A socially outgoing couple is hopelessly in love. Cheesy poems, gooey statuses, and photos of the couple together follow on Facebook. At special occasions such as Valentine’s day, an anniversary, or a birthday, gifts will be exchanged, and without a shadow of a doubt, photographic evidence will appear on Facebook along with a tag that reads something like “MY BOO JUST GOT ME A HUGE TEDDY AND CHOCOLATE! LOVE HIM SO MUCH XOXO.” Luckily we don’t see too many of these posts. Yet.

Recently, Facebook decided to expand the gifts section by including products from partnered companies. Gifts will now include physical, real-life items from dozens of partners with notable ones including L’Occitane and Baby Gap.

Will this work? Why not. People love to post pictures of their Christmas and birthday gifts, and when people give gifts, the givers appreciate other people knowing about their generosity. On top of that, Facebook makes it incredibly convenient to implement this feature as reminders about birthdays and anniversaries on the website itself would give people cues on buying gifts. Popping a link to the application page next to the daily birthday and event reminders would be extremely simple and would make it easy for users to buy gifts for friends.

This idea is incredible. It provides an easy outlet for Facebook in terms of generating revenue, as this method cannot do harm. With woes concerning monetizing Facebook lingering, this provides an opportunity for Facebook to expand in increasing profits. Because Facebook has a record of all the purchases, Facebook gets more information about the user, allowing more targeted ads. This would increase ad click frequency on the website, as ad relevance would be substantially enhanced. As for the partner companies, desire for social attention would cause people to make these purchases public, so more exposure will definitely follow. This allows companies to advertise to the friends of the previous consumer, and given that friends are usually similar and affiliate with similar people, these companies will get exposure to a relevant base of future consumers. Even though a cut of the revenue will be directed to Facebook, indirect advertising to this relevant base is quite valuable.

Still, there are downsides. If this catches on, friends may be offended if they do not receive gifts on special occasions, complicating relations. In addition, this may provide Facebook a chance to monopolize online purchases. Because so many internet users use Facebook, this could cause a redirection of online shopping traffic in Facebook’s direction, making smaller companies’ sites less competitive as people would focus mainly on Facebook’s store when shopping online. Although good for Facebook, that situation would harm opportunities for small business.

As long as people can get over the hurdle of viewing Facebook as a social platform and begin to think about making purchases through Facebook, this will take off (just in time for the holiday season, nice). Of course, that is a tall hurdle.

Both Zheng and Gabriela explored the idea of underage children on Facebook earlier in the year. Zheng discuss the benefits of allowing pre-thirteen year olds access to the social network (https://blogs.princeton.edu/sisn/2012/10/01/children-on-facebook/) and Gabriela wrote about the laws that prevented Facebook from allowing preteens to use their services (https://blogs.princeton.edu/sisn/2012/10/03/law-prohibits-children-under-13-on-facebook/).

Let’s explore how Facebook prevents kids from joining the network.

The first line of defense lies in the signup. On the form, Facebooks asks you for your First name, Last name, Email, and birthday. This birthday form serves to screen out underage users. The same technique is seen in other places on the Internet too, such as when signing up for a Gmail account (which incidentally does not allow kids under 16 to join) and when buying a M rated video game online. If you enter an age less than 13, the page tells you that “Your request cannot be processed” and does not let you register until you reload the page.

But there’s a tongue-in-cheek cartoon describing the Internet and the people who use it:

On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.

On the Internet, you can be anything. You can be a drag queen. You can be a 29 year old, single, gay rocket scientist working at NASA. You can be human. You can be over 13 when you’re actually not. When I was 13, I do not think I knew anyone who actually used their real birthday or birth year on the internet. My internet self back then was always born on January 1, 1980.

An interesting related statistic is that 93% of Steam (a popular video game distribution platform) users are born on January 1.

So really, the birthday request does nothing to stop people from pretending to be older than 13. Some kids may even enter birthdays making them over 13 by pure habit.

