Zynga shuts down FarmVille after 11 years(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Zynga shuts down FarmVille after 11 years
https://twitter.com/markpinc/status/1344742333443493889
186 コメント
Remember wandering up to the Zynga booth at LeWeb years ago - perhaps 2010 - and asking them if employees at Zynga ever wondered if what the were doing might be evil or if the games were actually any good. It was unfair as the booth was actually manned by people from Dextrose AG who Zynga had just bought.
To cap it off I made them watch this FarmVille parody which they were awkwardly amused by https://youtu.be/odBDAcOEKuI
In retrospect I was being a righteous prick but I couldn’t stand Zynga - their games or their addiction based business model.
To cap it off I made them watch this FarmVille parody which they were awkwardly amused by https://youtu.be/odBDAcOEKuI
In retrospect I was being a righteous prick but I couldn’t stand Zynga - their games or their addiction based business model.
I did something similar to a Google employee once at a conference. Sorry to that person, I was also a righteous prick. Definitely not the right way to go about it.
Don't be too hard on yourself. Given that these companies are structured to keep criticism from reaching the people profiting from the bad decisions, there aren't a lot of good options. Giving an earful to somebody paid to be their buffer isn't great, but neither is just accepting the awfulness.
Not sure why the parent comment to this is downvoted - orgs use layers to shield management the world over.
I think making people uncomfortable can be good for them, I am a xoogler and I share my shame with them.
I actually had coffee with one guy who started and was acquired along with Farmville by Zynga. Can't remember his name, but I do remember I considered how useful a time machine would have been to go back to stop them from stealing so much of so many people's lives.
I see the heavy influence from Powerthirst in that video.
I also did something kinda similar at a conference years ago. The Microsoft stand were proudly demoing a new security feature of the latest Windows (Vista?). Their demo basically boiled down to: no one reads the security warning dialog boxes when opening an application, so we added another dialog box.
I pointed out the obvious flaw in this (won’t they just not read the second dialog either?). They looked a little peeved and said they’d take my comment back to Redmond.
I still feel a bit bad about that, they we ok people and it wasn’t their fault.
I pointed out the obvious flaw in this (won’t they just not read the second dialog either?). They looked a little peeved and said they’d take my comment back to Redmond.
I still feel a bit bad about that, they we ok people and it wasn’t their fault.
lol that’s actually a great point though, valid criticism should be celebrated.
Isn't Farmville a rip off of Harvest Moon? I assume any Chinese mobile game they ripped off was itself a rip off from Natsume's Super Nintendo game.
Farmville and Harvest Moon share a theme and maybe even an aesthetic but are in different genres. Harvest Moon is a single player sim game. Farmville is an async multiplayer invest/express. Zynga popularized the genre.
The closest "rip off" to Harvest Moon would be Stardew Valley, but no one ever refers to it that way because rip off is not a useful term for conveying taxonomy. Rip off is only useful for displaying derision towards genres the writer doesn't enjoy.
The closest "rip off" to Harvest Moon would be Stardew Valley, but no one ever refers to it that way because rip off is not a useful term for conveying taxonomy. Rip off is only useful for displaying derision towards genres the writer doesn't enjoy.
I remember Farmville best as the answer to the quiz question, close to the height of its popularity:
"What's the second most popular farming simulator game on Facebook?"
"What's the second most popular farming simulator game on Facebook?"
These articles exist to rewrite history for the winners. Total bs.
It's all about monitization bro.
A family member of mine got horribly addicted to FarmVille back in like 2008-2009. He would sneak off from the family to go upstairs to grab something and then we would find him there three hours later playing. He built up a huge farm and since it had the mechanic for visiting nearby farms became quite famous. Then one of his daughters, who was a freshman in college at the time, came home with a few of her friends. The family member mentioned FarmVille at one point and all these teenagers went “omg you are [his game name]?!?!?!” He quite literally became an in game celebrity for a time apparently. He quit a few months later and never went back.
Sometimes when I see people showing off these vast and intricate minecraft structures, Sims games, animal crossing towns, etc I wonder what social toll it took to get there. There's a lot of applauding people throwing healthier aspects of their lives away for game addiction on places like reddit or facebook. The story of the addict ignoring his kids, jobs, health, etc almost never gets out. It did briefly for WoW when "warcraft wives" made a fuss, but that died out, I imagine who no small PR effort from Blizzard, and now game addiction is rarely talked about, which is odd, considering so many mobile games are pretty much casinos.
This narrative also applies to software. I often look at OSS projects and wonder the same.
This applies really to anything you're passionate about.
This applies really to anything you're passionate about.
Don't forget about Factorio !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY2nxVNBHQs
The most famous meme being probably :
https://i.imgur.com/FxRUB2A.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY2nxVNBHQs
The most famous meme being probably :
https://i.imgur.com/FxRUB2A.png
FarmVille launched June 2009, so it probably wasn’t 2008 :) But yeah, video game addiction is a real thing, I know lots of people who’ve been addicted to all sorts of games, to the detriment of their lives overall.
Absolutely. This happened to a friend from university. He started off with "ogame". A web based space sim. Initially it was ok and we even went to play it with him (entirely free to play) in our clique. Given we were studying comp sci it also wasn't surprising that he programmed himself some helpers for ratios, targeting of other players etc. Shortly after he started Eve Online. Same thing just with an actual nice 3d space sim around it. He'd optimize the hell out of everything including setting his alarm clock for 3am because his character would finish a skill at that time so that he wouldn't waste 3 hours until normal wakeup time. Shortly after he stopped going to uni with us, which worked for a while until he also no longer found time to study on his own and his sleep cycle was completely dominated by the game. I think he never finished uni and I'm not sure what became of him. Other than probably being really well off inside of Eve.
So sad.
So sad.
Yeah, I have a friend who got similarly addicted to WoW during undergrad, and dropped out.
I also have a friend who dropped out of high school for games, but it worked out! He became a fairly high end professional Counter-Strike player, moved to South Korea for awhile. Then when the CS professional scene stopped being as lucrative, online poker was taking off, he moved to online poker, and did VERY well financially off of that: https://www.sk-gaming.com/content/1844754-shaguar-to-run-cs-...
When he dropped out of high school to play CS, his parents were obviously very worried, but he treated it like a job and did really well.
I also have a friend who dropped out of high school for games, but it worked out! He became a fairly high end professional Counter-Strike player, moved to South Korea for awhile. Then when the CS professional scene stopped being as lucrative, online poker was taking off, he moved to online poker, and did VERY well financially off of that: https://www.sk-gaming.com/content/1844754-shaguar-to-run-cs-...
When he dropped out of high school to play CS, his parents were obviously very worried, but he treated it like a job and did really well.
I know a lot of people like this. Many are cryptocurrency miners or traders now, and are doing okay.
Game mechanics gonna game mechanic, I guess. :)
Game mechanics gonna game mechanic, I guess. :)
My favorite story: growing up, I was really good friends with this girl who's Mom was an Everquest dev (like, the first one.)
