jump to navigation

Applying game design to building apps (and games!) October 28, 2008

Posted by jeremyliew in game design, game mechanics, product management, usability.
2 comments

Dan Cook has posted the slides of his recent talk, “The Rescuing Princess Application“:

My talk was on building an application that rescued princesses. The goal was to give interaction designers some insight into how game design might be applied to the domain of more utilitarian applications.

The notes fields are heavily annotated with more details about each visual. For those of you who attended, this deck also includes a third section on game design patterns that I didn’t have time to cover in the time allotted.

This is a terrific presentation for product managers and designers, as well as for people building web games. Read it – it will take you about 10 minutes

Also, check out Dan’s list of recommended reading:

Dan’s blog
Chemistry of Game Design
What activities can be turned into games?
A Theory of Fun, Raph Koster
Shufflebrain: Putting the Fun in Functional

Dan particularly recommends the Shufflebrain presentation. The Shufflebrain team recently launched Photograb*, their first game of their own, that applies many of their principles of game design. Check it out on Facebook.

* Lightspeed provided the seed round of financing for Shufflebrain.

IMVU founder’s framework for digital goods: three key questions October 20, 2008

Posted by jeremyliew in digital goods, game design, game mechanics, games, games 2.0, mmorpg, virtual goods, virtual worlds.
2 comments

Eric Reis, one of the co-founders of IMVU, posted last week on the three key decisions you have to make when thinking about virtual goods business models:

UGC or First Party content?

First Party – more control, but higher costs and harder to anticipate what users will want

UGC – Massive breadth of content, but have to put systems in place to deal with adult content and copyrighted content

Subscription or a la Carte payments?

Subscriptions – Greater game balance between rich and less rich players, lower fraud rates

A La Carte – Easier to monetize players without credit cards (e.g. teens)

Merchandising or Gameplay?

Gameplay – Virtual goods are functional, part of the core game mechanics, and confer benefit in the game. Demand is driven by game mechanics alone, and requires a delicate balance to ensure that players with money do not always beat players with time, skill and passion.

Merchandising – Virtual goods are not just functional, but also associated with self expression or attention in a noisy environment (see my previous post on the three use cases for virtual goods). This creates potential for greater demand for virtual goods, but requires the creation of a marketing and merchandising capability in the company.

Reis believes this framework can be used to describe any virtual goods business:

You can use these three questions to analyze existing businesses. For example, IMVU is a user-generated, a la carte, merchandising product. Habbo is first-party, a la carte, merchandising. Mob Wars is first-party, a la carte, gameplay. WoW is first-party, subscription, gameplay.

Read the whole thing.

Free to play game best practices are the same as game best practices, only moreso September 3, 2008

Posted by jeremyliew in digital goods, game design, game mechanics, games, games 2.0, gaming, virtual goods.
1 comment so far

It has often been said that good games are easy to learn and hard to master. At this years Penny Arcade Expo, Jamie Cheng (CEO of Klei Entertainment, who are the developers for Sugar Rush, Nexon’s first “built for built for North America” free to play title) notes that these principles are even more important for free to play games:

With a free-to-play game, a positive initial experience is crucial. Cheng recently played Jonathan Blow’s Braid, and very early in the game came upon a puzzle that was so frustrating he put the game down. His main motivation for returning and giving it another shot, after which he very much enjoyed it, was that he had already paid for the title.

Free-to-play games don’t have the luxury of player obligation, he says, because they haven’t made a concrete monetary investment. Games that don’t immediately grab players simply won’t be played.

For a similar reason, games need to have depth and complexity beyond their approachable entry point — after all, free-to-play games are only monetized if players keep playing them, as opposed to retail games, which are monetized as soon as the player buys them. “If nobody spends their time, we’re not going to make any money,” Cheng says.

By extension, a social experience is crucial in creating the word-of-mouth marketing that will allow the game to reach a long-term dedicated audience.