The second line of defense lies used the be requiring people to specify their network. When I first signed up for Facebook, I had to pretend that I was a member some High School to join. However, Facebook had gotten rid of that feature.

The final line of defense is Facebook’s decision to delete any account they discover belongs to a pre-thirteen year old. It works, somewhat. Sometimes a kid complains online that their Facebook got deleted and that they had to remake their account. Out of 7.5 million underage users. (Sorry Zheng. My source). It’s like fighting a forest fire with a little handheld spray bottle.

In short, Facebook just doesn’t care. They go through the actions of getting rid of underage users, but don’t actually spend the resources on combating the problem. And, to be honest, underage users are good for Facebook — it pretty much prepares a new generation of people to use Facebook.

The question is, should we care? Many don’t. Many do. But, should we pass more legislation like COPPA and prevent underaged children from access from services like Gmail and Facebook for good?

For this week’s blog post, I wanted to look at the role Facebook has taken in professional sports in America.  Not surprisingly, every professional sports team that I searched for in the MLB, NFL, NHL, and NBA has a Facebook page.  Why would these teams feel a need to have a Facebook page? First of all, it is a place to generate more support for their team. Facebook has grown to be a part of millions of Americans daily lives.  Professional sports teams are businesses, and they realize this trend of ever expanding Facebook and want to exploit it in order to get the most support, which in turn leads to more revenues, and ultimately, more success on the playing field.  Let’s look at the Boston Red Sox as an example. In terms of the business end of their Facebook page, one of the first things you see on it is a tab where you can purchase tickets and view their schedule.  This makes it much easier than having to go on sites such as stub hub, because it is all on Facebook and just a few clicks away.  There are also many times on their newsfeed that they advertise ways that a lucky fan could win free seats to a game.  The Red Sox, like many other professional sports teams, also utilize Facebook to create a positive public image for themselves, and show how they are involved in the community.  One example of this can be seen in their newsfeed where the title of a status was Red Sox serve dinner at New England Center for Homeless Veterans.  Another similar status was The Red Sox take part in the Greater Boston Food Bank’s Chain of Giving.  Being involved in events like this certainly make for a positive public image and make them appear to be very likeable.  Being likeable can only lead to more fans, more success, and more money, which in the end is what it all comes down to, whether that’s a good thing or not.  Of course they do things to try and entice new people to become fans and follow them, but they also provide information for the long time fans, such as myself.  The status of players, their contracts, and other such things that matter for the upcoming season are constantly updated on their page to keep their audience informed on what they are doing and the direction the team is going in.  Professional sports teams really do use Facebook to its full advantage in order to improve their own organizations.

While I was living at home, friending my parents on Facebook seemed like the worst idea ever. We already saw each other every day, why did they need to see me online as well? They would pester me and joke about how I must have something to hide. This was not the case, but I couldn’t put my finger on why I didn’t want to “add” them as friends. My profile was free of embarrassing posts and pictures, I had already added other family members, and I answer their questions honestly anyway so they had no incentive to “Facebook stalk” me. And yet…I couldn’t put my finger on it. There’s just something uncomfortable about being Facebook friends with parents.

 
Now that I’m not living under the same roof as them, my perspective has changed a bit. I’m more comfortable with the idea of being Facebook friends with them (though I haven’t pressed that unsavory gray “Add Friend” button yet). In fact, that might save time during our phone conversations, if they’ve already been updated on the major goings-on of my life.

And so, for those of you in my dilemma, here is a Pros & Cons list of adding parents on Facebook. Feel free to add more as you please.

Pros:

• Keeping in touch. This is particularly relevant for those who post about most of their major accomplishments/important moments on Facebook, and even more so for those who equate their “status” to a “tweet.” Facebook could potentially be the most convenient way of updating your parents on your life, since you’re already doing it for your friends.
• Equating them to other adults in your life.If you can add your teachers, neighbors, aunts/uncles/grandparents, mentors, or other adults in your life, chances are you could stand to add your parents.
• Living amicably under the same roof. Not being Facebook friends might not be so bad, if not for the weekly “why won’t you let me be your Facebook friend?” This is a war of verbal attrition, and here’s the secret: you lose. Eventually it might be beneficial to give in and add them just to maintain sanity.

