Well personally right now I have stopped playing Draw Something entirely since now it wont LET me play unless I give it permission to 'post to Facebook on my behalf'.
Exactly why I deleted it as well. I accidentally granted it permission, then found the setting to change the permissions back, and then I could no longer access the app under that account. Game over.
My guess is that because Draw Something actually takes effort to do versus Words with Friends is just a quick thing you can play constantly for weeks on end. I know that for me Draw Something was really fun because it was new, but now it almost takes to much effort to fire it up and play for a quick time waster.
Personally it is the opposite for me. Words with Friends takes a lot of mental effort to figure things out, versus drawing a quick sketch without having to worry about losing balloons, etc.
I'm still playing Draw Something, but got bored of Words with Friends.
You honestly believe that there's a reasonable chance 30% of their players quit because Zynga bought the company? Most people don't even know who Zynga or OMGPOP are, they just know about specific games.
The two comments just above this as I post are complaints about Draw Something requiring Facebook wall posting permissions, or else the game won't play.
I could easily see a 30% decline in userbase due to silly restrictions such as this. Sure, you could just start a new account using an email address, but then you've lost all your previous games, and all your friends will have to re-associate you with the new username. It's frankly easier to just say "uh, they want what? no..." and close the app, being reminded of the experience anytime you think of playing again until you remove it from your phone.
That hardly needs a "heads-up" (where else would one's head be?), as the graph is clearly labeled, so is in no way misleading. The fact that it doesn't go back very far only goes to emphasize how rapid the decline is.
It’s not deceitful, but it’s still not worth much as a graph.
1. We think in terms of fractions. What fraction of users have left? It can be calculated from the numbers, but you don’t need a graph for that. If you started the axis at 0, it wouldn’t need calculated — it could be seen.
2. Not showing longer history makes it impossible to answer questions like, “how does the current rate of loss of users compare to the rate of growth a month earlier?”
Your attempted point about “emphasizing how rapid the decline is” is, to be blunt, the stupidest thing I read today. How does showing less data, less clearly, help anyone? Clearly, showing more history would give an accurate picture of “how rapid” the decline is or isn’t — again, see point #2 above.
Last point. As a thought exercise, consider a graph that goes up rapidly, then reaches an inflection point after which it slowly, steadily goes down — by no more than a total 1% over its run. It would look mostly flat after the inflection point, as part of the whole, complete graph. But zoom in, so the axes only contain points in that slow, mild down slope, and it looks like a dramatic slide from “a lot” to “nothing at all,” right? Not very helpful.
15 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 31.8 ms ] threadNo chance, Zynga
I'm still playing Draw Something, but got bored of Words with Friends.
I could easily see a 30% decline in userbase due to silly restrictions such as this. Sure, you could just start a new account using an email address, but then you've lost all your previous games, and all your friends will have to re-associate you with the new username. It's frankly easier to just say "uh, they want what? no..." and close the app, being reminded of the experience anytime you think of playing again until you remove it from your phone.
(Nor does it go back very far.)
5M users is still 33% of 15M (their peak) no matter how you plot it.
It is a fad mini game without too much depth and little repeat value. Trend is not surprising. I'd say it is expected.
> It is a fad mini game without too much depth and little repeat value. Trend is not surprising. I'd say it is expected.
Most likely. I sure got tired of drawing the same, sponsored words.
1. We think in terms of fractions. What fraction of users have left? It can be calculated from the numbers, but you don’t need a graph for that. If you started the axis at 0, it wouldn’t need calculated — it could be seen.
2. Not showing longer history makes it impossible to answer questions like, “how does the current rate of loss of users compare to the rate of growth a month earlier?”
Your attempted point about “emphasizing how rapid the decline is” is, to be blunt, the stupidest thing I read today. How does showing less data, less clearly, help anyone? Clearly, showing more history would give an accurate picture of “how rapid” the decline is or isn’t — again, see point #2 above.
Last point. As a thought exercise, consider a graph that goes up rapidly, then reaches an inflection point after which it slowly, steadily goes down — by no more than a total 1% over its run. It would look mostly flat after the inflection point, as part of the whole, complete graph. But zoom in, so the axes only contain points in that slow, mild down slope, and it looks like a dramatic slide from “a lot” to “nothing at all,” right? Not very helpful.