Post-launch, she became so addicted to her own game, she had to quit her job and lived in a small apt, forgoing clothes and only eaing the easiest of food.
At the time it was funny...
Post-launch, she became so addicted to her own game, she had to quit her job and lived in a small apt, forgoing clothes and only eaing the easiest of food.
At the time it was funny...
So what ended up happening to her?
Last I saw her, she had transitioned to WoW and was scraping by running conventions. I wish I remembered her last name, I'm curious what her daughter made of herself.
Was her name Pygmalion?
Yup you are right. He got in right at the start.
Total tangent, but Malcolm Gladwell has two really excellent podcast episodes about memory (Revisionist History, season 3, episodes 3 and 4: http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/23-a-polite-word-for-...). Basically, it’s WAY less accurate than we think, and the least accurate part is everything about time - when things happened, and even the order than they happened in. Worth a listen if you have some time to kill.
I do not understand the legal consequences of this. There were whales that paid thousands to have items in the game - those just vanish?
Edit: These whales took the game seriously. "Meet you at the office to discuss something" serious. I expect a class action very quickly. Disclosure: worked at zynga.
Edit: These whales took the game seriously. "Meet you at the office to discuss something" serious. I expect a class action very quickly. Disclosure: worked at zynga.
> There were whales that paid thousands to have items in the game - those just vanish?
Yup.
> These whales took the game seriously. "Meet you at the office to discuss something" serious. I expect a class action very quickly.
Very sure the terms of sale for those items made them contingent on the continuation of the service, which was expressly in Zynga’s discretion. Selling added privileges related to another service that only survive as long as the base service is offered is fairly routine; there's nothing novel happening here, even prior to online games with premium items (of which this is not the first to shut down, anyhow.)
Yup.
> These whales took the game seriously. "Meet you at the office to discuss something" serious. I expect a class action very quickly.
Very sure the terms of sale for those items made them contingent on the continuation of the service, which was expressly in Zynga’s discretion. Selling added privileges related to another service that only survive as long as the base service is offered is fairly routine; there's nothing novel happening here, even prior to online games with premium items (of which this is not the first to shut down, anyhow.)
this is, in a nutshell, why I never "buy' ebooks.
Plenty of vendors sell DRM-free ebooks in widely-supported formats (PDF, ePub); most, IME, publishers that sell directly do, it's the separate big stores that tend to have DRM-infested content.
Actually, many of publishers selling directly not only sell DRM free, but you get a variety of formats when you purchase, rather than purchasing separately by format.
Actually, many of publishers selling directly not only sell DRM free, but you get a variety of formats when you purchase, rather than purchasing separately by format.
Yeah, movies and tv shows are much harder to (legally) find DRM-free…
Just buy it and strip the DRM from it. Philosophical arguments aside, the publisher/author got their money, you get a book you own which is what you wanted. Assuming you aren't then hosting it somewhere where everyone can download it for free nobody is harmed and there is no reason not to do this.
[deleted]
I generally avoid them for reference books, but for novels since I very rarely re-read them. I'm willing to make the trade-off for convenience and (sometimes) lower prices, but I go into it eyes open knowing the risks.
I do worry about things like Steam though, which unless the game is available DRM-free from GOG, may be the only place you can buy the game-- or at least no different in terms of DRM lock in and risk of the platform shutting down than other platforms like Epic or Origin etc.
I do worry about things like Steam though, which unless the game is available DRM-free from GOG, may be the only place you can buy the game-- or at least no different in terms of DRM lock in and risk of the platform shutting down than other platforms like Epic or Origin etc.
This is entirely dependent on whether the ebooks are DRM Free or not.
I prefer audiobooks, but I have a large collection of them which which will be mine forever, no matter what any retailers decide.
I prefer audiobooks, but I have a large collection of them which which will be mine forever, no matter what any retailers decide.
It's worth stripping DRM off your Kindle books if you have a large library. Pretty easy too!
Where do you buy them from>?
Downpour.com, Libro.fm, and Audiobooksnow.com are my go-to's (the last of these has a tiny handful of DRM'd titles, so check for a "Downloadable" symbol). Each of these has subscription memberships which you should take advantage of; you can cancel at any time, so I usually subscribe, buy, and cancel all at once when I want a book.
Google Play audiobooks are also DRM-Free, but tend to be more expensive.
I do also occasionally buy from Audible, when a book isn't available anywhere else. You can strip the DRM with ffmpeg once you know the key for your account. But most audiobooks can be had natively DRM-Free if you shop around a bit.
Google Play audiobooks are also DRM-Free, but tend to be more expensive.
I do also occasionally buy from Audible, when a book isn't available anywhere else. You can strip the DRM with ffmpeg once you know the key for your account. But most audiobooks can be had natively DRM-Free if you shop around a bit.
They are good if they are in plain pdf format though.
No, unless you plan to print them out, PDF is atrocious for ebooks.
I tend to favor ebooks for things that I know have a shorter shelf life. Especially technology stuff. There are books I may read again in 10 or 20 years, but technology books are outdated within a couple of years at most. It seems wasteful to get them on paper.
Depends how you look at it. O'reilly sub is a good value even if it's 'rental' only. If only one could read/access them on kindle.. but that's another, yet related topic.
I didn't mind renting videos and I don't mind "renting" ebooks for an indiscriminate amount of time. The convenience is worth it, having to store every book you purchase comes with costs too.
I'd be more worried about this if I ever reread books.
Unless they come DRM free and downloadable outside the service, I consider them "rentals"
But for those that are, Calibre keeps those nicely organized.
But for those that are, Calibre keeps those nicely organized.
Yeah agreed. Never purchase those that needs a reader or something. Of course there are programs to extract the pdf files but it's always a bit too much for me. ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY CHARGE ALMOST THE SAME AS A REAL BOOK.
Why not? When you buy ebooks you can download the PDF and even print it for yourself as backup.
That depends very much on where you buy your ebooks.
Oh. Why not offer non DRM formats to begin with because I am paying equal to or more than the paperback price of a book and not some bullshit license and shit. OP is saying he/she refuses to accept the whole renting/licensing shenanigans in ebooks. If Apple can sell you a non DRM mp3 for $.99 a pop, why the fuck does it need DRM for an eBook. ?
Your only option is to either buy a paperback or pirate and downloading on kindle and then finding a PDF and then printing it should not happen to a paying customer.
Your only option is to either buy a paperback or pirate and downloading on kindle and then finding a PDF and then printing it should not happen to a paying customer.
DRM is often the choice of the publisher, not the retailer. (Amazon makes it very difficult to get a DRM-free version though, even when the publisher has authorized it)
I figured someone in this thread should look at the terms of service. It says that Zynga owns the items and you're allowed to use them while the service is offered (5). It also says that their maximum liability is the amount you paid in the past 180 days (14). They make no promises or guarantees that the service will always be available and may withdraw services for business or operational needs (13).
