The Ethics of Social Game Design

I've been spending a lot of time lately thinking about how to make a social game fun, viral, non-predatory and liability-free. Here are a few of the things that got me headed down this path:

First was this article about Farmville. In it the author (A. J. Patrick Liszkiewicz) talks about why 73 million people play Farmville (An outdated statistic - today Farmville has 80 million monthly active users). The gist of it is that we play Farmville because people we know play Farmville, and the social pressure of our peers compels us to.

Second was the Southpark Facebook episode. I know what you're thinking: Really, Jeremy? But it's true! The reason the episode and its mocking of all things Facebook (including veiled references to Farmville) resonates so well with the audience is that it connects on a very honest and emotional level.

Third was the latest round of Facebook policy changes that will shift more responsibility for maintaining user privacy to game developers. Whereas before Facebook had very strict rules about maintaining user data, those rules have relaxed. As a developer the change is monumental because for the first time users can be accurately profiled over time based on their Facebook demographic data - legitimately and with less effort on the developer's behalf.

Fourth was Facebook's less-recent policy change on notifications. Now developers have to work a lot harder to engage and maintain their Facebook audience.

Finally, I've noticed (very anecdotal) evidence of my peers losing interest in social grind games, like Farmville. It may still have 80 million active users, more than double Canada's population, but as the game becomes more complex, and is forced to reach out to users via email, will new users be lured in as easily?

Developers are finding the Facebook platform increasingly difficult to penetrate, with its higher cost of entry and restrictions on viral growth. Facebook cannot be the be-all and end-all destination for social games. Regardless of its huge user base, users do not seek it out primarily for games. These days, I imagine many Facebook users are unsure why they sought it out in the first place, as it has evolved from a simple place to stay in touch with friends into something greater and pervasive on the Web.

So how can a new game succeed in this rapidly evolving social landscape?

Developers hoping to maintain an active, growing audience for their games will have to balance social responsibility and ethics with viral growth and social marketing. For me, the solution to overcoming game growth problems continues to focus on providing real value for users. The value proposition for any game should be entertainment for time spent. In other words, fun.

So long as there exists a mechanism to reward people for bringing their friends to a game, and that game is fun, the game will virally increase its numbers over time. Perhaps not with the speed nor the extent with which it could be done on the Facebook of old, but it will occur.

NOTE: In the time it took me to finish this piece (about a week), Farmville dropped two million users and sits at 78 million monthly active users.

© Jeremy Buehler and Rogue Tendencies (www.roguetendencies.com) 2010.

Pickstr Goes Alpha

What a week!

One of my many side projects, Pickstr, went to public alpha this week, and my days and a lot of my nights have been filled with chatting with alpha testers and integrating their feedback. It's good to reach this point in development.

If you haven't been to the site or are too lazy to click the link and check it out, Pickstr is a web-based game. In it, players select the outcome of such real-world events as sports games, and compete with others to be the most accurate and achieve Guru status. Players also get to wager virtual currency on matches for added fun.

The alpha is all about testing the concept, mechanic, design, technology, etc. and soliciting user feedback before we take the concept to a public Beta some time in the summer. We're collecting data on user preferences and will use the information to improve the product.

One thing I've been reminded about repeatedly this week is how valuable it is to listen to users. The development process comes with a set of blinders, and hearing people new to the experience talk about what they like and dislike is incredibly helpful in understanding the potential of what is being built.

Furthermore, I was surprised to find that working on and playing Pickstr made me more interested in sports. It could have something to do with the number of bad picks I've made and virtual currency lost. I hate to lose.

Next steps for Pickstr include deployment to social and mobile platforms. The prospect of being able to compete in isolation with friends makes Facebook a likely early target. The Twitter angle is also developing, as we explore how to capitalize on the platform's strengths.

I don't wish to make this into a Pickstr development blog, but after almost a week of silence, I felt I should mention what I've been up to. If you've taken the time to try Pickstr, thank you! Be sure to let me know what you think of it - I'm very interested to know.

