising from a unique user.
I assume they are based on looking at Cyworld, QQ, and Sean's own experience at Meez, though he does not discuss how he arrived at the numbers, so feel free to be incredulous.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Where are the avatars on Facebook?


It doesn't appear that the Facebook audience cares much for avatars. While there are quite a few avatar applications, none have much traction. Avatar sites like Stardoll.com (over one million unique visitors a month) have a massive and loyal following, so clearly it's not that avatars lack appeal. So why hasn't there been a breakout hit on Facebook?

Before I speculate on that, here's a list of the avatar-related applications I was able to find (from most popular to least popular):

Custom Cartoon Personality (7,063)
The most popular of all Facebook avatar apps is nothing more then a lead generation page for Zwinky, the notorious avatar software/spyware.
http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=7150485981

StyleSlam (5189)
From Ebay? Who knew that eBay was building Facebook apps, let alone avatar creation tools. To be honest, I couldn't test this because the Flash client never finished loading.

Burn Alter Ego (1504)
A very nicely done advergame from Coke. Coke has really been at the forefront of the virtual world phenomenon (Virtual Coke Studios), so it's no surprise they've created this stylish avatar application.
http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=7695687266

Meez Roomz and Games (201)
From Meez, a company that has combined casual games with 3D chat. This is purely a lead generation tool, its pushes you out to the Meez site as soon as possible.
http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=12243600358

IMVU Avatar (36) -
Another lead generation tool, this time for IMVU, the 3D chat application. I've always liked IMVU, it offers a rich 3D environment for chatting - basically a virtual world, without all the useless space.
http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=2359244455

Gaia OMG (616) -
Yet another lead generation tool, this one for Gaia Online, basically, a virtual world without the virtual(though that's changing as they have a full-blown casual MMO in the works).
http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=3314845506

Mini Me (136)
Despite myself, I liked the simple cartoony feel of this app's avatars. Evidently, not many other people did. Feels homegrown, and not just another lead-gen tool. But not very compelling.
http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=7692728005

I'm sure, I missed some, so feel free to add reviews of ones I missed in the comments.

All right, now for some speculation:

So why hasn't there been a truly successful avatar application on Facebook?

1. You're really you on Facebook. In most situations where avatars are successful, users are masking their identities. From virtual world to forums to chat rooms, users opt to hide behind pseudonyms rather then use their real names. If you're trying to remain anonymous, yet still reveal your personality, customizable avatars are an excellent mechanism. On Facebook, the vast majority of people provide their real names and use real pictures to represent themselves. Avatars are unnecessary.

Having said that, even in the absence of utility, avatars can be a fun way to express yourself, and self-expression is a key value of socnets users, so while I don't see an avatar app reaching Top Friends levels, I would expect some more traction. The following reasons address why the current crop of avatar apps haven't seen much success.

2. Avatar applications don't encourage repeat usage. I customize my avatar once and I'm done. Unless, I'm motivated to repeatedly update my avatar is some way, I will rarely return. Unlike a turn-based game, I don't need to return daily to check in on my avatar. This problem is easily solved by adding elements from the virtual pets type games. If your avatar needs to be fed and taken care of then you'll return frequently.

3. It's all lead-gen. The goal of most of the well-done avatar apps is to drive you from Facebook to another property. That's not the way to grow a Facebook app.

4. No virality. None of the existing avatar applications have any viral hooks build into them, except the common "Here's 50 coins if you add a friend" invite page. It's not surprising that they haven't gained a larger reach.

Someone will get this right eventually, there's too much money at stake, hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent on avatar customization worldwide this year.

Friday, April 4, 2008

Virtual Goods and the Community values of Facebook

Above: The most popular sticker from Bumper Sticker, Facebook's most popular self-expression/gifting app.

For all practically purposes, virtual goods cost nothing to create, they're infinitely reproducible at no cost, and distribution costs are nil. To put in other words, their marginal cost is zero.

Chris Anderson, editor of Wired, is fond of saying:

Basic economics tells us that in a competitive market, price falls to the marginal cost. There's never been a more competitive market than the Internet, and every day the marginal cost of digital information comes closer to nothing.
So, virtual goods, in theory, should cost nothing. Except, they don't.

Why? Because marginal cost applies (mostly) to commodities. Virtual goods are not a commodity. They are luxury goods. Exactly like a Gucci handbag. Or a Rolex. You buy these things to show off your status, usually wealth. The more expensive an item is, the more perceived value it has in the community. However, you can't simply declare that a urinal is worth a million dollars and expect someone to buy it...unless you're an artist. The item's worth has to be aligned with the value of the community.

With traditional luxury goods, craftsmanship and uniqueness are the value that the community uses as justification for prices 100x greater than marginal cost. I say justification, because the luxury goods purchaser is primarily seeking the status value of the object, because goods of equal craftsmanship and uniqueness can be had at near marginal cost.

With virtual goods, craftsmanship is irrelevant - no one really cares if Susan Kare created your icon. Yet. I imagine as the virtual goods market matures, we'll see brands emerge based around rockstar designers. Especially, if virtual goods become portable among virtual communities.

But until then, uniqueness rules the roost. People want something special that gives them status and allows them to express their unique identify. Rare items serve both. So a virtual community creates artificial scarcity, by limiting the copies of a virtual good.

But it's easy to imagine a virtual good that no one wanted no matter, despite its uniqueness. For example, I just created a 75x75 orange square in Photoshop. I'm selling it for 250,000 dollars. I doubt I'll find a buyer for this unique virtual good (but I'm hopeful).