Specifically, it says "you do not own any Virtual Items that you obtained through our Services, regardless of whether you “earned” those Virtual Items or “purchased” them. Your Account and any related Virtual Items are owned by Zynga. Zynga gives you a limited license and right to use your Account and the related Virtual Items while we offer the Services."
https://www.zynga.com/legal/terms-of-service
Specifically, it says "you do not own any Virtual Items that you obtained through our Services, regardless of whether you “earned” those Virtual Items or “purchased” them. Your Account and any related Virtual Items are owned by Zynga. Zynga gives you a limited license and right to use your Account and the related Virtual Items while we offer the Services."
https://www.zynga.com/legal/terms-of-service
Good find. I think it's worth comparing with the Edison Phonographic Cylinder EULA: https://maisonbisson.com/post/edison-phonograph-eula/
In spirit, it's similar: "We sold you a thing, but it's not really yours." Eventually, that changed, presumably because people resented not actually owning the things that they reasonably believe they owned.
It'll be interesting to see how this evolves. This is clearly different, in that "purchased" items only really exist on the Zynga servers; the burdens fall differently. But in the coming decades I wouldn't be surprised to see some consumer protection laws around virtual purchases.
In spirit, it's similar: "We sold you a thing, but it's not really yours." Eventually, that changed, presumably because people resented not actually owning the things that they reasonably believe they owned.
It'll be interesting to see how this evolves. This is clearly different, in that "purchased" items only really exist on the Zynga servers; the burdens fall differently. But in the coming decades I wouldn't be surprised to see some consumer protection laws around virtual purchases.
The question is who would they sue. I mean, the process seems to've been roughly
- Apple decided not to support Flash on mobile
- Everybody else decided to try and deprecate Flash as a browser plugin
- Adobe EOLed Flash
- Facebook EOLed support for Flash games
- Zynga EOLed FarmVille
"Whose fault this actually is" seems tricky enough to determine morally, let alone legally.
- Apple decided not to support Flash on mobile
- Everybody else decided to try and deprecate Flash as a browser plugin
- Adobe EOLed Flash
- Facebook EOLed support for Flash games
- Zynga EOLed FarmVille
"Whose fault this actually is" seems tricky enough to determine morally, let alone legally.
Theres been games that have ported over multiple platforms. Take for example Habbo Hotel. Started off with Shockwave, then before that EOL’d they rewrote it in Flash, and now they are working on a Unity web assembly based rewrite. I think the reality is FarmVille isn't as popular as it once was. I haven’t heard of anybody playing it in years. Funny how games got people to be far more active on Facebook but their usage died down significantly over time. With how addictive those games were for some its probably for the best.
Also Habbo Hotel is like one three applications the company has to support, so porting it to new platforms is reasonable.
Zynga has a dozen high-performing games currently running, the original Farmville isn't one of those.
Zynga has a dozen high-performing games currently running, the original Farmville isn't one of those.
You are probably right although its parent company does own several other companies as well.
It is interesting since it is not pure EOL. I mean, if Microsoft discontinues support for Windows it does not force you to uninstall it. And with Flash it is exactly the case. Each other day it prompts me to uninstall it even while I didn't ask for any of such support.
It seems like Adobe gave itself permission to control what is on my computer. But does it really have authority to do so?
It seems like Adobe gave itself permission to control what is on my computer. But does it really have authority to do so?
Actually, all Adobe-provided flash distributions will refuse to run past a certain date. You’ll have to go back a few versions to find one compiled without the kill switch. To use it, you’ll literally have to run it in a VM on an outdated OS with the system time set back a few years.
or just patch the check out?
I'm surprised someone hasn't done that already?
I'm surprised someone hasn't done that already?
What about the standalone flash version, "projector"?
Thanks, I didn't know that. Seems like Adobe took enormous effort to kill all software written with Flash. While I understand some security concerns I can not stop thinking it is just another way to cripple the web. Obviously propertiary app platforms gain a lots with this move.
How do proprietary platforms gain a lot with Adobe killing Flash? Flash itself was proprietary. And Adobe is advocating for a not proprietary alternative that was recently released and is called HTML5.
Sure, killing Flash sucks for all the games, but Adobe isn’t really doing anything illegal.
Sure, killing Flash sucks for all the games, but Adobe isn’t really doing anything illegal.
Flash is not propertiary platform. Flash is a tehnology that allowed you to run apps in your browser. It didn't control what apps you are allowed to run because it is not a platform but a software.
HTML5 is not near to replace Flash, and with main propertiary platform owners controlling browser market, it may never become Flash replacement.
HTML5 is not near to replace Flash, and with main propertiary platform owners controlling browser market, it may never become Flash replacement.
Morally, shouldn't it clearly be Zynga's fault, since the game was designed so that it only runs on top of a technology stack that can not be replicated by third parties and only they are technically capable of changing this design?
Software developers now have a moral obligation to make sure their code is ready to run on any future tech stack? Sounds .... not correct.
Space Cadet for Windows that we all miss would like to have a word....
If they sell thousands of dollars worth of digital items then yes, they should have a moral obligation to support those customers. Particularly given the murky exploitative psychological tricks employed by these games to get customers in the first place.
If the EULA says the value of said digital items is zero (as hinted at in some comment further up) then I can agree that we disagree.
It may be legal to steal digital items from users because of antiquated laws that don't recognize digital items as items worthy of protection, but it certainly isn't moral.
Let's explore some possibilities.
1. Should Zynga buy back those items at a lower price because they are used items?
2. What happens to cars (because we love car analogies) when the manufacturer stops building spare parts? In this case they are either collected from old cars or somebody else build those parts. Maybe should Zynga at least try to sell the game infrastructure with data? That would be like relying on third party spare parts but the car keeps going. Of course if nobody buys the game, maybe even for free, that's it
3. Other ideas?
By the way, this isn't the first time an online game shuts down and players lose everything, right?
1. Should Zynga buy back those items at a lower price because they are used items?
2. What happens to cars (because we love car analogies) when the manufacturer stops building spare parts? In this case they are either collected from old cars or somebody else build those parts. Maybe should Zynga at least try to sell the game infrastructure with data? That would be like relying on third party spare parts but the car keeps going. Of course if nobody buys the game, maybe even for free, that's it
3. Other ideas?
By the way, this isn't the first time an online game shuts down and players lose everything, right?
When Microsoft closed their cloud-based ebook business in 2019, they refunded 100% of the money to the people who lost access to the books they bought. This was the correct response to shutting down servers.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a27021744/micros...
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a27021744/micros...
> When Microsoft closed their cloud-based ebook business in 2019, they refunded 100% of the money to the people who lost access to the books they bought.
They probably had different terms of sale; buying books contingent on an external service is less attractive than buying in-game items contingent on the game.
> This was the correct response to shutting down servers.
Depending on the terms of sale, it may have been the minimum legally required response.
They probably had different terms of sale; buying books contingent on an external service is less attractive than buying in-game items contingent on the game.
> This was the correct response to shutting down servers.
Depending on the terms of sale, it may have been the minimum legally required response.
Car manufacturers are legally required to provide spare parts for about 7 years after sale. That's part of why discontinued car models are destroyed instead of sold at clearance discount.
