How to Destroy Scrabulous

P.S. It's not by making an inferior version of Scrabble (kudos to RealNetworks for doing that).

I was one of the first to start playing Scrabulous, and also one of the first to quit. Reason? The possibility of cheating makes me not want to invest time into a game.

Cheating can ruin any good online multiplayer game. Ask anyone who has played Counterstrike against gamers that use weapon or map hacks and you'll understand. The main issue with games such as Scrabulous and other async games is that you are "trusting" the other player will play fairly since you are not there to police each other. Reality is when gamers are given the ability to gain an edge on the competition, they will cheat, even if philosophically it ruins the game. So to make sure the playing field is leveled for all gamers, here are some sites everyone can use to cheat on Scrabulous:

http://www.wineverygame.com/wbg.php
http://www.scrabulizer.com/
http://www.allwords.com/solver.php

Use these at your own risk. Once you start cheating, you can never go back. Cheat codes are best used for games near the end of their life cycle to give a temporary boost in novelty value. They inevitably ruin your experience permanently. Be the bigger person by not cheating. But forever wonder if your opponent is. Good people operating under poor incentive structures will make poor choices.

Value of Strong Brands in Social Gaming

Edward Frederick from Hungry Machine remarks that they had 2 Facebook applications that had the same function: Hot Potato and Firecracker. Hot Potato ended up being 10x as successful due to the name. How do you forecast and quantify the value of a good name in this new environment? Games such as Scrabulous and Oregon Trail have the power of branding and are able to make their applications stand out from the crowd of thousands. How much of their popularity is due to the intrinsic quality of the Facebook application design vs. the brand names they "borrow". Would anyone play Oregon Trail the Facebook application if an entire generation of us didn't grow up playing that title on Apple computers in the school computer labs? I can personally attest that Scrabulous is a very addicting game. However, the Agarwalla brothers that made Scrabulous have made other games that are very similar. Last I checked, one of their games had about 20 daily users. Could it be that Scrabble's name was the majority of Scrabulous' success? Hasbro has built its library of IP over decades and has brand recognition that is extremely valuable. When it comes to casual gaming, board games have existed for all of eternity and among those, Hasbro is king. It may currently have a business model in steep decline, but at the moment it still holds IP with amazing brand recognition: who doesn't know Scrabble, Battleship or Monopoly?

It's fairly easy to make a casual game with $100K-$400K and half a year. The real challenge is getting favorable portal placement and enough users to make it profitable. Take a look at any gaming portal and you'll see thousands of games, with many similarities between them. Most games are a variation of 1 of 10 simple frameworks: arcade, board, match, trivia, puzzle, breakout, strategy, word, click management, hidden object, and adventure. In a world of casual clones, users will play the games 1) their friends are playing or 2) where they recognize the name. In casual PC and mobile gaming, brand name recognition becomes even more powerful than in traditional console gaming. With traditional packaged goods, there are fewer titles, larger budgets, and publications dedicated to generating buzz before shipment. Existing franchises have an advantage but highly reviewed new IP has a decent chance of success. This is not the case in casual gaming. A game has to truly be innovative or a complete rehaul of an existing framework to breakout from the crowd.

In an earlier post I mentioned that I thought gaming on social networks was going to be the predominant form of casual gaming. I curious to see what EA does in this space as their Hasbro license and recent efforts in casual gaming (notice they went to the Toy Fair for the first time this year), are not to be underestimated. EA certainly isn't the first to the table for casual gaming on social networks, but gaming on social networks is still in a primordial state and they will have a large advantage if they get there before consumers have decided on a online gaming platform.

Even on Facebook, Content is Still King

Developers that understand viral distribution are incredibly valuable at the moment. I see many "B-" Facebook applications with "A+" distribution succeeding. However, over time as the knowledge of viral distribution becomes more widely known, the ability to distribute virally will become much more of a commodity, whereas good content and brands will start to play a larger role.


*Gasp*, does this mean applications will have to start becoming useful and entertaining if they want a meaningful lifespan? I will admit, creating apps and selling them for a million dollars a pop to application networks trying to build their reach is not a bad way to go. But to create a sustainable business with much larger ambitions, I believe the right strategy is to take some time away from launching 30 iterations of essentially the same product and put more into the conceptual long term vision.