Cons:

• Culturally-relevant posts. It’s no secret that adults are less “hip” to popular culture. My parents, at least, would not appreciate posts about “twerking” or the phrase “YOLO,” even if stated ironically.
• Intimate details. Sure, you shouldn’t be posting about your private life on Facebook anyway. But if you must, better for the mouth-breather in the back of your math class to know than your mom. From relationships to hookups, college kids are notorious for insinuating some unsavory activity on their profiles.
• Parents being parents. AKA awkward and embarrassing. My roommate can attest that when her mom likes, comments, and shares more than half of her updates, there’s a certain level of mortification.
• Feeling like you’d have to “hide” parts of your life. Though none of us are cocaine addicts or sex traffickers, there’s a certain guilt that comes with knowing that your normal teenage life doesn’t quite match up to their expectations. Something as simple as going out on a school night after complaining to your parents how much homework you have could be insinuating.

At its peak, Farmville had around 76 million monthly users playing the popular social-based game. In 2009, Zynga made over $300 million using a game that involved not much more than crops and clicks. The game’s popularity baffled many, even those who played it. It’s addictive tendencies, however, are rooted in brilliant gaming and marketing strategies.

What encourages us to flock to Farmville? Objectively, it’s not a very “good” game. It’s monotonous and routine – a game defined by responsibility. You plant and harvest crops, investing clicks after clicks on a virtual plot of land. Incredibly, this seems to be the root of Farmville’s popularity. People want to tend to their farms everyday, playing for meaningless Internet points.

This seemingly banal reason can be explained by a more thorough analysis of human behavior – people actually invest physical effort and time into their harvest. In such, one would take pride in the resulting product. The fruits of one’s labor can be used to spend on in-game benefits, such as larger plots of land, animals, buildings, and decorations. The consistent factor of input and output encourage the user to continue playing the game for one’s own gratification.

Farmville’s in-game farming strategy ropes people in by forcing them to come back to attend to their crops. By choosing what to plant, the player can choose his own time frame in which to return to harvest them – but if you come too late, the crops can die. This window in which the player can find profit is a powerful motivator to return and harvest, thereby progressing.

Of course, the element of competition cannot be forgotten. Farmville is a social and public game, and this is a vital aspect of its success. After all, what’s the point of growing the largest farm in the world if you have no one to show it to? Massively multiplayer online role-playing games such as Maplestory and Runescape have proved time and time again that competition fosters the best type of gamers – dedicated ones. As long as your friends are playing Farmville, you’ll be playing as well. Incidentally, Zynga has designed some ingenious techniques to wrap people in to playing its repetitive and shallow game.

Firstly, a player can invite his friends to Farmville – and he is indeed encouraged to do so. If you invite a “neighbor,” and send them a gift, you also receive an in-game achievement. Neighbors are highly beneficial in Farmville as they can help you tend to your farm and allow you to earn bonuses and expand your farmland. Indeed, it’s almost impossible to advance in Farmville (without spending actual money) without having neighbors. This pulls in your social circles to the game – once they’re involved, they’ll feel obliged to stick around and help you rebuild your farm and expand their own interests. Again, the element of competition comes into play – they’ll be encouraged to compete with you, resulting in another cyclic network effect.

Interestingly, the philosophy of playing Farmville doesn’t seem that alien. Citizens of a community help each other out, supporting other farms to advance the communal good. Friendly competition encourages capitalistic behavior, allowing players to improve their own “wellbeing” through dedicated work ethic. However, there does come a point where a distinction should be made between good citizenship and mindlessly clicking on pixels.