And parts can be reverse-engineered/cloned too (as long as they aren't software-locked).
Zynga could offer to it's user to give their users credits to use in an alternate game, if they want.
Zynga could offer to it's user to give their users credits to use in an alternate game, if they want.
There's a big difference between "we're not making spare parts for your car anymore" and "we put a thermite charge in your car's engine, and we're remotely detonating it the day that we stop making spare parts for it".
No, you don't have a moral obligation for it to run in any future tech stack. But it should be able to run in the same tech stack it was running before, or provide some way to interoperate. The game shouldn't be designed in a way that makes it possible for someone else to unilaterally shut down the game with no recourse.
To illustrate, if FarmVille were an offline game that costed $1000, I could still set up a Windows XP computer, install Flash, and play it. It's not trivial, but it's very doable and legal.
But instead, actual FarmVille is designed so that it needs an online infrastructure (so far so good, it's a core part of the game after all), but by design this infrastructure can only be provided by Zynga. You can't replicate it even if you want to.
To illustrate, if FarmVille were an offline game that costed $1000, I could still set up a Windows XP computer, install Flash, and play it. It's not trivial, but it's very doable and legal.
But instead, actual FarmVille is designed so that it needs an online infrastructure (so far so good, it's a core part of the game after all), but by design this infrastructure can only be provided by Zynga. You can't replicate it even if you want to.
By this logic, making roblox games is immoral?
I'm not very familiar with Roblox, but if I understand it, it's an online platform that allows others to build games on top of it, and like Farmville the servers are exclusively provided by Roblox.
In this case, I would say the moral fault lies mainly in Roblox, since they are the ones providing the platform and hence making the decision to exclusively provide the servers (and that moral fault has not yet happened, it would only happen if when they shut down they don't provide an alternative).
If you are someone building on top of Roblox, I don't think you deserve the same amount of fault, but it's certainly something you have to consider. It's also a risk in that building on top of this design leaves you open to being de-platformed (like, for example with the iOS Store if Apple doesn't like your application).
For what it's worth, I don't think Roblox or Zynga are immoral because of this, just that on this particular topic they are morally faulty.
My bar for what should be acceptable as a recourse is also not very high. Providing any form of alternative like LAN play, closed-source server software, specifications or interoperability with other software would be enough for me. The problem I see with the current situation is the "last resort recourse" there is now in most cases, reverse engineering, is legally shaky, generally against the terms of service, terribly complicated and expensive and not guaranteed to succeed if critical parts of the application are server-side.
In this case, I would say the moral fault lies mainly in Roblox, since they are the ones providing the platform and hence making the decision to exclusively provide the servers (and that moral fault has not yet happened, it would only happen if when they shut down they don't provide an alternative).
If you are someone building on top of Roblox, I don't think you deserve the same amount of fault, but it's certainly something you have to consider. It's also a risk in that building on top of this design leaves you open to being de-platformed (like, for example with the iOS Store if Apple doesn't like your application).
For what it's worth, I don't think Roblox or Zynga are immoral because of this, just that on this particular topic they are morally faulty.
My bar for what should be acceptable as a recourse is also not very high. Providing any form of alternative like LAN play, closed-source server software, specifications or interoperability with other software would be enough for me. The problem I see with the current situation is the "last resort recourse" there is now in most cases, reverse engineering, is legally shaky, generally against the terms of service, terribly complicated and expensive and not guaranteed to succeed if critical parts of the application are server-side.
So should companies who provide software and devices worth MILLIONS to factories also port those from DOS 4.something to newer operating systems?
Because they don't. A friend had to source BIOS chips for fried ones for an out of warranty CNC machine from around the world just to not have it fail completely.
Because they don't. A friend had to source BIOS chips for fried ones for an out of warranty CNC machine from around the world just to not have it fail completely.
I think my post was unclear since you are not the first user interpreting it in this way.
I'm not saying companies should port their software to new operating systems and software stacks (presumably forever). The user would be responsible for providing whatever operating systems and software stack the program was built to work on.
What I'm saying is that it that companies should provide some way for users to continue using the product they bought, on the same software stack they were already using, when the company decides to shut it down. Anything better than the current situation where the online servers just go down and nothing is offered as an alternative would be much better. One pretty good way (but not the only one) they could do this is by releasing their server-side software, as it is. They don't need to open source it, they don't need to port it, and the user would be responsible for providing whatever underlying software stack it was designed to work on.
I'm not saying companies should port their software to new operating systems and software stacks (presumably forever). The user would be responsible for providing whatever operating systems and software stack the program was built to work on.
What I'm saying is that it that companies should provide some way for users to continue using the product they bought, on the same software stack they were already using, when the company decides to shut it down. Anything better than the current situation where the online servers just go down and nothing is offered as an alternative would be much better. One pretty good way (but not the only one) they could do this is by releasing their server-side software, as it is. They don't need to open source it, they don't need to port it, and the user would be responsible for providing whatever underlying software stack it was designed to work on.
This is not tricky in the slightest. All the points you make are distractions from the central concept of what people understand purchasing something to mean.
The computers these people played on with auto-updates disabled, would continue to support Flash for eternity.
Your points would be valid if Zynga said "the thing you bought isn't going to run on new devices". But what they're saying is "we're breaking the thing you bought because not very many people can still give us money."
Purchases without a "XX years' functionality" label should be required to be functional in perpetuity or refunded.
The computers these people played on with auto-updates disabled, would continue to support Flash for eternity.
Your points would be valid if Zynga said "the thing you bought isn't going to run on new devices". But what they're saying is "we're breaking the thing you bought because not very many people can still give us money."
Purchases without a "XX years' functionality" label should be required to be functional in perpetuity or refunded.
If they read the user agreement they would see that the cash value of those items was zero. It is very similar to frequent flyer miles. Their value is zero. Delta can make 1 billion miles worth a diet soda tomorrow if they want.
Plenty of games have shut down after selling virtual goods. FarmVille did not invent the concept of selling virtual things for real money. I doubt a lawsuit will go anywhere.
What did you do at Zynga? It's surprising to think any gamer let alone an employee at a game studio (let alone a studio where whale hunting is the dominant business model) would think this is a new phenomenon and be confused in any way about what happens next. But anyway, nothing happens -- the servers shut down, the game is no more, no one gets sued. I don't even have to go find the EULA to be sure that it contains a clause about waiving class action rights in case anyone wanted to try. FarmVille isn't the first game and won't be the last game to do this. If anything, it's rather refreshing to see a non-gacha game in the long chain of shutdowns.
> "Meet you at the office to discuss something" serious.
Sorry, is this a reference to something?
Sorry, is this a reference to something?
I think the original post is referring to the fact that they worked at zynga and as per their experience 'whales' met with or wanted to meet with zynga staff to discuss aspects of the game with zynga staff.
On the assumption that almost everyone would be better without Farmville in their lives and that such a loss might at least get some of them to reconsider the wisdom of their behavior, there would be a certain irony if such a class action suit were to be successful.