As much as people try to break down the success of apps to a science, word on the street is that very few people understand how it works and how to reengineer it. There are probably only a handful of people who can truly replicate it each time whereas for most, they resort to A/B testing to determine their path. For those that don't know, A/B testing is a trial and error process to refine your concepts through experimentation rather than academic pondering. The web has enabled people to test their ideas far faster than before, particularly in the gaming space. We are moving to a data driven world rather than one built on fluffy marketing dollars thrown at the problem. Developers are able to put up applications with slightly different content and see the uptake to optimize each variable. While this works for maximizing click through rates for promotions or increasing user registrations/friend invites, I think developers should be cautious when applying focus testing to higher level concepts and complex IP.

A/B testing may optimize between A to B and from B to C but it doesn't necessarily optimize from A to C. Developers will likely be able to determine a local maximum with A/B testing, but may miss a global maximum that is much higher. Sometimes relying on your user base to determine the next step is not the optimal solution. Take the film industry as an example. There are investments funds out there that try to break the process of film production into a science, picking elements that seem to sell well in statistical analysis. Caucasian lead actor, crime drama set in LA, love triangle, protagonist suffers setback in first 1/3 of movie but overcomes adversity by end. Individually, these characteristics might be good choices but they forget the sum of the parts may have a different outcome. I don't believe focus testing would have never produced Shrek, Sin City, Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. Asking your audience can be helpful when used selectively but I wouldn't rely on them given they don't have the benefit of the full experience and vision.

My hope is that people with good content start to understand the distribution equation soon so we can create a graveyard for all the junk currently on Facebook and make room for applications that have long term sustainability.

Viral + no larger vision --> R.I.P.

Superman, Time to Retire

Were Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel small children when they created Superman? I know, I'm throwing stones in a glass house. I've done nothing useful for the world and they've created one of the most time honored classic characters.


There were always a few things I could never figure out though:

1) No one seems to recognize Clark as Superman because of his Georgio Armani glasses?

2) Hair curl somehow remains intact after flying at speed of sound?

3) Superman wears his costume underneath his Clark Kent disguise but where does he keep his boots? He's not flying around with black dress shoes...

If he was a video game character he would be level 99 and all his stats would be maxed out. His only weakness is that he's "Super". Oh his supporters disagree, "He does have a weakness! Kryptonite!", his only weakness is a rare rock, found in the abyss of space? Seriously...that's as lame as telling headhunters that my only weakness is that I don't know how to say "no".

Batman however, now there's a character that deserves some respect. He didn't get his powers from being born, he earned every bit of them by training like a Chinese olympic gymnast on steroids. He's a playboy philanthropist with good intentions for Gotham but also a vigilante haunted by his past and a creature of the night. He often has to make difficult decisions about what he believes in and what he stands for. Batman isn't perfect by any means; he's human, which is what makes his story so compelling.

Perhaps heroes such as Superman had a home in the late 1930s when people needed inspiration. But today, a relevant superhero would be one that we can relate to; A hero with flaws and imperfections. There’s a reason that Heroes on NBC has done so well. The days of massively-muscular men in spandex with female counterparts that have gravity-defying breasts are gone. People want the awkward teenager who may be saving the world but has a hard time finding a date on Friday night.

Alternatively, Superman might be able to save his career by riding the current Hello Kitty fad with a new costume.

What's a Good Story Worth?

Final Fantasy started its life as a turn based RPG on Nintendo. 20 years later while the graphics have stayed cutting edge, the gameplay hasn't dramatically changed and it's still a turn based RPG with random battle encounters and predictable combat. Only with the last iteration (FFXII) in 2006, did they significantly modify this formula.




In the meantime, this franchise has produced ~30 games (including a MMO), with only 11 in the main flagship series. In addition, there's been 2 movies, soundtracks, countless anime, manga & graphic novels, and all the accessories a fanboy could ever want. Notice they recently opened an online store *drool*.

Final Fantasy is one of two reasons why Square Enix is such a force in the Japanese offline RPG space (the other being Dragon Quest). However, to look at game sales by itself would not be completely fair. Square generates substantial revenue from action figures, playing cards, accessories, and publications.

