A Proud TWiST Superfan
Posted on | February 2, 2010 | No Comments
There’s a fun link at the This Week In Startups Blog of ways to identify a TWiST superfan. Here are the ones I qualify for:
- you know the sponsors without even thinking Thank You @DNAMail, @Ustream, @WebSpy, @PowerVPS, @Bing.
- Jason has mentioned your name in show more than once.
- you remember the Deadpool.
- you’ve listened to more than one episode in a day.
- you knew Jason was joking about the iPad.
- you have written a review.
- you have multiple comments on this blog.
- you can finish “Like a wheelchair at _________”.
- you know the full version of “Insights from Tyler”.
- you’ve clipped and posted a TWiST video.
- you have called in to “Ask Jason” or “Jason’s Shark Tank”.
- you have been RT by @Jason.
- you have seen all the episodes.
13 total – I’d say we qualify!
via You Know You’re a TWiST Superfan if… | This Week in Startups TWiST.
Why Zynga Is Unstoppable, and Why It Doesn’t Matter
Posted on | January 25, 2010 | 3 Comments
Everyone making games right now knows about Zynga. In a couple of years they’ve grown to hundreds of millions in annual revenue, hundreds of millions of monthly active users and a billion dollar valuation. They’ve followed a consistent pattern of taking an idea, quickly developing a prototype of it, testing lots of new features and analyzing usage, and ruthlessly pruning unsuccessful ideas or features. They’ve been extremely successful and as usual, that brings out the haters, the doubters, and the fearful. I’ll address each of them individually below. For the tl;dr crowd, here’s the gist:
- Zynga might copy other games, but it doesn’t matter
- Zynga’s games might be simple, but it doesn’t matter
- Zynga might dominate your category, but it doesn’t matter
Zynga might copy other games, but it doesn’t matter
Many (all?) of Zynga’s games are clones or spinoffs of other games that have been successful. Zynga has the money and talent to develop games quickly (a couple weeks to a couple months) and the money and audience to promote their games into rapid popularity. So what has happened several times is that another game company will make a game that starts to spread and become popular, then Zynga releases a similar game that blows past the first game in all the important metrics. Where other games gradually build their way to millions of users, Zynga’s games have hit millions of users in the first few days and tens of millions in the first few weeks. This has led to many accusations and finger pointing about Zynga ripping off any idea that shows potential.
Does Zynga actually copy other ideas? I’m not so sure. Well, I think they probably do but that’s an unsubstantiated opinion, so let’s play devil’s advocate. First, let’s review the Zynga Minimum Viable Product testing method:
Mark Pincus: We do something at Zynga that I call “ghetto testing.” I like to take someone who has a gigantic idea, usually a game designer, and they have some gigantic idea that this would just be great… Maybe they really want a hospital simulation game…
We want to ghetto test it. Again, we have so many bullets (engineering hours) we can fire, and we’ve got to just treasure and honor our engineers. If we do our job right, they don’t get burned out. They have a great life and we have successful products, so that’s what we want.
So I say to the marketing person or the product manager, “Describe it in five words. It’s built. If six months from now we built every dream you have, how are you going to market it? Give me the five words.”
We’ll put that up. We’ll put up a link for five minutes saying, “Hey! Do you ever fantasize about running your own hospital?” … We’ll put that up for five minutes, and the link will maybe take you to a survey, where you give us your email and we say when this comes out we’ll contact you. If you’re really doing ghetto, it says ’404 not found’. That’s bad.
So first you try to get the heat around it, you see how much do people like it, then…
Once we get to the point of actually building a game, or building a new feature, which we love Bing [Gordon's] idea of golden mechanics. You should take away and steal it from us, the idea of not a game, but a feature that you can deconstruct and see that this interactive feature – a way to do a gift will drive virality or retention or revenues. So we put it in a feature we can build in a week – it’s a ghetto build we AB test it, we flow test it, we put it out to one percent.
We built a data warehouse with a testing platform so we’re running several hundred tests at any given time for every one of our games. And no single user has more than one test.
