Dirt Cheap / Rich Soil
Dirt Cheap / Rich Soil
So, what’s the financial appeal of these games? For starters, Facebook games are dirt cheap to make. Farmville only took five weeks to produce. The average expenses for Facebook games are $100,000 to $300,000, games spend about four- to 12 weeks in development, and they staff roughly ten or so people (“Zynga’s chief designer compares social games development to video game development”, Games for Social Networks, 19 Feb 2010). By contrast, your typical AAA game is going to take about two years in development, potentially require dozens of employees, and somewhere in the millions of dollars to produce. A company like Zynga has several RPG variations on Facebook that are all producing respectable incomes. Farmville just happens to be the most successful one because the subject matter is accessible to a broad audience.
Your basic microtransaction MMO like Silk Road operates on a five percent principle. Ninety-five percent of the people who play the game never pay money for anything and take great pride in that fact. If anything, microtransactions make the game more engaging to play because the player will always feel like they’re “winning” because they’re not coughing up money.
One of the most common features that I saw in Farmville strategy guides was to break cropping and harvesting down into how much money you’re making (a.k.a. not spending) when you plant certain crops. (Adam Nash, “The Personal Economics of Farmville”, Psychohistory, 22 August 2009) The concept is that if your game has a large enough population of people who all think something is valuable about five percent of them will always be competitive enough to pay real money so that they can be the best. To give you an idea of the price range of Farmville’s rarer goods, you can buy a 40 dollar ring that results in your crops never having to rot. Other decorations like luxury houses, landscaping, or seasonal decorations all require real money.
The other way that Farmville makes money is through a very clever advertising model. Throughout play, you will see banner or box ads that will provide you in game money if you click on them. While relatively few people are willing to flat out pay money for the game, most are happy to click through a few windows to get some extra cash. Michael Arrington says that the system allows credit card companies to coerce players into filling out entire credit card applications for Farmville money.
Arrington calls this tactic “unethical”, provoking many of his respondents to simply label it “fraud” (“Scamville: The Social Gaming Ecosystem of Hell”, TechCrunch, 31 Oct 2009). There was a bit of controversy over the matter, and during my own playthrough of the game, it seemed like Zynga had cut back on this sort of thing. I had no trouble ignoring the ads and didn’t even notice them until someone pointed them out to me.
Farmville is able to maximize the profits from these revenue sources by making each play session always put you within a few coins of the next big thing. Your average MMO like World of Warcraft relies on several addiction mechanics that Nicholas Yee compares to the research methodologies applied by B.F. Skinner. Skinner developed a process called “Operant Conditioning” by putting a hamster in a box with a button that dispenses food pellets. If the button dispenses food pellets every time it is pressed, the hamster grows complacent. If you set up a transparent system where five presses dispenses a pellet, the hamster will work harder. Set the dispenser to random and the hamster will work hardest of all. (“The Virtual Skinner Box”, The Norrathian Scrolls: A Study of Everquest).
For your average subscription based MMO, the developer will employ all of these reward systems to try and keep people playing. The most prized items are dropped randomly by monsters and leveling up is a transparent “Do this X times to get prize” system. In Farmville, random drops are usually just things like virtual money or cheap trinkets. All values and goals are transparent so that you are always aware of how close you are to the next big purchase. It maximizes the temptation to click on an ad or spend a few bucks on Farmville dollars because you always know just how much you need.
There are a few catches to this. For starters, design cloning is rampant on Facebook. There are numerous Farmville knock-offs providing essentially the same product for cheaper microtransactions. It is also highly unlikely that a social network like Facebook will continue to allow social game operators to retain 100 percent of the revenue they generate. As Greg Costikyan points out, the traditional casual games portal only pays 20 percent of the profits to the game developer.
That’s a worst case scenario. Facebook is currently experimenting with an internal payment system where you can buy Facebook Credits and spend them on services integrated into the website. This program will take a 30 percent cut of revenues to sellers of virtual goods. As Costikyan notes, this is the going rate for XBLA, WiiWare, and iPhone apps. Costikyan explains, “The social networks are in the whip hand. They are the main providers of value. The social network game providers are like intestinal bacteria; they may help their host, but their survival is entirely at the host’s whim” (“Pay With Facebook and Why Pigs Fly”, Play This Thing!, 1 March 2010).
It should also be noted that most game developers and designers see Farmville as a threat to the traditional business model and ethics of video games. David Hayward points out that Farmville‘s model of game design threatens a developer’s sense of identity because, instead of having an artistic vision, a designer’s job is now to just modify a money making machine (“Zynga: The Future, Or Just A Bit Of It?”, Gamasutra, 15 March 2010). The majority of Farmville’s creation did not occur in the five weeks of coding it, but in the months after release, when feedback was studied and refined to suit consumers’ desires.
A great recap post by Soren Johnson breaks down several other hostile reactions to this trend. For example, he reports that Daniel James points out that the game is little better than a scam that exploits basic psychological flaws in the human brain. He reiterates that Chris Hecker argues that the reactive-design approach to games tends to overvalue external rewards and will end up making a game dull because you win excessively. Johnson himself comments, “Games will no longer be a manifestation of an individual’s (or a team’s) pure imagination and, instead, will grow out of the murky grey area between developers and players” (“Fear and Loathing in Farmville”, Designer Notes, 19 March 2010).
In a research paper on MMO economies and the effect of microtransactions, economist Edward Castranova called the perplexing situation of people paying money for virtual goods the “puzzle of puzzles” (“On Virtual Economies”, Game Studies 3.2, December 2003). The basic worldview of economics asserts that there is always a conflict between our ends and our means. All human behavior is understood as the process by which people choose conduct based on the fact that you can’t always get what you want in real life. Video games, Castranova asserts, are unique in that people seem to instead be paying money to facilitate both a feeling of accomplishment and an accompanying sense of challenge. Castranova writes, “The ‘puzzle of puzzles’ is resolved here by recognizing that constraints can have a positive effect on emotional satisfaction, and therefore states with tougher constraints may actually be more desirable.”
In that sense, Farmville is yet another video game where you can escape reality’s limits and achieve your desires if you work at it long enough. By integrating itself into Facebook’s social network, it magnifies that sense of accomplishment because the challenges come from your community rather than an unknown developer. The appeal of the game is otherwise the same as any other. People will pay you with time or money to have challenges imposed on them so long as they are challenges that can be overcome.
We all know how critical it is to keep independent voices alive and strong on the Internet. Please consider a donation to support our work as independent cultural critics and historians. Your donation will help PopMatters stay viable through these changing and challenging times where costs have risen and advertising has dropped precipitously. We need your help to keep PopMatters strong and growing. Thank you.