| Michael Joseph |
|
|
I don't think it's fair to compare Zynga to Activision.
Activision makes games. Zynga makes one armed bandits in game clothing... and now they're looking to ditch the clothing. Zynga is a company that has slashed and burned it's way from Wall Street darling to dog in record time. Zynga has been bleeding executives for months. Zynga's underwater stock is not too far from reaching one of the NASDAQ delisting marks. Pincus talking about taking the company private sounds a lot more like quitting your job the day before you know you're to be given the sack. Buying back 200 million in stock also sounds like an effort to stabilize the stock's freefall more than a belief that the stock is undervalued. Pincus hasn't bought back any shares using his own money. NOBODY expects Zynga to recover from their current situation. Even if online gaming does take off a year, 2 years, 5 years down the line, what makes you think Zynga is going to still have the capability to capitalize on it? Their ability to steer the ship away from the rocks is declining every month. Zynga has one of the worst reputations amongst gamers and peers in the industry. What steps have they taken to repair this? There answer seems to be "screw the haters, let's just go make real casino games so we avoid the criticism and don't have to lie about who we are and how we operate. Let's just drop the pretense of making games." So here's the question. If online gaming is this 100 billion dollar industry looming over the horizon, how is Zynga going to ensure it's getting their fair share of the pie? I don't see how it can. I think a company could sit on the sidelines and wait until the eve of legalized online gaming and then put forward a really trusted name and do far better than a "Zynga" could ever do. EDIT: Facebook itself could do far better if it were allowed for example to set up private ring poker games between family members and friends. This way the avoid the entire strange "online casino full of strangers and possibly colluders and house players" feel and the game feels more like a social experience between people you know... except real money is actually on the table and facebook collects the rake. That would be a very natural way to introduce people to games like poker and warm them up to the experience. And that would be the edge for a company like Facebook to beat all competitors. And they could do it without outwardly transforming into an online casino experience. They could keep the feeling of just being on Facebook and socializing and playing these ancillary experiences that are merely apart of facebook but which don't define facebook. BOTTOM LINE: Quit drinking the "future is bright" kool-aid being pumped out of a deperate Zynga PR. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Jason French |
|
|
Really? No other comments on this article? Figured there'd be a bunch of stuff by now. Here's my comment:
"Roadhouse." I just like seeing that word and thinking of Peter Griffin kicking the steering wheel as he drives through Quahog. It makes me smile. Oh yeah, and "Zynga sucks/rules/{insert troll bait here}". Roadhouse. |
|
|
| Saul Gonzalez |
|
|
Does online gambling qualify as "video games"? Will Gamasutra cover it?
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Vin St John |
|
|
Facebook has always emphasized the growth of companies smaller than the top 10 developers, whenever there is a loss of MAU in the Zynga/EA/Wooga/King.com/Disney games. Last year they were saying the same thing when people were pointing to an across-the-board drop and suggesting the "end of Facebook games." Zuckerberg isn't hating on Zynga, he's trying to highlight the positives for small developers so they continue coming to their platform and trying to become the next big thing.
|
|
|
More: Console/PC, Business/Marketing, Exclusive