“For example, I’ve bought probably 40 additional tracks for Rock Band, as well as the N+ cooperative levels. I bought those not just so I can play by myself, but so I can play with my friends,” he says.

Longevity is also key: “We’re not trying to build a grindfest, we’re trying to build a game that grows and evolves with you,” Cheng explains.

Some social games such as Friends for Sale (a Lightspeed portfolio company) and (Lil) Green Patch take this to such an extent that many new players don’t even realize that they are playing a game, but think of the app as a lightweight communication tool. But over time thanks to smart application of game mechanics, a hardcore player base develops. Traditional and casual game designers should take note.

When can paying people become counterproductive? August 11, 2008

Posted by jeremyliew in business models, game design, game mechanics, games, mmorpg, social media, user generated content.
5 comments

I’ve posted in the past about how points can be used to drive user behavior.
Last week the Washington Post explored when play becomes work, and talked about some of the downsides of using rewards systems:

More than three decades ago, Edward Deci, a social and personality psychologist at the University of Rochester, found the first experimental evidence of a phenomenon with wide relevance to the way most Americans conduct their personal, professional and social lives.

Deci tracked a bunch of college students who were solving puzzles for fun. He divided them into two groups. One group was allowed to keep solving puzzles as before. People in the other were offered a small financial reward for each puzzle they solved.

The psychologist later evaluated the volunteers: He found that people given a financial incentive were now less interested in solving puzzles on their own time. Although these people had earlier been just as eager as those in the other group, offering an external incentive seemed to kill their internal drive.

The implication for social media and user generated content businesses is that creators create for love, not money, and that paying them with money may in fact be counterproductive. Instead, creators want adulation.

One interesting counterpoint might be the gold farmers inside World of Warcraft. When people play MMOGs for money, do they still play for fun? Anecdotally, it appears that they do. So when do rewards work and when are they counter productive?

But rewards and punishments are not always counterproductive, Benabou said. He drew a distinction between mundane tasks and those that carry meaning for people. In the first case, Benabou argued, rewards and punishments work exactly the way economists predict: They get people to do things.

External rewards and punishments are counterproductive when it comes to activities that are meaningful — tasks that telegraph something about a person’s intellectual abilities, generosity, courage or values. People will voluntarily perform intellectually arduous work, for example, because it gives them pleasure to solve a puzzle or win a game of wits.

“If I pay my kids to do their homework, I am saying, ‘You will get this if you do your homework,’ but I am also saying, ‘Homework is not likely to have intrinsic rewards,’ ” Benabou said. To the extent that a child is doing homework because he or she enjoys the challenge, or wants to demonstrate intelligence and diligence, the homework has meaning beyond the task itself, and Benabou predicts that offering a reward will backfire.

In most cases when it comes to user generated content, the creators do consider their work to be meaningful. So pay attention to how you pay them attention.

Why do kids and tweens buy virtual goods vs why do teens buy virtual goods? July 28, 2008

Posted by jeremyliew in game design, game mechanics, games, games 2.0, gaming, kids, teens, virtual goods, virtual worlds.
3 comments

A recent post on KZero, asks, “Will luxury brands drive the growth of virtual goods?”:

… tweens and teens (KT&T) will play a big part in the growth. This group has ‘less of an issue’ paying real money for virtual goods – their decision-making process does not take into account its a virtual good – they just want the product and see technology as invisible.

So worlds targeting KT&T (kids, tweens, teens) clearly have a major opportunity to create strong revenues here, as long as the products are right. But which types of product are right?

Obviously the ones that are demanded are the right sorts of products. But what is this demand? Certainly in the younger worlds and to a certain degree in older worlds, some virtual goods are viewed as status symbols – a ‘badge’ that sends out a message that the owner (wearer) has something unique / purchased / earned, that others do not have. And in this context, there’s a lot of perceived value associated with the item.

