Tumbling Widgets

Social Games are the new Arcades?

Continuing on with my comments last week, I wanted to explore the relationship between game development of social games and game development for arcade machines in the 80s to early 90s.

I’ve read a few times, especially from game developers who worked on them, how there are a number of similarities between making arcade games in the 80s and making social games today… and I have to say, it makes sense. They are both forms of game design where the business model is pivotal, where it’s all about keeping the player paying to play your game. 

I should say up front that I am all for designing your game around a business model. I think game design thrives on it’s constraints. Whether your constraints are hardware limitations, cost and time, color pallets, or the business model, designing with those constraints in mind CAN serve to make a better game. So, while some of the issues I pointed out last week were related to putting the business model first, I am not against this practice as a rule.

With that out of the way, I want to talk about the things Social game design can learn from the arcade scene (and it’s fall).

1) The first $.25

A large part of arcade design was getting that first quarter from the player. Whether they were in an arcade with dozens (or even a hundred) games to choose from, or at a laundromat with only one or two, enticing the player to start playing your game was the first step of the process. Attract Screens, Cabinet Art, and being fun to watch people play were all methods employed to get people to spend that first quarter. 

In the social game space, getting people to install the app is that first step. There aren’t arcades that people know they can go to to find the games, so Social games have created new mechanisms to get in-front of potential players eyes… but many of those methods have become somewhat infamous though. 

So, what can the social space learn from the Arcades in drawing players into their games? 

Be worth playing. 

Now I realize there are far more factors at play, and this is an over simplification… but far too many social games are trying everything BUT being a fun experience to play. 

Sure, having a beloved brand is great! And for PopCap and Zenga where you already have an audience that you can broadcast your new games to, all the better. But even if you’re PopCap, when your game isn’t fun people won’t talk about it, they don’t tell their friends, and you won’t get media coverage.

So once you have a fun game, then you can worry about the other ways of getting in front of players eyes.

2) Keep them playing.

This one is a much longer discussion, so I’ll break it down into the 2 biggest ways Arcade games kept me playing, and 1 more that I know often gets ignored.

i) Measured Potential and Impermanent Failure 

The 2D fighter is easily the best example of this. Every play session was at least going to get you two rounds, and if you win, you keep playing. The rewards were quick, and the challenge was measurable. To continue meant you would face the same enemy you just lost to, and if you believed you had learned from your failure, all the more motivation to try again.

This isn’t so easy to define in some other games, but most of the elements were there. You knew what each quarter would give you, and being able to continue right where you left off (assuming you could get the $.25 in the machine in time), or at the beginning of the stage you died on. You want as few barriers to putting in another quarter as possible.

ii) Reachable Goals

In the arcade, you had a limited amount of time and a limited amount of money. Often, you would decide what games to play simply based on how much game time you could get for your money…

This doesn’t really translate to the social game space, but the idea of having a measured goal in mind when you start to play the game does.

Lots of social games are infinite. You’re going to play from where you left off every time you come back to the game, and there is always going to be something you can do to further your progress. But having measurable goals for each time you come to the game that are independent of the overarching goal of “winning the game” are still possible. 

I honestly think there needs to be more finite social games though, like Civ, Solitaire Blitz, and PJ Monsters… but that’s another discussion in itself.

iii) Social Play

The fighting game scene in arcades is maybe the only thing keeping them alive at this point (aside from the games that spit out tickets to trade in for useless junk at the change counter). That social element that would have crowds gather didn’t just serve to keep the faithful paying, but was a big part of bringing new players in as well.

While you didn’t see shmup tournaments, or large crowds gathered around the latest puzzle game, that social element was still a huge part of every arcade games success. High Scores, multi-player, and even the fact you had to wait in line to play next were all elements of the experience that had social hooks… 

The strange thing about social games though is that they don’t generally approach the social element of their games the same ways the arcade games did (though there are some - named above). High Score Competitions and even Tournaments are one thing, but there are so few real time multi-player, and no real time observable games (that I know of at least) in the space… but then again, the lines are getting very blurry about what is and what isn’t a social game now.

So what can Social games learn from Arcade games when it comes to player retention? 

Just keep doing what you’re doing, expanding and evolving.

Social games are still fairly new, and they are trying lots of new and exciting things! The larger gaming space is starting to include social game ideas in their games now, with facebook photo sharing, and tweet every line of dialog features being done in genuinely interesting ways.

While there has been the occasional clone, and some tropes have been overused… but the clones are evolving, and the tropes are being refined. Experimentation is still happening, old games ideas are being evolved to include social elements, and completely new genres are forming, there is lots to be excited about. 

Lastly, How can Social Games avoid the same fate as the Arcades?

If I am honest, I really don’t know that they can. The future is uncertain, and there were factors involved that you just can’t plan for. Firstly, the cause of the arcade collapse isn’t easy to nail down. There were social changes that contributed to it, one trend gave way to another, and it is these very changes that actually gave rise to Social Games AND the Arcades in the first place. Changing along with the consumer and social trends just might be the only real option.

Anyways, that’s all I have for now. Thanks for reading :D

-fidgetwidget

Game Design thought for the week…

Not that I only have one a week or anything… I just… I don’t need to explain it do I?

So I have been giving some thought to the different business models that have become popular in the last few years, and this is what I came up with.

I love free to play games! Not all free to play games mind you, and not just because some of them are just bad games, but because some of them abuse the model. It’s THOSE kinds of free to play games that are why I don’t like most social games. 

If you haven’t played Triple Town, you should. It’s a free to play game that I love the gameplay of, BUT it employs the same free to play mechanics you’ll see in most social games… what I call “wait to play or pay” (Thankfully, in Triple Town you have the option to simply purchase the game - unlimited turns).

So, I decided to share my thoughts on how to improve on the “wait to play or pay” model, or at least make them less painful while still encouraging people to pay! 

1) Don’t make them wait.

Being unable to continue to play the game (and have fun doing it) is easily the most annoying part of the social game model… but having something in the way of your fun is believed to motivate people to pay. I personally think that’s a false premise, as most social games aren’t actually all that fun to begin with, and it’s the social pressure to keep up with your friends that often causes people to put up the money.   

2) Depth of choice.

If you are going to allow people to have fun without having to pay, that means there needs to be multiple layers of gameplay for players to participate in. Lots of social games already do this, but they put the same road blocks up in each area, never giving you “something fun” to do at all times.

Being able to play, but not progress, is the easiest way to do this. 

Pixel Junk Monsters Online does this (or at least the last time I played it, it did).
Being able to replay previous levels while you wait to be able to unlock new ones.

This is something a lot of free to play mobile games do actually, and I think its a much better alternative to the “wait to play” standards.

3) Have more reasons to pay then just “to ease frustrations”.

And I am not just talking about Hats. Cosmetic choices can be fun, and offer players who already love your game a way to “throw you some money” without unbalancing a competitive game… but there is so much uncharted territory here that I am sure you can be more creative than hats ;)

The booster pack model (buying packages of randomly selected items) is one of my favourite.

Anyways, that’s what I have for this week, maybe I’ll share more next time :D