To play devil’s advocate: addiction fills a void in an unfulfilling life. Arguably computer games are better than drugs and the root cause of the sad life is not the addictive substance.
All that said, I shed no tears for any comeuppance that gets delivered to those who willfully profit off of the misfortune of others.
All that said, I shed no tears for any comeuppance that gets delivered to those who willfully profit off of the misfortune of others.
Big Tech optimizing dopamine addiction makes your drugs analogy quite accurate.
Unfortunately this predates 'big tech'. The real travesty of the big tech era is that instead of abandoning these antiquated profit driven ideals and improving society it just embraced them to an unimaginable degree while feeding us the same old lie. We're sold the future but in most ways still live in the past.
I don't think that these games are actually addicting. Habit-forming, for sure, but the way people lose interest makes me think it's something else.
[deleted]
Do you think gambling is not addictive? There is very little difference.
> To play devil’s advocate: addiction fills a void in an unfulfilling life.
Maybe so, but one would hope that even as far as self-destructive vices are concerned it's possible to pick something with more upside than Farmville addiction.
Maybe so, but one would hope that even as far as self-destructive vices are concerned it's possible to pick something with more upside than Farmville addiction.
[deleted]
The Lifecycle of Software Objects by Ted Chiang explores this topic very well
Since they weren’t able to buy them any more since November it looks like they gave people at least a month to enjoy their purchases.
If you don't pay for physical products or tangible/useful services, then that's what happens. But look at it the bright side. The kind of people who burn cash on games would have instead thrown them on drugs, cigarettes, online gambling, or something even worse had these avenues never existed.
Many people where caught unawares by video game addiction. Cultures convey the dangers of drugs and gambling quite effectively allowing many susceptible people to avoid them, but IAP where a very new thing.
The trump card of video game addiction is accessibility (in a sense online gambling and game addiction are functionally the same)
It's not easy to relinquish access to a computer and phone these days
It's not easy to relinquish access to a computer and phone these days
These kinds of games make it worse by using real-time timers (and real-life money).
I tend to get quite addicted to video games, but gave up on even trying those with these kinds of mechanics, as the reward/(danger+cost) ratio is just too bad.
I tend to get quite addicted to video games, but gave up on even trying those with these kinds of mechanics, as the reward/(danger+cost) ratio is just too bad.
I too think it's preposterous that it's somehow okay for companies to simply make disappear things you've bought/spent money on/anything like that.
This is the main reason I avoid games like this. It's just a trap, nothing keeps the developer from retiring the game whenever it feels like, nothing keeps the developer from releasing an update that completely changes how the game plays. If you like a game now, next week they can rebalance it and introduce microtransactions and that's... perfectly okay it seems?
This is the main reason I avoid games like this. It's just a trap, nothing keeps the developer from retiring the game whenever it feels like, nothing keeps the developer from releasing an update that completely changes how the game plays. If you like a game now, next week they can rebalance it and introduce microtransactions and that's... perfectly okay it seems?
Reminds me of me of the Green Kayle skin I bought in League of Legends almost a decade ago. Pricks changed the base design of the model and did so for the paid skin as well.
Seems to be a common pattern. Eg in world of tanks/warships, there are "premium" tanks/ships you can buy for money and which are slightly better than the free vehicles at the same tier.
While they are decent enough to not reduce the specs of stuff people have paid for, what they do is boost other vehicles and introduce new ones, which over time has the same effect.
While they are decent enough to not reduce the specs of stuff people have paid for, what they do is boost other vehicles and introduce new ones, which over time has the same effect.
I sunk over $2,000 in a game that shut down abruptly (Marvel Heroes). It sucked. I had no recourse.
But at the end of the day, I had well more than 2000 hours in the game. Which meant that my cost per hour of entertainment was less than $1. Which is really cheap as far as hobbies and entertainment goes.
Does it suck that I can't go in any play an ARPG with any of the 50+ Marvel heroes I had and adore? Yes. But that's what you should expect when playing any game that operates as a service or has an always-online component.
But at the end of the day, I had well more than 2000 hours in the game. Which meant that my cost per hour of entertainment was less than $1. Which is really cheap as far as hobbies and entertainment goes.
Does it suck that I can't go in any play an ARPG with any of the 50+ Marvel heroes I had and adore? Yes. But that's what you should expect when playing any game that operates as a service or has an always-online component.
One summer I played Gauntlet Legends in the local arcade, I basically maxed out all of my characters, I probably had $200 into it.
One day the game crashed, and the repair guy stuck a new hard drive in the game, and I lost all my characters. :(
One day the game crashed, and the repair guy stuck a new hard drive in the game, and I lost all my characters. :(
I didn’t realise that there were arcade games with save game support.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauntlet_Legends
> Its unusual features for an arcade game included passwords and characters that could be saved, enabling players to play over the course of a long period.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauntlet_Legends
> Its unusual features for an arcade game included passwords and characters that could be saved, enabling players to play over the course of a long period.
Thanks for posting this, a lot of people forget this perspective that sometimes the heavier users are view dropping money into their hobby as just that.
A way of supporting their hobby, especially when their dollar/hour of entertainment is so high.
There's so much discussion from people who do NOT spend a dollar in any game, and how those that do need to be protected from themselves
A way of supporting their hobby, especially when their dollar/hour of entertainment is so high.
There's so much discussion from people who do NOT spend a dollar in any game, and how those that do need to be protected from themselves
> I had well more than 2000 hours in the game. Which meant that my cost per hour of entertainment was less than $1.
I remember when one could buy a game for $50 and play it for 250-400 hours (unlocking hidden things, playing with multiple friends with just my purchase). Roughly a dime for entertainment. In some cases, it was sub a penny USD.
You have some expensive hobbies my friend.
I remember when one could buy a game for $50 and play it for 250-400 hours (unlocking hidden things, playing with multiple friends with just my purchase). Roughly a dime for entertainment. In some cases, it was sub a penny USD.
You have some expensive hobbies my friend.
Is it really expensive though?
I don't go out to bars. Those nights out add up quickly. I'm not into cars, which is a large money sink. I don't go to the movies, which is typically $20+ per person for 2-ish hours of entertainment when it's all said and done.
Adult hobbies are expensive. $2,000 spent across 4 years which gave me thousands of hours of enjoyment really isn't that expensive.
I don't go out to bars. Those nights out add up quickly. I'm not into cars, which is a large money sink. I don't go to the movies, which is typically $20+ per person for 2-ish hours of entertainment when it's all said and done.
Adult hobbies are expensive. $2,000 spent across 4 years which gave me thousands of hours of enjoyment really isn't that expensive.
Not bad. It’s only $500 per year, when you break it down.
Cable TV costs $80/month, or about $1000/year.
So if you didn’t pay for Cable TV, then I would say that you saved money here.
Cable TV costs $80/month, or about $1000/year.
So if you didn’t pay for Cable TV, then I would say that you saved money here.
> Is it really expensive though?
Yes.
> Adult hobbies are expensive. Depends on what you value.