Izzy Neis though thinks that the kids and tweens are motivated quite differently than teens:

Kids/Tweens have less “ownership” and responsibility and ABILITY than teens do. For tweens the status is more broad than teens – who care less about the meaning & depth of an item and more about what “luxury” means to them.

Tweens/Kids seem much happier to own the item itself, as well as show it off and play with it. They remind me more of Dragons & Treasure. As in many tales of lore (oh, how I love the folksy stuff), Dragons want want want, then horde it all. It’s as much of a self-congratulations in ownership as it is a play thing or show-n-tell.

Teens are more “look at me, look at me” (to quote Kat in “Ten Things I Hate About You”). The name of the item and the social-style-competition is much bigger a pay off than the actual day-to-day use or “play time”.

In the virtual worlds, from what I’ve seen, kids are just as psyched to EARN/PURCHASE as they are own – and just like kids playing with their clutter in real life, kids yearn to earn all sorts of silliness that moms & dads won’t buy them in the real world. Empowerment.

And in the teen worlds – it’s the display of the purchase and how it makes others around react that shows the “BIG” payoff.

This dichotomy seems like an important distinction to people building social media sites and virtual worlds.

Kids who are collecting virtual goods for the love of ownership (perhaps enjoying the control that they do not have to buy things in the real world) need less of a social experience to justify their purchases. THis is good news because (i) creating a social environment implies communication between members, which is more fraught with risk when it comes to kids and (ii) if kids enjoy “soloing” the demand for virtual goods can start earlier in the lifecycle of the company. But ownership for it’s own sake can get boring when you own enough stuff, so there may be a more well defined limit on how long any virtual world can hold a kids attention.

Teens (and adults), who more focused on how others react to their virtual goods than in the ownership of the goods themselves, require a social environment to justify and validate their purchases. Ownership is a performance, one of the three ways that social networks are different from other forms of online communication. This social environment takes longer to develop, and hence demand for virtual goods can be delayed versus a more “soloing” environment. But the flipside is that as the social environment changes and evolves, you can maintain an ongoing demand for virtual goods to stay current with the environment, just as the fashion industry does in the offline world.

I’d be interested to hear from readers if they agree with this dichotomy.

How to design a reputation system for your social media site or social game June 30, 2008

Posted by jeremyliew in game design, game mechanics, reputation, social games, social gaming, social media.
7 comments

Bokardo has an interesting interview with Bryce Glass of Yahoo, about Yahoo’s social design pattern for reputation. Building reputation systems can really help drive high quality engagement on a social media site, but is also fraught with danger and unintended consequences if not done thoughtfully:

What are the biggest hurdles in designing for reputation?

I think it’s probably the number and variety of unintended consequences that little design decisions can have further down the line. I’m fond of the article—so I cite it a lot—but Ben Brown, who founded the dating site Consumating, has a great blog-post about the ‘ill-fated points system’ that they used for that site, and the variety of… um… less-than-ideal behaviors that those incentives gave rise to. Early on, Slashdot struggled with many of these same issues, and they’ve re-jiggered their comment karma system several times through the years.

A big hurdle—and if you can solve this, you’re halfway there to having a well-designed and effective reputation system—is appropriately marrying the incentives that you offer your users to the appropriate set of goals that you have for your community. You want to be sure that you’re rewarding folks for behaving like good citizens, and not just rewarding them for no good reason. (Or for vague and misguided reasons like “to keep them engaged” or “so we can have a leaderboard.”)