Glancing at their 2007 projections you can see the Square-Enix projects ¥9 billion for offline game sales (traditional product) out of ¥21 billion total sales, a little less than 45%. Slowly but surely, what started out as a console game hit, has morphed into one of the most recognized franchises with multiple touch points.



None of this would have happened had Square-Enix not started with great storylines and well developed characters. They made the audience care about what happens to their characters. When Aerith dies in FFVII, the player feels remorse. You genuinely feel a loss, despite the fact your party still has plenty of replacements. What's more impressive is that Square "starts over" with each title. To date, only one game has been a direct sequel in terms of continuing storyline (FFX-2...which btw is the worst FF ever. You "change dresses" to access different powers --> Extremely emasculating). Each game has a different set of characters in a separate universe, unlike Mario, Zelda, Sonic, Kirby, and Lara Croft, who have had the benefit of several titles to increase user attachment.

Square can not only compel their audience to spend $50 for each game but can also up sell some rabid fans to pay $150 for a resin statue of a character in the game (yes, I'm guilty). I have probably spent $300 on FF games but $500 on the toys. The film business underwrites movies to break even in the box office, and generate profits through DVDs, premium & broadcast TV, digital downloads. It's possible to see video game companies spending a good deal of money to incubate strong IP that can be leveraged onto other channels and business lines.

But wait, does story always matter? Obviously if you're producing a game primarily played in multiplayer mode, then the entertainment of the game is in participating in competition with others, not moving the story and characters ahead in a directed experience. This is why Halo 3 can have one of the lamest stories of 2K7 and still manage to sell over 8 million copies in a few months. Counterstrike and Team Fortress are other examples --> they're both mods of a game, so there's no story altogether!

Some claim that story and character development only matter for RPGs. I disagree. Tomb Raider is an adventure/action game and Lara Croft is probably one of the most valuable characters in the video gaming industry due to her distinct personality and look. The recent Grand Theft Autos have focused on developing the main character. Story and character development can even help reinvigorate simple casual games. Puzzle Pirates and Puzzle Quest, are all glorified versions of Bejeweled when it comes down to it. Shooters such as Half life and Portal don't need brilliant stories to stand on their own, but have done phenomenally well by incorporating them into the gameplay.

Fact is that most games weave in the best elements of other genres. It's becoming difficult to define games by a single genre, "that's a first person shooter" or "that's an action game". Games no longer operate in silos; the best games combine parts of many genres. In particular, newer games are borrowing heavily from the realm of RPGs by developing their characters and placing an emphasis on involved storylines. Given that storylines and characters are much cheaper to develop than impressive graphics, I'd say it's an investment worth making.

New Platform For Casual Gaming

Hearing the words "casual gaming" has almost become as painful as listening to the latest pitch for a Web 2.0 social network for one-legged soccer moms. Casual gaming was easily one of the most discussed topics in media for 2007, with pundits focused on several key developments: Disney's $700MM acquisition of Club Penguin, the realization Wii will likely become the market leader this cycle, the potential of PS Home, the proliferation of downloadable games such as "Flow", and the incredible success of music titles Guitar Hero & Rock Band.

The investment rationale behind casual gaming has been simple enough: (1) expanded gaming audience, (2) more effective business models based on micro-transactions/advertising/subscription, (3) increased broadband penetration for online play, and (4) lower capital requirements per game. The success in Korea of casual developers such as Nexon and NeoWiz provide relevant case studies for the potential for casual gaming in North America.

While there are several players that are starting to reach substantial scale (3 portals: MSN/AOL/Yahoo, Miniclip, Popcap, Addicting Games, Pogo, Disney, Mumbo Jumbo, Kongregate), the space is still largely fragmented and far from maturity. Much like hardcore console gamers, I believe casual gamers will migrate to the platform that has:

1. A large selection of key games. There is still very little exclusive content (although many sites are beginning to put additional funds to this cause), most games are available on a variety of sites

2. The best gameplay experience. Unlike console technology which can vary quite a bit from the Wii on the low end compared with PS3, websites mostly get the job done by staying out of the way of games they host.