Thanks again, and enjoy your weekend.

© Jeremy Buehler and Rogue Tendencies (www.roguetendencies.com) 2010.

iPhone OS4 Means New Opportunities for Game Developers

After watching the iPhone OS 4 media event live blog coverage I realized the definition of what goes into a gaming platform is becoming fairly standardized for this generation of technology.

As I've written before from a slightly different perspective, developers and designers need to develop for platforms that are going to be profitable and technologically viable.

Here's what Apple is making standard-issue in their iPhone OS4:

Multitasking. This addresses the reality that mobile users are likely to be interrupted, and will want to switch out from game to phone call to text message as the need arises.

GameKit. An integrated social network linking friends and their games. While I've not seen details on GameKit, the theory is sound. It certainly worked for Xbox Live, and it's something I've always encouraged in my game and metagame designs.

iAd. A revenue stream for developers. Developers will earn 60% of the ad revenues. And the ads themselves are supposedly game-friendly, in that they will leverage the multitasking abilities of the platform to maintain the game behind the ad. The ads themselves are supposed to give ad designers the ability to leverage HTML5 to create rich media experiences such as in-Ad games and in-Ad purchasing. All very cool, although I find myself wondering if developers get a cut of the in-Ad purchases.

Background GPS Support. While still accompanied with the warning that GPS is battery intensive, the ability for a game to leverage GPS, and an iAd to leverage GPS while spawned from a game, means that Location Based Services will see an upsurge. Again. Smart advertising tailored to where a user is playing their games should make the advertising more relevant and attractive to users. For example, playing a game in a coffee shop spawns an ad for the coffee shop, opposed to some random store nowhere near the user. Pretty cool stuff, as far as crappy advertising goes.

While critics of iPhone OS 4 will have a field day with the iPhone 3G not supporting multitasking, the platform is becoming well-rounded and will continue to appeal to users and games developers alike. The iPhone will be a center for innovation for the next year, and I'm excited to see what developers do with it.

© Jeremy Buehler and Rogue Tendencies (www.roguetendencies.com) 2010.

The Internet of Things Will Improve Augmented Reality Games

After reading this article about big network players talking-up the 'Internet of Things' I got thinking about how awesome it could be when more everyday things get connected to the internet. In some ways, the more mundane, the greater the potential... not just for the thing itself, but for how all other things interact with it.

Here's an example to clarify what I mean:

The newspaper box. They are found on train platforms, many street corners, basically anywhere that makes sense in terms of having enough pedestrian traffic to make them convenient. Today, they are pretty dumb machines. But in the future where they are part of an internet of things, someone will put a cheap cellular or wifi transmitter in them and a CPU. And they will begin to broadcast information to the world.

On the one hand, they could broadcast private information to the company that owns them. For example, the current state of newspaper supply. Or how much money is in them. And the advantage to the company would be to ensure they are never empty, or never carrying too much cash. In the case of newspaper boxes offering monthly publications, or weeklies, this could ensure no reader finds them empty. Thus, the newspaper box is improved.

On the other hand, the same newspaper box could broadcast public information. For example, it could broadcast its location, what publications it offers, etc. to nearby mobile phones or mobile computers. Very handy for advertisers and so forth, and for people looking for something to read.

And here's where the concept of connected things gets fun. If an object broadcasts its existence on the internet, then other systems can take that information and do something with it. This has great potential for things like augmented reality games.

Augmented reality games are today limited to things like global positioning systems, accelerometers and input via such tools as barcode scanners to add relevance to a user's surroundings. But in the future of the internet of things, the number of inputs available to augment a user's reality skyrockets.

Back to our newspaper box example. A user wears an augmented reality device such as a pair of display glasses. They start the game 'Super Ultra Crazy Zombie Shooter' (I made that up. I think.) and sit down on a park bench. The game immediately picks up their location via GPS, and facing via the built-in accelerometer. Then, it takes into account all the broadcasting things in the area and cross references their type with a master database. One of the things it 'sees' is our broadcasting newspaper box.

