The title twists his meaning a bit by removing context; his next sentence clarifies the statement: "That is, the term will become meaningless, as all games will become social."
Shame on venturebeat for crafting one of the most misleading titles ever.
I wouldn't have even bothered reading or clicking, except to look for why JP is predicting the death of social gaming. In reality the interview is a total promotion of social gaming.
The claim is actually that "all games will become social", and I doubt very much that this will happen. I have an inkling that Solitaire and Minesweeper are going to stay around for a while.
Moreover, historically new ideas with a high potential tend to expand their influence very rapidly in the beginning and take a large share, but the legacy tools still remain (sometimes still unparalleled in specific niches): hence the telephone in the age of the internet, or mail order books in the age of Amazon (see http://www.publishers.org/main/IndustryStats/indStats_02.htm ), bicycles in the age of the automobile, etc.
He likes to say small shops can't make it, and at the same time we know he wants to buy small shops, at least one a month if he can.
He's being disingenuous so he can acquire small shops cheaper. It't total BS that a small company can't make a living at Facebook games, way more than a living. I know multiple 2-3 man shops that do just that.
Well there are ways in which a bigger collection of small shops can be stronger than the sum of its parts.
* It's a hit driven business, and this distributes risk.
* Especially in social gaming, it seems important to have a userbase to market to. Playdom can do this across its properties in a very arbitrary and low friction way.
* Playdom can do promotions with big brands across multiple properties at once. Larger brands might not give the time of day to individual game studios.
Obviously there are disadvantages, too. The drive to make a great game just isn't the same when you're part of a larger company. This might not be an issue if you're developing the kind of games you would want to play. But if you're designing a game for children or one that cynically targets user psychology, you may really lose your drive.
6 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 25.8 ms ] threadI wouldn't have even bothered reading or clicking, except to look for why JP is predicting the death of social gaming. In reality the interview is a total promotion of social gaming.
Moreover, historically new ideas with a high potential tend to expand their influence very rapidly in the beginning and take a large share, but the legacy tools still remain (sometimes still unparalleled in specific niches): hence the telephone in the age of the internet, or mail order books in the age of Amazon (see http://www.publishers.org/main/IndustryStats/indStats_02.htm ), bicycles in the age of the automobile, etc.
He's being disingenuous so he can acquire small shops cheaper. It't total BS that a small company can't make a living at Facebook games, way more than a living. I know multiple 2-3 man shops that do just that.
* It's a hit driven business, and this distributes risk.
* Especially in social gaming, it seems important to have a userbase to market to. Playdom can do this across its properties in a very arbitrary and low friction way.
* Playdom can do promotions with big brands across multiple properties at once. Larger brands might not give the time of day to individual game studios.
Obviously there are disadvantages, too. The drive to make a great game just isn't the same when you're part of a larger company. This might not be an issue if you're developing the kind of games you would want to play. But if you're designing a game for children or one that cynically targets user psychology, you may really lose your drive.