Earlier this year, Glass gave a presentation on designing your reputation system at the IA summit outlining eleven different reputation systems:

    > Named Levels
    > Numbered Levels
    > Identifying Labels
    > Points
    > Collectible Achievements
    > Leaderboard
    > Top X
    > Temporal Awards
    > Statistical Evidence
    > Peer Testimonials
    > User to User Awards

and how to select between them depending on questions including:

    > What are your business goals? [Engagement? Promote a specific feature? Acknowledge top contributors? Increase content quality? User Retention?]
    > What community spirit do you want to encourage? [Caring? Collaborative? Cordial? Competitive? Combative?] More detail on the competitive spectrum in Yahoo’s Design Pattern Library.
    > What motivates your community members?
    > Which entities will accrue reputation? [People? Things? Collections of Things?]
    > Which inputs will you pay attention to?
    > How transparent should the rules be? [More transparency is more likely to affect behavior]

He also notes that reputations should always decay over time to prevent a log jam at the top that can discourage new members and make a community appear stagnant.

Yahoo has done a nice job of categorizing some of the various reputation systems available to social architects and how to think through choosing one. I would highly recommend reading the interview and presentation and reviewing the material in the design library.

The elements of Crafting as a game mechanic June 23, 2008

Posted by jeremyliew in game design, game mechanics, games, games 2.0, gaming, virtual goods.
add a comment

Psycochild posted on crafting from a game designers point of view last week.

He notes:

Crafting is typically broken down into the following steps:

1. Learn a recipe.
2. Collect resources.
3. Create the item.
4. Sell (or use) the item.
5. Longer term: Advance your skill

He notes the game design goals of each step:

Learn a recipe: Create achievements, appeal to socializers
Collect resources: Create demand for resources that give goals to players
Create the item: Provide inflows into the game economy
Sell (or use) the item: Create economy game
Advance your skill: Give players incentive to advance

For game designers, it is worth reading the whole thing.

How casual MMOs benefit from hardcore players June 18, 2008

Posted by jeremyliew in game design, game mechanics, games, games 2.0, gaming, social games, social gaming.
2 comments

One of the take aways of the social gaming summit last week was that even casual MMOGs need to focus on their hardcore players as that is their source of paying players. David Perry of Acclaim noted in one panel that the players of Dance Online monetize far better than the players of “traditional” MMOGs that Acclaim operates:

As for who’s paying, Perry (Acclaim) expected most microtransactions to come from hardcore MMORPG playerskitting out the avatars with fancy armor and such. Instead, it comes from Dance. The game is a simple dancing activity, but because users spend so much time looking at their avatars, the appearance and identity becomes even more important.

Corroborating evidence comes from this great multipage review of Audition on the Escapist. Audition is a free to play dance themed game, published by Nexon in the US.

Audition isn’t a casual game, despite the presence of numerous casual markers: short play times, transparent rules, continuous save-free play, an item-based advertising model. Although the rules can be learned in minutes, mastery requires about a month of semi-serious dedication; “pro”-level skills take significantly longer. And, like a standard fantasy-based MMO, if you drop out of regular play, you’ll return to find that all of your friends are 10 levels ahead of you and worlds ahead in ability. Your reflexes can atrophy as quickly as embouchure for a musical instrument.

When you find the beat, however, the feeling is incredible. Your keyboard becomes an instrument through which you “play” a pounding, intense rock song. When you claim the highest score, you slide into the lead dancer position, supported by the other players worshiping at the altar of your groove. Whether you’re playing backup or lead, Audition reaches deep down into the shared performance experience that has driven homo sapiens to make music and dance since the birth of the species. Beat Up, performed well, closely replicates a creative “flow” state that is almost nirvana – if you release thought and embrace the physical pulse of the music, you’re carried along in a fast and furious musical flow that you share with your fellow performers. The game’s mechanics encourage this mindset with visual cues and flourishes that reward a steady, flawless performance; you achieve “beat up” status by sustaining 100+ perfect “moves.” Once I’d tasted a little Beat Up success, there was no going back.

I am a big fan of causal MMOs branching out beyond the fantasy, FPS and sci fi themes towards genres that have potential for much broader, mass market appeal. As I’ve noted before, there is increasing evidence that women drive viral growth more than men do, so if you want to see viral growth in games, it makes sense to make games that will appeal broadly to “non gamers”. Games like Popomundo, Parking Wars and Friends For Sale all do this well. (Friends for Sale is a Lightspeed portfolio company)

Another important lesson to take away from the review is that real world context can have an impact on gameplay:

When I first started playing, I was convinced these high-level hot stepper kids had something I fundamentally didn’t. This is partially true: They did have something I didn’t, and not just endless patience or time to spare – they knew the songs.