It loads up a zombie, and hides it behind the newspaper box, occasionally having it stand up to through zombie bits at the user. The user, in turn, targets the creature with its zombie shooting gun and fires. The game takes into account the standard dimensions of the newspaper box, applies some line-of-sight physics analysis, and if the newspaper box isn't in the way, allows the user to hit the zombie.

Then another zombie appears from behind a park bench across the way, and from a store doorway, and from a manhole cover, and, and, and...

Very soon you have a very cool game environment made to come to life through the internet of things.

Can't wait!

© Jeremy Buehler and Rogue Tendencies (www.roguetendencies.com) 2010.

Five Considerations for Choosing a Social Games Platform

Social game developers are faced with a number of platforms to choose from on which to build their products. But what platform should they choose? The greedy answer is 'all of them'. The larger exposure your application has to various audiences on various platforms, the larger the opportunity for revenue in the long run.

That logic, however, has some large obstacles associated with it. Developing for multiple platforms costs money, because with the rare exception, different platforms have different code requirements that limit the ease of porting a product from one to another. Ergo, time and resources must be applied, sometimes in excess of potential revenue.

The process of platform targeting must be strategic for reasons that have little to do with technology and much to do with adoption. Here are five things to keep in mind when beginning the selection process:

Potential Market. Size matters, but so does relevance. Bringing a sports product to a business community might work, but bringing it to a casual community might work even better. Have a complicated product? Target savvy users. Also look for opportunities for viral communication amongst users. Does the platform allow your early adopter evangelists to share your product with their like-minded peers? Can you reward them for it? Take time to analyse whether the platform itself is growing in terms of users. If so, build for the long-haul, or for the sequel.

Competition. Will your product be one of one hundred? One of 10? Alone? Each scenario has opportunities and weaknesses. Analyzing the competition, from quality, to numbers, to development ability, will mean being able to assess whether your product will be a leader, competitive or lost in the noise. Remember, having competition is not a bad thing, even if it's a similar product. There is always a cost savings associated with not bearing the burden of educating your users, especially in a pioneer space.

Stability. Analyze stability in ways beyond platform growth and number of users. Is its technology integration policy clear and reliable? Will your product ever come in harm's way of its user protection policies? Does it have 'flighty' APIs or are they solid and well thought-out? Is the technology selected to build the platform at risk? As a social games developer interested in building and maintaining an audience, it is important to ensure the health of your symbiotic host platform before committing to a long-term relationship.

Mobility. A social game that does not integrate mobility is asking for trouble. So the question becomes, does your target platform threaten or encourage potential mobile integration of your application? Does it allow data sharing? Does its API provide tools to make it easier?

Accessibility. The audience and success you have on a platform is worth significantly more if you can leverage it on other platforms. Connective technologies allowing users to maintain their intellectual and emotional investment in your game as they move from platform to platform promotes a stronger user experience. If the platform isn't open to interconnectivity, it threatens the growth of products running on it.

© Jeremy Buehler and Rogue Tendencies (www.roguetendencies.com) 2010.

Monetizing Social Games

All social game designers face the challenge of monetizing their games. The problem they face is this: Providing premium entertainment does not by itself guarantee revenue, especially in a world where customers are reluctant to pay large sums of money for a product, and a precedence for free product exists.

This is especially true of iPhone development, with its vibrant Apple App store and thousands of free games, but also troubles social networking sites, console platforms and stand-alone game sites.

The solutions to the problem are many, and new solutions become available as disruptive technologies are introduced, especially in the fast-changing mobile environment. But what are the ingredients designers use to try to beat the system?