Computer viruses isn’t news. When you first learned to use a computer (at least if you are from a younger generation), the first thing you are told to do is probably to run anti-virus softwares. Sadly, these softwares are most probably the most annoying part about computers. Then came the iPhone, the miniaturized computer that somehow has escaped infections despite its popularity (the same, however, can’t be said about its rival, Android). What is the difference between iPhone and all the other operating systems? Can any of the lessons be applied to protect our personal computers? (Hint: the answer is yes.)

To understand why the iPhone has escaped software attacks, one must understand fundamentally how its operating system, iOS, handles apps. iOS, unlike other operating systems, does not allow apps the full access to the system, and it does so by a technique called Sandboxing. The best way to understand Sandboxing is to picture a physical sandbox. Each application on iOS gets its own little Sandbox to play with, and it is not allowed to go into anyone else’s sandbox. This means that the apps each get their own documents folder. This is why the iPhone lacks a file system. They are also not allowed to do anything outside of their own sandboxes at all. This is the key to how iOS escapes malware. It is impossible for any iOS apps to, for example, disable the home button to keep you in the app or to delete your documents in another app. How then do these apps get access to system features, like the calendar and camera? In a least techie way of describing this, Apple built doorways known as “API” for each of these specific functions. If the Facebook app wants to access your photos, for example, it needs to open the photo doorway. Android has a similar, but much weaker, Sandboxing system, which is why Android phones can be customized as one pleases.

Sandboxing is just half of the story. The other half is the App Store. It is well known that the App Store is this amazing collections of apps, but many may not know that Apple actually has to screen each app before they are put on the store. This way, most of the spotty apps are removed, and the few exceptions are quickly removed once discovered. All the apps in the App Store must also follow certain rules, Sandboxing being one of them. As Apple proudly heralded in its World Wide Developer Conference 2010, the App Store is a “a curated platform (and) it is the most vibrant app platform on the planet.” The keyword here is “curated.” Every app on the App Store must be given the “ok” from Apple, and this is why iOS users do not have to worry about security threats from these apps.

As you may have already noticed, in return for security, the users must give up control, at least on iOS. Obviously, this does not work for personal computers. We want our computers to be as customizable as possible so that we may do whatever we want with it. This struggle between control and customizability is mind-boggling, and it looked like we may have to stick with anti-virus softwares. However, just a few months ago, Apple released a new version of Mac OS X with a new security system, and the only word that can do it justice, and barely so, is “brilliance.”

Here is how the current Mac security system works. With the release of the latest version of Mac OS X, Apple has implemented a new feature called “Gatekeeper.” Gatekeeper is, as the name may imply, is all about preventing malicious software from entering into the computer. Basically, all Macs categorize applications into three main camps. The first camp houses all the apps downloaded from the Mac App Store (MAS). These apps receive the same benefits as those downloaded from the iOS App Store, mentioned earlier. The second camp is basically comprised of all apps not fitting into the previous camp or the next one. The last camp, however, is where the brilliance of Gatekeeper is.

The third camp is called “Apps from Identified Developers.” Many people will download apps exclusively from MAS and that will be enough. However, many will also discover that many of their favorite apps are not on the store. These apps include Google Chrome, VLC Media Player, and Microsoft Office. There are a number of reasons why these apps are not on MAS. Some, like Chrome, simply breaks the rules of MAS by its very nature, in this case running a third-party web browser engine. Many apps are also not capable of living in the Sandbox without compromising their feature sets. Others simply do not want to go through Apple for distribution of their softwares. After all, Apple charges 30% of all sales and takes a longer than optimal period of time to approve applications. These limitations effectively debunk MAS as a plausible exclusive channel to download applications. Apple needs to come up with something better, and along comes the Developer ID system. The way the system works is that any registered member of the Mac Developer Program ($99/year, like iOS) can request a Developer ID from Apple and sign it into their apps. If a developer is discovered to be malicious, Apple can easily revoke the certificate. In short? Apple now curates developers instead of individual apps. This way, Apple can provide roughly the same (maybe slightly less) safe environment that users have come to expect from its stores without actually imposing the rules and limitations of the stores.