3. Persistent benefits. This is where websites have the ability to truly differentiate themselves. Users will gravitate to websites that have some memory of their friends, achievements/loot, high score, and games played.

The third point is where social networks can serve a vital function. Xbox Live and other social networks both accelerate the rate as well as increase the magnitude of success and failure of online games. These social networks increase the "head" of video gaming through their networking effects, not only allowing gamers to get the word out to other gamers but at the same time increasing the functionality of the product itself. But unlike my Xbox Live or XFire accounts, which have a pathetic 7 friends in total, my Facebook account has 400 (granted I am guilty for having a handful of fake-friends...you get the point though). Roughly 5% of my friends have an Xbox Live account, 50% of those have the same genre interests, and 50% of those play the same games within that genre, which leaves only a handful of buddies for me to play with, assuming we're both online at the same time. It simply doesn't have the critical mass to be interesting unless you are plugged into the hardcore gaming scene. Social networks such as Facebook enable gamers to play games with people they actually know rather than be matched up with random people in unknown servers. Since everyone (including hardcore gamers) can appreciate an addictive casual game, the universe of friends on these networks who play the games I want to play increases dramatically.

Previously, being a casual games developer was a difficult proposition, even if the games were relatively easy to produce. Online portals typically feature catalogs of 1,000 games, and cycle 75-300 new games into the catalog each year. It was difficult to differentiate your game and achieve significant traffic when the portals only had a limited amount of front page space to display new games. Games sold under "pay to play" typically only saw a 1% hit rate (of the people who downloaded the free trial, only 1% paid for the game) and advertising supported models weren't making any developers rich either. However, a well designed game for social networks may have much longer shelf lives and larger audiences than typical casual games. There are several popular games (Tetris, Scrabulous, Attack!, Super Snake, Jetman, Chess, Texas Holdem) already on Facebook that have had commercial success, albeit many with "borrowed" IP. Their strategy has thus far been to exploit the fact that traditional game companies (aka Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast) have not gotten around to digitizing their assets in a meaningful way. Although casual games are notoriously difficult to protect, as soon as any of these rip-offs achieve real traction, lawyers will likely emerge to protect their intellectual property. Example: Scrabulous.

Many people think Scrabble's first appearance in digital form was via the Facebook App Scrabulous. Dave Walls actually created an online version in 2002 but it never reached the viral traction of Scrabulous. Scrabulous' appeal is 1/3 in the game itself, 1/3 in who you are playing, and 1/3 the bizarre situations that result...it's emergent gaming at its finest. Simple rules often produce complex behavior! While typical casual games can get old fairly quickly (how many times can you line up 3 objects or play baseball with a penguin), playing against other humans is usually unpredictable. It's the creative nature of each person that creates unique situations, providing replayability and lasting power.

So back to my previous point, having scale is a huge advantage as it provides opportunities to provide persistent benefits. A company that can provide one location to track gaming achievements and concurrent online players fills a crucial void for gamers. Thus, incumbent widget developers Slide and RockYou have an opportunity to perform a massive rollup or buildout in this space and become the next online gaming publisher; an Xbox Live of PC casual gaming.

This is exactly what I believe Zynga Game Network is trying to do now with the $10MM they raised last month and what Webs.com is doing with the $11MM of funding it raised last year. They have the opportunity to create a "gaming platform" on top of a social network platform and create a level of interaction that has not been achieved yet on social networks. You may disagree with me but I don't consider poking someone, writing on their wall, or biting them with your zombie ninja fluff friends, to be compelling interaction. Facebook dominates the landscape as a social utility at the moment (hell they proclaim it on their landing page) but its potential in interactive entertainment has not been unlocked yet. They can either rely on partnerships similar to the one MySpace struck with Oberon or encourage third-party developers to allocate more resources in this direction. The largest Facebook developers already have the advantage of the eyeballs and procuring the gaming content will be much simpler.

I'm not sure what will succeed in the end: social networks that try to add casual gaming components or casual gaming portals that try to add social networking components. I would bet there is room for both to co-exist as they serve different primary functions but I am convinced for any online platform to survive in the new world, it needs to have both elements.