Virtual Currencies. Virtual currencies have become the bread and butter of revenue generation amongst most social games. While some designers opt for direct sale of virtual goods for real-world cash, many have found it is advantageous to introduce virtual currencies. Virtual currencies help maintain a user's suspended disbelief and immersion in the game world, and by doing so distance them from the reality of paying real dollars for something with no real-world value. Virtual currency can be purchased in blocks that encourage further real cash investment.

For example, by pricing some premium items slightly higher than the largest purchasable block of virtual currency, users can be encouraged to purchase more currency than would normally be inclined to. Such practices may be deemed unscrupulous by users if directly explained, however, under the guise of getting the better sword (or whatever) the reality doesn't sink in.

Virtual currencies can also be used to create a network of games that cross-promote each other, and serve to lift and shift users from game to game similarly to how loyalty program points can be used to lift and shift users from brand to brand in the real world. Instead of changing user buying habits, they can shift user play habits, by giving them premium access to a game they might not otherwise try.

For example, a user amasses a sum of virtual currency in one game, and is allowed to take it, at face value or at an exchange rate, to another game for a head-start advantage.

Reward Systems. Reward systems give users something for reaching milestones and achieving things in games. And by creating 'meta rewards' - rewards about playing games, opposed to attaining in-game achievements - designers can encourage users to spend more time playing more products. The concept thrived in the console world and spilled over into social games. Users like to support their intellectual and emotional investment in games by collecting 'stuff'. As with all collections, however, a balance must be struck between offering collectibles and offering too many. Having too many rewards leads to user confusion.

Marketing offers. Marketing offers have a bad rep in the social games world, and most of that can be attributed to profiteering companies with loose standards pioneering the industry. Marketing offers can work, in systems where virtual currency is earned by users in exchange for carrying out some kind of marketing activity.

It's important to note that users sometimes treat offers as originating from the game where they find it - so reputation is key. On the positive side, quality offers with reasonable rewards will be well received by users. And on the negative side, users can hold the game developer responsible for a bad offer experience.

Advertising and Location Based Advertising. Advertising in games must be done in a non-disruptive way that does not intrude on the game experience. Most developers shy away from including ads because by the very nature of advertising users are encouraged to think about something other than the game when they engage with an ad.

There is a great opportunity, however, for advertising in mobile social games through location based systems. By acknowledging that users playing games on mobile platforms are likely not sitting in front of a computer or game console, but are out in the world, ads can offer users real value alongside the game experience.

For example, a user playing a mobile game while at a coffee shop would likely positively view a special offer from the same coffee shop. The user is already at the location and making use of the offer would be a minor disruption to their game play experience. Location based ad systems can offer that kind of granularity, and will gain popularity as they develop over the next few months.

Designers can reap the greatest value from these ingredients if they are used to build a platform that evolves with its users. By developing the various monetization aspects of the platform, and intelligently integrating new technology opportunities as they become available, social games can continue to be enticing, revenue generating entertainment experiences.

© Jeremy Buehler and Rogue Tendencies (www.roguetendencies.com) 2010.

Freemium Games and Free User Opinion

A friend at Bytemark Games sent me a link to a blog about Neil Young's (CEO, Ngmoco) GDC talk on his company's 'freemium' iPhone game model. The blog is Tuaw, where I also found a GDC interview with Allen Ma, an Ngmoco Producer, on the same topic. While Young's presentation and Ma's interview both address the business reasons for pursuing a freemium model, neither addressed a potential social Web problem inherent to the model.

A freemium game is a fully functioning game that is free to play. The theory behind releasing a free game is that more people will play the game, and, if it is a quality product, it will quickly gain popularity. Removing cost as a barrier to entry allows more users to get involved with the game quickly. iPhone games further benefit from the Apple AppStore, where these games are easily attainable and come recommended to users through various 'top game' charts.

Free does not equal profitable, however, and to monetize freemium games developers build in various short-cuts, premium and fluff items into the game that users can purchase via micro-transactions. While a user who plays for free can experience the complete game, a user who pays can do so faster and potentially have more fun. The stage is set for social conflict.

