jump to navigation

Interesting nuggests from Social Games Panel March 5, 2008

Posted by jeremyliew in advertising, asynchronous gaming, business models, social games, social gaming, social media.
trackback

Yesterday I moderated a panel on social games at Graphing Social Patterns. The panelists were Mark Pincus (CEO of Zynga), Shervin Pishevar (CEO of Social Game Network), Michael Lazerow (CEO of Buddy Media) and John Hwang (CEO ofTrip Monger, whose primary app is Speed Racing). It was a wide ranging discussion.

First we discussed what differentiates a social game from other sorts of games, and in particular multiplayer games. The general consensus is that a game is social if the social context of the relationship between a player creates or enhances the gameplay. For example, if emotions like guilt, pride, reciprocity, gratitude or vengeance get evoked in the gameplay because of the combination of gameplay and player relationship, a game is social. These emotions of course greatly increase the level of engagement in a game. Scrabulous’ turn based game play (which can induce guilt for keeping a friend waiting for your move) and Warbook’s revenge attacks were both presented as examples.

We then discussed some of the specific game mechanics that have worked well for social games to keep high levels of engagement. These included asynchronous play and many of Amy Jo Kim’s game mechanics. Mark talked about the importance of dedicating resources to constantly tweaking and improving a game to keep engagement levels up since the environment changed so frequently. John Hwang talked about the need to focus on the “hits” in a hit driven business, rather than trying to make every game a hit.

The conversation turned to monetization. We noted that despite the early stage of the four companies, all of them were profitable. John Hwang said that an individual developer with a good game can make a great living off the ad networks. Mike Lazerow thought that “advergames” or sponsored custom games were going to become the standard ad unit for games. His company (Buddy Media) is trying to avoid the hit driven nature of the games business by building game skeletons that he can reskin for new sponsors. They have had great success, garnering a base of 24 blue chip brand advertisers so far, with each campaign averaging over $100k. Shervin said that SGN had been successful with both direct sales and with rich media ad networks, especially VideoEgg. Mark was most excited about the digital goods opportunities for Zynga. He noted that they had just launched their first game with digital goods baked into the game design, Ghost Racer, and with a base of just 30k daily active users, they were already seeing a run rate of over $20k/month in digital goods revenue. Shervin noted that while Warbook doesn’t have an explicit virtual goods model, Warbook gold had been showing up on Ebay and one player had made over $1,000 selling Warbook gold.

We next talked about how social games can grow. Viral growth has obviously been the key driver of growth up to this point for all the panelists. Shervin noted that they had seen a strong positive correlation between App Rating and rate of viral growth – high quality games spread faster. Mark talked about the importance of supporting a game with advertising, especially at launch. He said that many of the Zynga games had bought their early distribution so that they had a bigger base from which they could grow virally. However, as Facebook has clamped down on some of the viral channels, the panelists talked about other growth channels. SGN, Zynga and Buddy Media have all made acquisitions to help with their growth. SGN and Zynga both talked about the importance of having cross promotional and viral channels beyond the control of Facebook. They are interested in creating networks whereby apps can cross promote each other directly in canvas pages, and hence are not subject to changes that Facebook may make in the future. Both companies mentioned their respective game promotion networks as possible solutions to this problem.

If I missed elements of the discussion, readers please feel free to add them in comments. I wasn’t able to take notes since I was moderating, so this is relying on my imperfect memory! The video of the panel is also available here (scroll down a ways). UPDATE: Unfortunately the video seems to have been taken down.

Comments»

1. Nathan D - March 5, 2008

the link to the video appears to be broken…

2. Nitesh Mehta - March 5, 2008

Hi Jeremy. Your video link is not working. Can you double check the link and post the correct link? Thanks.

3. Chad Boyda - March 5, 2008

Thanks for the post Jeremy! The video link seems to be missing though.

4. Amy Jo Kim - March 6, 2008

Thanks for posting your notes – very interesting and thought-provoking.

5. Shervin Pishevar - March 6, 2008

Jeremy, great job on the panel. I had a lot of fun and enjoyed the dialogue.

Cheers,

Shervin

6. Roy Abraham - March 6, 2008

RE: “What differentiates a social game from other sorts of games”

Not any emotions, there needs to ultimately be positive emotions involved. Also facilitating indirect social interaction creates a stronger foundation. The success of Warbook has less to do with game play and more to do with the leverage of the social graph.

One of the dangers to social games however, is the introduction of anti-social elements, such as individuals creating multiple profiles or running scripts in order to automate game play. This severely reduces enjoyment and destroys the illusion of a social context.

RE: “Keeping high levels of engagement”

It is critical to being out fresh content before people get bored. However, there needs to be a transition process as well, as people get “attached” to their social game community.

Warbook is a great example, where some people have gotten bored of the game but still participate in the discussion forum.

RE: “Monetization”

You have to be careful with this one. Although it was amusing at first when people started selling Warbook gold (one player claims to have made $1700 in 2 months), it upsets the general Warbook community and it’s considered unsporting behavior. It is also evident that “gold sellers” have multiple Warbook (and thus fake Facebook) profiles, to maximize their earnings. This dilutes the quality of the game.

The current poll at The WarBook Times (http://warbooktimes.blogspot.com) indicates that most respondents would like to see an official ban of Warbook gold selling.

~ The Editor ~
The WarBook Times

7. Brian Thomas - March 6, 2008

regret, revenge? How is that social?

8. Social gaming is a tactic not a category « Lightspeed Venture Partners Blog - March 25, 2009

[…] marketing, virtual goods. trackback I’ve been blogging a lot about social games over the past couple of years and have been a big proponent of the space. However, over the last few months […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: