Zynga "Will Struggle to Break Even"

Excuse me a minute;

_muahaha -hahaha -Hahahaha! -MUHAHAHAHAA! 

-MUHAHAHAHAHARR!!

 Well folks. I guess i fucking called it. Latest news says; "Zynga be trippin yo!" or more precisely; Zyngas newsest games are getting fewer and fewer users and the amount of traffic coming to their existing titles has seen a steep, excelerating drop-off. Overall their games have less users at launch and a much shoter overall lifespan. Whilst existing games hemmorage users. Oh and on top of that their billon dollar valuation has sunk by over 15% in less then 2 weeks. All of this adds up to one fact; the shit-brick of gaming has a very real chance of falling into a death spiral. And i couldn't be happier. 

All of this of course has been obvious for months (look at my archives) but its part of  a wider picture; 

"This is what an oversaturated market looks like. Smaller companies are doing what Zynga does but better, faster, and cheaper. Far more are doing it shittier and more expensive - leading both to consumer fatigue and creating a greater sense of 'consumer judgement' - ie, the consumer becomes smarter about determining quality." ~ A forum poster that knows more than paid professionals.

Indeed it is.  Infact this is a very concise explination of any market bubble. This story has played its self out over and over again in different sectors of the games industry in one form or another since its inception; I've been screaming this from the rooftops for months. Shame it took paid 'analyists' so long to catch on. Remember in the 1st half of 2011 when they were lining up to give the big publishers a spanking over not investing heavily in the market? "You will be out of touch" they said "Social gaming is the future, just look at the numbers!". Then EA dropped a massive money-bollock on playfish and the ensuing bun-fight for the market has got ever more bubble shaped. Could it be that 99% of self procliamed industry 'experts' are worthless, out of touch hacks i wouldn't wipe my arse on? Surely not!

Round and round the industry goes. Learning nothing... Ahh well...

Its sad really, Social gaming had the potential to become something wonderful and help hark back to an age of both old school MMOs, text based gaming and help create a new age where websites, multimedia and gaming could come together to create encapsulating experiences and help them interact meaningfully with other players.[1]  But Companies like Zygna had other ideas.

The reality of social gaming is total devoid of ideas, content, creativity and in the case of Zynga basic human decency. They have almost singlehandedly choked the life out of the fledging genre (Much like activision did with music games) and made it a byword for extorsion, shoddy data practices, microstansaction hell, lack of content, copy and paste games and utter utter bullshit. Even the word is enough to send hardened game advocates like myself into a towering Zynga based RAAAAAAGE.

Now Zynga hasn't killed social gaming, not by a long shot, but it and its imitators have irreversibly tarnished its reputation. They have its credibility out behind the bins and beaten it mercylessly with slegehammers into a squidgy, twitching pulp. Social gaming has set back the perception of the potential quality web based games by about 10 years. You can run "The Bastion" in chrome for christs sake, but all people think about when you say "Web based games" is stickman fighting and selling digital cows.

So yes, i applaud your joining in with my laughter at the expense of Zynga. Any damage to them is a boost to the games industry in my book.
 

Zynga is part of the reason we can't have nice things.

 

[1] For a small seed of this potential see; Echo Bazzar.

The Great News Machine

Im looking at you again America

....

"Hello? I heard there were rumors on the internets" 

The internet has opened things up rather a lot butunless its being presented by a major network news channel people put internet leaks in the 'rumor' pile despite mountains of compelling evidence.

Its kind of like when all the horrible shit came out about scientology and Anonymous started protesting. All the media managed was "LOL look at these weirdos protesting!" they didn't see the brainwashing, forced labour, holocaust denial, insanity and blackmail that was being unveiled online for all to see."Well its on the internet so im just going to go over here and listen to the major networks byline"

What the major networks have to say; "Be scared enough to let us control you, but not too scared. AND FOR GODS SAKE KEEP SHOPPING! BUY THINGS! OH GOD BUY THINGS!"

 You're all crazier than i am.