The freemium model creates a situation where there are virtual 'haves' and 'have nots'. Not surprisingly, the dichotomy leads to confrontations that surface in user communities. This phenomenon isn't limited to the iPhone platform, but exists in the PC world as well, or on any platform where a game can be influenced by a paid advantage. It is more extreme in games where players compete directly with other players.

The conflict is based on time. Free users invest heavily in freemium games, but with time instead of money. Investing time leads to users becoming emotionally attached to a game, and in some cases devloping incredibly strong senses of pride and ownership. When a paying user circumvents that investment, it creates resentment and conflict in the community.

Users who play for free resent people who pay to play. And users who pay to play treat free users as second class citizens. As Ma puts it:

"...you're paying for the game, so that you can continue to own people that don't pay for the game."

Game companies can't cater to the free user's perspective. Understandably, they are more interested in paying users as they are the source of revenue. And so, today's early freemium models already suggest a future problem.

The best lessons of the social Web teach us the resentment free users feel will become a public part of the freemium experience, negatively influencing future users and their attitudes towards freemium products. This negative influence, socially reinforced, contradicts the purpose for releasing a free game in the first place - the encouragement of rapid, wide-spread adoption.

Game companies operating on a freemium model must tread carefully on the social Web or they will find themselves negatively biasing their free users and jeopardizing the model they are striving to build.

© Jeremy Buehler and Rogue Tendencies (www.roguetendencies.com) 2010.

The Best Farmville Crops

A long time ago in a land far, far away (called Farmville, on Facebook) I was interested in analyzing crop progression to see how the rewards for certain Farmville crops scaled. Some crops must be better than other crops, right?

Turns out there were some clear winners, and my fast Farmville leveling was based on a chart like the one below. The chart integrates plowing cost because it takes a chunk of potential revenue from each seed planted. The "value defining" factor is revenue per hour.

Some other fast Farmville leveling tips: When leveling fast in Farmville, chose the crop with the highest revenue per hour and the shortest hours to harvest available at your level. Plant as many plots as possible, and harvest as soon as possible. Encourage your friends to fertilize your crops, as it increases revenue and experience earned. Spend excess coins on buildings, as the coins spent earn a one-to-one return in experience points. Sell buildings so things don't get too crowded, and re-invest the coins earned for more experience points.

Good luck!

Crop	Plow Cost	Cost	Sell Price	Value	Hours	Rev/h
Superberries 1	15	10	100	75	2	37.500
Asparagus	15	220	357	122	16	7.625
Onion	15	170	275	90	12	7.500
Sugar Cane	15	165	239	59	8	7.375
Peas	15	190	381	176	24	7.333
Tomatoes	15	100	173	58	8	7.250
Green Tea	15	105	191	71	10	7.100
Grapes	15	85	270	170	24	7.083
Sunflowers	15	135	315	165	24	6.875
Ghost Chili	15	80	136	41	6	6.833
Acorn Squash	15	175	258	68	10	6.800
Coffee	15	120	243	108	16	6.750
Blackberries	15	75	117	27	4	6.750
Lilies	15	195	369	159	24	6.625
Blueberries	15	50	91	26	4	6.500
Carrots	15	110	200	75	12	6.250
Corn	15	150	380	215	36	5.972
Raspberries	15	20	46	11	2	5.500
Potatoes	15	135	345	195	36	5.417
Broccoli	15	200	473	258	48	5.375
Pattypan Squash	15	65	160	80	16	5.000
Cabbage	15	140	388	233	48	4.854
Lavender	15	160	384	209	48	4.354
Sweet Potato 2	15	10	125	100	24	4.167
Red Wheat	15	180	449	254	72	3.528
Aloe Vera	15	50	85	20	6	3.333
Cotton	15	75	207	117	36	3.250
Peppers	15	70	162	77	24	3.208
Yellow Melon	15	205	528	308	96	3.208
Rice	15	45	96	36	12	3.000
Pumpkin	15	30	68	23	8	2.875
Red Tulips	15	75	159	69	24	2.875
Watermelon	15	130	348	203	72	2.819
Cranberries	15	55	98	28	10	2.800
Pineapples	15	95	242	132	48	2.750
Strawberries	15	10	35	10	4	2.500
Pink Roses	15	120	254	119	48	2.479
Yellow Bell	15	75	198	108	48	2.250
Soybeans	15	15	63	33	24	1.375
Squash	15	40	121	66	48	1.375
Daffodils	15	60	135	60	48	1.250
Artichokes	15	70	204	119	96	1.240
Eggplant	15	25	88	48	48	1.000
Wheat	15	35	115	65	72	0.903

