by anons2011 on 11/30/12, 12:26 PM with 32 comments
by potatolicious on 11/30/12, 2:44 PM
They can pivot into actual casual games (a la Popcap), but that space is already crowded and Zynga has no real advantage over anyone else, and plenty of disadvantages.
by nicholassmith on 11/30/12, 12:37 PM
by michaelochurch on 11/30/12, 3:38 PM
(Praziquantel is a drug used to kill tapeworms.)
This is very, very good for Facebook. They are upgrading their brand and image by doing this.
The major reason Google+ Games did not succeed is that preferential treatment was given to mainstream developers (e.g. Zynga) who didn't expect us to thrive and therefore gave us their second-string stuff, as opposed to indie developers who would value us and the access we could offer them and give us a very high (brand-defining) level of quality. Having raised this issue, and having proposed an alternative strategy that would have worked exceedingly well, is the major reason I am no longer at Google.
by mathattack on 11/30/12, 6:23 PM
Facebook can find other game makers. There is no other Facebook for Zynga. Facebook also gets rid of some unwanted Spam.
by jiggy2011 on 11/30/12, 2:45 PM
by zerostar07 on 11/30/12, 4:06 PM
Zynga could have used this 2 year time window to grow an independent social gaming network, but they failed to do so. It was inevitable that this would happen.
[1] https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/2012/09/05/platfor...
by abbott on 11/30/12, 3:04 PM
by brianbreslin on 11/30/12, 2:53 PM
by Narretz on 11/30/12, 3:49 PM
Isn't every app allowed to share certain things on a user's FB page? Why wouldn't this be possible for Zynga games?