Now that you understand how Macs identify applications, it is not hard to understand how Gatekeeper works. It is as easy, literally, as a choice between three settings: MAS apps only, MAS apps + apps from identified developers, and all apps. Defaulted at the second setting, Gatekeeper determines which apps can be run and which one should not be run. This way, Mac users do not have to worry about malicious applications. Best of all, Gatekeeper’s deterrence can easily be overcome by right clicking and choosing “Open.” Suppose Google is not a registered developer, but you know that Google Chrome is not a malicious software. Gatekeeper makes it really easy for you to override its judgement, and it remembers your settings so it does not ask you a second time. It does not take a genius to see the brilliance of this implementation. Gatekeeper protects the average users without them having to do anything while at the same time giving power users the control and customizability they crave.

Many people bemoan the resemblance of Gatekeeper to Windows’ infamous “Allow Access/Run As Administrator” implementation, but little usage and an open mind will quickly rectify the mistaken belief. Windows’ implementation blocks administrative rights to all apps, safe or not. Gatekeeper, on the other hand, goes the extra mile of first determining whether the app is from a trusted source. Only when it suspects an app does it prevent the app from running. This is a subtle but game-changing difference.

Is Gatekeeper the perfect implementation of a security system? Nope. It is, however, the best one so far. Apple intended the current version of the Mac to bring the best of iOS and re-imagine it for the personal computer, and they have certainly done that in the security aspect. Malicious developers will always try to find a way to get around Gatekeeper and other firewalls, but at least for now, Mac users can rest easy knowing that they are safe.

Why can’t social games keep engagement? Zynga clearly suffers from that problem, but why not Blizzard Entertainment (makers of Starcraft, etc.)?

I see two distinct types of games currently in the market: those that force players against each other in competition, and those that encourage users to aim for achievements, prizes, and short-term winnings. While these two do sometimes overlap, there seems to be a distinct gap as to which tactic a product is trying to use.

Zynga’s games and other games on Facebook, such as Tetris Battle, Tetris Friends, etc. clearly fall into the former category. For example, in Tetris, players are charted on a leaderboard based on points earned–more play means more points earned means a higher level on the leaderboard. Such competition, while at first fun, becomes meaningless after a while–the earliest and engaged adopter will be at the top, and as Nassim mentioned below, accompanied by the ones who spent money to get up there. Contrast that to Codecademy, which gamifies learning code by awarding badges and achievements to users who complete modules (kind of like the Halo franchise). If you ask me, Zynga’s model does not retain users–they become disillusioned with the far-away goal and give up after they realize that the game mechanic is always the same. In comparison, the other model relies on short-term prizes, which I believe is what helped more successful games succeed.

I see a contrast between how these “social games” and “traditional games” are developed. Games such a Starcraft and World of Warcraft (WoW) have the same gameplay mechanic time after time, yet they still retain hordes (pun intended) of users. What makes them different from Zynga’s Farmville or Cityville or the Ville…? For me, it seems like the social interactions in those games is brought to a deeper level–instead of simply collaborating for clicks and competing on the leaderboard on a slightly superficial gameplay screen hosted on Facebook, players are immersed into a completely different environment that forces them to collaborate with other, random players in real time. The end goal in those games isn’t to be better than other players–that’s more of a short term one. The end is to develop a community of gamers that work together, compete together, and get to know each other. While Cow Clicker has fostered a few people who can say that happened to them, the underlying mechanic of the game was not built that way. It’s sort of like the difference between playing board games every day with a few friends and going on OA with them–the latter inherently forces you to develop deeper friendships with others.