What does this have to do with copying? Each time they evaluate the idea’s performance, they prune the underperforming ideas. This means that to get a feel for the number of ideas they test out, you have to take the number of games they publish and back out their pruning rate for each evaluation step. So let’s say they evaluate at the Google Ad phase, the landing page phase, the two-week prototype phase, and the two month development phase before they put a game into wide release. Let’s also say they take the top 10% of ideas at each phase. This means that for every game they release using this funnel, they’ve tested 10,000 ideas, and since they have 20 or so games released right now, they might have tested hundreds of thousands of ideas. I completely made these numbers up, but if you think they sound unrealistic, remember that over 200,000,000 people play one of their games every month. That’s Japan + Germany.
So looking at games from a demand perspective rather than a supply perspective, maybe there are only a few dozen game ideas that are fresh, creative, and intriguing enough to have millions of players, and Zynga is likely to find them independently of what the rest of the market does by virtue of their sheer numbers. Before you tell me how there’s an unlimited range of creative possibilities for games, blah, blah, blah, think about the types of games that are for sale right now. Running around with a gun, running around with a sword, fighting, abstract puzzles, flying around with guns, social simulations, pretending to play music, what else? Did I miss any? This isn’t a knock on game designers, just an argument that whether of not Zynga copies other game companies, they would probably find the hit game themes on their own.
Zynga’s games might be simple, but it doesn’t matter
The next knock against Zynga is that their games are simplistic and the people that play them are dumb (NOTE: I don’t buy this but I’ve heard it a million times). Texas Hold ‘Em is an exception to this entire point, so don’t bring it up. But all of the ‘Villes share one common trait: the only way to lose is to not play as much as possible. You can get ahead by playing more and paying more. And what do you get for your time and money? A pretty fake farm, or a bustling fake restaurant, or a <adjective> fake <fill in the blank>. You know what’s funny about that? This criticism comes from people that play “hardcore” video games! Which reward you with … a cutscene? An ending animation? A sense of accomplishment for finishing some arbitrary set of challenges given to you by someone you paid $50 to? Wow kettle, you are SO black!
Let’s face it, games are about creating emotional experiences. Hardcore gamers do it for fiero for overcoming some challenge but there are lots of different emotions people get from games (pdf). While Zynga’s games don’t challenge your cognitive capacity, or reaction times, or teamwork, or much else besides your ability to commit to something and put in the time, those are not the way that the business of games are measured. Games as a business are measured by how many people keep playing and keep paying. Video game designers have known for generations that people like accomplishing something and if they feel like there’s more to accomplish, they’ll keep coming back. This is why the role-playing aspect shows up in so many of social games – it’s easy to add new levels, new items, etc that keep people coming back. So games like World of Warcraft that provide an almost endless range of items, accomplishments, and experiences make so much more money than shrink-wrapped role playing games that end when you beat the final boss. Emotional experiences sell.
What does this have to do with Zynga? Right now, there are hundreds of millions of players that will pay (with attention or money) for simple, satisfying simulations of things they could be doing in real life. Lots of people like the idea of gardening but fewer want to deal with bugs, dirty fingernails, time commitments in the hours instead of minutes, weeding, etc. Becoming a farmer is a ridiculously huge commitment to make, but playing one on Facebook gives you a fraction of the satisfaction but without any of the drawbacks. Ditto for running a restaurant, tending an aquarium, etc.
But what happens when these players wise up and start demanding better gameplay? Will they leave Zynga games in droves and crash a potential IPO? That question misses the point – people aren’t demanding gameplay, they’re demanding emotional experiences. I’d bet my teeth that Pincus and company, in their hundreds of ideas they test, include experiments about experiences that aren’t the current prevailing mood. For instance, I bet that some users are trying out negative impacts on their farms (pests, cold snaps, etc), some are seeing variable prices for their crops based on a market, etc. Some things with more challenge, some with more realism, etc. If any of these starts to take off because of a shift in cultural mood, gaming experience, or whatever, Zynga will be the first to know it and the first to react to it.
