Hi Guys, I keep getting requests from friends who are trying to unlock levels or something in the game Candy Crush. I took a look and they have set it up so that you have to invite 10 friends or something to unlock levels or stages. What do you guys think of this, is it crossing the line or is it a good way to grow your user base. It looks like it has worked well for them, Candy Crush is basically bejewelled with some candy in place of the jewels, and they have hit the top of the charts. I think Facebook sharing has it's place but you shouldn't spam peoples walls, or force them to share to friends at a point where they are already well invested into the game. Thoughts. Cheers ben
Hi, at first - Candy Crush Saga is as much social game as mobile. It means, those mechanics are part of the game itself. Actually this morning I had a meeting with our platform manager at Facebook and we were discussing invite and open graph mechanics - and they work really well. You can choose - either pay for that level or invite friends. That's not crossing the line. Actually, Candy Crush is one of the least pushing social games out there. In addition, invites are not sharing or spamming walls. There is no more wallposts spam as it were in times of Zynga like few years ago. Now your main friend is Open Graph, which is very powerful if used properly.
Candy Crush Saga does offer other options, you don't have to do it with the Facebook mechanics. You can also pay, or do some extra missions that have 24 hour delays before the next one is unlocked. Forcing even just a Facebook login is a sure way to get lots of instant deletes. Some people won't mind, but some will. You need to provide an alternative for those that will not sign in.
For me, as a gamer, this would be too much. If I came across this in a game, I would simply not bother continuing and probably delete the thing off my device. But thats just me - i'm not bothered about game achievements and social media.
And that's classic statistical fallacy. You are judging by yourself, not by an actual user behaviour.
This totally depends on your target audience. Actual gamers usually hate this nonsense, I know I do, but actual gamers don't play candy crush. Every middle aged woman I know, most of whom never played a video game at all before FarmVille, does, but not gamers. Now if you're making a FPS that little old ladies won't play, it's probably a bad idea, but for Facebook social "games" it's just the way they work, spreading like social diseases.
What is actual gamer? Why a woman playing candies can't be a gamer? No matter whether you play FPS or FarmVille, both is gaming - just with different priorities. And I say that as social and mobile game developer who used to play Counter-Strike and Warcraft 3 on international competitive level.
Someone who plays skill based games, not pay to win, socialize to win, have the most friends to win, etc.
In my opinion, that's just type of the gamer. You're talking about mid-core or hard-core gamer. There are also casual gamers. Gaming is playing and playing is learning. And there is no difference in this pattern whether it is a casual gamer od hardcore one.
Oh god I'm pulling out of this conversation now. You sound like some sort of corporate buzzword spewing robot with absolutely no connection to reality or gamers.
No connection to reality or gamers Mate, I have played competitive Counter-Strike for 3 years for the team that attended worldwide WCG finals two times in a row and placed 5th at ESL Europe. I have founded two international progaming portals and leagues in CS 1.6, Warcraft 3 and DOTA. Seriously mate, your opinion is very elitist and arrogant I did game design of core games, as well as casual ones. Don't wanna sound rude, but honestly - I'm 100% sure I have more gaming experience than you And yes, I do development and marketing of casual and mobile games now. And they are exactly the same type of games as any other hardcore one. That quote I wrote you about playing and learning is actually from game design bible Theory of Fun wrote by Raph Koster. He's just another another corporate buzzword spewing robot who did whole game design of Ultima Online.
Theory of fun, while overall an interesting read, is indeed full of bullshit bingo trying to "prove" the valid point that you learn something by playing and learning is fun. The statements themselves however are really not to be taken too seriously. They are a form of marketing because smart ass statements that are easy to remember help drive sales. I remember him citing Einstein in there: play is the highest form of research. Yeah, really. It's just like almost all management books being full of bullshit bingo for the same reason.
Then... I need to stop listening to first-class game designers and psychologists and start accepting professional opinions from people on TouchArcade forums with two games and 1000 downloads. // Ending this pointless flame.
Practically nothing you've said makes sense. First somebody clearly stated their own opinion, which you called "a statistical fallacy". Really? Perhaps that's why they clarified it as just one single opinion. Then you said "a woman playing candies can't be a gamer?", implying they have the same priorities as other gamers, but instantly follow with "but with different priorities", which suggests you're actually agreeing with Royce in his statement that "hardcore" gamers generally don't like this type of business model. Then you ask him to clarify what he meant, and he explained that he was talking about a certain sub-set of gamer... to which you responded with a comment about gamers being split into sub-sets, repeating what he'd just said himself. Again, you're just agreeing with him, yet somehow still arguing. Is it any wonder he called you a "buzzword spewing robot"? You genuinely don't seem to know what you're saying, it's almost like you're reading lines straight from a book... which you then admitted to doing. Still, it's been amusing to read.
Yeah, true. Which means not only games and learning can be fun but self contradictions can also be fun to spot. A lot of things can be the source of fun! Fun is everywhere! What a great title for a new book.