They sure have farked up their games with too many spam events and too much required begging. Old players are leaving in droves, and new players try it for a while and say feck it.

.

Astounding: the company and the customers are ALL doing it wrong.

Mentat: There's nothing wrong with social games or ap games. I've certainly devoted more than a few hours to tower defense games. But I have yet to find a game like that where I sit down to play for a few minutes and five hours later my bladder is about to explode. Maybe I'm old, but games like Civ or Skyrim are far more appealing to me.

App games are designed for playing while you are in the bathroom.

/there's a reason why those birds are so angry, and it ain't the pigs

Keep your $300. I don't have a FB page, and never will.

But they're making up for losses by increasing the number of customers, amirite?

I applied for a job at Zynga, but they said I needed to bring in 4 other people to interview along with 10 people that might know someone else who could work there.

propasaurus: How the hell is someone spending $150 on farking FarmVille?

In a year the average user clicks on enough ads and buys enough points to equal $150. (Some ads pay a pretty heavy sum) .

Stock is still below IPO price. I think they are hoping for internet gambling.

People are on average spending 150 bucks on Zynga games?

Sounds like Zynga's more of an addiction peddler than game company.

tillerman35: Keep your $300. I don't have a FB page, and never will.

You will if I make one for you...

It's not like Zynga is swimming in Google IPO money. It's values has gone down since it hit the market and currently stands at $8.81 (as of 9:19am PST).
The bigger problem the company has is its paying user base makes up less than 3% of its entire user base. Plus the CEO thinks he is some sort of Internet Demi-God.

About the only thing I'd spend on social games would be my down time as I'm waiting for something more important to happen. 'Real' video games, on the other hand, I'll actively search out, spend money on, and plan time to sit down and play.

/no real point

You mean that's an unsustainable business model?


Pets.com gives you a $25 rebate for you to buy a minimum of $30 in products!

Juc: People are on average spending 150 bucks on Zynga games?

Sounds like Zynga's more of an addiction peddler than game company.

This Cracked article mentions Zynga and their ploys to keep people playing.

Zynga's looking for a partner so they can either open pay-for-play online casino gaming sites or develop Facebook games that allow some rudimentary form of gambling. I have a feeling they're about to be rolling in the cash.

Ah the old dotcom business strategy. Sure we lose money on every customer, but we'll make it up in volume!

Sometimes I feel like the only one playing the real Scrabble on iOS. WWF's constant ads and charging for a feature that comes with the EA version just piss me off.

Honest Bender: tillerman35: Keep your $300. I don't have a FB page, and never will.

You will if I make one for you...

Use this photo:

EvilEgg: Social games are social, so you want a large user base to draw in friends. Or at least I assume that's what they are thinking.

If all your friends are playing Farmville, you think to yourself, well this is boring as shiat, but there must be something to it that I am missing or none of my friends would play.

No, what you should think to yourself is, "well this is boring as shiat, I need to get new friends".

My fiancee asked me once over the weekend to tend to something on her Monster Farm while she was in the kitchen. It consisted of selecting an icon and clicking on a bunch of tiles to make the monster plant something, and then wait. It was farking lame as hell, yet she's on it pretty much all day.

At least I can finally play through Uncharted 3 without having her complain about hogging the TV. That tablet was the best $400 I ever spent on her.

YRThereSchool: Zynga's looking for a partner so they can either open pay-for-play online casino gaming sites or develop Facebook games that allow some rudimentary form of gambling. I have a feeling they're about to be rolling in the cash.

There are way too many issues with online gambling that will take years to resolve. Generally, running an online gambling site or offering gambling online is going to be a very expensive and pounding headache given the lawsuits, current State/Federal regulations and the detention of people in companies that offer online gambling (see David Carruthers, Peter Dicks & Jay Cohen). I don't see a publicly traded company like Zynga getting anywhere near it.

Nexzus: My fiancee asked me once over the weekend to tend to something on her Monster Farm while she was in the kitchen. It consisted of selecting an icon and clicking on a bunch of tiles to make the monster plant something, and then wait. It was farking lame as hell, yet she's on it pretty much all day.

At least I can finally play through Uncharted 3 without having her complain about hogging the TV. That tablet was the best $400 I ever spent on her.