To those who think Zynga only makes dumb simulation games, I say they make the games that the largest number of people engage with. I heard Mark Pincus speak at Startup School and I have no doubt that they’re attacking the simple simulation games because there’s money to be made there, and as gaming tastes and moods shift over time, Zynga will be on top of those trends faster than anyone else. They’ve got the cash, the talent, the audience, the experience and the drive to ride whatever the biggest wave in consumer gaming.
Zynga might dominate your category, but it doesn’t matter
So Zynga is probably copying successful ideas, and they monitor the best way to monetize current gaming moods. So if you’re a game developer, there’s a fear that Zynga will steal whatever thunder you have. If you’re a big publisher like Playfish, yeah, this might be a problem. Just like being the second biggest publisher of word processing software only worked for a while, being the second biggest social game publisher could end up being a big drag. So I don’t have any great news for those people.
But for smaller game publishers, you have the opportunity to make a much more personal connection to your players. If you’re aiming for ultra broad general appeal, you’re vulnerable to getting Zynga’d. But if you have some niche that not everyone buys into, you can own it and your users will love you. For instance, instead of a pet simulator, you make the best snake pet simulator. Most people won’t want to raise a snake, but the snake lovers won’t be able to get enough. Or hopefully, rather than the 129th swords and wizards themed game, I’m counting on people loving a game that captures the power and creativity of science and technology. Science might not be the biggest mainstream theme, but I suspect there’s enough interest to build a comfortable business on. This is all typical Long Tail and Seth Godin stuff that should sound familiar to lots of people. Do something unique and do an outstanding job at it. This will protect you from the big bad behemoth who profits from the general interest but is also bound by it. No matter how big or rich Zynga gets, there will always be new game ideas, old ideas executed in new ways, and too much diversity of interest for one company to monopolize.
MIT and FIRST Ally To Encourage STEM Education Careers
Posted on | January 8, 2010 | No Comments
In an effort to inspire K-12 students to pursue science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education, as well as careers in the field, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has formed a strategic alliance with FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology), a nonprofit dedicated to building interest in STEM-related education via innovative means.
The cornerstone of the alliance is a pilot program to teach robotics to K-12 students after school. The MIT Alumni Association has said it will leverage its members, many of whom are leaders in the international STEM community, and their extensive contacts in hopes of recruiting many of them as FIRST coaches, mentors, volunteers, and sponsors.
via MIT and FIRST Ally To Encourage STEM Education Careers — Campus Technology.
Dang it, I wish I was 5 years old again!
Indiana School Teachers Must Major in the Subject They Teach
Posted on | January 8, 2010 | No Comments
“…the new rules require those who teach grades 5-12 to earn baccalaureate degrees in the subjects they teach. This creates a better balance in teacher preparatory programs between coursework on how to teach and subject-specific training on what they will teach.
Dr. James Fraser, senior vice president for programs for the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation and professor of History and Education at New York University, said, “The proposal to require every future secondary school teacher in Indiana to complete a full discipline-specific arts and sciences major makes very good sense. A solid major in the discipline to be taught is an essential minimum to truly knowing the content one aspires to teach.”
via The Two Million Minutes Blog: Indiana Makes Bold Move in Teacher Certification and Licensing.
This makes me want to move to Indianapolis! While school systems in other countries, especially India, China, Singapore, Korea, etc, have made huge strides with rigorous academic standards and high proficiency, I think the place the American education system can create the most value is by tightly binding concepts to real world application. I think this is another variation on the way some universities hire professors with industry experience and encourage industrial-academic cooperation.
New Programs Aim to Lure Young Into Digital Jobs
Posted on | December 23, 2009 | No Comments
Hybrid careers … that combine computing with other fields will increasingly be the new American jobs of the future, labor experts say. In other words, the nation’s economy is going to need more cool nerds. But not enough young people are embracing computing — often because they are leery of being branded nerds.
via New Programs Aim to Lure Young Into Digital Jobs – NYTimes.com.
The Beauty and Joy of Computing (new intro CS class at UC Berkeley)
Posted on | December 18, 2009 | No Comments
Dry. Difficult. Irrelevant. That’s how students in CS39N described computer science CS and programming BEFORE they took the introductory course.