Does Gaming need Better Adverseries?

The settling of EMA Vs. Brown pretty much drew a line under the latest chapter in the history of videogames detractors whith a pretty ringing victory on the part of games, gamers and game makers. Infact if you visit known advocates websites like the Perants Television Council you can see most of their gaming material stops at mid 2010ish when things weren't quite so witheringly bad for them. Those who wish to destory gaming have been roundly decimated. But im not sure running unopposed is the best thing for gaming.

Ok let me explian; there are important debates to be had about content, the control of content and its effects that have simply been destoryed by those on the "Anti-Gaming" side. The problem gaming has had is that the calibur of those challenging it, even when they sometimes might be touching on a valid point, has been so very very low. Even our lawmakers see people like the PTC as a bunch of out of touch fun-police and figures like Jack Thompson, Fox News and various religious groups have made their camp look not only wrong but baseline INSANE. There is no healthy back and forth between two sides with valid points, there has been a lot of good work in self examination on the gaming side but i think a group of well informed and well... sane gaming sceptics would be a good thing for all of us.

*Ahem* The law trying to ban the sale of 'violent' videogames had a tiny crumb of the real issue at its heart; perants are not limiting young people's access to games in the same way they do movies or TV due to a lack of understanding. Games are rated appropriately for age and i agree that trying to class them like pornogrpahy whilst Movies are still self regulated is a farce but the issue of 12 and 13 year old kids playing slightly things like MW3 for hours on end is troubling. The content of games is rated for 18+ because they are better able to contextualise the content and process some of the worst excesses of the chest beating homicidal militaristic overtones in a proper way.
I don't think many games are appropriate for 12-13 year olds. As a gamer it troubles me that they would be playing them at length without prenatal supervision. Yes these games can seem silly to an adult, they are able to recognise where things deviate from reality and have already formed informed opinions on many issues. We need to recognise that whilst games are not outright dangerous, exposing pre-teens to this content is FAR from desireable. Things like the glorification of the miliraty, guns and violence are unsettling. We need to look at the content of our games and who is consuming it, Media is meant to have content that is unsettling, challening and uncomfortable. It is essential and banning that would destory human expression but it has to be for the appropriate audience. 
 
The solution is simple. Don't get little jonny GTA87 for christmas. Yes its violent, but it is a satire of violence MEANT FOR ADULTS. Again here in the UK we DO have a legally binding ratings system, it just gets largely ignored. As an industry and as a community we need someone out there to point these things out wothout trying to form a mob. We DO need to educate perants more on content apropriateness but there is no-one out there willing to point out our flaws in a rational manor.

Gaming has become so used to fighting attempts to overly limit it, censor it and outright destroy it the industry and community has become hard-wired to react to gaming criticism in a nuclear fashion. Our opponents have for so long been so out of touch with reality and wanted to act out of fear of the unknown, religious extremism or outright spite. Those who are on the 'other side' have been incapable of debate because they lack a grasp of the most basic meaning of what it is to play a game. They simply don't undersntand gaming enough to understand the real issues. In order for gaming to grow we do NEED a healthly debate.

Quick! Hide The Porn!

 

Wellity wellity well well Mr. Cameron. It seems your greater good, "Songs of Praise", father knows best, moral guardian, high church, pious Ass-hat tendencies have caught up with. What became of hip Dave? Hug a hoodie and all that. Hey look at me i have my top button undone I'm just like you! No, I'm going to meet with a political Christian pressure group and morally blackmail you into excepting ultra draconian censoring of the Internet. I think you have have just lose sever generations with this one 'Dave'.

The Dry Facts; 
Via The Guardian; Because facts make by dick itchtm"Subscribers to four of the UK's biggest Internet service providers will have to "opt in" if they want to view sexually explicit websites, as part of government-sponsored curbs on online pornography.