> $2,000 spent across 4 years which gave me thousands of hours of enjoyment really isn't that expensive. You spent the money, so you saw the value in it. I'd say it was a complete waste. For you, it's clearly not.
Value is relative, that's my point.
> Adult hobbies are expensive. Depends on what you value.
> $2,000 spent across 4 years which gave me thousands of hours of enjoyment really isn't that expensive. You spent the money, so you saw the value in it. I'd say it was a complete waste. For you, it's clearly not.
Value is relative, that's my point.
Heh. Offshore racing is described as standing in a cold shower tearing up $100 bills.
1-2€/hour is my limit for "good value game" too. If I buy a $60 game, I expect at least 30 hours of fun, preferably 60.
Similar with mobile games, when I notice I'm spending a hour a day in a mobile game for weeks in and out, It's OK to spend 10€ on the gem package to make the game more fun.
Similar with mobile games, when I notice I'm spending a hour a day in a mobile game for weeks in and out, It's OK to spend 10€ on the gem package to make the game more fun.
I kinda disgust me that he seems proud of pioneering selling in-game resources for cash feeding of feeble minded and children.
Well, you kind of need to deceive yourself in this way if you want to justify your work to yourself.
Kind of easy if it makes you tons of money.
Kind of easy if it makes you tons of money.
"it is difficult to make a man understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding"
Indeed it is a very common pattern. People tend to believe whatever is convenient (read: self serving) for them to believe.
It's just about the feedback loop. People were addicted to games long before micro-transactions.
Tetris has sucked countless hours out of peoples' lives. Hell, I even almost lost a job because of Civilization 3. I'm completely unable to play "one more turn" style games in moderation.
Mobile games are optimised so that players like to spend time playing the game, and have the option of exchanging money for time in-game. You can either grind (use time) or spend money (use less time).
If people enjoy the game and want to spend money to get ahead, they have the option. No one is forcing payments, it usually goes badly for the game.
Tetris has sucked countless hours out of peoples' lives. Hell, I even almost lost a job because of Civilization 3. I'm completely unable to play "one more turn" style games in moderation.
Mobile games are optimised so that players like to spend time playing the game, and have the option of exchanging money for time in-game. You can either grind (use time) or spend money (use less time).
If people enjoy the game and want to spend money to get ahead, they have the option. No one is forcing payments, it usually goes badly for the game.
WalterBright could probably comment on that as Empire (although long before my time) is apparently one of the first career-ruining-ly addictive games.
They built a widely used and loved product, why not be proud?
Should Cambridge Analytica love that its Facebook quizzes were widely used and loved?
It’s a bad product that people get addicted to, so I wouldn’t want to work on it, much less be proud of it. It would be like being proud of inventing banner ads, or spam, or artificial trans fats, or telemarketing robocalls, etc etc
It’s a bad product that people get addicted to, so I wouldn’t want to work on it, much less be proud of it. It would be like being proud of inventing banner ads, or spam, or artificial trans fats, or telemarketing robocalls, etc etc
I feel like what is ignored in these conversations is that the vast majority of users just play this game as an entertaining piece of art. ~1% of problem users get addicted to games, whether they are FarmVille or smash brothers.
That is just the way it is. It isn't right to squash the freedom of the vast majority of people because a small subset of users lack self control.
That is just the way it is. It isn't right to squash the freedom of the vast majority of people because a small subset of users lack self control.
Most people play the lotto to release stress. But there are quite a few who abuse it (or it abuses them).
I think it depends on the net benefits. It’s odd to pose it as “squashing freedom” as I don’t think that anyone is proposing that FarmVille be banned or made illegal. I just think it’s a bad thing to make and not something to be proud of.
“I made a thing that lots of people like, but pisses lots of people off, is responsible for needless deaths, and lots of people wasted money.”
I think it depends on the net benefits. It’s odd to pose it as “squashing freedom” as I don’t think that anyone is proposing that FarmVille be banned or made illegal. I just think it’s a bad thing to make and not something to be proud of.
“I made a thing that lots of people like, but pisses lots of people off, is responsible for needless deaths, and lots of people wasted money.”
I think you could contort logic to make any creation "bad" for some subset of people.
Is any videogame a bad thing to make? What about movies that arguably can inspire mass shooters or other negative events to occur.
Can the creators of smash brothers or dota not be proud either? Those games fuck some small subset of people up too. I played smash brothers for thousands of hours myself.
Is any videogame a bad thing to make? What about movies that arguably can inspire mass shooters or other negative events to occur.
Can the creators of smash brothers or dota not be proud either? Those games fuck some small subset of people up too. I played smash brothers for thousands of hours myself.
> It’s a bad product that people get addicted to,
Every time I hear about people having issues with partner being addicted to gaming, the game in question is PC or console game. Typically competitive online one, sometimes single player. It is rarely mobile game, like I never heard people complain about partner being addicted to Farmville.
But, somehow, those games get defended each time.
Every time I hear about people having issues with partner being addicted to gaming, the game in question is PC or console game. Typically competitive online one, sometimes single player. It is rarely mobile game, like I never heard people complain about partner being addicted to Farmville.
But, somehow, those games get defended each time.
The problem here is not the addiction to the game itself, but rather to the fact that sometimes they become a gambling addiction issue, with all the issues it brings. It ends up being a money pit for some people, with the worst offenders spending thousands of dollars a month on pay-to-play mobile games.
Gambling addiction is also something that's normally hidden from the partner, and mobile games are great at allowing that, so there's also this difference. The partner won't see the issue until it's too late.
Gambling addiction is also something that's normally hidden from the partner, and mobile games are great at allowing that, so there's also this difference. The partner won't see the issue until it's too late.
The thread was about addiction and anyway, calling these gambling is a stretch. You do know about partners gambling and people do complain about it. The partner and kids are typically the person who get the most of consequences.
But my other point was about hypocrisy. People here go at length hating on Farmville and talking about addiction, because Farmville is not cool in their social circles and is game they personally dont like.
You do not get the same outcry about games that are actually the most frequently mentioned by people who deal with gaming addiction issues. Those games are mentioned either positively or not at all. And if you would call the people who play those games feeble minded, you would not ended up upvoted.
But my other point was about hypocrisy. People here go at length hating on Farmville and talking about addiction, because Farmville is not cool in their social circles and is game they personally dont like.
You do not get the same outcry about games that are actually the most frequently mentioned by people who deal with gaming addiction issues. Those games are mentioned either positively or not at all. And if you would call the people who play those games feeble minded, you would not ended up upvoted.
They are considered psychologically akin to gambling, are being investigated in several countries under their relation with gambling, and at least one country (Belgium) has declared them to be gambling.
And plenty of others concluded that calling Farmville gambling is absurd stretch.
Besides, I found that Overwatch, FIFA 18, and Counter Strike: Global Offensive at considered "game of chance" in Belgium, because you place bet and win or loose.
Not clickers like Farmville. I did not found a single article that would implied so.
Besides, I found that Overwatch, FIFA 18, and Counter Strike: Global Offensive at considered "game of chance" in Belgium, because you place bet and win or loose.
