The minute you refer to the game as "stupid" you lose the ability to understand why it works.
These sort of games work because they get people addicted, and then blackmail them into paying money to make the games easier for them.
I don't think this is exactly the case. They sell a service. Whether you deem it a service of value or not is irrelevant.
Gambling is heavily regulated for a reason. I would say that games like these should be regulated just as much.
Imagine going to the arcades, playing street fighter II, and it saying "We know you can't get on the score board because you suck, but if you pay $20 we'll put you at the top of the score board anyway". Would that be completely fine and above board?
And yes, it would be totally fine. If you don't like it you don't have to play Street Fighter II. And given that it costs 50 cents a play and has a steep learning curve, that's effectively what they do in a roundabout way.
I don't think it's about being puritan, it's about protecting the most vulnerable members of society from themselves.
For example, say you get 95% of the way through a game, then the game asks for $100 to get past an absolutely impossible stage, they'd probably get a fantastic amount of people spending the $100 reluctantly. Which IMHO isn't a nice way to do things.
But that aside, thankfully capitalism doesn't require you to find a "nice" way of doing things. I'm as addicted to shaving as any player is to a Facebook game. (We could both stop, but don't want to.) I'm even more addicted to food. But that doesn't mean Gilette and Whole Foods are scammers.
Having said all this, it's clearly extremely lucrative to setup games like this.
It's more of a bait/switch than an honest upfront cost for entertainment.
The player makes their own fun by setting themselves goals and challenges that match their personalities and skill sets (that they find enjoyable). As their skills develop (or they simply get bored) they naturally find new, different, more challenging things to do until the game can no longer satisfy them.
Zynga provide a free framework and a whole load of extras to enable people to have fun. You can progress for free according to a number of pre-designed interpretations of how you can progress in the game, or you can short-cut for cash and do the bits you really enjoy, and you spend more as you explore different options. It practically screams "revenue stream".
Obviously it's all set up to make loads of cash, but I see it as enabling fun rather than a scam or "accomplishment lite".
of course, the fact that matt refers to users of products he doesn't like with terms far, FAR worse than 'stupid' kind of negates his point.
And if you think the lottery is stupid, you should not ever work in the game design industry.
They are offering you an 'easier game' for money. When you're competing against other people, that's an un-level playing field.
I'm pretty sure people who run lotteries think they are stupid. They are a tax on the poor, but they're extremely effective at raising money.
Some may think people who play the lottery are stupid. There's a very big difference.
I see your distinction though, I was meaning the latter when I said "lotteries are stupid".
Calling something stupid does not mean the author is saying there is no money to be made in such things.
It's dismissive, and you should never be dismissive of something that makes $250m per year. It clearly has a lot of value that the author doesn't understand, and since he has dismissed it he will never tap into that. That hurts him.
I don't like Twitter (which makes $0m per year) very much, but I try to understand it, play with it, and find out what people do like about it because it will inform product design decisions that I make in the future. I know that a LOT of people do like Twitter and therefore it cannot be stupid. In fact in some ways it must even be brilliant.
http://mattmaroon.com/2007/05/03/why-the-iphone-will-be-a-fl...
The 3G unit was not a flop.
And you didn't address the real point of my comment at all: it's bad to call a Facebook game "stupid," but it's fine to call iPhone users "people who have wet dreams about Steve Jobs."
You are blinding yourself to why Apple is successful, which is costing you.
There's a big difference between a $500-600 unit (with 2 yr contract) that has no 3g and no App Store and a $200 unit (with 2 yr contract) that has 3g and an App Store. They're the same device in name only.
One is priced for businesses, but without business features. The other is priced for consumers, and with much more consumer appeal to boot. One was a flop, the other a roaring success.
I don't think that only Apple fanboys buy the current iPhone and have never said that. And I'd guess between us, I have a much better understanding of why Apple is successful, as you probably vastly understimate marketing and cult appeal.