1. Superberries were a special reward crop, and aren't always in game.
2. An experimental crop. Sweet Potatoes did not wither. Special cost (10 coins + 25 FV Cash)

Read some of my thoughts about Farmville design here.

© Jeremy Buehler and Rogue Tendencies (www.roguetendencies.com) 2010.

SCRM Tips from the Games Industry

I recently joined Altimeter Group's Jeremiah Owyang's social customer relationship management (SCRM) Google group 'Social CRM Pioneers' to keep tabs on the fledgling market.

SCRM is the combination of the social Web and customer relationship management, or in other words, taking the information people make available through social networks and putting it to good use in business processes. This can be as simple as listening to product improvement suggestions and implementing the best in the development cycle, and as complicated as trying to gauge and manipulate public opinion about a company and its practices.

Of course, all of SCRM depends on people using the right tools for the job, and there are many software companies and consultancies trying to make a name for themselves in the space. (I won't list any here; if interested head over to the group and see who's talking sense). The success of SCRM is dependent on an adaptable corporate culture flexible enough to make use of it, and savvy enough strategically to maintain clear vision and direction without falling victim to the emotion social input can convey.

Having spent time in the games industry, I feel gaming companies and audiences are ahead of the SCRM curve. This makes lessons learned there potentially useful in other markets. Here are some I think apply:

Customers find effective SCRM addictive. A customer who can directly relate their input to a product change becomes more loyal and more possessive of a product. Validation leads them to make an emotional investment in how the product grows. They will return with more suggestions for improvements or changes as they become part of what is built.

Carefully actively listen. Active listening is key. But it's also dangerous. If a company engages in active listening without fully understanding business metrics and product performance, actively listening to your customers can lead to incorrect business decisions. For example, if your product is available in blue and red, and your customers say they prefer blue, but red outsells blue - further investigation must be made before integrating customer preference.

Beware SCRM efficiency. As SCRM matures and is fully integrated into a company's business practices, every sale becomes a relationship sale vs. a pure commodity sell. While the rewards can be greater, the burden of maintaining complex customer relationships also increases. Ultimately, SCRM will become the target of optimization, especially at enterprise levels. Traditionally, when a technology is optimized, it becomes less personal. This is a dangerous contradiction to SCRM, and violates some of the founding principles of 'social'; the personal, friendly, relaxed interactions between people.

Reward customer input. Customers will take advantage of whatever ways you give them to help with the product and practices, provided they get something from the process. 'Something' can be validation gained from seeing a suggestion put to use, or by allowing them to maintain a presence on a corporate platform (such as a discussion forum or facebook page). It can also be a direct reward, such as a product discount or privileged access to information about products.

There's a lot to learn from game company SCRM strategies. Success comes from determining the best methods for collecting, measuring and sharing data and leveraging it to create better customer relationships, products and services. Regardless of the industry, as with any social technology, flexibility and adaptability are necessary corporate traits in order to capitalize on the benefits of effective SCRM.

© Jeremy Buehler and Rogue Tendencies (www.roguetendencies.com) 2010.

One Person's Privacy...

I dislike location-based mobile applications that pinpoint a user's location on a map. A user typically 'check's in' at the locations they visit, and other approved users on the service can see where they are in close to real-time. Products in this genre include such applications as FourSquare, Google Latitude, Loopt etc. and usually combine a cell phone's GPS and meta data to create a service-oriented social application.