Not clickers like Farmville. I did not found a single article that would implied so.
Because Farmville is irrelevant today ?
Same applies to drugs. Those game are micro-optimized to trick people into paying money for it. No one would ever say "The money I spent on farmville was well spent".
How do you know this? A Farmville player might have been proud of his/her farm? It might have given them hours of pleasure and joy. Why should you dictate what they should feel?
Hell people who buy games literally say “I have no regret buying this sooner” I say it myself all the time!
I paid for a builder on Clash of Clans, a similar game. I didn't regret it, it added quite a bit to the game.
People buy what they like. Just because you dislike Farmville doesn't give you the right to invalidate everyone else's enjoyment of the game.
People buy what they like. Just because you dislike Farmville doesn't give you the right to invalidate everyone else's enjoyment of the game.
Heroin is also a widely used and loved product.
That's not true. Most people hate Heroin. Some love it, of course.
It's hugely pernacious in our culture though, lots of songs and film reference it - obviously there's a lot of bad press but it is also hugely romanticised. A lot of the users thoroughly enjoy it, much like Farmville.
It's great until it's not - story of most addictions
How is heroin even remotely relevant to a Facebook game?
Both are engineered to be highly addictive and people spend a huge amount of money on them, to the point that people could say that it is widely used and loved, despite being a detriment to users and society as a whole.
I sympathize with your feeling, but it’s a little astonishing how easily “hacked” human brains are. I don’t think you have to be feeble minded or a child to spend hundreds of dollars a week on digital avatars.
Ye, but most people are not falling for it. A very low share get bitten for real.
"Up to 50% of revenue comes from 0.15% (15 in 10,000) of players"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play
With 'feeble minded' I meant weak versus addiction. Maybe not the 100% correct term.
The thing I don't like about online gambling is that it can be hidden by the addicts. I mean sure it is their money to do whatever with, but it might still be shady immoral practice to enable that, like casinos or Farmville.
"Up to 50% of revenue comes from 0.15% (15 in 10,000) of players"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play
With 'feeble minded' I meant weak versus addiction. Maybe not the 100% correct term.
The thing I don't like about online gambling is that it can be hidden by the addicts. I mean sure it is their money to do whatever with, but it might still be shady immoral practice to enable that, like casinos or Farmville.
if you compare the share prices of fakebook and zynga, it is evident selling personal data is more lucrative than selling game tokens
I feel like had smartphones not come sooner Zynga could of reached a point where they would of outright bought out Facebook. Smartphones were just slowly becoming relevant during these years.
I almost want to call it the Eternal September Part 2 when Facebook took off like wildfire on the last year or so of MySpace being relevant.
Smartphones taking off specifically Android meant people could just play games on their phone and not have to wait to get home to a computer.
I almost want to call it the Eternal September Part 2 when Facebook took off like wildfire on the last year or so of MySpace being relevant.
Smartphones taking off specifically Android meant people could just play games on their phone and not have to wait to get home to a computer.
Maybe there are other less shady ways of earning a living than selling people's privacy or profiteering of their addiction?
Google and Facebook don't really sell personal data, and least not directly. They might buy some, and advertisers happily give them data, but I rarely hear about them actually selling it. They do let advertisers run ads that are targeted using this data, but that's not the same as "felling personal data." It's more like selling user attention.
[deleted]
This seems like an appropriate moment to remember Cow Clicker[1], and reflect on it's lesson:
"The player is initially given a pasture with nine slots and a single plain cow, which the player may click once every six hours. Each time the cow is clicked, a point also known as a "click" is awarded; if the player adds friends' cows to their pasture, they also receive clicks added to their scores when the player clicks their own cow. As in other Facebook games, players are encouraged to post announcements to their news feed whenever they click their cow. A virtual currency known as "Mooney" can be bought with Facebook Credits; it can be used to purchase special "premium" cow designs, and the ability to skip the six-hour time limit that must be waited before the cow can be clicked again."
"Unexpectedly to Bogost, Cow Clicker became a viral phenomenon[...]Although continually disturbed by its popularity, Bogost also used Cow Clicker to parody other recent gaming and social networking trends;"
"'bovine gods' eventually revealed that 'Cowpocalypse' would occur on July 21, 2011 (exactly one year since the original release of the game). From then on, every click made by players would deduct thirty seconds from a countdown clock leading to the Cowpocalypse. However, players could extend the countdown clock by paying to supplicate with Facebook Credits: paying 10 credits would extend the countdown by a single hour, while 4,000 would extend the countdown by an entire month. After $700 worth of extensions, the countdown clock expired on the evening of September 7, 2011. At this point, the game remained playable, but all the cows were replaced by blank spaces and said to have been raptured. Bogost intended the Cowpocalypse event to signal the "end" of the game to players; when addressing a complaint by a fan who felt the game was no longer fun after the cow rapture, Bogost responded that "it wasn't very fun before."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_Clicker
"The player is initially given a pasture with nine slots and a single plain cow, which the player may click once every six hours. Each time the cow is clicked, a point also known as a "click" is awarded; if the player adds friends' cows to their pasture, they also receive clicks added to their scores when the player clicks their own cow. As in other Facebook games, players are encouraged to post announcements to their news feed whenever they click their cow. A virtual currency known as "Mooney" can be bought with Facebook Credits; it can be used to purchase special "premium" cow designs, and the ability to skip the six-hour time limit that must be waited before the cow can be clicked again."
"Unexpectedly to Bogost, Cow Clicker became a viral phenomenon[...]Although continually disturbed by its popularity, Bogost also used Cow Clicker to parody other recent gaming and social networking trends;"
"'bovine gods' eventually revealed that 'Cowpocalypse' would occur on July 21, 2011 (exactly one year since the original release of the game). From then on, every click made by players would deduct thirty seconds from a countdown clock leading to the Cowpocalypse. However, players could extend the countdown clock by paying to supplicate with Facebook Credits: paying 10 credits would extend the countdown by a single hour, while 4,000 would extend the countdown by an entire month. After $700 worth of extensions, the countdown clock expired on the evening of September 7, 2011. At this point, the game remained playable, but all the cows were replaced by blank spaces and said to have been raptured. Bogost intended the Cowpocalypse event to signal the "end" of the game to players; when addressing a complaint by a fan who felt the game was no longer fun after the cow rapture, Bogost responded that "it wasn't very fun before."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_Clicker
[deleted]
A good time to remember this interview:
https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinku...
> I did every horrible thing in the book to, just to get revenues right away.
It's not specific to FarmVille, and I do agree that FarmVille deserves a place in history by turning player self-expression into a massively mainstream game feature.
https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinku...
> I did every horrible thing in the book to, just to get revenues right away.
It's not specific to FarmVille, and I do agree that FarmVille deserves a place in history by turning player self-expression into a massively mainstream game feature.
"first game at scale that leveraged big data"
Haha, yes, but not for the good of their customers.
It was optimized for addiction and peer pressure.
Haha, yes, but not for the good of their customers.