Fun. Easy to learn. Can relate to it. That’s what they were saying eight weeks into the class.
It’s music to the ears of Dan Garcia, Brian Harvey, Colleen Lewis B.S.’05 EECS and George Wang, who are on a mission to establish a new introductory computing course at Berkeley that will alter the way young people perceive the field. Called “The Beauty and Joy of Computing,” the two-unit freshman/sophomore seminar teaches non-majors basic programming skills while exploring big picture topics such as abstraction, world-changing applications and the social implications of computing. The course is supported by a $50,000 grant from Lockheed Martin.
“Beauty, joy, passion and awe—all of us in computer science see and feel these things in computing,” says Garcia, an EECS lecturer. “But we’re making a terrible first impression. Traditional introductory courses are syntax heavy, and students struggle as they slog through the details of Java programming. Where’s the joy and creativity in that?”
via Oh! The Beauty and Joy of Computing — UC Berkeley College of Engineering.
Useful Reference: The Many Species of Geek
Posted on | December 15, 2009 | No Comments
via Infographic of the Day: The Many Species of Geek | Design & Innovation | Fast Company.
Don’t Set the Bar Too Low
Posted on | December 15, 2009 | No Comments
Here is what I like to think: that Charles Ives wrote that piece as a lesson for me and people like me. His ego was such that he showed how good he was not by dazzling us with a complexity that creates distance and separates him from us, but with clarity that says, “You too can do this. It is accessible, within your grasp.” He exercised the power of his position through generosity and teaching, not through authoritarian behavior that obfuscated any path that might connect him and those who aspired to be like him.
Four questions that hopefully tie this back to a Bloomberg BusinessWeek context:
- How aware do you think most people are of what they are capable of?
- How aware are you of your own potential? Really?
- Is there any gift your management or colleagues can give you that is more valuable than what Charles Ives gave me—i.e., help you to realize that your potential is far beyond what you had initially imagined?
- Consequently, is there any greater responsibility for you as a manager than to make that gift to your colleagues and employees, and make doing so a cornerstone of your organization’s culture?
These are questions none of us can leave unanswered.
via Don’t Set the Bar Too Low – BusinessWeek.
Customer Development, GeekStack Style
Posted on | November 25, 2009 | 1 Comment
I’m a member of the Chicago Lean Startups group. Lean Startups and Customer Development is a new approach to reducing market risk for startups. Steve Blank, a many-times entrepreneur and current Stanford/Berkeley professor is the author and main proponent of this method. There was a recent discussion on the Chicago Lean Startups group where the gist was that Customer Development makes sense, but has anyone besides Steve Blank used it and succeeded? I ended up writing a longish email to the group where the main point wasn’t to follow a specific method but to reduce risk and lower the cost of faulty assumptions. I ended up talking about the specifics of how this applies to GeekStack so I thought I’d post it here for anyone interested in the business side of GeekStack:
Dear Chicago Lean Startups Group,
I think any time you capitalize the letters to make a Methodology, you’ve got problems. So agile development is good, but Agile Development can lead to a bad fit for some projects. Same thing with customer development vs Customer Development. Steve needs to be an unflagging advocate of CD because people pay more attention to someone who sounds certain, but like any other evangelized method, there’s the usual “it depends”.
The primary goal of customer development is to reduce the cost of mistakes. Just like catching a bug in development is cheaper than fixing it once it has been released, confirming lack of customer demand prior to ramping up a sales engine is cheaper than finding out once you have a paid sales team. This is basic enough that I don’t think anyone can argue with it – reduce the cost of mistakes. Actually, the essence of everything in CD is the same as Marc Andreesen’s Product-Market Fit. First, build something you think people want. Second, find out if people want it and at a price you can sell it at. Third, if they don’t, return to step 1. Fourth, when you have a repeatable scale model, you have very little risk and can either scale profitably or take investment on good terms to scale quickly.
Let me give an example of CD/cd in my own project. I’m making an online trading card game with a science and technology theme. It’s not a technology risk, it’s fairly straightforward web development, so there’s just a market risk.