Lastly, I also feel that gamification can really be used for temporary competitions and user engagement. People online notoriously have a short attention span (a recent study pointed out that if a video buffers for more than 5 seconds, most people will begin to leave), and cannot simply sustain the continued momentum that current “social games” try to build. Even already popular games, (ie. Starcraft, WoW) mainly retain their membership because they attract players with short individual games (Starcraft), or short individual campaign sequences that have achievable and realistic goals (WoW). I believe that having a model that requires users to come back and “do stuff” for an unspecified amount of time is inherently unsustainable, which would also explain Zynga’s inability to retain users after an initial popularity.

Social Gaming and Gamification can work well–they just need to be implemented in the right way.

Not long ago, I logged onto Facebook and started browsing through my newsfeed. I was greeted with a post from a girlfriend to her boyfriend that went something like this:

“‘A relationship is like a rose, how long it lasts, no one knows. Love can erase an awful past, Love can be your’s, you’ll see, at last. To feel that love, it makes you sigh, To have it leave, you’d rather die. You hope you’ve found that special rose, “cause you love and care for the one you choose”. –Rob Cella.’ I love you, baby. I want to be with you forever.”

I cringed. The idea of posting a message so intimate and mushy on someone else’s wall, for all the world to see, shocked me. “If she was going to say that, why didn’t she text it to her boyfriend?” I thought. “Or even Facebook messaged him.” Given several other private options, why did this girl choose to display her declaration of love in a public way, on a Facebook wall?

It turns out that the notion of making Facebook a public destination for relationships was not unique to her. Facebook, itself, is keen on the idea.

For any couple listed on Facebook as being in a relationship, the platform now provides a joint page to view the couple’s history. Simply sign in and visit www.facebook.com/us (a telling name) to view your joint page with your significant other. This archive of a couple’s relationship provides their wall posts to each other, photos together, a pool of mutual friends, the events they have both attended, and their shared “likes” and interests on Facebook.

Any friend of both users can view this page by selecting the “View Friendship” option and inputing the names of both members of the couple.

This strikes me as a bit…well, creepy. It feels as if Facebook is forcing a public aspect on Facebook relationships that may make people like me, who think that relationships are a private matter, not a public spectacle, cringe.

Perhaps to many couples, the relationship page is endearing; they may find it cute and helpful. And thats wonderful – but Facebook, in its characteristic way, did not provide the tools to have such a page and allow couples to opt in and opt out. It forced the feature on everyone listed in a relationship.

But if you want to avoid the new feature, you can just end your relationship on Facebook, right? Not so fast. Don’t forget that Facebook does not seem to allow you any mechanism to avoid posting the news of your break up all over your newsfeed. You might not want that headache either.

The girl who posted that mushy paragraph on her boyfriend’s wall was acting of her own volition. But it seems to me that public romantic relationships is something that Facebook really seems to encourage (or force) among its users. Maybe for the spectacle? Perhaps it seeks to make Facebook that much more addictive, by adding the unpredictable spectacle of human relationships to the mix.

What is the purpose of Facebook “likes”, and how does that effect what they mean in society today?  I remember the excitement accompanied by first setting up a Facebook account.  After finding friends, the next step was clear – find people, shows, organizations, and pages to “like.”  At the time, public appearances seemed to be the primary goal of this process.  What would people see when they looked at your page? What kind of person did you want to look like?

This sentiment was exemplified by the popularity of “funny” pages that people liked.  In addition to liking movies and activities, you could like pages with funny titles.  Some of my sister’s (added years ago) include “Using the excuse ‘you’ll never see that person again’”, “Doing your chores like a ninja when your parents pull into the driveway”, “Track is not a sport, it’s running in circles”, and “IT SHOULD SNOW IN NEWPORT BEACH”.  In contrast to the rest of her likes, these pages exist merely to show her beliefs and reveal comments she identifies with to all of her Facebook friends.  Back in the day, many of my friends had hundreds of these types of “liked” pages on their profile.

Today, however, the motivation behind Facebook likes has shifted.  The aforementioned pages’ activity has declined significantly, and Facebook has even made them less visible on people’s profiles.  While music, books, movies, shows, people, and games remain fairly central to the profile, one must click a “Show Other Pages” link to even see the titles of the other pages the user has liked.  This change shows that people are using the “Like” button for a different purpose.