Each virtual community has different values and for a virtual goods to have value, it must reflect those values. In World of Warcraft, players value things that help them kill more monsters. The item's core value is functional (it helps achieve a task). However, the color of the item is equally important because it signifies status. For instance, in WoW, orange armor is "legendary". In Habbo Hotel, furniture is valuable because decorating your room, it the primary means of differentiating yourself, as well as the core single-player activity.

It's easier for individual games/sites to define the value of the community. After all, those communities are largely self-selecting. If you didn't value armor, you wouldn't be playing WoW. If you didn't like decorating your room, Habbo Hotel is much less interesting.

So what are the core values of the Facebook community? People in the know, will tell you that self-expression is a core value of the social network crowd. Great, but what values do they want to express?

Let's look at the top gifting apps on Facebook to get sense of the values expressed.
Bumper Sticker (938,239 DAU, 72% female): female friendship, humor/wit, sexuality, love
Lil Green Patch (358,095 DAU, 77% female): concern for the environment
Free Gifts (159,487 DAU, 66% female): random, but cute. Couldn't pin down values
Hatching Eggs (146,761 DAU, 69% female): cuteness (all cute animals), holiday events
Growing Gift (189,817 DAU, 75% female): holiday events.
Pieces of Flair (117, 176 DAU, NA): humor/wit
Stickerz: (103,593 DAU, NA): humor/wit

Looking over the list, purely gifting apps (Free Gifts, Hatching Eggs, Growing Gifts) all resemble Hallmark cards: warm, funny, emotional, cute event-driven. Values uses to describe the relationships we have with others. Unsurprisingly, these apps are dominated by women who traditionally value interpersonal relationships more than men.

The self-expression/gifting apps (Bumper Sticker, Pieces of Flair, Stickerz) appear to be wittier, darker, yet still cute. But at the core, Facebook users are trying to express how funny and intelligent they are. I think that makes sense for a community dominated by college students and the college educated.

Bottom line: Facebook users value intelligence and humor...and cuteness. If you're creating virtual goods for Facebook, you'd be advised to design with those factors in mind.

Wow, that was long post. I should have just said, if you want to understand Facebook users, go to Hot Topic.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Scrabulous back on top.

Friends For Sale's reign as #1 game on Facebook lasted all of one day. Scrabulous has been up by ~20,000 daily active users all week.

Current:
Scrabulous: 687,955 DAU (up 50,000 DAU from last week)
Friends For Sale!: 664,587 DAU (up 21,000 DAU from last week)

I don't plan to cover this story blow-by-blow, but since I did announce Friends For Sale's triumph last week, I figured I should keep you all updated.

In other news...I found an excellent presentation by the creators of Friends For Sale. Enjoy!

http://highscalability.com/docs/EmergingTechSIGPresentation.pdf

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Friends For Sale: Designing a Game for the Platform v. the Channel

First, what is Friends for Sale?

Here's the description from the developer:

Buy and sell your friends as pets! You can make your pets poke, send gifts, or just show off for you. Make money as a shrewd pets investor or as a hot commodity! Friends for Sale is the bees knees!
Why you should care?

As of today, it has more daily active users (668,080) than Texas Holdem Poker and almost has as many daily active users as Scrabulous. If it is a game, then it's the second most popular game on Facebook.

So Bret, is it a game?

Here's the four key components of a game as defined by Wikipedia (feel free to dispute): goal, rules, challenge, interactivity. Let's break it down.

1. Goal: to have the highest worth among your friends.
2. Rules: you can only buy friends if you have enough money.
3. Challenge: To increase your worth you have to invest in the right friends
4. Interactivity: Other people can buy your friends from you and vice-versa.

And finally, my criterion: is it fun? Answer: ask the 668,080 people currently playing.

So yes, it is a game. In fact, I think it's an example of the new breed of social games emerging that will actually incorporate the social graph into their gameplay and not simply use the social graph as a distribution channel.

Platform v. Channel

In many ways, I think game developers are treating social networks as a channel for games rather than as a platform for games. Most games on Facebook only use the social graph to acquire users (i.e. Invite 40 Friends and get a Chuck Norris themed Jetman!). Sell your Friends! could not exist without the social graph.

A channel is just a way to distribute something. As a channel, Facebook is amazing, allowing any developer with a good game to *potentially* reach million of users. However, the vast majority of games don't. Roughly thirty games out of ~2000 games listed in the games sections of the app have reached one million installs (which, by the way, is more than I expected).

A platform has unique features that can be leveraged. Take the Nintendo Wii for example, it's unique feature is its motion sensing controller. Making a game for Facebook that doesn't leveraging the social graph (Facebook's unique feature) is like making a game for the Wii that doesn't leverage its motion-sensing controllers.

Just something to think about. There's a ton to say about *how* to design a game to take advantage of the social graph, but it'll have to wait until after my fever breaks.

Meanwhile, two predictions: Sell Your Friends! will soon be the most popular game on Facebook (as measured by DAU) and it's going to be copied endlessly.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Top Ten Games on Facebook with Detailed Demographics













Note: DAU = Daily Active Users (which is the metric this list is based on)

Brief Analysis:
Despite all the recent posturings by Zynga and SGN, neither companies has more than one game in the top ten. That honor goes to Blake Commagere.

Most games, with one exception, have a significantly higher ratio of male players. Does this mean men play more games? Answer: No. It means that no one is making games that appeal to female players - I'll post on that in the future.

Interesting bits:

  • Jetman has virtually no users over 26.
  • Scrabulous (and Vampires!!!) has an equal male-female ratio.
Come back tomorrow, I'll be posting the demographic breakdown of all the top games from Zynga and SGN.

Special thanks to www.developeranalytics.com for providing the demographic info!