This actually makes a significant difference in your performance. Hardcore Audition players identify desirable songs by their speed and difficulty, but a significant number of the game’s “mainstream” players actively seek music that they already listen to outside the game. (And it works both ways; players have reported purchasing music they first heard in Audition.)

…Once I started playing Audition, however, a new aural landscape opened up before me. Rather than semi-sullenly tuning out environmental music at the mall, I started to recognize bands and individual songs. And because I associated them with the feelings of accomplishment and socialization I absorbed in Audition, I actually enjoyed hearing them. Whereas I had actively disliked – to put it mildly – the repetitive beat and high-pitched vocals in Avril Lavigne’s “Girlfriend,” after mastering it in Audition I found myself tapping along with it on the radio. Audition is, among other things, an as-yet unmatched music marketing engine.

I think we’ll see more of both of these trends as social gaming continues to evolve. I’d love to hear examples from readers of games that are leading these trends.

Notes, video and commentary on the Social Gaming Summit June 16, 2008

Posted by jeremyliew in asynchronous gaming, business models, casual games, game design, game mechanics, games, games 2.0, gaming, mmorpg, social games, social gaming, user generated content, virtual goods, virtual worlds.
8 comments

The Social Gaming Summit was quite a success on Friday. Over 400 attendees seemed to enjoy the sessions based on the high proportion of people in sessions (vs in the lobby) and the fact that even the last session, that ended at 6pm on Friday evening, was very well attended.

The attendee list was a good mix of game developers and publishers, with people coming from both the gaming side and the social media side. Most of the attendees with gaming backgrounds came from casual gaming, web based gaming or MMOG backgrounds. With the notable exception of EA, there were few representatives from the giants of the console space.

Although each of the topics covered different topics, it was clear that monetization was top-of-mind for all panelists as the discussion on most panels eventually turned to this issue.

I (Jeremy Liew) moderated the first session, on What Makes Games Fun, featuring game design thought leaders Amy Jo Kim, Nicole Lazarro and Ian Bogost, plus John Welch of Playfirst, the company behind one of the most popular casual game ever, Diner Dash.

The discussion was wide ranging and covered Nicole’s framework for generating emotion in games and the four types of fun and Amy Jo Kim’s five game mechanics.

There was excellent discussion about how fun, addictiveness and business models can either collide or work together, with in depth discussion of two games in particular, Pack Rat and Parking Wars.

Pack Rat was lauded as an example of a game that did a masterful job of creating addictiveness through game mechanics, and a game that had a natural digital goods/service business model baked into it. But some panelists questioned whether the “grind” without real “payoffs” at different levels could burn players out. In contrast, Diner Dash had real changes in game dynamic and strategy as players level up (e.g. when Flo gets the coffee maker at level 4, it changes the winning strategy) that made leveling up more meangingful and rewarding.

Parking Wars was pointed to as a highly social game with a genre matching to the mass market that let players “play slight variations of themselves” where they could explore slightly nefarious behavior in a safe environment. But “winning” in Parking Wars forced activity to the edges of the social network, instead of to the core, so the “points” game mechanic ended up working against the “fun”.

UPDATE: Virtual worlds has an excellent writeup of the What Makes Games Fun panel.

The second session was focused on Casual MMOs and Immersive Worlds, with Joey Seiler from Virtual World News moderating representatives NeoPets, Nexon, K2 Networks and Gaia.

One of the key questions was how to get free to play users to open their wallet. Gamasutra covered this panel in detail and noted:

Added Kim (Nexon): “A lot of people think they can make money off of casual games where people play a couple of hours a week. I don’t believe that. When people get engaged with the social experience then they’ll buy items. You need to understand the psychology.”