Now, more emphasis is put on Facebook’s actual effect.  After liking a page, news from that page begins to show up in the news feed.  Therefore, people are more inclined to like pages that will give them news they care about.  This ranges from political figures sending out messages to companies offering specials and information on their products.

With the motivation behind Facebook likes explained, its new purpose in society can be revealed.  Yes, they now serve an actual purpose in society that Facebook could never even claim to have foreseen.  Financial analysts are using Facebook ‘likes’ to predict companies’ worth.

Yes, you read correctly.  Studies have actually shown that 99.95% of the change in daily share price can be explained by the change in fan counts.  This finding could revolutionize the way many aspects of the stock market are examined and the way users approach Facebook likes.

(Also, as a side note to connect this concept to the election last week, Romney’s popularity falls drastically on Facebook every minute.  The website “Disappearing Romney” tracks his like count in real time, and it shows he loses approximately 847 likes per hour. This number initially shocked me, as I did not realize how actively people went back and “unliked” things on Facebook – it seemed more effort than it was worth.  However, this new analysis of likes and the knowledge that enough people like and unlike for the data to be of use to financial analysts brings some clarity to the issue.)

The future of social gaming is grim. Zynga’s 100+ employee layoffs, its CFO just defecting to Facebook, and its stock prices plummeting are key indicators that this may well be the case. Yet beyond these empirics, there are reasons why Zynga’s failure (or coming failure, depending on how you look at it) is structural, the result of a fundamental business problem which cannot be solved by corporate restructuring. I’m talking about the fact that Zynga’s goal of making money through games with frequent users is contradictory with the reality that the only games which can be sensibly monetized are impossible to implement on the Facebook platform.

In order for a game to have frequent users, it must be a good game, or at least one with lots of social value. This is why Zynga’s games have succeeded so much in the past: one can debate the merits of Farmville or The Ville, but no one can deny that its social network-scale growth to millions of users made the Zynga model seem so attractive in the onset. However, one must look back to the basics of user growth. Surely social dynamics have a lot to do with growth after a certain point (for example, anyone currently without a Facebook essentially needs to have one because everyone else does; or, one may be socially compelled to adopt a certain friends once enough of one’s friends do so), yet to get to the point past which social dynamics dominate the growth model, the product in question must have some value. For games, that means things like fairness and accessibility. Cow Clicker is an example of a game which some may argue does not have much value, yet its widespread adoption is a testament to the core notions of fairness and accessibility. A game doesn’t need to be all that exciting; it just needs to be exciting enough to a broad enough range of people in order to reach the point past which the social aspects of the game will help it dominate. This is the crux of the reason why Zynga’s games fail to have frequent, consistent returning users, and will continue to do so if they continue to use the same model: when previously fun games such as Tetris now enable Facebook’s affluent users to gain unfair advantages (this is essentially the model of every social game on Facebook), these games become unfair and destroy accessibility for users who are simply not able to afford the cost of winning, and, more critically, of those users who do not care enough about the game to pay to win. So how was Farmville, for example, able to reach a critical mass of millions of players despite a similar monetization strategy. One answer is that Farmville taps so well into users’ reward-competition psychology that it was able to gain enough users for its excellent utilization of the tool of social capital to be able to dominate its growth curve. However, the failure of Zynga is that even its successful games are losing popularity. An increasing population of users leads to diminishing returns on the social side, while the game’s negative aspects may be exacerbated every time social effects get amplified; “winning” at the game becomes that much more valuable, prompting more and more dedicated users to take advantage of pay-to-win, leaving currently potentially dedicated users unsatisfied.

In order to be successful in the future, Zynga will need to change the way it makes money through social gaming. Perhaps Facebook is not the best platform. The problem Zynga will have to navigate is that its existential reliance on Facebook perhaps will make the cost of moving forward as a company too great to bear sometime in the future..