The measures will be unveiled on Tuesday as David Cameron hosts No 10 meeting with the Mothers' Union, a Christian charity. At the government's request the group's chief executive, Reg Bailey, led a review in tandem with Department of Education staff into the commercialisation and sexualisation of children. The Bailey report earlier this year produced a raft of proposals to shield children from sexualised imagery.
The prime minister is expected to announce other moves in line with the review, such as restrictions on aggressive advertising campaigns and certain types of images on billboards.

There will also be a website, Parentport, which parents can use to complain about television programmes, advertisements, products or services which they believe are inappropriate for children.
The site, which will direct complaints to the regulator dealing with that specific area"- I'm sorry Fuck the dry facts! fuck them in their gaping anus! A plague of a thousand raining wet cocks on the dry facts. "Mothers Union", the entire name is a euphemism and emotional blackmail, their a christian pressure group designed to push a Puritan agenda on the masses behind "Won't somebody please think of the children!!". I'm makes me want to puke a fat one, it really does. This is the same shit that we shake out head at the god dammed Tea Party for for fucks sake!
 

The issues;

Well the most pressing issue i think above the tone, the intent and every other layer of bullshit is there will be a central authority deciding what is and what isn't "Pornography" online. This basically means there will be someone not only charged with keeping track of the endlessly shifting Internet but they will be adjudicating basically all the information that has ever been created and put online into two piles; "Porn" and "Not Porn".

Feasibility; 

Keeping track of every website on every country on earth is impossible. This in its self creates two distinct possible problems, both equally worrying;
1. The system will have to rely on websites own labeling system meaning sites wrongly labeled or more likely not labeled at all or trying to prevent harm their traffic by being labeled will simply not be blocked. This makes the system pointless.
2. There will actually be someone going through the Internet tagging it. This is simply impossible and will make the system unworkable. The Internet is big. Bigly big. Vast. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to the Internet.

Both systems fail in actually delivering any kind of result to the given motive. The measure sets out to make it impossible for children to access pornography accidentally or otherwise, it CAN'T deliver this in any way. Therefore its justification is baseless. Putting aside all other issues of centralisation and dangerious superiority complexes this simply won't work. I'll say it again;

THIS WILL NOT WORK... YOU DICKBAG... GO STICK YOUR HEAD IN A PIG.

Ethics; 

If this system is put in place it will bring censorship under the guise of morality and father knows best. This is what the UK government has been vocally and heavily criticising China, Iran and a whole host of others for for decades. Their justification is also pornography. Its is a mindset that leads to one group deciding what is acceptable for another.

This will not only effect children; No one wants to be seen to "Opt-in" to porn by their partner, it puts moral pressure on these people to accept censorship. Not only that but a system that has a list of issues as vast as the Internet it's self. This is the moral ideals of a minority thrust onto someone else. This is unacceptable.

Fuckwittery; 

Nevermind the core issue of defining pornography on something as vast as the internet. Is it simple nudity? No because great works of art would all under it; is it simply eroticism? Well banning everything slightly erotic is just as dangerous as banning all nudity. You CAN'T define it with a system like this. Its not that you just can't define it accurately you simply can't even get close to getting close to the issue. The issues combine here, is it justifiable to attempt censor on this scale when it won't even function at all? Why do it?

And what about Extreme Violence? Will gore and mutilation videos still be acceptable for children? People put executions online will this simply fall under the "A-OK" category? Will pedants turn their own purchased filters off to find the web open to their children in different ways?

As someone who really understands the Internet (hell i practically live here) i implore you, this is a MISTAKE. Its... its beyond stupid. Its beyond unworkable. Its beyond words how wrong you have got this. Its beyond comprehension HOW you could have misunderstood the Internet so badly and so utterly and completely. I... I've run out of words... just stop.

We are Forever Blowing Bubbles

The future is a tricky place. Apart from being a fucking cock tease with its never materializing flying cars, jet-packs and nubile Lucy-Lu love bots its dammed... unpredictable. Shocking revelation i know but at a fundamental level it is and people seem to forget that.