Reppen (Neopets) continued: “For us, it’s all about a sense of ownership that our audience has. There’s a real sense that it’s their game… The identity component to virtual worlds is so important, but there’s so many other things going on in the meta games around earning points, acquiring wealth, shopping and customizing and creating your own experiences… It’s part of a mix.”

In other words, even for casual MMOGs, you monetize the hardcore players who tie their identity into the game. Erik Bethke (GoPetsLive) said the same thing at this years GDC previously in explaining why he applies game dynamics to make virtual worlds more addictive.

UPDATE: Massively writes up the panel in Q&A style.

After lunch Andrew Chung from Lightspeed moderated a panel on Asynchronous Games on Social Networks with the CEOs of the companies behind many of the top games on Facebook, including Friends for Sale, Zombies, Vampires, Warbook, JetMan and (fluff)Friends.

Inside Social games
took live notes from the panel. One interesting counterpoint in response to the question, “How do you move people down the spectrum to make them more engaged and hard core?”:

Blake (Zombies, Vampires etc)- There is always going to be some subset of your userbase that’s never going to play more than their 30 minute lunch break, because that’s all the time they have. Don’t inundate users with too much experience at the beginning, gamers hate to read, I’ve never read a game manual in my life.

Siqi (Friends For Sale)- I think there’s a lot to learn from traditional MMO design, things like levels. If you get to the next level, you get this new shiny thing. It makes the game more complicated, but it works. Our hardest core users use more synchronous features.

Shervin (Warbook, Jetman, etc) – The first generation of social games were incredibly simplistic, and the platform was so viral, that it was a lot easier for apps to grow. But it behooves all of us to invest in content. I’m staying up late at night building social games 2.0, games with richer content, deeper stories, much better user experiences. It’s going to become harder for independent developers. I can’t talk about the games we’re working on, but you can look at Playfish. Their engagement levels are high and they’re growing faster than those that have come before.

In other words, games need to be easy to learn, but hard to master.

Next up was Dean Takahashi of VentureBeat moderating a panel on User Generated Games in Social Networks and Virtual Worlds. The speakers were from IMVU, Dogster, Three Rings (Puzzle Pirates, Whirled and Bang Howdy) and Habbo.

Virtual Worlds News has coverage of the panel and noted that:

In IMVU, said Rosenzweig, creators “do what they do because it’s cool, but they like making credits” by selling the items in world. That can then be cashed out through IMVU, which leads to 90% of its revenue, taking a cut while transfering IMVU credits to real world dollars. That user attitude is true of Dogster and Catster as well–users don’t get a cut of the money generated by creating games around their items and boosting activity. They just enjoy creating and sharing.

In other words, social game players generate content for love, not for money. But if there is money there to be had, they don’t mind taking some of that too! Last month Chris Alden noted the same experience in the blog economy.

UPDATE: Worlds in Motion also has a writeup of this panel

After a short break for cookies, the attendees reconvened to hear Brandon Sheffield of Gamasutra moderate a panel about Building Communities and Social Interaction In and Around Games, featuring the leaders of Kongregate, Zynga and Addicting Games, along with noted social architect and game designer Amy Jo Kim.

The discussion centered on the desire that many users had to communicate with each other, and how games often served as an easy way to break the ice and provide topics that made it easy to start a conversation. I haven’t found any coverage of this panel online unfortunately.

The final session of the day was focused on Monetization and Business Models for Social Games. My partner Ravi Mhatre moderated the panelists, including the leaders of Mochi Media, Sparkplay Media, Stardoll and Acclaim. This was a fantastic panel. Virtual Worlds News has great coverage.

Although most of the discussion was focused on the four models of advertising, subscription, digital goods and retail, David Perry noted that there are by his count 29 business models for games.