Use the time she's distracted with Monster Farm to gather up all your shiat and get the hell out of there.

taxandspend: It's not like Zynga is swimming in Google IPO money. It's values has gone down since it hit the market and currently stands at $8.81 (as of 9:19am PST).
The bigger problem the company has is its paying user base makes up less than 3% of its entire user base. Plus the CEO thinks he is some sort of Internet Demi-God.

Speaking of the CEO, what ever happened with that crap about asking people to give back their stock options or whatever. Did he actually get away with that?

Outside Morgan Stanley, who on Earth is buying shares in this company, anyway? Compare them to Activision-Blizzard and explain to me why anybody looking to add this sector to their portfolio would go with Zynga over someone like Blictivision or even EA. Am I missing something? I mean.... other than an immunity to basic common sense?

The Onion is prophetic: MindStalker: propasaurus: How the hell is someone spending $150 on farking FarmVille?

In a year the average user clicks on enough ads and buys enough points to equal $150. (Some ads pay a pretty heavy sum) .

I wonder, if I spend the $2 or whatever to get rid of ads on Words With Friends, does that mean their revenue stream from me is completely dried up after that?

My guess is that they will find a way to insert the ads juuuuuust before Words with Friends finishes loading - I mean, they not "in the game" anymore but you will still count as a pair of eyeballs to their sales force.

Juc: People are on average spending 150 bucks on Zynga games?

Sounds like Zynga's more of an addiction peddler than game company.

It's average. I'm sure most people spend $0-$5, with some very outliers spending $1000+.

tillerman35: Keep your $300. I don't have a FB page, and never will.

This is the same company that was founded with stolen money? What a surprise.

Good. fark Zynga. Activision and EA are coonts, but even they can claim the higher ground as they make proper games and usually have a better reason to fark over their customers than manipulating every last penny out of them for as little return as possible.

/plus both EA and Activision used to be independent, idealistic and genuinely innovative. In the early 80s.

If this Pincus guy was half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd cash out while the stock is actually worth something. But i'm sure he won't because he thinks his sh*t don't stink.

The Internet isn't big enough for 2 rich assholes named Mark.

I don't farking understand these games or their appeal, and I don't think I ever will. Thankfully, my wife doesn't either.

She also doesn't understand that the $10 I just spent on Undead Redemption was a great value!

And I can't understand why her paper for her scrapbooking is so expensive.

But I guess we all have our things.

MoronLessOff: Juc: People are on average spending 150 bucks on Zynga games?

Sounds like Zynga's more of an addiction peddler than game company.

This Cracked article mentions Zynga and their ploys to keep people playing.

I hate to say it, but Cracked has really improved the quality of these lists. This is by far the best one I've read.

/Less 'Ha Ha' funny, though.
//Were they ever 'Ha Ha' funny?

TruckeeTrees: YRThereSchool: Zynga's looking for a partner so they can either open pay-for-play online casino gaming sites or develop Facebook games that allow some rudimentary form of gambling. I have a feeling they're about to be rolling in the cash.

There are way too many issues with online gambling that will take years to resolve. Generally, running an online gambling site or offering gambling online is going to be a very expensive and pounding headache given the lawsuits, current State/Federal regulations and the detention of people in companies that offer online gambling (see David Carruthers, Peter Dicks & Jay Cohen). I don't see a publicly traded company like Zynga getting anywhere near it.

Diablo 3 is the perfect compromise. Make sure the randomness/gambling aspects don't cost money to participate in but allow people to use money to circumvent the randomness. It's not technically gambling but still uses the same psychological principles (I can play more to make more money by selling these items and if I play even more I have an even BIGGER chance of winning BIG) in order to ensure a steady flor of money.

The key is not getting to greedy like Zynga and learning to be more subtle about your manipulations. Blunt psychological manipulation is less longlasting.

i used to do all of that stopped it when it got to be nothing but begging my friends on facebook to send me something or other to complete missions. the only thing i really mess with now is words with friends although now i have to click on their store every time i want to play a game even though i could care less what my real money buys in their game to make it "easier" for me to play.

Not necessarily a fan of Zynga, but these numbers are pretty deeply flawed. They assume zero churn in Zynga's existing customer base, and so assume all of the marketing budget has gone exclusively towards raising their monthly active user base from X to Y. In reality, the churn in social games is enormous -- most users (>90%) will simply move on due to lack of content within several months -- meaning the majority of the advertising budget for the quarter/year was likely spent just to maintain their current user levels, rather than being spent exclusively to raise them by some small amount.

This pretty much makes the math in the article completely bogus.