It was optimized for addiction and peer pressure.
Ahh Zynga, the founder of which (Mark Pincus) is quoted by a former employee to have said, "I don't fucking want innovation. You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers."
Class act.
Class act.
He also lives in the famously-exclusionary Marin County coastal enclave of Bolinas that has prevented literally all growth since 1971 by refusing to issue any new water meters ever again. I wonder what was going on in the late-‘60s/early-‘70s that might have made people not want any new neighbors?
Flash games on Facebook feels very quaint now. It makes me remember all the other dead web 1.0 walled gardens like AOL games, Yahoo games, MSN games etc
The crappy shovelware games live on though! Seems to be a resilient style of software, moving from platform to platform like a virus lol
The crappy shovelware games live on though! Seems to be a resilient style of software, moving from platform to platform like a virus lol
Zygna was the company that threating to fire employees or take back stock.
https://www.cnet.com/news/zynga-to-employees-give-back-our-s...
https://www.cnet.com/news/zynga-to-employees-give-back-our-s...
Is there a viable (paid) FV alternative for seniors?
Loved one (senior) spent hours on FV. I noted thru FB that FV kept this person going during COVID. I want to buy/suggest alternatives to FV.
Person does not play video games. Not even casual mobile games. Eye-hand coordination is not great. Person has iPhone and ultralite Mac. Spends a lot of time on FB
What are good alternatives ?
Loved one (senior) spent hours on FV. I noted thru FB that FV kept this person going during COVID. I want to buy/suggest alternatives to FV.
Person does not play video games. Not even casual mobile games. Eye-hand coordination is not great. Person has iPhone and ultralite Mac. Spends a lot of time on FB
What are good alternatives ?
Check out stardew valley. It has some extra depth but you can really play however you want.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/stardew-valley/id1406710800
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/stardew-valley/id1406710800
I'm literally sitting right now next to a senior playing Spider Solitaire on his PC. AFAIK he plays it 30min - 1h every day that he's at home.
Used to be the Windows 7 one (and I guess the WinXP one before that?), now it's a browser-based version…
Used to be the Windows 7 one (and I guess the WinXP one before that?), now it's a browser-based version…
Let's read now how to whitewash game addiction design..
I guess one can assume Zynga didn't make enough money from FarmVille to justify porting it to a modern platform.
I wonder if they considered a kickstarter or similar, to gauge the interest of their users to finance the porting.
I wonder if they considered a kickstarter or similar, to gauge the interest of their users to finance the porting.
There were like 3-4 variants of Farmville 2 and FV3 is out in some countries: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.zynga.farm...
FarmVille probably lost its popularity. I can’t remember the last I ever heard anybody talking about it, and I doubt a lot of people can remember. Its pretty much dead by now.
I built part of that Zynga light tunnel thing that they had in their office at the time (We used Parallax Propellers to drive the LEDs). It was a fun project.
Everyone I talked to while I was doing the work told me that the money was excellent but they hated working there.
Everyone I talked to while I was doing the work told me that the money was excellent but they hated working there.
I'm really sad about this. My dad has been playing for a decade, and occasionally brags about his farm. He's really found something to tinker with that brings him joy as he ages.
For the love of god, I can never understand why this game became popular.
I understand the pull of games and I am a gamer myself. However, compared to games like minecraft, this game was boring and absurd for me.
Make digital farms, where's the fun in that?
And I know intelligent, high calibre friends of mine spending hours on the game and hours talking about it.
The sheer amount of lost productivity due to this game is astounding, and I say lost productivity because this damn game captured a whole lot of mindshare.
I understand the pull of games and I am a gamer myself. However, compared to games like minecraft, this game was boring and absurd for me.
Make digital farms, where's the fun in that?
And I know intelligent, high calibre friends of mine spending hours on the game and hours talking about it.
The sheer amount of lost productivity due to this game is astounding, and I say lost productivity because this damn game captured a whole lot of mindshare.
> For the love of god, I can never understand why this game became popular.
Imagine it's 2011, you haven't played a video game since Space Invaders, and you trade your carrier-subsidized Cingular-branded RAZR in for a carrier-subsidized iPhone 4. The number 1 app in the store is "Facebook" so you download it, sign up, and are suddenly spending all your time in their garden rekindling connections with everyone you ever knew. Seems like the perfect low-impact game to play with one finger on a smooth piece of glass, flipping back and forth between it and your FB Messages / comment-thread flamewars / etc.
Imagine it's 2011, you haven't played a video game since Space Invaders, and you trade your carrier-subsidized Cingular-branded RAZR in for a carrier-subsidized iPhone 4. The number 1 app in the store is "Facebook" so you download it, sign up, and are suddenly spending all your time in their garden rekindling connections with everyone you ever knew. Seems like the perfect low-impact game to play with one finger on a smooth piece of glass, flipping back and forth between it and your FB Messages / comment-thread flamewars / etc.
It was not game for you, it is that simple. Minecraft is boring too many people too.
But productivity loss is exactly same as when playing other games. People discussing this game are no different then people who discuss other games.
What is unique is the pure outrage at the idea that people might enjoy it from gamers I see in this thread. Not do much you, but the anger and insults targeted at people who like it are way more that I expected.
But productivity loss is exactly same as when playing other games. People discussing this game are no different then people who discuss other games.
What is unique is the pure outrage at the idea that people might enjoy it from gamers I see in this thread. Not do much you, but the anger and insults targeted at people who like it are way more that I expected.
> Make digital farms, where's the fun in that?
I mean you do that in Minecraft too haha.
I mean you do that in Minecraft too haha.
It is an interesting setting that has been used successfully in other games as well, including Harvest Moon, Stardew Valley, and just recently Sakuna: Of Rice and Ruin.
I hope this whole idea of game streaming and online only accounts for purchases has a permanent solution.
Perhaps an non-profit controlled entity can be set up to transfer assets and management of such digital assets.
Imagine losing all your Playstation games that are online only, because Sony went down the drain, or losing all your books because Amazon went belly up.
Perhaps an non-profit controlled entity can be set up to transfer assets and management of such digital assets.
Imagine losing all your Playstation games that are online only, because Sony went down the drain, or losing all your books because Amazon went belly up.
[deleted]
what does Zynga do these days .
Mobile games. CSR2, Harry Potter, Empires & Puzzles, Words with Friends, Zynga Poker.
Yearly revenue around $1 billion.
Yearly revenue around $1 billion.
Wow that's nice
Hopefully all the farmville clones marketing themselves as simcity clones are next?
Zynga was ripping off games that were popular in places like china, they had zero innovation, not even in their slimy tactics to recruit users. They used to have those "invite 10 friends to be able to play" that everyone had back then. they abused every possible channel to the maximum degree, that's their only 'innovation'. They were the reason that facebook created rules that ban those shady tactics, even though they had a special agreement with facebook (basically so they can spam more than indies and competitors). And a lot of more shady antics i can't even remember, they were all discussed in facebook's old developer forum which has been shut down long ago.
Zynga was not "the first" in anything