On the mix between advertising and virtual goods, the panel mostly agreed that virtual goods was the primary revenue stream but that advertising was an important secondary stream:

“Microtransactions and advertising go perfectly togetehr,” said Miksche. “Microtransactions drive our business, but we will never have 100% of our users wanting to pay for that. Advertising is a good way to monetize that remaining X percent.”

There was some good discussion about the tension between game balance and letting players buy powerful items in the games. Several panelists noted that self expression was a key driver of virtual goods sales:

As for who’s paying, Perry (Acclaim) expected most microtransactions to come from hardcore MMORPG playerskitting out the avatars with fancy armor and such. Instead, it comes from Dance. The game is a simple dancing activity, but because users spend so much time looking at their avatars, the appearance and identity becomes even more important.

That works well for Stardoll, a fashion-themed site, especially with trends that match the real world…

“We’re One-Click Dressing,” said Miksche (Stardolls). “You come to the site and instantly start dressing. For our users, young girls, that’s very important–instant gratification.”

For those who couldn’t attend, UStream.tv hosts video from the social gaming summit.

Andrew Chen’s blog also has his takeaways from the social gaming summit.

I’ve pulled together all the coverage I could find, but if there were additional posts, please let me know in comments.

Great agenda for the Social Gaming Summit on Friday June 12, 2008

Posted by jeremyliew in conferences, digital goods, game design, game mechanics, games, games 2.0, gaming, social games, social gaming, virtual goods, virtual worlds.
9 comments

I’m very excited about the Social Gaming Summit on Friday that I’m co-producing. The program looks fantastic:

10:00am What Makes Games Fun?
» Erik Bethke – CEO, GoPets
» Dr. Ian Bogost – Founding Partner, Persuasive Games
» Nicole Lazzaro – President, XEODesign, Inc.
» John Welch – Co-Founder, President & CEO, PlayFirst (Diner Dash)
» Me (Moderator)

11:00am Casual MMOs and Immersive Worlds
» Daniel James – CEO, Three Rings (Puzzle Pirates)
» Kyra Reppen – SVP and GM, NeoPets
» Min Kim – Vice President of Marketing, Nexon America
» Patrick Ford, VP Marketing and Community Development, K2 Networks
» Joey Seiler – Editor, Virtual Worlds News (Moderator)

1:30pm Asynchronous Games on Social Networks
» Siqi Chen – Founder, Serious Business (Friends for Sale)
» Blake Commagere – Founder and VP Engineering, Mogad (Monsters apps – Zombies, Vampires etc)
» Shervin Pishevar – CEO, Social Gaming Network
» Mike Sego – Developer, (fluff)Friends
» Andrew Chung – Principal, Lightspeed Venture Partners

2:30pm User Generated Games in Social Networks and Virtual Worlds

» Jeremy Monroe – Director of Business Development, Sports & Entertainment, North America, Sulake Inc. (Habbo Hotel)
» Ted Rheingold – Founder, Dogster and Catster
» Cary Rosenzweig – President and CEO, IMVU
» Craig Sherman – CEO, Gaia Online
» Dean Takahashi – Writer, Venture Beat (Moderator)

4:00pm Building Communities and Social Interaction In and Around Games
» Jim Greer – CEO, Kongregate
» Amy Jo Kim – CEO, Shufflebrain
» Mark Pincus – Founder and CEO, Zynga Game Network
» Dave Williams – SVP, Shockwave, AddictingGames
» Brandon Sheffield – Writer, Gamasutra (Moderator)

5:00pm Monetization and Business Models for Social Games

» Jameson Hsu – Co-Founder and CEO, Mochi Media
» Matt Mihaly – CEO and Creative Director, Sparkplay Media
» Mattias Miksche – CEO, Stardoll
» David Perry – CCO, Acclaim
» Ravi Mhatre – Managing Director, Lightspeed Venture Partners (Moderator)

Attendence is limited to 400 and it looks like it is going to be a full house. Hope to see some readers there!