This is why speculating on a 'sure thing' is such a bad idea. Investors do it in all walks of life but recently they have had a nasty habit of pumping the fuck out of social gaming companies and driving up hype. There seems this special type of investor that thinks that because something is making money now and has gone up in the past it MUST just keep going. They makes these decisions without the scantest knowledge of the sector they are investing in and assume that as long as something keeps going up then everything will always be fine. (these types of investor seem to also run Activision) You would think people would have learned what a bubble looks like after that whole kerfuffle in the 20s, the lie of the bull market and all, but i suppose not. And a bubble we have. The signs have been there for a while, as i mentioned previously EA threw their money down a Playfish shaped whole, never to be re-coped, but everyone seems a bit to baffled to say anything about it. We seem to have a "New World" mentality in the gaming press post-Wii assuming that everything will not go as before but ass long time gamers i think we can use old assurances and a dash of other sectors to make some educated guesses.

Take the dot.com boom for example, a lot of clueless investors throw their money behind Internet companies because they   seem to be magic money makers. Many of the paper millionaires we saw were just that and the value of most of these companies, and consequently their shares, dropped to a big fat sum of zero. Social and in a slightly different way mobile games have also done this; massive investment in something that is seen as a new, bottomless money spinner. The games journalist is in a sticky situation here; if you go with this line then you risk looking entrenched, embittered and irrelevant. If you go the other route and tout the rise of the social gaming you risk a snap-back from the traditional audience if all goes tits up. No one quite likes shoving your own words in your face like the forum dwellers. I think the main fear is one of looking closed off and insular, from one generation ago there has been an audience explosion in multiple places and at first many reacted with pretty irrational fear. But i think many should be able to see the underlying problems with the social gaming boom.

All it takes is a small shift in usership or advertising confidence and a million dollar prized cow can turn out to be a dog-turd. This isn't even going into mismanagement, small companies that make it big quick have a nasty habit on not being able to deal with it or making terrible decisions. Recently Zynga has decided to hoover up a sum total of 15 companies with its new found (if ethically and creatively dubious) wealth. Fast, forward to today and profits have fallen 90%, news with has been delayed since June due to the "Tough market conditions" leaving me with the tentative feeling that the news has been released over a more favorable range to their original numbers.

Woof Woof.

The shit will only really hit the fan when said investors get a whiff that their particular horse in this race might be horribly overvalued. When investor pull out in the sector starts i have a feeling it may not stop, speculators (especially when it comes to the fast world of tech) are ruthlessly fickle and jumpy as coked-up Meerkats. Here's hoping that a lot of good people don't get squeezed out of the industry all together as many social games have served as a foot in the door for new talent.

Season of the Nerd

Something has happened, and is still happening, in the mainstream entertainment industry; the Nerds have taken over. Take a look at cinema in particular; Super-hero movies, the return of many genre movies and tongue in cheek b movies and comic-book licences a plenty. Hell a Batman film caused an uproar when it was NOT nominated for best picture.

Of course all of this has been going on for a while but the quantity and most importantly the quality of much "Geek cinema" has improved dramatically so much so that a "Thor" movie can make a decent profit and get in the high 70s on aggregation sites. There have been a few financial 'bombs' (at least as seen by the studio) on the part of some very good movies, see; the sublime Scott Pilgrim and its much lower than expected takings, and on the part of some terrible movies, see; The Green Lantern but on the whole the studios appetite seems undamaged for movies aimed squarely at the 12-30 something 'geek'  male audience. The thing that wets the studio's appetite is that a move like "Thor", if they pitch it right, will appeal to anyone from the age of 10 right up to mid 40s nerds and almost every age group in between not to mention parents and grand-parents who take their kids to see it. Your 10-15 audience will want to see it because it looks awesome and is rated low enough for all involved to be comfortable with them viewing it, plus it has a dude with a giant hammer and explosions and junk. Your 15-18 audience will want to see it for mainly the same reasons but will feel comfortable going on their own because the movie is not seen as "just for kids". Your 18-30s will feel comfortable for the same reason but might also be existing fans of the on-going comic and have the time and disposable income to want to see it possibly multiple times. Your 30-40s age-group might have been a fan of the older comics and so the licence has geek nostalgia appeal to them.