I agree there are some fantastic opportunities created by these applications. Augmenting reality is an area of technological development I find fascinating and exciting, and these applications certainly augment. There are opportunities in tourism, social, education and my favorite, gaming.

These applications are also dangerous because they threaten personal privacy. My enthusiasm for new technology would probably blind me to these threats if it wasn't for an experience I had early in my career.

I was working as Assistant Editor of a Canadian IT trade publication and the company that ran it had an in-house art department. The creative director was an older man who had grown up in post-World War II Poland.

I was having lunch with him and telling him about this fantastic new technology I'd just covered in a recent story. The story was about Radio Frequency (RF) tagging, the process by which a tag is added to a product, security card, etc. that emits a radio frequency that can be monitored by sensors. The advantage to the technology is that it allowed everything from shipping companies to retail stores monitor the location of their product in real-time.

One of the applications of the application I told him about was the high-tech house Bill Gates built back in the '90s. It would display images on the walls and play different music in a room based on the tag worn by an occupant. This would guarantee no matter where a person went in the house, their favorite art and music would follow them.

I was giddy with excitement about the possibilities of such a technology. So much so, I failed to notice the creative director was about to lose it. And he did. He explained to me in harsh tones that such systems can give governments too much control; that it was dangerous to be marked; that it is a terrible violation of freedom.

His experiences included a world I had not been exposed to and the emotion he displayed served as a swift kick to my sensibilities. The negative what-ifs began to come to mind. Oppressive governments, stalkers, burglaries, social profiling, playground mocking, terrorism, all the big and little negative twists to what had been up to that point, something very cool.

I view these location-based mobile applications in a similar light. The technology is cool. And there are many great and positive uses for it. But not everyone in society will use the tool as is intended. We must be cautious.

© Jeremy Buehler and Rogue Tendencies (www.roguetendencies.com) 2010.

Farmville and Perpetuity

People die. We do our best to stave off the inevitable, but inevitably death happens. When I go one of my final thoughts will not be 'at least my Farmville farm will live on in perpetuity'. But it will. My friends will be able to feed my chickens and fertilize my crops until someone decides to flip the almighty switch.

This perpetual existence is a problem for today's social game designers but not because of the implicit database overhead of game accounts belonging to dead people. I can guess that when Farmville was originally designed, no one on the design team knew how popular it would become.

My game design experience led me down a practical path with Farmville. I made an Excel spreadsheet as I played and mapped out the ROI of every type of crop. I quickly converted my property into an industrial farm, picked the best crops, and logged in religiously to fast-track my progress. Soon I was ranked first amongst my few friends who played.

It was a simple Farmville time. There were seeds, trees, sheep, cows, ducks, fences and not much else. The game was easy to understand. I played, contentedly, for 39 levels. During that time the game became more complex. At level 37 I noticed the game design flaw that proved the Farmville designers did not expect its phenomenal growth.

At level 37 there was only one more gift to attain, leaving experience points as a weak motivation for continued play. The designers had to scramble to build in ways to keep people engaged at the 'end game'. Like all designers in a pinch trying to make a product do something it wasn't meant to, the Farmville team complicated things.

I recently visited my mostly retired farm to explore the horse barn and storage expansion concepts. I could not figure out the horse barn without asking someone how it worked. And apparently my friends are having difficulty coordinating enough people to expand their storage facilities.

Let this be a lesson to designers of future Facebook games: Facebook games must be built assuming a perpetual lifespan. Easier said than done, as we live finite lives and the concept of perpetuity is unnatural. But as time played equals emotional investment, and emotional investment equals trust, and as trust is a predetermining factor in making purchases online, designers need to create simple and engaging perpetual 'end games'.

© Jeremy Buehler and Rogue Tendencies (www.roguetendencies.com) 2010.