Here’s the market:
- Trading card games – large but sort of stagnant. Casual online games have taken some of the steam out of it, plus there was over a decade of insane growth from Magic: The Gathering, Pokemon, and YuGiOh respectively.
- Online games – obviously booming, with Zynga, Playfish, social games, Facebook, ridiculous viral growth, etc
- Competitors – there are online trading card games, though most haven’t taken off. MtG has an online game but you need a downloadable client so it’s got more friction than other online games. It also has an XBox Live version. Challenge Games has some trading card games but they’re focused on collecting, trading, and deckbuilding with no interactive gameplay, so they’re a hybrid between casual games and typical trading card games. The closest competitor to what I’m actually doing is Chaotic, which has real cards and virtual cards and you can play online. However, Chaotic is 3rd or 4th banana in the trading card game biz and such a tiny part of the gaming market as a whole that we’d be competing in parallel than directly.
- Monetization – trading cards have a proven model (sell cards), online games and virtual good have shown that people will spend money online. I don’t need to prove either of those things.
So there’s a known market. I don’t need to go around and ask people if they would play a trading card game, or how much they would pay for a pack, etc. The only things I need to prove are:
- Is my game fun? No matter how good everything else is, if the game isn’t fun, it won’t be successful.
- Do people like, dislike, or not care about the science and tech theme? I’m betting on the theme resonating because kids love science, on the novelty being appealing in a world full of swords, ogres, and dragons, and on higher parental approval because of the educational factor.
So in the context of agile/CD/MVP, I’ve spent a decent amount of time developing a super flexible trading card game engine to make it easy to quickly iterate through game ideas and mechanics until the gameplay is up to snuff. Then, if I find the theme isn’t resonating, I can change it and still have the game engine underneath so that isn’t a time consuming change either. My choices locked me into the trading card game market, but since it’s a proven, existing market that isn’t a concern for me.
Since my primary risk is making the game fun, I’ve spent more time signing up playtesters (shameless plug: sign up to be a playtester) than talking to potential paying customers. When the game is refined and fun, then I’ll focus on how to sell it to new gamers and/or people that play other card games. It may be that current tcg players are the best to target because they’re already familiar with the concepts, or they might not be interested because they’re already invested in their games and mine don’t compare favorably. That requires a whole different strategy, and it’s not until that’s worked out that I can really worry about scaling up demand.
I hope this helps. Steve Blank the evangelist needs to speak boldly and confidently about how awesome CD is, but really it’s about product-market fit and reducing the cost of mistakes. I personally think that for web startups, the Eric Ries/Lean Startups spin is much more applicable. Steve Blank is savvy but he has never worked specifically in this market. Same principles apply, but for specific application, check out Eric Ries.
-Peter
A Manifesto for EduChange
Posted on | November 24, 2009 | No Comments
Just one snippet of a great article on the eduFire blog:
Imagine a teacher who simply decides to focus exclusively on getting extremely good at explaining the problems in one particular chapter of a popular textbook. Let’s say that they develop movies and games and anecdotes and all sorts of stuff to make the problems in that one chapter just totally come to life. 10 years ago there was no market for that. Today, there are whiffs of a market. 10 years from now it will be really obvious that there’s a market. And that teacher will create a great livelihood by simply getting incredibly good at being able to teach a micr0-chunk of content and then scaling that teaching across millions of people.But now here’s where it gets really fun. If one teacher can support himself or herself teaching the problems out of one chapter of one textbook then it’s easy to imagine thousands of teachers doing the same thing. And now as a student it gets really good. Because for every subject/textbook chapter, etc. you have someone who is world-class available to teach you. It would be like going to school and having a teacher in every subject who’s as knowledgable and passionate as Al Gore is teaching about climate change or Richard Feynman is explaining physics.
via A Manifesto for EduChange on the Eve of Hacking Education | The eduFire Blog.
Jon Bischke at Edufire is doing and writing some amazing things. He’s someone I’d love to have lunch or drinks with the next time I’m in San Francisco (Jon, if you’re reading, it’s on me!). Best of luck to a guy who’s changing the world.