You can please many demographics without really compromising your movie simply because so many people see no barrier to them viewing it as long as you make the appeal broad enough. Now this brings up issues of movies that started out intending to be one rating being brutally edited or stunted to fit a lower one (see Red Riding Hood, that movie wanted to be WAY more sexy/freaky than it was ever allowed to be and suffered dearly for it) but fortunately this seems to to happen too often in the Super Hero genre.

But how did we get here? The main reason i see is the continued quality of Marvel Studios offerings since Iron Man. They have not been the sole contributor to the rise but their steady efforts since 2008 have really underpinned the whole genre with an air of quality, consistency and class. 5 years before things had looked a little rockier with their properties; 2003's hulk seemed almost embarrassed to be a super hero movie instead pulling a bait-and-switch with a movie about daddy issues. The idea that having a movie hold up based on a "Big green dude tear shit up" still didn't quite sit right in the collective consciousness of the good folks over and Universal. The result was a critical and commercial flop and contributed to the, in retrospect excellent, idea of Marvel taking their toys back.  2008's hulk was widely seen as an apology for the earlier effort and sent a clear sign that marvel was both serious about keeping their own properties and dead serious about the idea of a unified universe.


There has also been a glimmer of big concept Sci-Fi peeping its head above water; inception and the ajustment beuro seem to be actively harking back to the grand ideas of the 1960s sci-fi writers to deliver pretty amazing ideas. The asthetic also seems to be grounded in this era, rich colours and swave locals. Heres to hoping we see some of the great work of Phillip K Dick make it to the sceen without all the pandering that has been layered on it before. If Hunter Thompson's Rum Dairy can make it then why not a well crafted "The Man in the High Castle"?

The place we stand now is pretty exciting, The Avengers Movie is gearing up and we see something that a decade ago would have been laked out of the building; a straight faced translation of large scale interconnected comic book continuity put into a fully blown blockbuster. The future seems set on an even brighter horizon; the return of actual ideas to hollywood.

Hipsters of the World Unite; My Antidote to Modern Ultra Mainstream Gaming.

So before i launch into what the game industry is doing wrong lets look at some areas that are doing something right for a change.

No im not talking about some pretencions 2D bobble headed platformer that claims to be some art masterpiece but is really just Mario bros stapled to Dostoevsky pretending to be really clever. No I'm talking about real 3D games, games that can rival the AAA industry in their scope, range and prowess (and surpass them many times over in their ambition). And they are more often than not coming from Eastern Europe; 


Let us start with my personal favorite; 


S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

The STALKER series by rights shouldn't work, the original game sat in development for 7 years with various BETAs and iterations (none of which functioned) with many of the dev team leaving to found 4A games (we shall come to them later) before development on the 1st game had ended. But it does work, oh boy it does. A FPS hybrid set in 2012 in an alternative sci-fi universe of the Chernobyl Exclusion zone the mix on ingredients that combine to make the gooey goodness of the STALKER cake are kind fo hard to explain  to someone who hasn't played/seen them but its an amalgam between many different genres and sub-genres. The main advantage of STALKER is more to do with the FEEL of the game than anything, the atmosphere and setting are engrossing to say the very least. The word Immersion does not do this game justice

But there are a few things i can pick out off the top of my head The gunplay is pretty spectacular with a grounding in more tactical games. Bullets obey gravity, axis and generally behave like bullets and weapons have a relatively realistic degree of accuracy (or should i say inaccuracy) and a real weight to them. The setting is both horribly grounded in the zones reality and filled with pretty out there sci-fi concepts that make it both more intriguing and more dangerous and the games structure, somewhere between open world choices and modular level design, gives the game a "lose yet structured" feel. 


All three games; STALKER; Shadow of Chernobyl, STALKER Clear Sky and STALKER; Call of Pripyat are all worth a look but Shadow of Chernobyl and Call of Pripyat are particularly special games.